The Trouble with Atheism

joe_chicken

pH wrote:

...you don't mention these other caveats you've just added.

Have you read the rest of the thread?

I've argued on numerous occasions that religion changes to suit the needs of it's people. I kind of get the impression you looked at the last post that was contradicting me and jumped on that band wagon.

pH wrote:

I (based on Zillah's original insight) said this equally applies to the death penalty, so now you add something utterly irrelevant about change, as if this saves it.

So you don't think it does?...

You used an analogy that I thought was inaccurate to what I was saying...

I used my own analogy to explain what I was saying, and then explained (in part) why I think my analogy is better.

pH wrote:

Anyway, explain how religion changes please? And I mean religion in terms of the organised worshipping of God. Has God changed his mind as to how he wants us to behave over the years? What made him change his mind, and how did he communicate this to his followers?

I think most people can agree that religion changes... even the Pope.

pH wrote:

Also you never answered my question on the moral worth of The Book of Mormon, a book given to Joseph Smith on gold plates by an angel and transcribed by him. Does this book contain this 'moral worth' that you speak of? How many times have you read it?

I haven't read it. Point me to the place where I said I read it?

Dades

joe_chicken wrote:

I think most people can agree that religion changes... even the Pope.

I made a point above (that got ignored - I'm not sulking though) that religion doesn't change - people simply "re-interpret" religious texts to fit with current morality.

If people need to do this, why can't we simply leave the texts - and the religion - behind?

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote:

Well the two don't really stack up. The British Empire existed and survived for so long, but it is doubtful that the countries under its rule, including Ireland, would say they "needed" it. The reason the British Empire survived for so long is because it was powerful and those who controlled it wanted to remain powerful. It could be argued that the same applies to western religion.

Good point.

But I think you'd have to be a very cynical person to believe that fully.

People chose to believe in religion. Maybe it wasn't always a choice.... But a lot of the time it was.

Wicknight wrote:

How do you define success in that manner? At the high of religous power in Europe was also some of the bloodiest years. As society has moved to more secular humanist societies after Enlightnment the number of terrible events have decreased. While I'm sure religion did provide a moral frame work for say something like killing, it wasn't a particularly good frame work.

I suppose the point I was making was what constitutes a good moral framework... and if you take it as a given that you obviously want your "good moral framework" to be good... which I did... then the next biggest gage of how successful it is is how many people it effects.

Wicknight wrote:

One of the greatest problems with religion is that is very slow to update and almost impossible to argue againt its dogma.

Agreed.

Wicknight wrote:

Well Ireland for a start. You live in a (mostly) secular social democracy and legal system.

I don't think our society is that secular... Anyone for some Christmas Cake?


Seriously though... I may not be a Catholic, but alot of what I believe in is based around Catholic traditions. I think alot of people in this country are like that.

In that sense, I don't think we are truly secular.

Wicknight wrote:

Constrast this with say a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran, where the state and the church are so linked as to be almost indistigusable and the laws are defined by the religion.

So you're saying these societies are worse than ours?...

I'd probably agree... But alot Saudis and Iranians wouldn't.

Wicknight wrote:

A country like the USA where it is actually a fundamental principle of the state the religion and state must be seperate is also good example.

A good example of what? A successful secular society?

Wicknight wrote:

The classic example of a secular moral framework is the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Not a perfect document granted, but not a bad start. No mention of a sky god anywhere in that document (as far as I'm aware). A particular religous outlook is irrelivent to the document (and in fact a lot of religions don't like it because it guarrentees religious freedom where as some religions don't like other religions have said freedom) But there are countless other examples.

Ok. Good example. I wouldn't have thought of that. Now if only people would listen ... If we could somehow squeeze it into an hour long movie that resembles Star Wars.

joe_chicken

The Atheist wrote:

I made a point above (that got ignored - I'm not sulking though) that religion doesn't change - people simply "re-interpret" religious texts to fit with current morality.

