Think the human brain as a sophisticated computer: You take the power off, you cant start it again. Yet. We've yet to find the restart button for our own little computers.
I am an atheist largely due to my parent's indifference with religion and as a result I wasn't indoctrinated into any particular faith. Thanks to that I've been able to look freely at religion, science and morality and I came to this conclusion: I am a firm atheist who believes that faith is not only a ridiculous notion, but a harmful one. I believe in the pursuit of knowledge through science and as a result I trust the conclusions of science. I have certain standards and morals, and I do not think that religions are a good way to ascertain 'moral fibre' (whatever that is!) Ultimately I believe we are a product of evolution, and evolution will be here long after homo sapiens are not. I believe we are a biological organism and when we die that organism is no longer living, no energy is going in, no energy is being used, therefore it is inactive. I hate religion for indoctrinating kids when in fact we should be encouraging them to think freely. Unfortunately I have a feeling that religion will still be rampant when I've reached old age. In short; religion sucks; science rules; and be a good person.
You say religion is indoctrinating and false. Whether that is true or not is out of the question right now, but the fact that it has been accepted as "the one and only truth" for so long now, people still firmly believe in it. All those years ago, religion made sense, and theories like evolution, the world being round and the earth rotating around the sun instead of otherwise were considered false and even dangerous at the time.
Religion is something I really don't care about. No matter what you believe or what you do, you will die. Though I find the premise of religions both necessary and un-necessary, I think they may have established the earth's morality. Religion still serves this purpose, it also comforts the dying, and answers the "big questions". Though, currently, some religion creates more problems than it's worth (such as certain religion's opinions on stem cell research), so I find that I'd be better off without it, viewing it as little more than a historical curiosity, and a fable meant to be taken entirely metaphorically that enforces (mostly) morally just behavior in society. Then again, some of them are so old and mistranslated (looking at you middle ages) that believing in them would be a hopeless act, as they likely do not contain wholly accurate-to-the-original contents, so therefore not believing would be on a more-or-less equal level with believing. But I really don't care either way, it's not really an issue, and we all end up equal one way or another. Then there are religions I outright oppose in entirety (*coughcoughscientologycoughcough*). Who's whole purpose is power, money, and slave labor. These certain organizations are essentially criminal, and should be prosecuted and dealt with as such.
What is particularly moral about the most pious times in history? Our morality is what WE decide, not what some holy book does, and thank God for that. If that wasn't the case then why do we in the Christian West allow abortion; homosexuality; allow people to believe in 'false idols'; abolish slavery. Our morality has changed over time and most people wouldn't dream of doing things that the Bible suggests. Why do we believe that fundamentalists are crazy nutjobs? Because they believe in the Bible when we do not. They have different morals than us. They'd feel it perfectly legitimate to picket a funeral of a gay man shouting "God hates fags". We don't do this why? Because our morals are different from the Bible's. It might have shaped our morals somewhat but it is behind the times in shaping them now.
Religions are extremely immoral. If a parent punched his/her kid, people would say that was a horrible parent, and take their children away from them, but there are billions of parents who tell their kids, "If you don't believe in Jesus/God/.Muhammed/etc. and obey their will, you will burn in hell for eternity. Seems a lot more scarring if you ask me. Also seems like the threat of violence isn't near as bad as the threat of eternal agony and suffering.
Just think a moment. From and anthropological standpoint, religion was one of the first steps toward humanity. Why? Because from a scientific standpoint, religion was the first attempt by any creature on Earth to explain it's environment, and just as importantly itself. Thus, religion is the basis of, ironically, atheism, a belief of a scientific explanation of the universe. Now, that does not mean that either side is right or wrong, just a thought to think for everyone.
The two problems with religion are that: A. By looking at the civilization/nomadic group where it developed, you can very easily determine why that particular religion came out the way it did. Who it worships, the values it encourages...there's a historical reason as to why that happened. Along with this point is the fact that there are multiple religions, most of which conflict with each other. What makes one religion any more credible than the other? And if one is more credible, does that mean the non-believers of that religion lived for nothing? And I'm not just talking about a curious heretic, I'm talking entire civilizations. Should the Greeks be condemned because Christianity did not yet exist? B. Part of the reason Christianity was so powerful in the Medieval Ages was because it gave peasants and aristocrats alike exactly what they wanted. It gave the peasants hope that despite their pathetic and horrible lives there is the hope of an eternal resting place at death (and it had to be at death since every other part of life was clearly-defined). It gave the rich church a divine authority and the rich in general a motive for their serfs to work hard. It gave both classes answers to the mysteries of nature. Most religions provided at least 2 of these 3 things, and when it comes right down to it, these things were the role of religion in society. The one category that holds true for all religions is the explanation for natural phenomena. Explaining the evolution of the first two reasons is very complicated. It is also, fortunately, less important than the third, and so I will focus on that. Now, since those times science has been able to explain much of the phenomena we relied on religion for. When the two clashed (most obviously with Darwinism vs. Creation), science ultimately won. This is debatable, but in general, the masses came to accept Darwinism and only devout Christians pushed for Creation. This trend would continue into modern society, where technology has completely taken over and continues to expand. The point that I'm trying to make is that logical reasoning and science can explain most of the things we once needed religion to explain for us, and science can give us proof of it. The things that still cannot be explained will be explained- we're just not there yet. As a side note, think of the Ten Commandments. You shall not steal, murder, say God's name in vain. Ultimately, they were laws. And because these laws came from a divine power, it scared people more than if Moses simply said "do it or I'll arrest/stone you." The idea is the same in Christianity, where people are horrified of Hell and will do whatever they're supposed to to escape its wrath. As for "You shall not say God's name in vain" and "I am your one and only God," these are basically mandates that "You shall not question these rules or God's existence." They are laws preventing people from questioning a 'governing power,' and is remarkably similar to the ideals of a suppressive government. I don't mean to invoke a flame war or force a mass conversion to atheism (or similar philosophy). I simply wish to approach religion from a logical and historical standpoint and explain why I would be lying to myself if I said I believed in it. EDIT: Looking through this topic, I just want to point out that religion is not really about death or what happens after you die. In fact, that's usually just a side-point. That's just what we emphasize because religions vary so much on the issue and we still do not know the scientific answer.
