Religion: is it for the good of mankind or not?

[GloatingSwine]

Bull.
Using evolution as a moral guide would have the terminal, old, frail, diseased, and handicapped people killed since they aren't offering anything to the propagation and advancement of the species, and thus are merely a 'drain'.
Hitler did similar killings for similar reasons.

If you think you're doing something for "the advancement of the species" you've failed to understand evolution. Evolution doesn't care about "advancement", it's a nonconcept. You're buying in to a false image of evolution which has been used as a justification for eugenics.

Science isn't a moral device. Science is amoral, and therefore not in any position to be a moral framework. Science isn't a 'worldview'. It's an attempt at a better understanding of the world around us through the observation and recording of the observable and recordable elements of said world.

Except the same kind of rational enquiry used in science can be applied to morality, and doing so has produced things like utilitarian ethics.

Your theophobia, and anyone else's, is just as detrimental to the stability of social interactions between opposing worldviews as the fundamentalist theists.
Short version? You're a hypocrite.

The trouble with this is that some of the opposing worldviews cause objective harm. Either in the sensationalist manner of mass genocides, or in the small grinding day to day sense of oppression of one sex, defrauding the vulnerable, needless genital mutilation of boys and girls, assisting the spread of deadly diseases by denouncing the one thing surest to prevent infection, and on and on.

A tu quoque does not work here. One side is objectively more harmful than the other.

 

[Xorghul]

I have very strong opinions about religion. Im not a religious person, never was, never will be but I believe that one day religion will get us all killed. Already countless people have been slain because of their so called religion. What are your opinions?

I more or less completely agree with you.

 

[Baby Tea]

Your theophobia, and anyone else's, is just as detrimental to the stability of social interactions between opposing worldviews as the fundamentalist theists.
Short version? You're a hypocrite.

The trouble with this is that some of the opposing worldviews cause objective harm. Either in the sensationalist manner of mass genocides, or in the small grinding day to day sense of oppression of one sex, defrauding the vulnerable, needless genital mutilation of boys and girls, assisting the spread of deadly diseases by denouncing the one thing surest to prevent infection, and on and on.

A tu quoque does not work here. One side is objectively more harmful than the other.

And yet you somehow think that the staunch opposition to a group of people who number in the billions for the actions of the minority will make it all go away? How naive are you?

Your ignorant hatred will only make you look like a bigot in the eyes of those who recognize that not everyone who adheres to a religious worldview is a mass murdering, oppressive gender-role supporting, defrauding, mutilating, disease spreading fundamentalist. I've grown up in the church and never met anyone like that!

And your theophobia will only strengthen those extremist's resolve, and make them martyrs for the cause you're fighting against. Congratulations! You've successfully made another generation of extreme fundamentalists by being a prime example of why they should continue to 'fight the fight'.

Way to go.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Spoiler: Boxed for space

nor do we threaten to kill anyone who disagrees with us.

Wrong. Religious persecutions by atheist governments such as the former Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, Albania, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, and the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea.

Sorry for all the snipping and cutting out, but I just wanted to comment on a couple of points. The 'Argument from Stalin' first: Yes, the CCCP killed a lot of people, as did Pol Pot and many others, in this case, primarily communistic countries. No one should argue against that. However it's relevant to consider why they killed people. People weren't killed in the name of atheism. They were killed because the system found it necessary for whatever reason. It's important to keep that in mind. The murders committed in the CCCP was not atheistically motivated. They were motivated by a political ideology gone insane.
I guess I should just be glad that you didn't mention Hitler as well. Even if that would have allowed me to make the 'Argument from Facial Hair'.

Ahhh but that's where you are wrong. They never killed everyone for atheism no, but they did kill people merely for being religious, in the name of atheism. But I am not actually blaming atheism. The problem is fundamentalist extremism, and my point is it can be applied to atheism as well as religion, or anything else for that matter. Look at some of the fundamentalist bigoted atheists in this very thread calling for an end to religion, just because they themselves don't like it. I have no doubt at all that if they became leaders of a country, religious people who refused to renounce their religion would suffer dearly for it.

Darwinist:-

"It's time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks! [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22722981-663,00.html]". He later wandered around a school shooting kids before turning the gun on himself.

I think I've said it before but that guy has no idea how evolution by natural selection works. He's just crazy/insane.