I agree.

The Atheist wrote:

If people need to do this, why can't we simply leave the texts - and the religion - behind?

....because in their re-interpretation - they leave in what made the story good in the first place. Like I've said before... I don't think religion is the basis for all our morals, just that it was a helping hand.

Especially when it came to teaching things like sharing and forgiveness.

The only places I see things like that being taught these days is in Barney.

Maybe Barney killed God?

pH

joe chicken wrote:

I don't think our society is that secular... Anyone for some Christmas Cake?

And lo did Jesus speak thus unto his disciples. "In late December, you are to mix together vast quantities of dried fruits into a dark rich batter, and after you have baked it, it should be covered in an almond and sugar mixture and then iced. Do this in memory of me." Thomas turned to Jesus and then spoke 'Lord, the currants and the raisins, to best please your Father, how many ....
(Howard 5:28)

But no, that's not where we get Christmas cake from is it? So where then ?

TWELFTH NIGHT
This is the Church festival of Ephiphany. The traditional day when Christians celebrate the arrival of the Magi or Three Kings at Bethlehem. It used to be the time when people exchanged their Christmas gifts. The feast was marked, as were all the old feasts, by some kind of religious observance. A visit to the church, a service or some kind, and then a folk observance which was tightly wrapped up as part of the Church activities. As we have seen, Twelve Day (the day following Twelfth Night) entailed the blessing of the home, and in some countries is still observed. But after the Reformation, these customs of the Church were banned by the Puritans, and fell into disuse. Without its religious overtones, Twelfth Night became a time of mischief and over indulgence. By 1870, Britains Queen Victoria announced that she felt it was inappropriate to hold such an unchristian festival, and Twelfth Night was banned as a feastday.


THE ARRIVAL OF THE CHRISTMAS CAKE
The confectioners who made the cakes were left with boxes full of figurines and models for Twelfth Cakes, and also had lost revenue by the banning of the feast. So they began to bake a fruitcake and decorate it with snowy scenes, or even flower gardens and Italian romantic ruins. These they sold not for the 5th January, but for December Christmas parties. And it was thus that we developed the Christmas cake.
http://www.christmasarchives.com/christmascake.html

As you can see the 'Christmas Cake' is a secular/capitalist invention, and has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

joe_chicken

pH wrote:

As you can see the 'Christmas Cake' is a secular/capitalist invention, and has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Where did I say it did.

I just notice there's a lot of it about, given that so many people are celebrating Christmas.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

But I think you'd have to be a very cynical person to believe that fully.

People chose to believe in religion. Maybe it wasn't always a choice.... But a lot of the time it was.

Certainly true, but again that doesn't mean that religion fufilled a vital need. I choose to max out my credit card on my new LCD TV, and it certainly is great, but I didn't need to do that.

It is possible to fulfill the genuine need for common moral frameworks and things like rule of law (which I accept are needed) with religion, but it is arguable that you need religion to fulfill these in the first place. You could fulfill them equally well (or much better in some cases) with other secular systems.

joe_chicken wrote:

I suppose the point I was making was what constitutes a good moral framework

Well that is the question now isn't it. And people have debating that for thousands of years and probably will debate it for another thousand years.

It is actually easier to see the problems with moral frameworks, and attempt to correct those problems in future ones, than it is to come up with the good elements. The good elements just kinda hang around.

For example, one of the worst elements of religion as a moral framework is the inclusion of an all powerful deity at its centre making the rules.

This makes it very hard to criticise and update the framework as time goes. How do you argue that God was wrong when he said, for example, that women can be raped by men so long as they pay the father (which is mentioned in the Bible). If you have strong moral objections to that idea you have to criticise the heart of the religion itself, the idea that God is always right and infaliable, rather than just that particular idea itself.

This makes moral frameworks based on religion very difficult to update and change in a sensible and managed manner, and it makes arguing points based on reason quite difficult, because to the theist God doesn't have to justify himself with reason.

joe_chicken wrote:

then the next biggest gage of how successful it is is how many people it effects.

