Excellent post. Fully agree.

I agree that religion has wielded a great deal of influence and power over mankind, however there have been plenty of other of non religious entities or movements which have also had negative effects on mankind. Ultimately religion, atheism or political movements and any other human construct has positive and negative aspects and the outcome is determined by what decisions people make. At the end of the day right or wrong if you disrespect someone for whichever reason you will get an emotional response.

I guess it's idealistic but the best result we can hope for is to live in a world where equality rules and people respect different beliefs. The realist in me though says that it is in our nature to force our beliefs on others and we are destined to be locked in a struggle for as long as humanity exists.

So you don't really think IQ is an inaccurate measurement of intelligence, you would just rather see a study of the relationship between education and theism? There probably are such studies if you're interested. I do not believe I have seen one, though.

The study provides evidence that individuals with an enchanced capacity to learn, reject theism. One doesn't need learn all the religions to cast aside their fundamental core of the supernatural, which is common to all theism. IQ correlates with problem-solving, which applies to your "need for cognition" scale.

First point I don't feel that any other movement has had as much impact on humanity as religion. Secondly, atheism is not a movement or a construct nor is it a belief. Atheism by its nature does not require any belief; it purely doesn't acknowledge something of which there is no evidence whatsoever.

However I appreciate your response and I don't want to feel like I'm arguing with everybody. I'm arguing with nobody. I just refuse to respect belief in a story that directly affects my life and the lives of millions in the wider world.

@Majora

I get where you're coming from and I agree that up to this point of recorded human history organised religion has played the greatest role but I was pointing out that if we want to discuss the effect of religion then we should focus on the whole and not just the negative role it has played. We live in a wonderous but also highly volatile world and all we can do is to try to make the best of it.

I get the impression that you have had some bad experiences with religious people but understand that like any group there are good and bad and religion can and does get used for good or bad purposes.

I haven't personally had any bad experiences. I speak from viewing the wider world as a whole. My whole aversion to religion simply boils down to the fact that it is given so much protection and there is a sense of "oh you can't say that about God?!" (of which there is no evidence and no need). I think it is vulgar that fairytales and myths can not only be held above law but also can affect people and prevent them living the life they wish to lead (peaceful lives, I might add, not law breaking lives - hence the law).

I respect you and your willingness to accept both sides of the argument, but for me personally there is no argument and there is no alternative view as religion and god are not real and as such there can be no positive reasoning that can be gleaned from, well - nothing.

no, because my overlying point applies to all religions.  Just because I used chritianity as an example doesnt mean the argument only applies to christianity.

how is it a waste of time?  you're just unable to support your theory, so like all religious people you're backing down to the "I have my rights" argument.  Which is true, you do, but I did read your posts and nothing was in any way conclusive or even all that compelling.  

so, when are you bringing the real points to the table? 

Take overpopulation as another example where Religion needs to back the hell off:

Scientists agree, we're overpopulated. we CAN support ourselves at our current population and according to some theories could easily feed up to 9.3 billion people, but the fact is we still have over one billion people starving and/or in intense poverty. Plus, getting to that number would require basically the rest of the world to be null. The more people WE have, the less of everything else there is.

most religions (and all of the major ones) say that we are above animals, and our needs and rights come before the environment. We hold dominion over them.

In addition, some religions say that homosexuality is wrong, that contraceptives are wrong, and in some extremes any act that doesn't result in offspring is wrong. This is particularly true where I live, where almost every family has 8 or more children (they believe in having huge families to please God and don't believe in contraception.)

So ask yourself this, which side would you chose? the one where we adhere to values that were relevant thousands of years ago but have since been made obsolete, or the side that gives real facts and figures and warns about real consequences for us and the world around us?

Science 1
Religion 0

True, but in the meantime people practice sex in a different way than people did when the global consciousness was lower (say just 50 years ago), and there was more modesty, at least in America. What then, the moral state of the people has degraded (the religious opinion) but their ability to survive has increaced.

All it says is that the priorities of religion are in a different place than the priorities of naturalistic thinking.