To respond to the original question, for me its always an ongoing process to try and better understand religion and society, in general. Dunno if its even worth the time and effort(?) but I guess Id rather be screwing others over money and position for a living if I wouldnt think so
I think labels are divisive, so I too am not very comfortable calling myself an atheist, as for when you label yourself into a group, then oddly enough, all of a sudden youre somehow responsible for the actions of others, the actions of strangers. Case in point, a religious affiliation such as Muslims, and the immediate generalizations and stereotyping it calls upon.
Religions feed on very basic and unalienable principles ingrained in humanity, such as the longing of most individuals to try and belong (or be herded) into groups, the avoidance of darkness and death (by cognitive animals, aware of their own mortality), and the logical impossibility and fallacy of trying to prove -or disprove- the existence of life after death. Come to think about it, the last 2 are really the same thing; man is self-aware of its frailties and instinctively wishes to avoid pain and death, and in doing so, knowingly deludes himself into agreeing to go against his own logic and ability to follow reason. What people refer to as god is ultimately their own (perfectly natural) self-preservation, selfish instinct, which is more evolved in man than in other animals. In the mind of believers, god is a place, or a being, or an order, anything that helps them nurture the illusion that life has some intrinsic purpose -other than what they can give it-, and that once they die, they wont really die. That very primal fear is the ultimate fuel of religions, and enables vile and opportunistic men to promise you all sorts of heaven later.. to control you NOW.
As for an order to human life, I vaguely remember (either watching a Discovery show a couple of months ago or reading about) scientists recently explaining it through a series of quantum theory (and even relativistic I think) principles; that which we humans perceive as order, fate or random and cannot be explained solely by variables like routine, controlled environment, individual personalities, etc.
I think selfishness and ignorance are the natural states of the individual; it requires a conscious effort from society to teach individuals on the values and practicalities inherent in civility, respect for one another, the moral principle (sequestered by religion, like so many other moral principles) of not doing to others what you wouldnt want others to do to you, etc. A.C Clarke said it best: ''One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all''.
The ultimate goal in the advancement of any societys moral values should be headed towards the pursuit of Freedom. Amongst many others, Freedom from priests, kings, presidents, governments and any other human figures -or institutions- who claim they have the right to rule you. I think
Freedom is the truly opposite of enslavement and ownership, of man by man that is.
Religion and other forms of human control have a significant role in much of the world's problems, but I think more than those necessarily being just the cause, religion/worship is the key enabling element by which people are able to take a break from morality and turn their back on reasoning and common sense, which in turn facilitates the exertion of all kinds of violence, directly or indirectly. As Pascal said, Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.
Religion is ultimately about control. Divide and conquer. Make the pawns fight one another over somewhat irrelevant technicalities, while those arisen into position get to retain -and grow- wealth and power, by preying on human sentiments and ignorance. Forget imagined ghosts floating around layers in the atmosphere, or the degrading chemical connections in the brain of a recently deceased person trans-mutating somehow into another biological entity, or whatever other wishful myth. Religion (or politics, if you want) is man trying to rule over their fellow man, struggling to exert control and power over one another.
However I think religion (whether one likes it or not) is also a logical and obvious development in the history of humanity: from early worshiping of nature, to when human figures of authority threw their fellow man into volcanoes out of fear and ignorance, to when women got burned at the stake, etc. My guess is the only time and point at which science could ultimately truly replace religion (or at least overshadow it satisfactory enough) will minimally be so as to when the technology is reached to achieve a digital/bio-mechanical/biological form of immortality, but more so than keeping a sentient being existing (which by then could even be a philosophical debate), it would also have to encompass the ability to physically reach mastery of things such as the expansion and control of the entire universe (either as to refrain it from the point where each star will have distanced itself far apart from each other enough so that any form of advanced civilization is considered to be impossible, or say, also a capacity to avoid the proposed possibility of its implosion, or regression to a big bang state). For all intents and purposes, we all will be long, LONG gone before any of that remotely begins to happen, so I can relate to not seeing any use in obsessing about it, too (although I find quite interesting to try and understand the subject).
Even though scientists foretell in just a few generations mankind could reach digital immortality and exponential leaps in longevity, the lack of control over natures phenomena -minimal as it might become-, will always remain an argument for those who long to believe.
Religion and science are really
diametrically opposed, in that religion conceives an idea and then tries to make it true by all means necessary -including violence and force-, whereas science makes a discovery and then immediately sets to disprove it, just to make sure its as correct as possible, before everyone makes idiots of themselves. Science is a journey of discovery, with no end.
I largely agree with Jind on his posts, really excellent ones, btw
I too think it's very important to make emphasis on the value of having a civil discussion and ultimately try and respect one another; that is, if you REALLY want to think of yourself as a person opposed to religions (or at least, to the many negative aspects of it). Tempting as might be, it is rather religious behavior to want to ridicule and mock others, use insults, symbols, provocations and make a conscious and exhaustive effort to try and make others feel excluded if they don't share the ideas you have; or in the case of religion, the ideas that in turn have been imposed onto you by means of fear and deception. If you truly want to be the opposite of religion, then you use common sense, not violence towards those who think differently than you. The true enemies of religion are common sense and reason, and in terms of society, respect for one another.
That said, you can produce discussion by either appealing to reason, or by violence. Airplanes being crashed onto skyscrapers surely get the talk going for example; perhaps more so than other means. Or say, firing back by ridiculing other peoples beliefs with provocative caricatures. The violent way is practical, but it isnt moral. It is ultimately religious.
