I mean it sounds like that's a type of god like the type of pet a pet rock is:  it just sits there doing nothing, and anything you get out of the relationship is just a reflection of what you're putting into it yourself. 

Of course many would say that that's what all gods are, but most of the religions say otherwise, so the belief you had is interesting. 

I completely agree, humanity would find other reasons to justify conflict. But that doesn't discount the fact that a large amount of pain and suffering has been done in (insert deities name). Another issue doesn't discount the negatives of religious wars.

The problem with religion in this context is that it is one of the best if not the best form of control, which makes it easier to start and justify a war and will keep people fighting irrationally and unquestionably for longer. That is one of the reasons why large centralised religion is dangerous.

I dispise nationalism for similar reasons.

@That Guy: That's not want I wanted to say though I didn't say it would be horrible if god really existed (I'm quite sure he doesn't but that's not the point) I was just saying it sounded like you were using your example as a proof that god existed. (Apparently you didn't but it appeared to me that way)

That's the problem I have with a lot of religious people - they give you illogical answers to proof gods existence. It's like saying the reducing number of pirates causes the global warming - since 200 years or so there are less and less pirates and the temperature is rising, thus we need more pirates to stop global warming. Those things aren't related to each other though. The same happens when you say people stop believing in certain religions, thus god doesn't like those religions which is a proof of god. Those things are not related to each other (just so you know what I thought you tried to say).

That's one of my biggest problems I have with "God" as a person: He / she / it doesn't teach us anything in the grand sheme of things. God is not a concept that leads us through dark times or anything, it is a concept that changes each time there is a new step forward in society, etc. Today we'd say the european middle age was terrible with all the things the church did but still those people thought their believes were right. But wouldn't you say without these believes (or with other believes) those people would've been happier? I think they would with all the money the church charged for quite everything. Today religion is different but it doesn't give you any answers (which is what a lot of people are looking for), it is an inconsistent concept. I can tell you back then when I was a christian I knew exactly in 300 years people would laugh about the things we believed in.

Now a lot of people will say it's a great thing that religion changes (some even say god himself is still a child and learning) which may be great but... what do I need god for then? If god can't give any answers but rather changes each time there is a new answer to be found he becomes inconsistent and thus I don't necessarily need him anymore - there are other concepts suited for change that are way faster at accepting new ideas than god. And if god really does change then he isn't any more clever than a human being so why should we pray to him? Just because someone built your house you don't pray to that person. I also wouldn't pray to him because he created me as I didn't ask him. Especially Christianity always claims life is just a small step towards paradise. So why exactly should I thank god for my life then? Apparently it is way worse than what comes after it. I know there are ways to explain in christianity why we are alive etc. but that brings me to my next point.

The way religion tries to explain certain things is just really weird to say the least. You know in science it is also hard to understand certain things but science is created upon proof - if you can't prove something it won't be accepted in science. Religions on the other hand don't care to show you proof (which is what the real "Proof" debate is really about, not only about god). Instead it goes like this: "unproved argument 1 leads to ----> unproved argument number 2, leads to ---> ...etc."

Of course: You can explain christianity by using this method but that's no surprise - I could explain quite everything with this method. And I can literally abuse it in quite every way, too. The thing is: Each religion uses this way to explain its god but each one claims it's the only true religion. It's like children having an argument. "No, it's your fault!" "No, it's yours!"

The fact that a lot of people get defensive and angry after an atheist explains those things to them just shows that what I just said sounds extremely reasonable. People get defensive because they don't want their world to get shattered, that's why. And let me tell you: A lot of people just don't want to talk about this. They think the sheer fact that I just pointed out some flaws of religion shows that I want them to become atheists. That's the funniest thing actually. I don't care if someone is an atheist as long as he respects other people's believes and ways to live. I merely point out some facts I, as a person, would like to see changing. Then there's no problem for me to accept religion in every form. I highly respect buddhism because it teaches people to live their life in a way that makes them happy and teaches them to respect other people's believe.

Now to come to my last point: When pointing out that I, as an outsiders, think there are heavy flaws with most religions what do people tell me? They tell me: "Why do you think you can tell us what's wrong with our religion? You're not even part of it, you can't even know!" ...which is completely false. Could Obama talk about such a big change if he was in the same party as Bush? Could society move forward without people from the outside saying "hey guys uhm... watching you from the outside, what you do looks rather silly"? Could science make these huge steps forward without other people watching it from a different perspective? Could America have been founded on values such as freedom and equality if the settlers hadn't seen the situation in europe from a different perspective? That's what I ask. Religion seems to work like the opposite of quite everything else in this world.

