I know what eugenics is , it's been around longer than christianity and if you look at it's history it has never been about atheism.

I agree! religion did way more harm than it did good

Just out of curiosity, what does science fix? How does science stop hate? Are you suggesting science creates a drug that cures all the problems of mankind and create peace?

History and reality tells me that the aim of science is primarily to create weapons to make war. What has taken up trillions upon trilions of American dollars over the past decades - not to menton the rest of the world - and still does? Not medical research. Not space exploration and research. Not feeding the world.

WAR. The science of war. Power. Milatary spending reigns supreme. Nuclear weapons, biological warfare, chemical weapons ... all been done,  now it is all about modern futuristic weapons. Pretty much every damn thing we use today came from military science, even in the hospitals.

Come to think of it you make science seem like a religion. Is that what all religions claim?  We can bring peace.

I think his assumption was entirely justified given the already established context and the vaguness of your post. It seem disingenuous to write something vague and then get upset about somone not understanding it.

Of course things can be at the root of suffering other than religion. I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise, that'd be absurd. 

The most quoted statement on the matter often used is:

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” 
― Steven Weinberg

I can't say that I fully subscribe to that statement as I think it is too narrow in focus (as you were alluding to, I believe). I fit more in line with Penn Jiltette's explanation on the matter.

At OP: God hates religion. I haven't read the replies past the first page of the thread, so I don't know if anyone has already explained this. And I didn't read your OP in it's entirety, but from what I saw, most of what you said about religion is true anyway. And the Bible speaks against it in many places. It's the counterfiet system designed to draw people's gaze away from a true relationship with God.

Here's an analogy: imagine if a parent-child relationship was institutionalized and structured to the point where it becomes a list of dos and donts, instead of a relationship between people. Then imagine if there were so many variations of these laws, that people can't tell which is the right one, and then some people stop believing in parent-child relationships alltogether.

Personally, it hurts me when I see people claim to be Christians and I realize that they have no relationship with their Father God, and don't even know that they're supposed to have a relationship. At VGPolygot, people like me don't "believe in without proof". We have actual relationships with God, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. No matter how vividly I describe the taste to you, it won't change a thing if you don't taste it yourself. From experience, I've learnt that citing personal examples from my own life, especially over the internet to someone who hasn't even met me in person, leads to people finding ways to explain away what they can, while concluding that I made up the parts that they can't explain away.

Religion is such a touchy subject. Looking past the single biggest argument of real vs not real, just dissecting a religion itself, we can see that nobody will truly agree on everything. Arguments arise and lead to conflicts over holy land, and disagreements on the policy of other churches, and this can lead to war. Religion vs other religion - sometimes sub religions under the same name duke it out. For as long as there was religion, people have disagreed in their interpretations of it. Let's look at Christianity for example. I'll give a small crash-course and point out some of the differences.

Long ago there was a man named Jesus and he did some cool things. Some people say some things about his life, others say other things. Here are some examples of what people after Jesus said about his religion.

Let's start with somebody who did not know Jesus personally. Marcion was a Christian thinker who lived about 100 years after Jesus. He hated Jews. He believed that Paul was the greatest Christian thinker, that the Jewish God was evil who created earth to enslave humans, and that the Christian God sent Jesus to ablosh Judaism. His church didn't last very long, but that is one example of somebody back in the day who had a different view.

We can go even further back and look at the Gospels themselves; those rejected and those accepted within the New Testament. Even those accepted in the New Testament didn't fully agree with each other.  

Side Note: it is true that Matthew/Mark/Luke's gospels were very similar, reffered to as the synoptic gospels. Fun fact, an explanation is attempted through the Two-Source Hypothesis (Luke and Matthew copied Mark's writing plus another source, the Q-gospel, which is now lost). They are almost word-for-word but they do differ in the following ways:

Matthew's began with a genealogy of Jesus, trying to trace him back to King David. It was written for the Jews, not explaining Jewish practice at all, written in Hebrew, and talked of the Torah. Matthew tried to prove that Jeses, THE MAN, fulfilled Jewish prophecy.