How many people it effects positively Communism effected a lot of people in Russia, but it is hard to argue it do so successfully, since the end result of the project fell far short of the aims to increase the well being of the population as a whole.

joe_chicken wrote:

In that sense, I don't think we are truly secular.

You are right, we are not "truly" secular, but we are pretty secular. If you tried to get a law brought before the Dail, stating that it was based on your religion would be rather pointless. You would have to argue for or against that law in a secular manner. Simply stating "God says so" would not be enough, not by a long shot.

While each person is free to practice any religion they wish, we also as a society recognise that religious justification is not enough anymore when arguing a particular position or point of view. We must argue in a secular manner, because your arguments must try and convince people who may not hold to your particular religous position.

The great thing about this is that it nullifies the problem of "God is always right" that I mentioned about. It is perfectly acceptable to say "I don't think your God is always right, in fact I dont accept he even exists". The debate has to continue without the assumption that a particular deity exists and is correct. Therefore reason can come back into the debate, and no religous dogma on its own can be used to justify a position because such dogma will just be ignored.

This is what I mean by "secular"

joe_chicken wrote:

So you're saying these societies are worse than ours?...

Yes.

I was reading a few months ago that a girl was sentenced to death in Iran because she was having pre-marrital sex and had been disrespectful to the judge at her trial. That is in line with Islamic law, though I would imagine even hardline Muslims would be horrifed by the death sentence, and it seems more a case that the judge is nuts. But how do you argue, within Islamic law, that what the judge did was wrong? It is very easy to do so in a non-religious framework. But what he did he claims is backed up by the writings of a book made 1200 years ago, but a book that the religion holds as being the word of God. Once one powerful person states that they have the backing of God to attack the logic could be easily said to be attacking the entire religion itself. And since the religion is the law and the law is the religion that becomes an impossible position.

This is just one of the problems of basing systems of governence around religion. Secular systems are not without their problems too of course, but there is less requirement to hold on to non-functioning or bad secular systems than there is to hold on to bad religious ones.

joe_chicken wrote:

A good example of what? A successful secular society?

A successful secular government and legal system. The society does not have to be secular, but the systems that govern the society should be to avoid problems like the one above.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

For example, one of the worst elements of religion as a moral framework is the inclusion of an all powerful deity at its centre making the rules.

This makes it very hard to criticise and update the framework as time goes. How do you argue that God was wrong when he said, for example, that women can be raped by men so long as they pay the father (which is mentioned in the Bible). If you have strong moral objections to that idea you have to criticise the heart of the religion itself, the idea that God is always right and infaliable, rather than just that particular idea itself.

This makes moral frameworks based on religion very difficult to update and change in a sensible and managed manner, and it makes arguing points based on reason quite difficult, because to the theist God doesn't have to justify himself with reason.

I'd tend to say the problem is more writing it down and calling it the word of God. Catholicism has avoided this to some extent by treating the Bible as just one source, thereby providing themselves with much-needed flexibility.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

I made a point above (that got ignored - I'm not sulking though) that religion doesn't change - people simply "re-interpret" religious texts to fit with current morality.

I'd say that the reinterpreting is by far the more common phenomenon, but I'd disagree that the religion doesn't change.

Compare the texts of earliest Christianity to what we have now. How many books that could have gone into the new testament were eventually dropped? How much heavy handed changes did the Council of Nicea enforce? How much of the old Jewish tribe rubbish fell to the side along the way? How much absolute crap did the middle ages add?

And lets not even get started on the New International Bible.

Note: And thats one of the main reasons that Islam scares the absolute hell out of me. They're one of the few that claim 100% correctness and completeness of their texts. Its finished and perfect. Nothing about the Koran can ever change.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

Note: And thats one of the main reasons that Islam scares the absolute hell out of me. They're one of the few that claim 100% correctness and completeness of their texts. Its finished and perfect. Nothing about the Koran can ever change.