Does this not equally apply to religious suicide bombers? People who don't really get religion, take it to extremes, but at the end of the day are just crazy/insane? Hell - this could even apply to video games. People have undoubtedly died/been killed in the name of video games. Look at the "Dying for a Wii" crap for a starters. Are all us gamers here going to all fail to urinate and die anytime soon?

Well, about the communist country thing, I guess it depends on how you look at it. As I'm more interested in the political side of it I tend to focus on that. But I see your point, though I think laying it on the door of atheist are a bit too strong. I'll rather blame it on the communists. And just to show my potential bias, I'm a communist/marxist as well as an atheist. So for me it hurt no matter where the blame goes. I just think it's political rather than religious (or lack thereof).
And you make a very good point about people on this thread. Again, I'll lay out my bias: In my dream world there is no religion, as I oppose it for many reasons. But it would not be religion free because people have to renounce god, but rather because they don't need him. You can't force away religion (or anything else for that matter), but I think I'm allowed to dream of a godless world, as long as I don't actually force it on anyone.

And you also are right about the second point. Fanaticism borders on the insane I think. That may not be exactly what you wrote, but it's close. I didn't mean to argue against your first point. I just wanted to say that the poor kid had gotten it all wrong. Sadly any "system of thought" can be used to justify horrible things by someone willing to make the metal leaps. I guess one of my main gripes with religion is that those leaps are in the manual, so to speak, and are required at entry level. It makes it very dangerous, and in my mind undesirable.

 

[Fightgarr]

Hey great. Another one of these. Because clearly we haven't had the same fucking people 12 fucking times before debating the same fucking subject every fucking time this thread is created. Can we cut the bullshit and agree to disagree. I'm sorry, I feel for the people who are just defending themselves but come the fuck on we've have 12 of these already, you defended yourself then just let the antitheists have a big wank fest so they can shut the fuck up for a while.

Hey you know what's harmful? Arguing like petty little kids on the school yard like someone stole your goddamn pokemon cards. What the fuck?
Props to Baby Tea for coming here every time and having legitimate shit to say, you don't have to keep doing that. Props to cuddly tomato for refuting antitheism.

 

[pirateninj4]

Religion was created by man...'nuff said.

 

[Baby Tea]

Hey great. Another one of these. Because clearly we haven't had the same fucking people 12 fucking times before debating the same fucking subject every fucking time this thread is created. Can we cut the bullshit and agree to disagree. I'm sorry, I feel for the people who are just defending themselves but come the fuck on we've have 12 of these already, you defended yourself then just let the antitheists have a big wank fest so they can shut the fuck up for a while.

Hey you know what's harmful? Arguing like petty little kids on the school yard like someone stole your goddamn pokemon cards. What the fuck?

Man, I'm totally with you.
I've had enough of these anti-theist threads. I just find it hard to let them go through pages of ignorant bullshit. It's like if someone made a thread about how the sky is made of M&Ms, and a bunch of people were posting how 'Oh yeah! The sky is TOTALLY made of M&Ms!' over and over, patting each other on the back for all saying the sky was made of M&Ms.

Then you've just gotta come in and say 'guys, you've got this wrong. The sky isn't made of M&Ms'. It's just like that, ridiculousness and all.

But you're right! I'd rather these just end. Even a forum-wide rule that banned threads like this, since it's obvious no-one can have just a normal freaking conversation about the subject. Thanks for the props too, man. Though I think Cuddly Tomato speaks with more eloquence then I do.

 

[GloatingSwine]

And yet you somehow think that the staunch opposition to a group of people who number in the billions for the actions of the minority will make it all go away? How naive are you?

Yet the actions of the minority occur with the tacit support of the majority.

Take, for instance, the abuse scandals which faced Catholic priests. Certainly, it was a minority of priests actually committing sexual abuse of children, but the telling thing is the response to it of the institution of the church. The church did not render these priests to secular authority, it moved them to new parishes, covered their trails of abuse to shield them from secular authority.

And when it came out the majority, the ordinary congregations, did what? Nothing. No groundswell of outrage and massive reform of an obviously corrupt system. The same people who hid that abuse are still there, and more powerful than ever. And now, after a relatively progressive Pope, we now have Darth Pontiff, who consigns millions to an early death of AIDS with the righteous conviction of his faith and the authority that he knows his position carries.

The ordinary religious people who support the institutions of religion are complicit.

