I had an in-depth conversation with one of my friends one day out of boredom on the topic of religion. It first stemmed from my dislike for American History and the horrible treatments Americans opposed against "differents" and "savage" individuals. I blatantly discussed that history on America's part is bad, but all areas of the globe aren't innocent either. So I had to withdraw from my statement and take another approach on our conversation. We threw a couple responses between one another and then it ultimately escalated into something that made me quiet and go "Huh? Never thought about it before, but that's true." He said, "I believe the biggest reason wars take place is due to religion. Especially Christianity." (He's Hindu) That very line brought an entire new topic within itself. Not the whole Christianity thing but just religion itself. I realized that religion has had the biggest impact within the world more than anything. Religion vs. Politics, religion vs. science, religion vs. the future, religion vs. the present, basically religion vs. the World. Everything cycled around powerful deities, God, a higher being and all that jazz. The beliefs circling around gods/God/deities/higher beings, controlling what you do, your present self, the ultimate future and individuals all around you was all I began to think about.

Religion takes the mindset of all and conditions it into an almost black and white image. Do this and it's a sin, be this way you'll go to heaven, respect those around you, etc. I may not know in full detail of other religions, but in my eyes religion is a medium to enforce bodies and groups of individuals into one common thinking. Religion can claim to provide peace and "civilized" means against savages, but it's quite contradictory of itself. I know that religion shouldn't be force upon anyone, but it's all that takes place in the world. We should learn to accept each other for our differences, but religion is like this huge sword that refuses to allow such a thing. I know with Christianity there are many things the religion deems unholy. For example, I have a cartilage ear piercing. This piercing is instantly horrible and I became a demon child for it. I do not smoke, do drugs, go to school, stay home, keep up my grades, stay out of trouble, ultimately be a perfect goodie-two-shoes and follow all my parents and school rules. But. By this simple fashion choice, I'm instantly deemed unholy and corrupted. This instant prejudice is unfair and is only brought into question because of my religion. That is the power of such belief. The power to judge and question individuals without certain evidence of "evil" within them. There's a restraining power religion has

My point is, religion has great power that can destroy civilizations, morals, minds, heart, and overall different ideals. Science can say the world was created due to the Big Bang Theory while with Christianity, it will discuss that God created the world and everything around it. Their internal cycling with each other will never cease. Religion will always impose some sort of dominance or intimation over things around it.

I know Antagonist always has really in-depth analyses with various topics. What do you all think exactly about my sudden accusation? Am I wrong? Right? Or do you have an entirely different approach to my views?

It's really unfortunate that religion and science have to be in conflict in the first place. Science should deal strictly with the physical, and religion should deal strictly with the metaphysical. If they come into conflict, that means one of them has overstepped its bounds.

But yes, throughout history, religion has been the cause of a lot of injustice. I don't have a problem with religion so long as it's used in a positive way, and it's clear that all too often that's not the case.

Thing is, I believe the conflict will never be resolved. Religion has ideas that scientists believe would never be "rational" to make sense and scientifically proven. And with these boundaries, do you truly believe in them? I feel like the once separate two topic are actually flowing within each other more than ever. I feel the once metaphysical area religion once took place in is now trying to branch into the strict physical aspect ideals that science usually harbored. The same feeling is vice versa with science.

I don't have a problem either, it's just that I always happen to see religion in a negative light. As a child, I blindly followed my religion due to my mother believing that is was right and what I had to know. Now as I've grown, I see it isn't always the perfect, all justice I once thought it was. It's true intentions and abilities it claims to have isn't at all entirely of good morale in some aspects.

Like I said, it's quite contradictory.

religion is the reason a lot of violence happens in the world
it is really sad that it is true, too, you would thing religion would bring peace to the world.

Hey Hummy~

It's actually quite interesting to have something that's entire purpose and ideals are based on peace and justice, can bring violence and war instead. I feel that the imposing actions and forceful thinking is probably the reason why so many wars and corruption of individual thinking takes place.

Wh-why ping only me? (not that I'm upset about it, I'm not, quite honored actually, though I'm a little unsure what you mean by me having in-depth analysis on various topics...)


