Religious Bus Ads

The friendly atheist blog has a nice post where readers are encouraged to come up with ads the religious could use on their bus ads.

My suggestions were.

“we have no way of knowing if there is a god, but if there is, we are certain we have picked the right one out of the thousands invented”.

“religion; you better believe it because it’s the easiest way we have of making you do as we say”

“hate gays? Religion gives you a socially acceptable excuse for being a bigot”

what are your suggestions?

Evolutionary Origin Of Religion

Professor Richard Dawkins takes a question from the audience regarding the evolutionary origin of religion and how religion could have been beneficial, Evolutionary speaking.

His answer is an interesting one and uses the moth as an example of another way detrimental actions could result as a byproduct of otherwise beneficial behavior . He says that like how the moth flies into candle flames as a byproduct of it's evolution produced guidance system, religion in humans could also be a byproduct of an otherwise beneficial trait, Like trusting and believing what we are told as children by grownups. There is no evolutionary benefit to moths flying into flames and killing themselves, Just like there is no evolutionary benefit to believing in invisible dictators, But there is an evolutionary benefit to the programing that produces those particular behaviours.

Is It Possible To Argue For The Existence Of God Without Using Logical Fallacies?

In my countless attempts at trying to have reasonable conversations with the religious it has become apparent that every line of argument they take essentially boils down to a logical fallacy. A mode of reasoning that is entirely flawed.

It has drawn me to the conclusion that no argument for the existence of god can ever be logically sound, And as such any argument for the existence of god can be dismissed.

The most popular fallacy used is the argument from ignorance. The theist will assume that your inability to answer a question they pose or give an explanation of something is in fact evidence for their explanation. They will ask how the big bang came about, As if our current lack of an explanation gives credibility to their "magic man done it" theory. This is some times referred to as the "god of gaps". They wait for a gap and shove their god in to fill it.

The second most popular fallacy is the argument from design. The theist assumes that because the laws of physics appear to be fine tuned that they must have been fine tuned, And because no explanation can be given as to how this may occur naturally they invoke the god of gaps and say "magic man done it".

The third most popular has got to be their good old straw man argument where the theist will say "Scientists believe we evolved from rocks.. So how long does it take a rock to evolve in to a cat?". They completely misrepresent the claim made by science and turn it in to something they feel equipped to counter and ask you a question based on their misrepresentation.

Last but not least, A fallacy that all religious people are guilty of, And a fallacy which name escapes me at the moment, Is when a conclusion is reached and then evidence is gathered to support that conclusion. The theist will already be of the opinion that a god exists and after the conclusion is reached they go off looking for evidence to support than conclusion. They have the scientific process back to front.

So are there any arguments for the existence of god that are at least logically sound? are there any arguments that can't be dismissed straight away as being abominations in logic?

Religious People Earn Less

The above graph shows a correlation between religiosity and earnings based on the GDP of several countries. The graph shows that the more religious a nation is* the less they earn.

Now correlation doesn't demonstrate causation, But there is a link there somewhere. Perhaps lower educated people are more likely to be religious (my personal theory as previous studies have shown the religious to have on average a lower IQ) or perhaps poverty makes people more likely to turn to faith.

Whatever conclusions you want to draw from this graph, There is a link between earnings and religiosity.

* Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from 0-3, with 3 representing the maximum religious position. Respondents were given a +1 if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; and +1 if they say religion is very important in their lives; and +1 if they pray at least once a day.

Only Atheists Can Act Morally

Morality is a big subject in the world of Atheism v religion. On one side we have the religious saying that without god and celestial rules, Rules which, Should they be broken, Are punishable by eternal suffering there would be no morality. And on the other side we have Atheists saying morality is nothing more than a name given to productive social behaviour, A result of empathy and genetics.

We could sit down and explain to the religious how "morality" can come about via an evolutionary process, But going on the luck we have had trying to explain evolution to them it would be a futile waste of time.

Instead what i want to do is explain how "morality" can only, By definition, Exist in someone who doesn't believe in a god.

In most, If not all religions, There is a reward/punishment system at it's very core. Religion comes along, lays down some rules and convinces you that should you break any of these rules you will be subject to torturous punishment, pain and suffering for eternity. For eternity!.