Your ignorant hatred will only make you look like a bigot in the eyes of those who recognize that not everyone who adheres to a religious worldview is a mass murdering, oppressive gender-role supporting, defrauding, mutilating, disease spreading fundamentalist. I've grown up in the church and never met anyone like that!

Once again though, these are objective harms, and they cannot be allowed to go uncriticised.

And your theophobia will only strengthen those extremist's resolve, and make them martyrs for the cause you're fighting against. Congratulations! You've successfully made another generation of extreme fundamentalists by being a prime example of why they should continue to 'fight the fight'.

Way to go.

However, it raises consciousness in the people who haven't already made up their minds. Religious radicalisation is happening anyway. Even in places which appear to be relatively progressive, like California, ordinary people, the non fundamentalist people you seem to be saying do not adhere to a poisonous worldview, decided that some five percent of their population are second class citizens who should be denied the legal right to marry.

It's not grand scale oppression, it's millions of people, many of them possibly quite personable and charitable in many ways, acting in good religious conscience who deny equality to their fellow man. (As you may have twigged, I'm talking about Proposition 8, a measure which was primarily instigated and supported by the Mormon church).

It does objective harm in many more ways than the alternative. It is entirely right to criticise that in strident terms.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

And you also are right about the second point. Fanaticism borders on the insane I think. That may not be exactly what you wrote, but it's close.

It is exactly what I wrote, I just wasn't very clear. Look at this very forum... we have PC fanboys, PS3 fanboys, Xbox fanboys, screaming obsenities at each other on an almost minutely basis. Ok, they never resort to physical blows, but I ascribe this to them being internet geeks of poor physical prowess rather than any lack of fervor on their part. Look at football hooliganism in the UK in the past few decades, and the violence that was a regular feature at football matches. Look at what happened to poor Monica Seles. An obsessed Steffi Graff fan stabbed her in the back [http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/30/newsid_2499000/2499161.stm]. Are we to blame consoles, football, or tennis for this stuff?

If do so we fail on two points. Firstly, we let the sociopathic idiots off the hook. We don't hold them accountable for their behaviour, and instead blame something else outside of their control. Secondly, we imply that all the gamers, football fans, and tennis fans are all on the edge of arguing retardedly, fighting, stabbing someone, which would be pretty bigoted and insulting.

The parallel here is clear. The fact is that while there are undoubtedly people using religion as an excuse for violence, there are literally billions of people who are religious and have no violent tendancies at all. How, in the face of that, can we credibly blame religion? And if we do aren't we implying that all of those people are in some way dangerously deranged?

The fact is the rampant anti-theism in this thread and others like is very reminiscient me of the anti-gaming lobby and their claims that games lead to violence and childhood delinquency. In either case it needs to be put very firmly in its place.

NOTE: Not aimed at you gunslinger... If people want to talk about religious content, religions place in society, religious history, keeping religion out of schools and the justice system then that is all well and good. But merely attacking religion as a whole is pointless and provably hypocritical, as well as extremely bigoted and stupid.

 

[Spyre2000]

Religion was created by man...'nuff said.

So was beer. Doesn't me it's not a good thing.

As for the actual Religious debate Atheist tend to hold science up as their "alter". Since science is purely based in logic they think it is the better job for determining behavior. There is a saying though that I like which I think best explains the problem with their approach and that is "Logic can be used to justify anything, That's it's power and it's flaw."

You could easily make a clear and logical case for we should start exterminating people to reduce global population which is putting a strain on the Earth. And if someone objects well the question is why? If there is no higher moral authority (aka Some Deity) then morality is entirely of our own choosing. Thus there is really no right or wrong but instead only that which we deem undesirable. Thus mass exterminations to save the planet is a good thing because saving the plant is a desirable outcome.

 

[TheEvilDuck]

It's no ones place to say if religion is "right or wrong."

Bravo. I agree. I would also like to say that studies have shown that prayer and religion have been known to boost people's moods, outlooks on life, and have saved people from suicides and helped them through depression. Religion has been shown to make people happy.

That doesn't mean I agree with everything done in the name of religion. I don't agree with killing or violence in the name of God or the prevention of the scientific process. Also I don't agree with the christian-ing of Native American schools (and those of other non-Christian cultures) where the only option is either no school or Catholic school where students are taught that their ancestors were wrong. But, I feel that that is a small piece of the real religious world.