I have nothing against religion and I think it's a great source for some to have something to believe in, to help them through hard times emotionally, but I'm annoyed with them when the more devoted try using it as an excuse to force their opinions upon others, like the one where you getting a piercing instantly meant you were a monster.
(which is rather hypocritical of them, if you think about how many people their followers of the religion have murdered in cold blood through war or torture because they didn't agree with their views, and don't many of the religions doing the murdering frown upon murders of others in the first place? oh right what am I saying, it's because the people they were killing aren't really people, they're heathens and therefore deserve to be slaughtered like the atrocities they are)

I think it's the self-righteousness of some people who are too devoted to their religion and insist that they are right despite being wrong or somewhere in the middle and try to justify all their actions 'because my god/religion says so' that annoys me the most. And because of the black-and-white views on how a certain action instantly means that you're right or wrong, with no area for gray. Like being raped meant you were cheating on your spouse, getting a tattoo meant you were into devil worship, buying a certain brand of bubblegum meant you were possessed by an evil spirit or something, etc.

Although a lot of those kind of thoughts were probably just made up by some to discourage the actions of others that they themselves disapprove of in the first place and just spread from there...because really, just where do all these 'rules' in religions come from? I get the reason why 'thou shalt not kill' or 'thou shalt not steal' exist, but where did things like 'thou be diabolic and a heathen if thou gets a piercing' come from?


...Anyway, I'm rambling, sorry. These are just my two cents on religion and them ending up causing violence against others, even if they started out with good intentions. I hope I was on topic? ;;

Because I lurve you
And I don't really have talk in-depth discussions with my other Mene friends that often...

I guess I meant I just like your responses to questions we talk about

Exactly. My little piercing means nothing but I like earrings. I do not harbor any murderous intentions to anyone.
Meaning I don't plan on stepping out of way to murder someone who doesn't agree to what I have to say. I really hate hypocritical opinions and views upon those who tend to believe they are "pure and holy". I just see it really as self-righteousness as well and complete utter garbage. If you are truly trying to prove that you are holy and doing what's right, don't use evil means. Really the ones who claim to be the most holy are so corrupt it's a mystery they can stand themselves

I really want to prove that the world isn't indeed in black and white. But regardless how much time and effort has passed, it's still believed to be this way. The world is simply good and evil. If you waver or have an ounce of "sin" tendencies you are indeed evil. You're nothing but this way and justice is never in your favor because you are purely a form of injustice. The day when religion accepts "gray" is a day I don't see happening anytime soon. Various religions has been around thousands of years and with these times, are dead set on tradition. The old farts don't plan on "altering" or bringing in any new ideas from the original text or ideas of their religion.

Again, I have no idea what the little earring has to do with my overall self being demonic and unholy. Makes no sense. But with religion, appearance is everything. Not the background or actions within someone, but rather their outside layer and how others see them rather than what they are. The rules. Geez. Those are another upsetting concept altogether! I feel like they were created just as a tool for easy prejudice. Something to point the "unholy" faster and easier. As well as set a clear line between good and evil.

Oh you're fine Ant. You stayed on topic? or whatever you want to call it XD
I know I rambled far more than you did

If I were to make an argument against religion, I would expand the conversation to include more than just Catholicism and Christianity. I took a Masterpieces of World Literature lecture one semester and during so, came across quite a variety of religious texts. It included the Qur'an, Old Testament, New Testament, Bhagavad Gita, and a couple of Eastern philosophies (e.g. Confucious). The point of this list is that I noticed many of the texts related what you said about control. Not necessarily war, but control.

For example, the Qur'an has a chapter titled Women which is directed at men on how to treat women. How to split your estate when you divorce your wife/wives, the power your mother-in-law has, the privileges and responsibilities the woman has along with the punishments of such. And for the chapter titled Men, it explains almost nothing but the rewards of heaven.

For the Bhagavad Gita, it's quite possibly one of the most exemplary texts that outlines duties and obligations of those who follow the religion. When it's really dissected, you find that those who would have profited most from the text would be Brahmans who were at the very top of the caste system. Of course reiterating that everyone should follow their born duties is going to make sense to those at the top.

Do I think that religion is the root of all evil? No, I don't.

Aww, thank you.

Delusion goes a long way, I guess. They think they know best, but in reality...they're just completely blinded to their own ugly side. I guess it's sort of like having cancer but not knowing about it because it's growing inside of the body where they can't see it.