In light of that, How can any action performed by a religious person be considered moral? How can it even be a result of free will? If you are told to do something and threatened with eternal suffering should you not comply or promised a reward should you abide how can your action be considered good? In reality we would call this type of thing at best coercion or bribery, At worst we call it threatening with violence.

The Atheist on the other hand has no fear of a punishment from god and no expectations of a reward. Every action performed by an Atheist is done entirely in the absence of a belief in god and in the absence of the belief that a posthumous reward/punishment system is in place. The Atheist does good entirely because [s]he wants to. Because it's the "right" thing to do.

So next time you hear a religious person claim we need a god to know what is moral tell them that if they need a god to be moral they are in fact the exact opposite of moral and are simply afraid of a punishment and looking for personal gain as a reward for their behaviour. Then ask them if in the case where the nonexistence of god was proven would they instantly start killing, stealing and raping.

Dinesh D'Souza Wins 2007 Bad Faith Award

Dinesh D'Souza, The conservative, noisy pip-squeak who always looks like he has borrowed his dads suit and is about as "christian" as Easter eggs, Has come from behind to walk away with new humanists Bad faith award of 2007 with 525 votes (22%) beating the pope who came in second with a meager 414 votes.

Dinesh D'Souza is an Indian born christian who makes his money today on the back of what he likes to call the "new Atheist" movement. He is a man who, As soon as he escaped India, Quickly took the opportunity to write books regurgitating every fallacial argument he could remember refuting Atheism and in his spare time created books blaming the cultural left for 9/11.

As his prize New Humanist will be making a £20 donation to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science on his behalf.

Well done DD, You deserved it.

The Difference Between America And England

As a British citizen, And more specifically an Englishman, I can't help almost constantly being reminded of the differences between America and England, Especially when it comes to religion. In America religion is an important part of society, Even for those who don't believe in it due to the influence it has on public policy and education. In England however we have a comparatively relaxed approach to religion and our motto seems to be; "say what you like about religion, We all know it's bollocks. But try not to piss of the Muslims, You know what they are like".

The differences between the institutional approach to religion can best be summed up in the following picture.Can you imagine if in America they too celebrated someone who so fully and concisely proved a key aspect of christian doctrine to be false?

Extra information.
£5 note: Elizabeth Fry, Worked to improve conditions in prisons.
£10 note (above): Charles Darwin, Naturalist.
£20 note: Edward William Elgar, Composer.
£50 note: John Houblon, First Governor of the Bank Of England.

Doctor Calls For Ban On Circumcision

A London consultant is calling on doctors to push for a ban on the circumcision of boys in a debate to be published in tomorrow’s British Medical Journal.

Geoff Hinchley, an accident-and-emergency consultant with Barnet and Chase Farm NHS Trust, argues that “male genital mutilation” should be made illegal as is female circumcision and other “ritual forms of infant abuse”.

“There have been many spurious and now unsupported health claims for circumcision, including the prevention of penile cancer, masturbation, blindness and insanity,” he writes. Although “there may be a case that male circumcision reduces HIV in sexually active adults”, he says the decision to undergo the procedure should be left “until the person is old enough to make his own informed healthcare choices”.

Possible longer-term complications “include pain on erection, penile disfigurement and psychological problems”, while the penis of a circumcised adults may have reduced “sexual sensitivity”.

“Far from being a harmless traditional practice, circumcision damages young boys,” he says.

It's about time this barbaric practice of child genital mutilation is outlawed. The Doctor is right, Ritualistic forms of infant abuse are not to be tolerated.

Faith Is A Virtue, Or Is It?

I'm sure many of you have heard the phrase "faith is a virtue" before and it has become one of those sayings that we have heard so often that we no longer look at the words which make up the saying and simply have an understanding of what the collection of words mean. We understand it to mean "belief in god is good" (which i would disagree with anyway).

But let's suspend our ignorance for a second and actually look at the saying and what the words mean.
Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Virtue - A particularly efficacious, good, or beneficial quality; advantage.

Is "faith" really a "virtue"?

The saying implies that to believe something that has no evidence, No reason and lacks logic is a beneficial, advantageous quality. Really? I would say the exact opposite.