In theory that should make it a more credible religion, the fact that it (supposedly) hasn't been molested by mere mortals. :eek:

robindch

> They're one of the few that claim 100% correctness and completeness of
> their texts. Its finished and perfect. Nothing about the Koran can ever change.

...because I don't believe it needs to. AFAIK, most muslims deal with internal koranic contradictions in a fairly neat way -- anything that was written further on overrides anything written earlier on. Hence the different interpretations available between the earlier peaceful phase versus the later expansionist phase. And, just as with the bible, you can choose quotations to back up the position to which you're pre-disposed -- it's all there if you look hard enough, and adopt a sufficiently flexible approach to the meaning of words.

pH

I know we're way off topic, but the program is on again late tonight if anyone wants to video it.

DOCUMENTARY: The Trouble With Atheism
On: Channel 4 (104)
Date: Friday 22nd December 2006
Time: 02:20 to 03:20 (1 hour long)

Another chance to see Monday's programme. Far from being an antidote to religious fundamentalism, Rod Liddle sees 21st century atheism as sharing many characteristics with the very belief systems it opposes. As he argues in this authored film, those that turn to atheism for a rational, logical and moderate approach to modern problems are in for a shock; atheism too has its high priests, dogmas and beliefs as much as any fundamentalist religion.
(Repeat, Watch Online, Subtitles, 4 Star)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide

Dave!

joe_chicken wrote:

I'm not too sure...

But my question was more from a moralistic stand point, so I won't veer off course:

Why aren't you sure? Has science not explained most everything else about the physical world? If you don't understand something, do you read a science book or a bible? Why would science explain 99% of things but not the last 1%? Just because it's a difficult question?

joe_chicken wrote:

I suppose that's just another point we disagree on that neither of us can prove.

Unfortunately I'm not an anthropologist so I'm not well read enough to go any further, okey doke.

joe_chicken wrote:

I've never refuted this point, it seems many people on here think I have. The point I'm making is that religion was there.... it did effect our morals (again... it didn't give us morality)... and now it's gone

So we had morals before religion, then religion came and affected the morals, it left and now we are immoral...?

How did religion affect our morals? Is it not more plausible that religion was shaped BY our existing morals? Since it was written by humans, whom already had morals. Its growth in popularity put it into a position of power, so of course it affected us in some respects, but not necessarily in a good way.

Since you (I understand) have said that religion is no longer our moral guide, but it previously was -- why are we now arguably more moral than when religion was in its prime? (eg. death penalty is gone, chauvinism is illegal, gay-bashing is illegal)

joe_chicken wrote:

Ok... so you're arguing that religion was built around a frame of morals?... I completely agree.

I'm arguing that morals were there before religion, so religion adopted the already existing morals so as to contextualise the whole idea.

So I gather that you're accepting that:

1. Morals existed before religion (you've stated this)
2. Religion adopted EXISTING MORALS
3. Moral evolution continued despite the existance of religion

joe_chicken wrote:

I've separated the sentence because I think you are making 2 points.

I think religion served a number of purposes, including 1) To hold some kind of moral teachings (your first point) 2) To explain the universe (your second point)

Religion's purpose was to explain the universe. Morals already existed, so they're irrelevent for religion. Religion was created by humans, whom have morals -- so religion merely follows the already existing trend of moral change.

My point is that religion does not set the example, it follows it. If it doesn't adapt then it becomes irrelevent.

joe_chicken wrote:

So you're saying that morality in religion is what made it popular?
I would argue that that's a pretty good sign that people need religion for at least some kind of moral guidance.

I'm saying that the fact that religion attempts to follow the existing moral trend in society is an element of its popularity. If it's not in touch with its followers, then it will lose them. Perhaps that's why the Catholic Church is losing power nowadays -- because it's no longer considered a moral thing to say that homosexuality is an abomination, or to keep women from certain positions.