I'm not entire sure of my facts so I apologize in advance if I get some of them wrong; I've heard that some religions are attempting to change their ways to be more 'modern', such as Buddhist monks introducing rap into their scriptures/lectures/whatever the proper word for 'spreading the gospel' is. There's also the 'fake meat' for people who are into Buddhism but are having trouble keeping to the vegetarian diet, etc. I forget where I heard this but I think the previous Pope had encouraged the use of condoms? Where they were previously completely and vehemently against birth control. I'm personally keeping my fingers crossed for the day when they cease to view homosexuals as unnatural and abominable.

I find it hilarious (well, okay, maybe not hilarious, but somewhat amusing) that some of the religious devotees are so sticklers to their rules, but find all sorts of ways to find loopholes in them at the same time. Like how Buddhist monks are to abstain from having sex according to the rules, but according to the rules, it was only forbidden to have sex with women, so they went and had sex with men instead. It's like wtf.

---

Religion is definitely not the root of all evil. Personally I don't think there is a such thing as 'good' or 'evil', considering it's just what we think that is supposed to be considered good or evil, when in the natural world there is just instinct and desire. Like we think it's evil to kill another person, but it's a perfectly natural occurrence in the animal world when it comes to upholding one's position in a pack or for survival or something. We set up the concept of good and evil so there would be rules and guidelines to keep everyone in order to have an order and stableness to our lives and not complete chaos.

I have some reservations for your point in regards to primal instincts of animals compared to people. We have no reason, no logical reason, to murder another person to stay ahead of the metaphorical pack. And what about Hammurabi's code? It's not religion, but an institution of rules and guidelines for society that didn't include the idea that if you don't pray enough then you're going to end up like Job.

Additionally, the Pope you're referring to is Pope Benedict XVI, who condemned the use of condoms, not condoned them.
Bhuddist monks are forbidden from obtaining their own food through purchase and growth; they are supposed to attain their food through what's called almsfood (i.e. begging for it from the common people). It's an offering from you to a monk, and often it would include rice and meat. Because other countries have diets heavy in vegetables, it's not uncommon to see more of the greens than meat.

Not often we have reasons to stay ahead of the pack these days, but in the past if it's for conquering or political reasons, they kill lots and lots of people to stay in their position, like kings. (though then again there's also the chance that they're just sadistic and like seeing people die in gruesome ways...or because they want the throne so they kill off all the competitors)
I'm not saying that laws are made because of religion, just that religion often have influence over some of the rules that are set.

Oh. Sorry for the mistake about the Pope.
I'm aware that in ancient times Buddhists get their food from other people's charity only, but wasn't aware that meat is also allowed, considering how everyone I know tells me that they are vegetarians and there was that famous fictional guy Lu Zhishen from the Water Margin who was kicked out by his fellow monks because he ate a dog.

...Then I looked up on Buddhism and vegetarianism and it seems that it differs from school to school, so the Theravada school says they could eat meat (except for a select few types) while the Mahayana school says they can't eat meat at all. I guess the Mahayana is more popular around here since all I've heard since I grew up was about how the more devoted Buddhists are all vegetarians...

But who is "they"? And I'm not interested in religion as it pertains to the past. In the past you had to transcribe books by hand. In the past, the only ones who could read, write, and distribute the Christian Bible were those who were given positions in the ordained church. It's only natural that the texts have evolved to suit the socio-political whims of those in power. In regards to westernized rule, there is a very popular--and for good reason--idea that to win an election you must invoke the aid of Evangelical leaders. To even whisper that you might not be a Christian in current American society in politics is virtually a campaign killer. And for what reason? Because we were raised--religious or not--that if you don't think like me, then you're an enemy. If you don't have the same skin tone, the same likes in music, the same clothes, the same cliques, then you're obviously against me and I couldn't possibly have any commonality with you.

This is even moreso in other cultures; for example Middle Eastern. Religion is so deeply rooted in every day life and governmental function, that speaking against it literally spells out a death sentence. Particularly for women.

I think that to get to a point where debate would be possible, you would have to a.) determine empirical differences between those who follow religion in society, and those who do not, and b.) examine the causes of great harm to a society that stemmed from religion. These are just to name a couple.