I would say to have "faith" makes you idiotic, Naive and a simpleton, A long way from "virtuous". How many drugs have been developed on "faith"? how much "faith" was used in the space missions? if you were to look at what "faith" has brought mankind you will see nothing but mistakes, Ignorance and war, Nothing virtuous to see here.

So next time someone rattles off this meme as if it proves a point explain to them what it really means and ask them to explain exactly how "faith" is supposed to be a "virtue".

Unconvincing Arguments For The Existence Of God[s]

Minnesota Atheists Public Relations Officer August Berkshire has been working on and revising his list of "Unconvincing Arguments for God" [PDF] and the list has grown to be 34 items long including precise reasons why these facile arguments are flawed and why Atheists find it hard to take them seriously.

In this post i am going to take a handful of the unconvincing arguments and explain to the believers why the arguments shouldn't be made and why they are so easy to destroy.

God of gaps

The god of gaps argument is often thrown in at short notice when an Atheist or scientists says "I don't know". The assumption of the person making this argument is that if something can't be explained by science, that alone is evidence that god done it.

Evolution wouldn't favor a false belief

This argument goes something like "why would evolution favor a species incapable of seeing reality?". Of course this argument is flawed to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with evolution. Evolution doesn't favor the truth, It favors what if beneficial. God can be used to keep people behaving well, Much like santa does in children, And religion has been used in the past for controlling groups, Armies and societies. So where it is beneficial, Evolution will favor it, Regardless of how true it is.

Altruism

Some arguments are made that altruism is evidence of god because evolution rewards only selfish behaviour. While it is true that evolution does tend to reward selfish behaviour altruistic behaviour is evolutionary beneficial because it creates a more harmonious society. Evolution has taken advantage of the fact that if everyone is willing to help others there is more chance of the individual receiving help when they need it.

The “Fine-tuning” of the Universe

Some religious people argue that the six physical constants of the universe can only exist within a very narrow range to produce a universe capable of sustaining life. Therefore, since this couldn’t have happened “by accident,” a god must have done it. Again, this is a god-of-the-gaps argument. But beyond that, this argument assumes that we know everything about astrophysics – a field in which new discoveries are made on almost a daily basis. We may discover that our universe is not so “fine tuned” after all.

Another possibility is that there may exist multiple universes – either separately or as “bubble universes” within a single universe. Each of these universes could have its own set of constants. Given enough universes, by chance it is likely that at least one will produce and sustain life.

Pascal's Wager

Pascals wager sates that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in god. This is flawed for two reasons.
1) pascal assumes that someone can force themselves to believe something based on the inferred consequences of not believing.
2) Even if the wager is right, it doesn't do anything for proving that there is a god, Only that believing it might be best based on the consequences.

Pascals wager can be used as an argument for believing anything where disbelief results in punishment.

False Dichotomies

A false dichotomy is an argument that assumes only two answers are possible (if X is wrong then god done it) and is also an extension of the "god of gaps" argument. The false dichotomy argument is most common in arguments presented by creationists. In these argument the creationist never presents any evidence for their own position and only ever seeks to refute evolution (if evolution is wrong, god done it).

Religious people have a tough, if not impossible task to try to prove a god exists, let alone that their particular religion is true. If any religion had objective standards, wouldn’t everyone be flocking to the same “true” religion?
Instead we find that people tend to believe, to varying degrees, the religion in which they were indoctrinated. Or they are Atheists.

More Americans Believe In Hell Than Evolution

More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.

It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.

It also helps explain many of its political battles which Europeans find bewildering, such as efforts to have "Intelligent Design" theory -- which holds life is too complex to have evolved by chance -- taught in schools alongside evolution.

The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.

It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.

reuters

God, And Why We Don't Need It Anymore

Since human ancestors first looked up at a majestic eagle soaring gracefully over a snow covered mountain top and thought "i wonder what that tastes like", we have been asking questions and seeking answers.

For primitive man this presented some difficulties. While he was able to ask the questions how did i get here, what is that bright circle in the sky and why do i stick to the ground he had absolutely no way of answering them. So he done what any primitive mind unable to answer questions would do, He invented gods. He invented thousands of them. Some primitives invented one all encapsulating god to answer every question and other primitives invented a god for each question.