Can you please explain to me the following:

1. You have accepted that morals existed before religion
2. We have established that religion merely follows societal values, and does not set them
3. You have made the point that religion no longer exists as a moral guide
4. How can you then continue to argue that people need religion for moral guidance? You have just contradicted that position by stating that you accept that morals existed before religion. And you also said that religion is no longer a moral guide -- so why are we still moral?

joe_chicken wrote:

But society itself was then effected by religion. I find it hard to believe that you can doubt that. But hey! Another thing we disagree on

It was affected, yep. I'm not going to pretend that religion didn't play a part in human history -- that would be revisionism. Exactly how good a role did it play, though?

As you have pointed out time and again, we were moralistic before the advent of religion.

We are moralistic after religion (...has ceased to wield power).

The Catholic Church is against homosexuality -- society is not.
The church is against women priests -- society is not.
The church is against the use of condoms -- society is not.

Surely at least the first 2 would be considered black and white issues. Why does the church oppose existing moral values? Wouldn't that make it immoral?

And that's just Catholicism...

joe_chicken wrote:

Ok... so at worst religion was like a mirror that reflected the morality of society.

Indeed, so you've again accepted that religion didn't set any morals, and merely continued to try and keep up with what already existed in society...

joe_chicken wrote:

We obviously needed this, and I would argue that we still do.

But hang on -- why did we need this? Since morals exist without religion.

And hang on -- why do we STILL need this, despite the fact that religion is in conflict with black and white issues such as homosexuality?

joe_chicken wrote:

If you agree, where do we get that mirror from these days?
TV?... has TV killed God? [evil music]dun dun duuuun[/evil music]

I don't agree. We get our morals from the same place we've always gotten them -- from societal interaction. Society has evolved along with the human brain, and our increased awareness of feelings, and empathy, and the consequences of being what we call immoral, have created an ephemeral system that the vast majority of us obey.

joe_chicken

DaveMcG wrote:

Why aren't you sure? Has science not explained most everything else about the physical world? If you don't understand something, do you read a science book or a bible? Why would science explain 99% of things but not the last 1%? Just because it's a difficult question?

Life is in the 1%.

DaveMcG wrote:

So we had morals before religion, then religion came and affected the morals, it left and now we are immoral...?

Nope...

we had morals before religion, then religion came, we used it to reinforce and teach what we already knew, it left, and we've replaced it with Barney

Dave!

joe_chicken wrote:

Life is in the 1%.

So science can explain everything in the universe -- except life?

Have you any reason to believe that? Any evidence to support that point of view?

Or is it just the case that we haven't explained it as of yet, so you're jumping the gun because you've no patience?

joe_chicken wrote:

we had morals before religion

Agreed

joe_chicken wrote:

then religion came, we used it to reinforce and teach what we already knew

But we had morals before religion... we have morals after religion...

How are you coming to the conclusion that religion teaches morals? It doesn't make any sense.

joe_chicken wrote:

it left, and we've replaced it with Barney

...and presumably all hell has broken loose; people are pillaging and murdering each other left, right and centre; rapes have become an important daily ritual; looting is in widespread practice... etc...

Can you tell me why we're not immoral now? And why does religion take an immoral stance on homosexuality, which is in conflict with human morals?

You don't have to keep arguing this because you started it, you can change your mind if you like!

Matamoros

Many people believe in the existence of Gods. Others believe in Luck or Destiny. Many people cannot face the truth. We avoid unpleasant things in life. We remain child-like. We cannot force ourselves to take the red pill until we have to.

In this case, is religious faith surprising to us? Then, what is our problem?

Are they vetoing Stem Cell research and attacking New York in planes amongst many other things? Yes they are. We do not agree with that. We have many issues with religion. There are many of them. What do we do?

Being a person of Reason should be enough. Logic and Rhetoric equip me to do great things. Atheists, Agnostics and rational people everywhere should be excelling in all fields?