It's complicated because in one instance--and I'm using fundamental Christian values--the 'harm' to society isn't viewed in the same light. While one person may see all loves, whether gay, straight, etc. as quite beautiful and unremarkable, someone who is religious might find some great disservice to society. Who was it, that actor...Kirk Cameron who said "homosexuality is unnatural, detrimental and ultimately destructive to foundations of civilization". Where does the line exist for a person to be a follower of a religion or a fucking radical nutter? What is or isn't acceptable in religion--when is too far really too far?

Kings, or people in similar positions. Sorry I wasn't more specific.
I agree with the part where people are automatically discriminated against if they're not of the same religion or race or interests, etc.

And the last two questions are good points. If everyone thinks the same way, then naturally the minority would be viewed as the outcasts and the weird, 'unnatural' ones. If everyone thinks murder is alright, then no one would think it's strange if someone randomly stabbed another person to death. If everyone thinks neon pink hair is a sign of great importance, everyone would be trying to dye their hair pink and the ones with auburn or black hair would be weird or losers. The closest terms I can think of is group mentality and maybe peer pressure. To have a different view is to be abnormal. Religion is a good focal point for a group mentality...we all believe in the same god(s), anyone else are heathens and should be put down. Their way of thinking is a disease, we must cleanse them of their sinful ways, etc.

I think it's difficult to determine where to draw the line, since everyone's line is different. A few decades ago even mentioning homosexuality is too much for most, but nowadays many people are a lot more accepting about it, even if they still don't want to be too near them. Some follow their version of Bibles to the letter while others are more loose about it. I guess a nutter would be like the kind who follows their version of the Bible so much to the letter to the point of causing harm to those around him/her who does not follow their religion? Such as insisting that everyone in the house wear %100 natural wool-made clothes even if someone is allergic to wool in the house? (just a random example) Or causing harassment because he/she is constantly at other people's throats for not following the doctrine? If someone who is fanatical about his/her religion but it is harmless to others such as insisting on eating only fruits and drinking nothing but water but only applying it to themselves and not others, I don't think most people would object to it or think it's too much.


...Wow, it's been a while since thinking in English is making my brain hurt. Also feel like my points come out as weak, but I'm having trouble coming up with the words to describe it. *buries face in hands*

Jupiter, I was simply stating those two because I'm quite familiar with those two religions. I didn't want to include anything else and misinterpret something vital about a specific religion and receive backlash

I suppose it more involves control. The intentions are usually more about controlling what individuals do, controlling their fates, etc. That need for control isn't always positive. Being forced into control doesn't always have a happy aftertaste. That's where war comes in. I really don't believe the root of evil stems from religion. I just believed that certain good aspects and beliefs of religion's actions and intentions can lead to "evil" things.

Oh Ant, again you're fine XD
Basically I believe the control Jupiter was talking about ties heavily in mind control. The mentality we as human beings generally is if we see different, it's automatically horrible. Which has always bugged me because as human beings we're all made up of the same exact material of cells, tissues, blood and everything. I really feel that some lines are blurred or are constantly stretched farther and farther. People are slowly accepting change, but they're still stuck in the thinking of trying to eradicate the "disease" of others views and thinking.

@Whimsical Sadist: Science does not have to accept the ideas of religion, but it should not deny them either. Science does not have to accept that God exists because it cannot experimentally show that to be true, but it also should not deny God's existence because science cannot experimentally show God's existence to be false. If you are making any assertions that God absolutely does or does not exist, then you are not speaking scientifically because science must show its assertions to be true through experimentation and logic.

And likewise, if something can be proven or disproven scientifically, then religion should leave it alone. For instance, the earth is billions of years old, and all life evolved from a single common ancestor. Both facts have been affirmed many times through methods of science, so it is not religion's place to say that the earth is six thousand years old and all species appeared then on earth just as they are now. Religion can say that God drives evolution because science cannot disprove that, but it cannot say that there is no evolution, but that is something science can disprove.

I do believe that those boundaries should exist although you are right that they are often crossed on both sides.