I think everyone should be free to believe what they want. Hence freedom of religion in the US constitution. It should stay as such. No one should force their religion or their religious views (or lack thereof) on anyone.

Although not the most dangerous of religious extremists the extremest non-theists are the most annoying, get off your fucking high horse and stop trying to piss off the religious with crappy demotivational posters and snide remarks. Seriously! It wouldn't bother me so much if instead of, say, bitching and stating that religion is dangerous you actually did something to help relief in places where people are being hurt or are in need. Religions do that.

 

[Slash Dementia]

There are things that would start wars or fights anyway. Greed is one of them. Some religions make people feel superior than anyone else (like 50% of my family), some make them humble and they all have different effects. I'm not saying that people wouldn't be good without them, I just think that religion or not, there would be groups of people that band together, be it for racism or anything else.
As a Catholic, I say, let people believe what they want, it's their choice. Whether it's right or wrong--in my eyes or in the eyes of others--it most likely won't change the fact that it's already there.
Another thing, people tend to generalize that all Christians are scared of "going to Hell" or "saving their souls" and all that, but I for one, I don't care. I am who I am and I will be who ever I want to be, if there is a Heaven or Hell, I don't know and I don't care, I do stuff for myself, but I believe in God nonetheless.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Look at what happened to poor Monica Seles. An obsessed Steffi Graff fan stabbed her in the back [http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/30/newsid_2499000/2499161.stm]. Are we to blame consoles, football, or tennis for this stuff?

So, did this obsessed fan learn about the divinity of Steffi at the madrassa, and was his fanaticism fuelled, deliberately, with the intent of creating a weapon with which to strike at the demon Seles?

Oh wait, you were making an invalid comparison to feed your golden mean fallacy.

If do so we fail on two points. Firstly, we let the sociopathic idiots off the hook. We don't hold them accountable for their behaviour, and instead blame something else outside of their control. Secondly, we imply that all the gamers, football fans, and tennis fans are all on the edge of arguing retardedly, fighting, stabbing someone, which would be pretty bigoted and insulting.

The parallel here is clear. The fact is that while there are undoubtedly people using religion as an excuse for violence, there are literally billions of people who are religious and have no violent tendancies at all. How, in the face of that, can we credibly blame religion? And if we do aren't we implying that all of those people are in some way dangerously deranged?

The parallel is also clearly incorrect. People are not using religion as an excuse for violence, they are using it specifically as a tool to create violence, and it is a self feeding tool, because it is also the reason for the violence.

The fact is the rampant anti-theism in this thread and others like is very reminiscient me of the anti-gaming lobby and their claims that games lead to violence and childhood delinquency. In either case it needs to be put very firmly in its place.

Except the anti-gaming lobby has yet to show any objective evidence for it's claims, but it's certainly objective truth that religious faith flew jet airliners into buildings seven and a half years ago, faith specifically moulded to do so.

Once again, the golden mean shows it's true name, the mindless middle.

 

[Baby Tea]

Once again though, these are objective harms, and they cannot be allowed to go uncriticised.

I just snipped to this, but I read the whole thing (No sense in creating a huge quote board).

You know what? I don't disagree.
In fact I TOTALLY agree.

But you're not, or shouldn't be, raging at the core worldview of these faiths. You should be raging at the institutions who give traditionalism and legalism theological weight, when both have none, and deserve none.

The priest situation? I totally agree! Those men did terrible things! They should have been tried and convicted and got the help they needed for their obvious problems. The Catholic Church's cover up was the wrong thing to do.

But nothing of that situation has anything to do with the core, soteriological theology of that faith.

The Prop 8 situation? Yeah, I also think that was stupid. Why the church makes a big deal out of this, I have no idea. Totally silly, in my opinion, and I'm very much a Christian.

But, again, this has nothing to do with the core, soteriological theology of my faith.

And the part I quoted? That injustice, genocides, oppressive gender roles, defrauding, mutilating, and such should be criticized and stopped? Absolutely. I'll wave that banner 'till my arms fall off.

Because none of those traditions and perspectives and actions have anything to do with the soteriological theology of my faith. I'm actually writing an essay for my pastor about the Church's unhealthy focus on non-soterilogical traditions and practices, and how the church is over-all missing the point of Christ's message. (But, really, that's another thread) I bring it up, though, to show you that the idea of religion is perfect...until you add men into it. If anything, it's people you should be mad at, not the weapon they use against each other.