Dave!

Matamoros wrote:

Many people believe in the existence of Gods. Others believe in Luck or Destiny. Many people cannot face the truth. We avoid unpleasant things in life. We remain child-like. We cannot force ourselves to take the red pill until we have to.

In this case, is religious faith surprising to us? Then, what is our problem?

Are they vetoing Stem Cell research and attacking New York in planes amongst many other things? Yes they are. We do not agree with that. We have many issues with religion. There are many of them. What do we do?

Being a person of Reason should be enough. Logic and Rhetoric equip me to do great things. Atheists, Agnostics and rational people everywhere should be excelling in all fields?

What?

robindch

> Atheists, Agnostics and rational people everywhere should be excelling in all fields?

When you check it out, yes, it seems that's what happens. For example, here's a well-known survey of scientists in the USA:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Within the USA's National Academy of Sciences, I believe the figures are currently around 85% atheist. At The Edge, the smartest group of intellectuals I'm aware of, I don't believe that there are any religious people at all.

joe_chicken

DaveMcG wrote:

So science can explain everything in the universe -- except life?

No - the point I was making (although not that clear) was that it's the 1% that can make all the difference in life(i.e. we're 1% genetically different from apes...not exactly... but hopefully you get my point)

Apart from that, I don't think we know anythinig near 99% of everything.

I think that's the big difference between what we believe in.

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote:

> Atheists, Agnostics and rational people everywhere should be excelling in all fields?

When you check it out, yes, it seems that's what happens. For example, here's a well-known survey of scientists in the USA:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Within the USA's National Academy of Sciences, I believe the figures are currently around 85% atheist. At The Edge, the smartest group of intellectuals I'm aware of, I don't believe that there are any religious people at all.

Well as they say there's lies, damn lies and statistics

For example of the study you showed there was a return rate of 50% and the study was conducted via post ( not exactly ideal ). Added to which it appears that as of 1998 scientists can long longer do percentages correctly (try totalling the believe in immortality for 1998 J ).

A common statistic given in opposition to is one conduced by Elaine Howard Ecklund
http://www.explore.rice.edu/explore/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=7680&SnID=2
Although rice university does have a religious connection, which in my mind makes it as reliable as the one above.

Additionally the university of Chicago also conducted research on the beliefs of doctors and concluded that 76 percent have a religious belief.
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml

Certainly I would personally agree that among a population of highly educated individuals there will be a much lower belief in the biblical notion of god, but that’s not to say that belief in a god is removed. It can simply have evolved to reflect the greater level of knowledge.

This idea of the intellectual snobbery of certain atheists was indeed one of the corner stones of the programme. We'd all be athiests if only we where educated enough. Praise science.

Matamoros

To Rev Hellfire, my post may be construed as asserting that religious people may be less well educated. That was not my point. What I wanted to say was that, for people who do not believe in any outside force in their lives e.g. Gods, luck, destiny etc.. Shouldn't Reason be enough for them? For me, I have been angry with the Catholic Church since I was a kid. I don't know why. So, I have been trying to move on from that and I am hovering around the idea of accepting life in it's raw nature. Seeing it like it is, so to speak. In this way, I feel that I may make some progress.

Also thanks to Robin.

Dave!

You can watch the documentary here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,442,The-Trouble-with-Atheism,Rod-Liddle-Channel-4

joe_chicken wrote:

No - the point I was making (although not that clear) was that it's the 1% that can make all the difference in life(i.e. we're 1% genetically different from apes...not exactly... but hopefully you get my point)

Apart from that, I don't think we know anythinig near 99% of everything.

I think that's the big difference between what we believe in.

This is getting tiresome buddy... Just read my previous posts.

jimbling

joe_chicken wrote:

.......

firstly... wow.. that was a tough read.

secondly, joe, I really think you should re-read the entire thread. I normally don't post here, but while reading this I just couldn't believe some of your arguments..... your complete lack of understanding where all these EXTREMELY PATIENT posters are coming from, and your inability to form logical thoughts. If you came here to learn something I wouldn't be saying these things, but that was obviously not really the case.