And that said, the domain of religion does include morality, which can be used to breed sexism, racism, homophobia, and the like. I just wish that all religions taught tolerance above all else. :/

I find that agreeable but I think science and religion don't always claim to be that way. I feel that these two are constantly battling on truth, who's right, and the ultimate "answer" to the way things are. Religion will always bug science and the same with science with religion. I don't think the two can separate from each other. It would be nice if each of the two would play in their sandbox and stay in their own space. But sadly that doesn't seem like it'll happen :(

If some religions did teach tolerance like you hoped, things would probably be a lot cleaner, "purer" and easier on minds, opinions and individuals. The breeding as you say would probably not happen as fast if they were tolerable against different. But for some reason they can't ever be D:

I have two questions I've had for a while.

If God created the world then what created him? (Which came first the chicken or the egg, my dad would always tell me, but I never realy understood what he ment)

And...

In the bible it says God created the world out of nothing, but in my science book it says matter cannot be created nor destroyed. I'm confused. I love how religion gives you comfort, but science seem more reasonable. Why must science and religion contradict each other?

My mom is athiest (don't know how to spell it) and my dad is religious and I'm stuck in between, which gets me stuck all the time trying to choose between the two. One time someone had asked me if I was religious or if I believed in science, and I was torn between the two. When I told them both they said I couldn't choose both, and that I had to choose one. If I chose science would they laugh at me? or if I chose religion would be able to stomache the fact that my religion goes agaist what science says? People in my school and where I live and as far as I know, everywhere, are judged by what they believe. I didn't want to answer, because I thought that if I do I would be shamed by either religious or scientific people. I understand that the choice is up to me, but it's just that I'm afraid of being judged more than I am already.
Thank you for reading. That really took a weight off of my shoulders. :)

Ha ha glad you were able to get that off
There goes that question that I've always wondered as well. Who bothered to create God?
How I've seem to reason and find a way of explaining things are is that he just appeared. I can't find anything else to justify his being and presence. God had the ability to just create himself and everything around him. No other explanation.
Science can't seem to explain his appearance. I learned to accept this and not question it.
But now that I've grown I've understood science's view now and yeah it isn't at all reasonable.

I'm pretty sure these questions have constantly been questioned more than once. I honestly believe that you can't choose one or the other. You can't really live with one without the other. You need both.
It's better to have both options to stimulate the mind rather take the side of one. If you do the outcome won't ever truly be solved and answered.

The non-violent rhetoric preached by Jesus, has seemingly surpassed the numerous Christian nations who made war with each another. However, as tempting as this maybe, this is not the case. Commentaries on sacred scriptures often provide justifications for doing ‘bad things’ that were clearly outlined as big no-nos by the original scriptures, i.e Just War Theory. It was a blatant cherry picking of commentary texts by political authorities to persuade people to go to war.
Plus you have to remember that war itself for a long time was a kind of economy. Countries got rich by going and stealing from their neighbours. Raiding and looting, was how countries, or provinces got rich. Ironically this was one the causes of the crusades, a seemingly holy war. The Vatican instructed the Kings of Europe to go and get the Holy Land, as way of protecting themselves from potential raiding. Prior to the crusades Christian pilgrims had been welcome in the Holy Land, and people just shared it. In a more contemporary context, modern day terrorists use religious concepts like jihad to justify political motivated attacks upon innocent people.
War, terrorism, and other forms of power struggles, often play out like a masquerade. Politicians, religious leaders and terrorists will pick out a mask (whether it be a religious mask, or a moral mask, or a national security mask), and they will wear it to either hide their true motives, or justify and rationalise their motives.
As for science and religion ‘not getting along’…. No, just no. My cousin is a devout catholic, but she is also a forensic scientist, her husband also catholic is a professor of virology. This whole science and religion is like oil and water, is largely nonsensical. Science itself is an empirical methodology, and notable conflicts between religious groups and scientists, tend to be over a specific theory or claim- rather than science as a whole. In the age of modernity where the fruits of science are everywhere, from the toasters powered by electricity in our kitchens, to the antibiotics we take when we are ill, science is very much integrated into our lives. In fact from a historical perspective of religion, many religions during the late 18th and throughout the 19th century in Europe were heavily influenced by the enlightenment which promoted ideas of rationality and scientific thought. It created schisms within religions as religious communities were confronted with modernity one of the most notable being Reform and Orthodox Judaism. Communities questioned their beliefs and rituals, even labeling some as outdated. Fast forward to today, we see religious sects like Reform Judaism accepting theories like the big bang theory and evolution, as a form of revelation from God..... it's complex, and I guess that's why we shouldn't generalize or be attempted to over simplify these intrinsic relationships between religion and people.