To all people reading this: This was just a post with some of my thoughts in it. Please believe me that each point in this post is well thought out and in case you want to present me some of the typical counter arguments I probably won't answer as I've heard them countless of times. I didn't even want to post in this thread originally because I've had this discussion over and over again and was getting frustrated just by reading the topic and some of the arguments people gave for their point of view. I'm quite happy there are still people like That Guy who argue from a religious point of view without getting defensive the second someone with a different opinion enters a discussion. I have no problem respecting such people and I merely wanted to point out my opinion.

My beef with religion is the way it is so often used to stand in the way of social and scientific progress.

Personal religion therefore, I have almost no problem with. Its usually the large organised and conservative religious groups that irk me, like the Catholic church with its beliefs on homosexuality and abortion (for example that poor nine year old girl that conceived twins from being raped and the church excommunicated her mother and doctors for aborting them =/) or half of the backwards and twisted beliefs of conservative Islam (for a culture that was so far ahead of the west a thousand years ago, how can they be so far behind now?).

I honestly believe that in modern civilisation organized religion causes more problems than it solves, it was necessary in the past as a societal glue and a control mechanism however the need for such a thing is long past and human society will hopefully (and logically should) evolve out of it.

Love religion, especially mine. Just dislike the people that 'practice' it by totally violating the religion, and using it as a pretext to do all sorts of things. 'I'm fine by doing this, I'll just repent at church on Sunday' and what not. Lousy people.

I agree with you that religion is the best way to motivate people. That's why they use it ;)

Not sure there would be less death without it however. As an Atheist, I feel the ability to kill and die for a religion is more a product of humanity, and not religion. If religion never existed, man would be just as capable of killing, and we would have had just as many wars.

it would have just been over race, government types, hair color, land, you name it. Just about anything can replace god when it comes to needing a reason for man to fight.

As for despising Nationalism, not sure what you mean there. Definition:

"As an ideology, nationalism holds that 'the people' in the doctrine of popular sovereignty is the nation".

So the US is an example of Nationalism. We have never had, nor will ever have, a holy war. We do however kill just as many people as the next country, we just do it to "Protect and spread out way of life", not our god. So it's a good example of how religion isn't really needed to make a great killing machine, and how nationalism is the best way to keep religion out of the equation.

Same except that I wouldn't have been able to say it as well.

I'm quite sure my english was horrible in that post but oh well...

I dislike organized religion intensely. However, I have few issues with those that practice religion- most of my friends are Christians. The only thing I dislike about some of the teachings is the endless drive to convert new members. It irritates me when people try to bring me back into the fold. One great thing though, about religion is it teaches people right from wrong- most of the values emphasized are very good. It's the conservative ideas that are not part of holy texts that really make my blood boil.

I personally simply believe in a higher power- just one that is very hands-off.

And I agree, nationalism is bull.

@ Louie:

Giant Wall of Text = Fail.

I'm not gonna quote it because it would pretty much take up a whole page.

I went ahead and read it anyways and I agree with you that stuff the church did in the past is pretty horrible and did little to really benefit people at all. that's why I like what Mafoo said in that he realized a lot of the hypocrisy in churches today in that they don't actually follow the texts anymore. A church that prays for your dead relatives and charges you to put him into heaven pretty much flies in the face of Jesus' "you received free, you give free" principle.

But I digress, its besides the point. Anyways, I am not defending any of those actions in the name of religion and in fact i condemn them just as you do.

What fascinates me is how many, MANY of you guys hold science in such a high regard; nay, as pretty much the highest standard there is.

But from what I'm reading, you're trying to prove things that are outside the narrow scope of science.

here is a statement, and i am going to bold this to make it stand out. t

Science, in its purist form, is based on empiricism and experimentation; and by extension, repeatability and predictability of the results of such experimentation.

If we put science under that definition, it turns out that there is a lot of things that we totally aren't sure about. I mean, how can we prove that Alexander the Great ever existed? There is no "scientific" way of explaining him since there's no "experiment" or "test" that we can perform and repeat. But that's fine; we have enough evidence of his adventures and accounts from Herodotus (I think) and such that we are confident enough that he existed. Its evidence, yes, but not scientific evidence since it wasn't experimented on in any way.

Science also does not do much in the way of family life or morality, either. I'm not sure what that kind of stuff falls under, but its not from experimenting or whatnot.

Don't get me wrong; I love science and technology and the benefits that has brought to mankind. But I also understand its scope and also that it doesn't explain everything in the universe.