Firstly, as mentioned before, religion is not about death, but about life, the persuit of moral superiority, death was simply a projection of the consequences to your actions in life. Many people seem to view the 'fear' factor as being a negative side of religion, but you have to understand how effective this is. Even nowadays fear factor is being used in modern society, the law being one of the examples. It's not only about punishing people, but also threatening those who are thinking about it. One important advantage that religion has to make using the fear factor flawless and cannot be subjected to doubt is that you have a divine being that is on top of all of us to act out the punishment. This solves the problem of what many anti-death penalty people have, that is what rights do we human have to punish another human by death, even if the subject has done something very wrong. In the case of religion we don't have to answer the question, because there is the almighty God, always just and benevolent.
Ugh, after looking at some of the posts in this topic I have seen two incredibly annoying trends: 1. Protestant Christianity = "Religion" 2. Science = Atheism These are both immeasurably flawed statements, and the proliferation of these ideas through almost every post in this topic is condemnable. First, when you are discussing flaws in religion you cannot merely point out inconsistencies in one religion. Religions are often competitive, sometimes to the point that part of religious doctrine specifically invalidates other religious doctrines. So pointing out inconsistencies in one religion, as this topic loves to do with Protestant Christianity, does nothing to undermine the concept of religion. Classic fallacy of composition. Second, it seems to be a consensus among posters here that atheism is equivalent with science. This is simply nonsense. Science does not even consider the question of religion because it falls outside the scope of the scientific method. There simply is no testable hypothesis concerning the mystical nature of the universe, whether that be over the existence of a deity or about the true causality of events. One can accept all of the claims made by mainstream science and accept the existence of a deity, or simply be religious. Science and religion do not conflict; they seek entirely different answers to entirely different questions.
Well I have to disagree with you on that point. Evolution vs creationism. Science vs religion. Also if that is the case then why is there a disproportionate amount of atheists in the scientific community?
It is unfortunate that most posters here seem to be rather focused on Christianity when it comes to religion, but to a certain extent it cannot be helped because most people discussing in this topic came from similar religious background. I have chosen Christianity as an example in my posts as well because most people can relate to it. Had there been more diversity in religious beliefs then we may have a more 'colourful' conversation. Of course Christianity cannot represent religion, but many of the concepts are similar. Hence I did not participate in the 'death' discussion, not only because it is not entirely relevant, but because 'death' is not a common concept in all religions, reincarnation is being totally overlooked. I don't think any further discussion on the topic can be without mentioning Christianity, but as long as criticisms is not christianity specific I am fine with it. Traditions and ethical teachings may be different, but the concept of religion is relatively similar. If we begin and discuss every single religion and try to point out its strengths and weaknesses it will be very difficult to stick to the questions. With regards to the relationship between science and religion it is inevitable for people to consider science contradicts religion as this is a common misconception for quite a while. It is evident that the evolution of scentific research did have an effect on the spread of religion and peoples attitude towards it, hence I don't think I would be wrong to state that science had played a historical part in the downfall of religion (this does not mean, however, that scientific development is entirely responsible).
You have actually just proved Kalalification. Explain to me why is there ANY believers in religion in the scientific community if science defies religion. (and you fell for the first falacy he stated as well, that is representing religion with Christianity)
I don't think I explained myself clearly enough. This is what I was really referring to. It is very difficult to find someone who accepts both the claims made by science and the claims of religion. My point is that for most people they are contradictory at least in method. Faith and reason are very different things.
Kalalification is right. Except for the last sentence, which has already been objected to. While science and Atheism are not the same thing and religion and science do not have to conflict (and they often don't in modern society) they once did, and it was no secret that, as it grew more competent, scientific explanation competed for support previously won by the church. As said in my previous post, one of religion's (and every one, not just Christianity) major trends--if not purposes--was to provide an explanation for natural phenomena. Although science could originally achieve only small feats, when it became more prominent it began to tackle the reasons for these natural occurrences, providing alternate explanations that are either provable or, at the very least, supported by qualitative evidence. To reinforce D3VIL's argument, Darwinism vs. Creation was a product of this, as the very idea of evolution challenged the church's explanation of the creation of life- a previously unprovable phenomena.
Well Deism is contrary to organised religion, and considering that the majority of religious people belong to an organised religion or doctrine your point isn't particularly relevant. Deism is basically that a god created everything but doesn't intervene in our affairs because of a plan of some sort. I believe it doesn't make any sense to believe in something which doesn't have a shred of evidence behind it and I find it bizarre that people do. Blind faith is a bit scary actually. If an adult believed he had an imaginary friend you'd be seriously concerned. Change the friend's name to one of a mainstream god and bingo, that's suddenly OK. Until the existence of a god is proved I don't see why you would believe, and especially I don't see why you'd choose one religion over another. What's the difference?