 

[pirateninj4]

Religion was created by man...'nuff said.

So was beer. Doesn't me it's not a good thing.

As for the actual Religious debate Atheist tend to hold science up as their "alter". Since science is purely based in logic they think it is the better job for determining behavior. There is a saying though that I like which I think best explains the problem with their approach and that is "Logic can be used to justify anything, That's it's power and it's flaw."

You could easily make a clear and logical case for we should start exterminating people to reduce global population which is putting a strain on the Earth. And if someone objects well the question is why? If there is no higher moral authority (aka Some Deity) then morality is entirely of our own choosing. Thus there is really no right or wrong but instead only that which we deem undesirable. Thus mass exterminations to save the planet is a good thing because saving the plant is a desirable outcome.

Herm...what I was trying to state in a short way was that there is no way that a man or people at all could create something to define "God" or the "Creator of the Universe". Religion is a control tool created to make people believe and follow a certain set of guidelines. Before you go jumping on in with "They're good guidelines", people came up with them, not God. All the rules imposed by religion, all the rituals and nuances, were created by people. Which makes it flawed because people came up with these rules without religion for the basic laws of most societies around the world.

 

[GloatingSwine]

But you're not, or shouldn't be, raging at the core worldview of these faiths. You should be raging at the institutions who give traditionalism and legalism theological weight, when both have none, and deserve none.

It's not the worldview of these faiths that I'm raging at. It's the worldview of faith. And this quote illustrates what I'm talking about.

I bring it up, though, to show you that the idea of religion is perfect

To me, the idea of religion is so fundamentally and irreparably flawed as to be useless. The fundamental point of religion is that it requires faith in at least one key concept, and that key concept can never be up for question. As soon as you do that there will come a time when you will be confronted with something which cannot be reconciled with that sacred point of faith, and you will be forced to either choose between the two or to recuse yourself from the question.

Most people don't take the honourable choice, they insist that their faith has the answer, and that answer cannot be wrong.

And before you try and claim that science does the same, no, it does not. Science does not claim to have the answer, only a way to find answers honestly and without preconceptions.

You can't do that with faith, because it must always burden your epistemiology with the requirement to include your article of faith.

 

[Baby Tea]

To me, the idea of religion is so fundamentally and irreparably flawed as to be useless. The fundamental point of religion is that it requires faith in at least one key concept, and that key concept can never be up for question.

While it certainly requires a faith, I wouldn't say said faith is never allowed to be questioned. Doubt, questions, curiosity...these things are within everyone, religious or not. Every religious person I know has questioned, doubted, probed and explored. I didn't arrive at my current worldview because I thought it was nice ('shopping for religion' always seems like a pointless endeavor). I came to the faith I have now because, based on everything I've seen, sought after, questioned, answered, read, heard, saw, understood, didn't understand, and had explained to me...this makes the absolute most sense.

You, quite obviously, might find that a bit hard to swallow. But your position has me equally baffled! I couldn't even imagine myself being the same way. I couldn't not be Christian if I tried! And then you offer this:

As soon as you do that there will come a time when you will be confronted with something which cannot be reconciled with that sacred point of faith, and you will be forced to either choose between the two or to recuse yourself from the question.

Well I've never encountered such a question or situation. I've met so many anti-theists like you who are proud and bold and hypocritically say that they have the answer. They'd hit me with hard, good, and sometimes stupid questions about my faith and worldview. Some of them required serious thinking and research, it's true. But none of them were irreconcilable.

Look man, we're really not getting anywhere. I've heard all these tired arguments before and nothing here is new. We can parrot the same crap over and over at each other again and again, but your mind is made up, as is mine. I don't hate you, or think you're some 'blind heathen' or some crap. I actually think you're a pretty smart guy, even if a bit unnecessarily angry (it seems). But, if God has given me the right to believe, that means He's given you the right to not believe. I'm not going to try to shove my worldview down your throat, and that means I'm not going to stand for the same from you.

So, with that, I'm done. These angry religious threads only divide the forum community, much like the rest of the world. Too bad everyone can't just get along.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I came to the faith I have now because, based on everything I've seen, sought after, questioned, answered, read, heard, saw, understood, didn't understand, and had explained to me...this makes the absolute most sense.