Mark's gospel tries to convince the reader that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, saying that he completed this prophecy by being a spiritual leader of the people and "Son of God", but keep in mind that this noun refers to those who have an intimate relationship with God, not necessarily a literal son.

Luke was kind of anti-sematic. He said Jesus mission was for Jews and non-Jews, but that the Jews were to blame for Jesus death. (Side note, Marcion used his gospel lol). Jesus was a man yet again.

John's differed from the others; whereas he was previously portrayed as human, John said he was metaphysical - very similar to Paul's descriptions. He said Jesus was Incarnation - the divine becoming flesh.

(Also included in the New Testament are the Book of Paul and the Book of Acts, as well as the sci-fi epic that is the Book of Revelation. In the book of Revelation the "beast" is mentioned, whom has been named as Satan, Emperor Nero, Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden etc through the ages).

Judas and Thomas' scriptures were not accepted within the New Testament for they were Gnostic - the belief that the Divine Spark is within everyone and is found through Gnosis (special knowledge passed down). The Snake first passed this knowledge to Adam and Eve from the Tree of Knowledge, as Jesus passed it down to his Apostles. Judas wrote that Jesus asked him to betray him. 

But you see, out of all the Apostles and Peter and James the other leaders of The Way, it was Paul's vision that prevailed. Paul accepted gentiles (non-jews) into the church and this made Christianity its own religion, but Paul also believed that Jesus was to be worshipped as divine.

And then Constantine the Roman Emperor comes around, who converts to Christianity and tries to make it State Religion. (Fun fact: He combined Christianity and Paganism, likening the Roman sun god to God and giving him it's own holiday every week: Sunday). Before he died though, he created the Council of Nicea, which unified the religion under a common set of beliefs. This new refined religion is considered "official". Now what beliefs made it through after the others were snuffed? You know, despite Paul never actually seeing Jesus in person himself, you kinda wonder why his word is accepted. Same with Constantine. They are arguably the two people who shaped the religion of Christianity into what it is today, and even now people still disagree and create their subsects for different purposes. English Kings creating Anglicanism so they could divorce, Martin Luther having his own views, Joseph Smith etc.

Although Chirstianity isn't a good example that shows war within the religion itself - it does show a varied history. But Christians did have wars with other religions over disputed holy land (the crusades).

Other times in history in which disagreement over religion spouted conflicts: Jewish persecution several times over, persecution of any other religion by the Romans and Islamic Extremists, the fact itself that Jerusalem is split in two (which I'll admit, isn't entirely religious).

Don't even get me started on Islam. The splits within that religion are pretty bad. I covered ISIS and the various deviations from core Islame in a paper I wrote a while ago, but I already linked it here before and shan't again unless asked.

But if you ask me, it isn't so much that religion is the cause of all this conflict, it is the fact that humans can never universally agree on something. The fact that religion is taken so seriously, and a subject of disagreement, means that it can result in deadly conflict. But it's been that way forever. Whether or not religion is at the forefront of a country's political system does not matter, they will find other reasons to fight. 

As for the other points you touched on, I'd argue that it is due to more misinterpretaion or differing interpretations. One thing I know for sure was that Jesus existed and he was a great man. It is a historical fact that is widely agreed upon. But so many people have come up with so many beliefs about a man that lived 2000 years ago it's insane.

BTW I'm a Christian, for that is how I was raised. I have my own views on the subject. Why I believe religion was created and what purpose it serves to me personally; those are topics for another day.

*sigh* that took longer than I though it would.

"If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day."

It is simple if you have no absolute right and wrong than nothing you said in the OP matters it could either be right and wrong depending on your point of view. Your whole argument relies on everything you said being accurate and that it was wrong. If there is no overall purpose than all of that is in your head and will mean nothing when you die. There is nothing in the beginning and there will be nothing in the end and everything will be as if it never was. If you want to be save from this nothingness you have to have faith that can't be absolutely proven even if it is in your false view of the world.