After the invention of gods it didn't take long for leaders and bullies to realize that gods can also be used to control people if the people thought that god doesn't just make the sun rise, but he also has a set of arbitrary rules that wants us to follow which have been "revealed" to a select few. Rules like cutting your childs penis, Not eating sometimes and hating gays. At which point we found our species infected with the cancer we now call religion.

In todays society we don't need god in an explanatory sense. The only people who find answers in god are the people are lack the intelligence to understand the answers science has given them (given with no threat of eternal punishment or eternal subservience). We know what the bright circle in the sky is, We know how we got here, We know why we stick to the ground and we know what an eagle tastes like.

Since we don't need god in an explanatory sense anymore how can faith based businesses (churches) get people to continue to believe in god and hand over their money? it's simple. All they have to do is turn god from something that provides answers in to something that is just itching for you to mess up so he can send you to hell forever.

Just like children the religious not only find comfort in fictitious entities but they can also be controlled through fear of punishment.

So next time you are in church hearing about all the rules your god wants you to follow, How he wants you to have sex with your wife, What days you can eat on and how to mutilate your childs genitals ask yourself this very simple question;
Does this sound like something the creator of the universe would be concerned with, or does it sound like something invented by the depraved mind of a man intent on controlling a subservient population?

The answer will be clear, Even if you lack the courage or honesty to admit it.

Well, What Do YOU Believe?

I was having a beer with a Greek Orthodox friend of mine during the week and the topic of religion came up. Now as much as i enjoy a discussion about religion i don't particularly enjoy discussing religion with this friend for two reasons. Firstly he doesn't understand his own position well enough to discuss it, let alone mine, and secondly his idea of "discussion" is you shut up while i talk, Then you agree.

On this occasion though he got me thinking about something which inspired this blog post, So i thank him for that.

After i had explained to him that my disbelief in god does not equate a hatred for god any more than his disbelief in unicorns equates a hatred for them and that if he understood why he didn't believe in Thor he would be on the way to understanding why i don't believe in Yahweh he said "well, If you don't believe in god, what do you believe in?".

This question is usually well answered by saying something along the lines of "I believe in science, reason and evidence". But before i had a chance i trot out that well rehearsed answer to a facile question i realized what he meant.

He wasn't asking me what i believe in, He was asking me what i had replaced god with.

I realized that the question "what do you believe in" - A question often asked - Actually meant "what have you used to fill the void left by your disbelief in god" as if i am somehow missing something, As if i have a gap to fill that god once filled and as if the belief in a supernatural-sky-daddy was the default state of humans.

While the answer of "science, reason and evidence" is a good one, it isn't anything to do with a disbelief in god. It's not something exclusively believed by atheists because, While we know it's true, I doubt you could find a religious person willing to admit that they don't believe in science, reason and evidence, Even though they by-pass it when the conclusion they want to draw isn't supported by science, reason and evidence.

I advise that if you are asked this question again by a theist you ask them what they mean by it. There is no point giving an answer they understand to a question they don't realize they have asked.

The Belief In Belief

If you have ever seen a lecture, read an article or watched an interview with the eminent Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett you would probably have heard him say that while most religious people, Or people generally, profess to believe in god what they actually have is a belief in the belief of god.

What Daniel means by this is that while they probably don't really believe in god they have been conditioned to believe that faith is a virtue and that anybody who believes is instantly a better person than those who lack a belief.

On this point - and many others - I agree entirely with what Daniel Dennett is saying. We only have to look at what people do and it becomes apparent that it completely contradicts what they are saying.

To make this point i am going to use cases that were reported in the media to show the hypocrisy of religious people and show that they say one thing and do another.

kent Hovind
Kent Hovind is a young earth creationist, or "nut" as i like to call them, Who believed the word of the bible so much that he built dinosaur adventure theme park that was based on the biblical account of creation, The false theory of young earth and showed humans a dinosaurs existing together. This man must surely believe in god, Right? Well if he did why is he in prison for tax fraud? Doesn't sound like someone who really believes in god to me.