What is the root of the world's woes, is it religion, lack thereof, or is it simply ideology? Ideology, the relentless inescapable force that we've never been able to shake. Unless we all hit ourselves into a coma with hammers or something.

What was the catalyst that allowed Mao to murder seventy-eight million people? What was the force that led to the atrocities of the crusades, the cruel insanity of North Korea, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Tojo? I don't think it was ever religion or the lack of it, while religion might have been the tool it was never the catalyst. That'd be ideology. We're surrounded by ideology. Do you believe we can truly escape it? It's not a question of which ideologies are always good, but simply which ideology is less harmful than the other.

Firstly, I believe that it's important to separate the law from whatever is currently the most prevalent ideology. I believe that competing ideologies are even important to guarantee a healthy and diverse society. Laws should respect the freedom of the individual, not the majority. Democracy is not a system of liberty, but a form of tyranny: the tyranny of the majority. The freedom to choose what ideology they wish to follow. However, there is one important stipulation. Each citizen must respect the right of each other to freely choose their own beliefs. You cannot force other people to act as you wish, nor do you have any right to kill them, enslave them, or beat them no matter how much good you think it might do. I believe a laws based on the idea of personal ownership and personal freedom removes many of the dangers of ideology. If we are free to choose our own ideology that will spur competition between other ideologies. It is important to not allow a single ideology to gain power over an entire society, for while it gives the power to do the most good it also gives it the power to do the most evil. Look at Soviet Russia, Mao China, North Korea, and Nazi Germany. Or simply look at every authoritarian country is history. Concentrated power hasn't really ever worked out well when everyone decides murder is awesome.

I think it's also important to realize that religion is simply the go-to tool for getting people into your bandwagon. At the core it's still ideology. Using whatever mask you can to justify your own agenda. The Rwanda genocides were caused by tribal differences, ethnic discrimination and Hitler, political motivation and Stalin, cultural revolution of China, N Korea, expulsion of ethnic Germans, Armenian genocide, killing fields of Cambodia, reparation of Cherokee Indians, Genghis Khan Mongol horsemen, Lothar von Trotha, etc, etc, etc. Just because you remove religion doesn't mean you do not remove the ideology. It's like putting a bandaid over a gaping chest wound.

I do believe it is true that those who embrace religion to guide them morally choose to do so because they already have a basic concept of morality. Otherwise they would not know which religion to choose. Should I choose either Christianity or Satan's Pony Brigade of Rape, Unicorns, and Genocide? However, that does not mean I believe religion is not important. Again, I believe we should each be free to choose what we believe as long as we respect others right to choose for themselves.

When we say there's a war between religion and -insert whatever here- you're instantly causing friction. Shouldn't people simply be able to think a little differently than you do? Sure, they might upset you, annoy or, or disturb you but what's worse? Using cohesion to make people think like you (hey, remember when the majority said genocide was okay?) or dealing with some annoyances from time to time.

Let bygones be bygones.

Religion is only an excuse. The real reason is greediness.

Originally Posted by admonished nonsense

I believe a laws based on the idea of personal ownership and personal freedom removes many of the dangers of ideology

I think that's why the only few "hot topics" of religion left to discuss are things like abortion, where the line between "the mother's choice" and the "'baby's' choice are blurred."

But gah, your post was awesome. A+. Awesome. I wish I wrote that. ):

Religion is an interesting thing. On the one hand, it makes culture that much more fun and beautiful, it makes people feel connected to the world even where we're not factually sure as to how it works, it's a pretty beautiful thing.

On the other hand, it is very easily manipulated to cause all kinds of problems.

Make no mistake though, it's not Christianity that causes most problems - it is the monotheistic Abrahamic religions. This encompasses Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and the like. And it is not the religions themselves, but the extremists and the manipulative people bringing up passages which should by now be obscure in order to advance or uphold a bigoted personal agenda (popular example: vague possible condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus [which may actually be a condemnation of adultery, or a reference to periods and cleanliness, we really don't know]...right next to condemnation of tattoos, eating shellfish, and wearing more than one kind of fabric) - at worst very violently.