You, quite obviously, might find that a bit hard to swallow. But your position has me equally baffled! I couldn't even imagine myself being the same way. I couldn't not be Christian if I tried! And then you offer this:

I would suggest that it happened the other way around. Your faith in the Christian god came first, and you have rationalised everything you have seen to fit that faith.

Well I've never encountered such a question or situation. I've met so many anti-theists like you who are proud and bold and hypocritically say that they have the answer. They'd hit me with hard, good, and sometimes stupid questions about my faith and worldview. Some of them required serious thinking and research, it's true. But none of them were irreconcilable.

There's the thing though. You have had to reconcile things you have learned with your faith, but never taken the final step of moving outside of your faith.

For example, the origins of the universe. Even if you accept the current scientific consensus of the "big bang", you can reconcile that with your faith by saying "well God started it". But God is not required in that theory. Take, for example the brane cosmology, it not only explains why the universe of energy and matter came to exist, but also other interesting things like why gravity is so much weaker than the other fundamental forces. If that turns out to be well supported by experiment (it's the sort of thing LHC will investigate), you will likely simply move God one step back. But you'll never seriously consider that he simply isn't involved, or there, at all.

 

[Cliff_m85]

- People were upset liberals killed needlessly, so they invented Marxism.
- Marxists killed needlessly.

Marxism as it is was an ideal type that was never fully realized. The original idea of Marxism in every incarnation was modified by some one else in power. Its more accurate to refer to Russia's Communism as "Leninism" and Cuba as "Castroism", as they are modifications of the original works of Marx.

Religion had its place in Society, as it still does today. In the past, it acted as, what was mentioned before, a moral compass. It also served to maintain a measure of stability during the Medieval age. (Divine Right of Kings). Still, as iterated before, it also provides hope for countless others... A thought of "No matter how bad things get, there is always something better at the end of the line." It has its uses socially. Yeah, some bad stuff was done in the name of Religion (Crusades, Jihad), but its too easy to focus on the negative. Religion has had positive benefits for humanity as a whole, as well as detriments. (one could argue these wars are an effective means of population control. Will the world ever get overpopulated? We'd kill half the world off before that happens, I'd think)

Creationism and Evolution has been chucked around on here, as is inevitable in any religious discussion. They are both seen as opposites, and they can easily be considered as such. But is Creationism right? Or is Evolution? I'd like to point out the prefix "THEORY of Evolution"
Now lets look at the definition, specifically the last two listed...
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Think of "THEORY" every time you see the word "Evolution". It is really science's best guess to explain what is happening, using observations. Does that mean its right? No. For example, people used to look at the sky and think Earth was the center of the universe. Is it really?
Now look at Creationism. It should have that "THEORY" prefix as well. Why? Look at the definition above. The existence of evidence to it or against it is debatable. The same goes for evolution. People treat it as fact, its not. Its merely Science's best guess.
The point? Both have their merits. Both Science and Religion have had, do, and will continue to have benefits for our civilization... as well as drawbacks.
There can be no darkness, without light.

You gave the definition for a theory, but not a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a collection of scientific LAWS.

 

[Cliff_m85]

No one can say Religion is right or wrong. It's too easy to argue each point. You can say it's right because it instills morals into a person and encourages them to do good things. But you can also be bad, as you said, because it causes wars and even arguments between friends. It's too broad of a question to have a definite answer.

Name one good thing that a religious person can do that an Atheist cannot.

Now name one bad thing that a religious person can do that an Atheist cannot.

I don't think that is a fair question at all. In the current cultural climate, religious values are still regarded highly. A person who is not religious still will conform to those social norms just because that is what everyone expects of everyone. If you took religion out of our ancestry, where would our culture be? I would HOPE that it would be in the same place, but if it never became a social norm to NOT kill people for pissing you off, then what would atheists be doing? Probably killing people that piss them off.

It does make sense that you personally don't need religion to have good morals, but I think society does. As everyone has said, people like killing people, and religion has given people over the centuries a goal to reach for a better world. So often, they lose sight of that goal. Just because it is the year 2000 doesn't mean that people suddenly got smarter, stronger, faster. Humanity needed to develop over time, and now that religion is starting to look obsolete, it's really easy to say "who needs religion to be good?"

I feel like I had more of a complete thought when writing my post and I lost it. Hm. I'll add more if anything comes to mind.

If you honestly read the religious texts such as the Bible or Torah or Quran or whatnot you'd find that there are many messages that go against 'not killing people', infact it gives rules on how and who to kill.