Ted Haggard
Ted Haggard, A man who has the cheek to use the title "reverend", Runs a mega church where he preaches and collects vast amounts of money. So what does he do with this money? Does he give it to the poor? Some may go to the poor, but some goes towards buying meth and sex from rent boys. Doesn't sound like someone who really believes in god to me.

David Smith
"Rev." David Smith was jailed for just over 5 years back in May 07 for abusing 6 children over a period of 30 years. This disgusting piece of filth used his position of trust to lure young boys to "sleep-overs" where he would sexually abuse them. Doesn't sound like someone who really believes in god to me.

Of course it's not only the famous who are guilty of being hypocrites who say one thing and do another. you only have to look at the people around you who claim to believe in god and compare what they say to what they do, it soon becomes apparent that, Like Dan Dennett said, Most people don't believe in god, they only believe in the belief of god.

I would like to ask the people reading this who claim to believe in god to sit down and think about it for a while. if you can't be honest with us at least be honest with yourself. Do you really believe what you say? Or do you only say It because of conditioning and because you think it's the right thing to claim to believe?

Religions And Cults - What's The Difference?

So what is the difference between a religion and a cult? or is there no difference?

As far as i can see the only real difference between a religion and a cult is the level of social acceptance that each receive. while the statement "I have joined a cult" will usually be met with horror the statement "I am religious" is often met with respect and admiration, When the reality of it is they are both the same thing.

wikipedia defines a cult as: "a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream". Isn't that an accurate description of a religion? The surrounding culture considers not mixing milk and meat, pretending to drink blood, Mutilating genitals, Starving yourself and covering up women outside of what would be considered "mainstream", Unless that society was predominantly of the same religion. So is it the amount of people around you who believe the same thing what determines if what you follow is a cult or religion?

The psychology of cults and religions share a common ground too. Cults like to tell their recruits that they are flawed and that perfection can only achieved by staying with the cult and following it's rules. or is that religion? I am getting confused now.

So what is the difference between them? try to answer without discussing particular religions and without quoting from religious books (nobody cares what your "god" thinks).

The Default State Of Atheism

Atheism is often called a "belief" or "religion" by those wishing to drag us down to their level, But nothing could be further from the truth. Atheism is the default state of all human beings. It takes no action on the part of the person to be Atheist. Atheist is what we would all be if there were no vile old men moulding childrens minds to suite their agenda, or moronic parents inflicting their own stupidity on their children.

A child who has not been subjected to the abuse that is religious indoctrination would be an Atheist. They wouldn't all of a sudden decide that there is a god and that 2000 years ago he sent his son to live as a human, have him murdered for sins we haven't yet committed, Bring him back to life and take him back to heaven unless they are told it by someone.

But a lot of people do end up believing exactly that. Do they believe this because of reason or evidence? No, They believe it because that is what they have been told. If as an adult they stumbled across the bible in a book shop would they come to the conclusion after reading it that it makes sense and must be true if they hadn't already been told from birth that they are a christian, or told that they live in a christian nation? Highly unlikely, Unless they are mentally ill, In which case they may also believe they are Admiral Nelson.

Hopefully now you will see how theism requires not only a belief in a god, But it also requires a society or parents to convince you of a specific god and it needs to convince you that they know what he wants.

Nobody needs to be convinced to be an Atheist. A disbelief in a god is a natural as a disbelief in any mythical monster. Theism however requires you to be convinced of something you have been told.

If Religion Is So Popular Why Is It Never On Digg?

The point is often made that religion is more popular now than it ever has been and that Atheists are still a tiny minority with no say, no power and no influence.

If that is the case why has a pro-religion article never made the front page of digg and never made the popular list on reddit? surely if religion really was as popular as claimed stories promoting it would be submitted to digg and followers would certainly 'digg it'.

Over the last month or so our blog (GBG) has made the front page of digg on numerous occasions, Twice offering evidence for evolution [2], Once promoting videos which will be played to presidential candidates asking questions about the role of religion in politics and once promoting Richard Dawkins and the prospect of him writing a book for children.

It seems strange that the "popular" idea of religion in it's entirety should be beaten by one single blog that is only a few months old.