The first point is that you completely changed your argument as you saw fit. I'm not going to give examples, but your threads are riddled with it. Secondly, you don't seem to have any understanding of how simple Atheism is.
Rule1: An Atheist Does not believe in any form of a God (deity).
QED.

It has nothing to do with weather religions are needed for morals, or the involvement/impact of religion in the creation of current day society's etc etc
So when you have the entire forum argue a point against you that does not directly relate "their belief" as you put it, then you should really start thinking they might be onto something. The fact is, the majority of people arguing against you are intelligent, reasoning and logical humans..... listen to what they have to say.

Everyone else has put forward arguments that are far better portrayed than mine. I am neither as learned or as articulate as the majority on this forum, but I want to make comments on a few things.

The main one is this belief that people have some sort of choice when it comes to religion, come on.... you can't really believe that. Every person in this world is born an Atheist*. <- think about that.
They are then thought by there environment to want/need a God. How strong that God becomes in the persons life is dependent on the society they live in, the environment of there schooling and home life etc.
When exactly do they choose? When do they have the intelligence and reasoning to make this choice?
Sometime in there late teens I guess is the answer. And the fact that so many are nowadays rejecting the Religious system in spite of the years of brainwashing they have endured should tell you enough.


And as stated already, numerous times, Religion was nothing but a tool
1)
used to portray a grouping of morals that were already in existence. It did not create the morals. I think this is one of the biggest problems I have when arguing with religious fanatics (not at all saying you are one, but they argue this point a lot). This assumption that we would all be going around raping and pillaging our neighbours if religion was completely eradicated. Absolute insanity.
2)It was also a Control mechanism. It was an easy way to put the "fear of God" into naive people - if you didn't obey those morals you went to hell etc etc.
It was an attempt to get control and obedience out of the masses and it worked quite well. In my opinion, that is why it grew to what it is today.

3)It was also the method for answering questions that were yet unknown. It's how the Sun, Moon, etc etc were all explained. The less and less of these questions that need answering the less and less religion is needed to answer them <- its still been used for a few though


* I would also like to come back to this on this argument that people "need" religion. This idea that it solves problems for us. Helps us deal with day to day problems as well as tragedy's etc.... What a farce. Not saying it doesn't do these things, but it is just a lie people want to live in. If religion didn't exist it could be replaced by a large number of things - Therapy is one that's used a lot nowadays- although it's not free
Awareness and enlightenment would probably be your best bet though.

I think the biggest argument for religion is humans undying love with our own importance. We, as a species, just can't seem to come to terms with the fact that we may not be quite as important as we thought. Losing this idea of an afterlife, or re-incarnation etc is just too difficult for most people to handle. You mean this life of 80years is all I get????? I've nothing to look forward too on my deathbed?? Be happy with the life I have had?? crazy talk. Obviously I will life for eternity... be it heaven, hell or purgatory
- oh no, wait... limbo's been scraped isn't it?? classic.

okay.... rant over for now.
I was going to continue on this point, but need to go to a meeting and couldn't be arsed leaving it till afterwards.

PS: All of the above are under the assumption we are not arguing about the existence of a GOD, but the benefits in believing in one.

anti-venom

I'm sick to death of the religious commnuity telling us they have the monopoly on morals. Of course morals existed before religion; it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Humans are social animals and to live together peacefully we need standards or morals. It's intrinsic, fundamental and vital to our survival. We each rely on the other person upholding their end of the reciprochal bargain ( be it explicit or implicit ) of goodwill and mutual assistance, ie we need to take care of each other to survive. Any moral code is based on this premise and without it we would never have left the caves.

Religion has co opted this basic survival tool and turned in on it's head. Morality, or thoughts or behaviours approximating morality, developed with our consciousness, not because of it.