And then there's science deniers. The planet is 4.5 billion years old. The amount of evidence that we have to suggest this is overwhelming. Evolution is real. We have seen it on both large and small scales in action, and the fossil record comes as close as possible to definitively proving it occurs on an even larger scale still. I'm not saying that if your religion says otherwise then everything about it is wrong - but perhaps the idea of the world being created 6000 years ago in 7 days is more figurative than literal? Perhaps that's what it seemed like on an immortal omnipotent being's time scale without modern people to judge it by? We don't know. This generation will probably never know. But the only evidence to suggest that's literal is an ancient book which, even if it was dictated by God, was PENNED and must be INTERPRETED by flawed humans.

I'm very spiritualist, myself. I mean hell, I like to think that most of fiction is real (which I do have some physical and mathematical evidence to suggest) and that most stories are actually past life memories that a writer consciously or subconsciously misses (which I only have personal, anecdotal, and circumstantial evidence for, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it - at least until I'm proven wrong). I'm also an engineering major. Science and religion do not always have to conflict. But your mind should never be closed to any possibility.

A person should THINK, is what I'm getting at. The interpretation of Abrahamic religions preached by the manipulators and the extremists is "don't think ever free thought is bad" at best and "these people I think are icky are actually evil and must be destroyed and if you don't help me you're going to hell" at worse - both of which (as well as everything in between) are completely asinine things to assert if you are at all willing to think about it for five seconds. They're also a pretty far cry from, for example, the actual message of the New Testament, which is basically God saying "Yeah, we're cool now, just don't be a douche - and if you do slip up, own up and apologize for it - and don't forget about me, and we're on good terms!"

Just look at all the priests who are sure that they'll be forgiven for molesting children but insist that anyone else will go to hell if they even so much as once have an "impure" thought about someone of the same gender. Look at the nine-year old who was excommunicated from the Catholic church because she aborted a pregnancy caused by rape that was going to kill her - yet her rapist father was forgiven. A lot of these people, when you look at it, either don't have two brain cells to rub together or, more likely, are actually not interested in making the world a better place, but only in maintaining traditional power structures where they are, of course, on top.

That mindset right there is where the evil of religion comes from. People can get away with anything if they can convince enough people that a divine being sanctions it and the manipulative jerks of the world know it.

tl;dr: Religion itself is a good, healthy thing as long as you keep your mind a little less sealed shut than Pandora's Box about it. People manipulating other people through religion need to stop like yesterday and people need to learn how to recognize when such a thing is happening.

It's not really appropriate to think of religion as the Great Satan of the world (pun intended). For one, science didn't exist in the days when most religions were founded and codified. Theological and spiritual discourse were the ways in which human beings engaged with the natural world as well as the presumably supernatural phenomena they experienced. I am wary of anyone making the essential claim that religion is "good for nothing", so to speak, or that the world would have been better off without it. Catholicism, despite its own miserable failings, was the system that kept medieval Europe intact and fostered the arts and the beginnings of what we would come to understand as science. (The same can be said of Islam until about the 11th century, since Islamic society of that era created many of the foundations of modern chemistry, astronomy, and mathematics, notably by very word "algebra" comes from an Arabic word.)

A more appropriate question might to ask if religions can adapt to modernity and scientific progress and if it should. Catholicism again is a fairly good example of a religion that does well in this, considering. For example, the Vatican officially recognizes the factuality of evolutionary theory amongst other things, though it's fair to continue criticizing their misunderstand of women's body autonomy and birth control, which is a human rights issue itself.

In my opinion it is not religious systems themselves that deserve condemnation but the regressive or anti-progressive stances that many religions take. Religions have been criticized for having "gods of the gaps", that is, where modern science and philosophy doesn't understand something or has no answer, religion continues to insist on supernatural explanations. Perhaps it is problematic, but no moreso than any academic subject where only speculation can be maintained in absence of sound theory. (I could note that some aspects of modern physics, namely superstring theory, have a few things in common with speculative religious philosophy in much the same manner.)

There is such a thing as "good" religion and decent practice of spiritual life that doesn't interfere with human rights or scientific progress. It is an ironically militant stance to suggest that religion is good for nothing and perhaps should no longer be continued to be instituted or practiced.