No doubt the argument will be made that digg isn't a suitable outlet for religion as it is a site that mainly caters for technology, but if that is the case why has a blog about Atheism been so popular on digg?

I think the answer is right in front of our faces. The answer is that religion isn't that popular anymore. Atheism is more popular than ever and the youth of today are intellectually aware and interested in articles that promote logic, reasoning and arguments based on observable, testable evidence.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who voted on the videos. Hopefully the votes you cast should keep at least one of the videos in the top ten for the next week and we will have a question (maybe 2) put to the presidential candidates. No doubt i will make another post about the videos after the answers are given. Thanks again.

And to the christians who tried to rally the troops and down vote the videos, better luck next time, i guess your numbers just aren't comparable to the numbers amassed by the Atheist movement.

Is America Unofficially A Theocracy? Make Your Next President Answer It

If there is one thing politicians like to do it's dodge questions. well here is your chance to make them answer two very important questions regarding the role of religion in American politics.



The maker of the videos has received emails from religious groups telling him that they have been rallying the troops to collectively vote down his videos. Don't let him down people, he is doing this for you so spare him 2 minutes of your time and vote for his videos so that these important questions can be put to the presidential candidates.

PLEASE VOTE

Sweden To Ban Religion In Schools

The government of Sweden has announced it will be banning any religious activities in schools except for those directly related to religion classes. It is also directing that in religious education, religious ideas must not be taught as though they are objectively true. A columnist in the UK’s far-left Guardian newspaper has urged Britain to follow suit, implying that Britain’s Catholic and Jewish schools are a terror threat.

Swedish Education Minister Jan Bjoerklund told reporters that religious activity “can take place ... but only outside of coursework”. He said that teaching should “not be influenced” by religious beliefs.

The move by the government is being defended as a reaction to the rise of violent Islamic extremism that police have identified with many Muslim schools in Britain and Europe. As such the move is supported by the Swedish Christian Democratic party.

“Pupils must be protected from every sort of fundamentalism,” said Björklund.

Björklund used the example of the origins of human life, which, he said, must be taught from a “scientific” point of view, not a religious one.

“This is naturally brought about by the fact that different viewpoints are being discussed, for instance about the creation of the world - one based on science and one on religious views,” Björklund told a news conference.

Björklund told reporters that the Intelligent Design theory would be banned from Swedish biology classes even as a proposed theory. The rules will make it illegal even for faith-based schools to teach that religious doctrines are objectively true on the grounds that this would be “prosetylising”. Prayer, including religious services or assemblies, will remain legal, as long as no teacher in a classroom teaches that there is any reality behind it.

“Teaching in school must have a scientific basis,” he said at a news conference.

Does Religion Deserve Respect?

As an atheist i often get told that i should be respectful of other peoples beliefs, While at the same time no respect is shown to mine. The religious ask me not criticize their belief, Not to question it and more often than not take offence that someone could possibly believe that their god doesn't exist. And all the while they continuously and consistently try to indoctrinate me in to whichever invisible-sky-super-friend cult they have been tricked in to following.

So should free-thinkers respect religion even though they don't believe it? The answer is No, They shouldn't. Religion would be easy to ignore if all it was was a belief in something that doesn't exist, As far as i know it's still perfectly legal to be a moron. But with religion comes more than just a "belief", There also comes actions. The belief causes people to take certain actions and these actions should be neither respected nor tolerated.

Let's use an analogy to look a bit closer at this. if i said that i believed there were invisible pixies at the bottom of my garden and they grant me wishes, Should that belief be "respected"? Of course it shouldn't, it's not true, But it's a fairly harmless belief and it would be easy to write me off as a nut and ignore me. But what if i said that there were invisible pixies at the bottom of my garden and they require me to mutilate my child's genitals, Treat my wife like an animal, Prevent me donating blood that may save someones life, Plant bombs, Cut peoples heads off and not work on a special day? Should my harmless "belief" be respected even though it is responsible for making me take some crazy, And sometimes horrific, Actions?

This is why Atheists and free-thinkers should oppose, Disrespect and try to eradicate religion. Not because it's incorrect and primitive, But because it makes people do things, Things which without religion would be barbaric and illegal.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil — but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winning physicist