It is guaranteed that no matter who you are no matter when, your view of how things are is wrong so pointing at religions and the bad things they do does nothing because if God exist you will never be able to comprehend them. Just like you will never be able to comprehend the physical reality. Scientists today are not even close they believe in an invisible thing called dark matter that they don't have proof of when it could be that they don't understand gravity. Now if something like what caused the universe is discovered even though it is impossible to observe I would guarantee that you will die before it you find out and that knowledge will eventually be lost.

Now you could have faith in science about any of these things and you have unreasonable faith that can't be proven. Answer this question. What is the concrete rock bottom fact that all other facts are based on? What is the eternal reality that doesn't run down that won't eventually become nothing.

Now here is an even harder question. Why should anyone listen to you? Why should I bother to even consider your position when it won't help me or improve my life one iota. What if I die in one day I would have wasted that day worrying about your pointless thread and if you say because it is true then you have to tell my why anyone should care about the truth if it will eventually disappear, but if that is the case it wasn't actually true. But is what I just said true? Who would you ask? And the would you have unreasonable faith that they were right?

But why would you care about anything I just typed? How do I know that you read everything I typed or considered it no matter what you say should I have unreasonable faith that you will tell me the truth or that you are as smart as you think. But of course replying to me would be pointless I could die tomorrow and everyone who reads this will die. Is the only point that it makes you feel something, but then why should people care about others feelings. If I never visit this website again for all I know you died in a week or never read this.

The only reason I type is I believe that in some way that what we believe is right and wrong, and therefore there is a stranded that people are capable of being farther from or closer to. If this isn't the case than there is no point in saying something is right or wrong because there is no meaning to saying a line is crooked if you have no straight line to compare them to.

People aren't logical so therefore science will never be completely logical if it was completely logical it would only offer expectations laws are not logical because they represent the absolutes and absolutes are unreasonable faith and are only science when absolutely proven because then you have to have unreasonable faith that the person you ask these questions are telling you the truth for things that you can't check for yourself.

No one cares about you they only care about how you make them feel, but of course I don't believe this , but if you are an atheist how do you convince me or anyone that this is not true. Not to insult anyone, but why would insults be wrong to anyone but the person being insulted. After all do on to others what you would have them do to you is an unreasonable sentiment that is not proven by science. If you care about the future after you die that is not truth because you stop caring so it is unreasonable faith in the fact that thing have meaning after you die. So logically only selfishness is logical and anything is permitted as long as it is beneficial to you and you can reasonably get away with it.

I would call this wrong, but I will never find out what you think about it because I will never read to your reply. To me it will be like I am typing to nobody and for all I know nobody will read it and I am only doing this because of the feeling it is making me feel now or perhaps it is the right thing to do, but how do you know you are doing the right thing?

Now listen close, because i'm going to hit you with some knowledge.

• Do you like TV, computers, microwave ovens, Internet, cell phones, medicine, video games, electricity to light your rooms, good health? etc etc.. That is only a fraction, and I can list more. You can thank science for all the things you take for granted.

• Hate is not an acquired trait, it is learnt. Somebody has to be placing ideas in your mind and teaching it to you. It depends on your environment, how you see yourself, and how you're raised. Can you cure it? I think you can with psychiatric help.

• Is science used in war? Of course, but it never started it.

• What makes War? Politics, Religion, and lack of resources.

Can you name anything that politics and religion fixed without using science?

Now with that out of the way I hope I was able to broaden your mind.  By the way, science is not a religion, the word science means to know, and the best thing about it, is that is it right, until disproven.

Why even have a "relationship" with God? If you're 100000% convinced in all of that, then why not devote 100% of your time to God? Become a monk-like follower, forget earning things like money, earthly possessions, etc. etc. and all, isn't God 1039393939x more important?

The fact that most "religious" people don't do this to me kinda shows that they themselves don't actually believe 100%.  They use religion as a crutch to make them feel good in their other wise decidedly non-religious day to day schedule, religion is like a 30 minute little "excercise" they might do on a daily basis or when things are really bad in their life.