They say they are doing it in the name of God, but as I pointed out previously, it could easily be in the name of race, cast, creed etc. Eradicating "God" doesn't eradicate our problems. It just shifts the blame on to something else. What a great thing to place the blame on - something nobody can see/hear/touch etc.

I've also pointed out the positives of religion - the way the majority live their lives. Maybe religion was required because it was considered the highest form of law? Maybe other laws created by men couldn't control the savage man? Certainly, people would have paid more attention because it was from a "higher power".

I think the notion of God is a bearded, older man sitting on a throne. Humans have made God in their image - he gets "angry", he has to "punish" etc. These are all human thoughts impressed upon the notion of God.

God may exist. God may not exist. Either way, Man is the cause of what's wrong in this world, as well as the solution.

No it couldn't, it wouldn't be as easy, it wouldn't be as impervious to reason, they could be taught that races are just the same as each other. You can be infected with all sorts of prejudice, but to be infected by God is different, precisely because of the reasons you say, it's in a different universe.

You can teach someone that all the castes and races are the same, it's open to reason, but as long as everyone goes along with the "religious belief is sacred" [LIFTED], you can't teach them that their God doesn't exist - they're supported by a mass, population wide delusion - and even someone of the people who claim to be atheists *wink* hold that it's arrogance to tell someone they shouldn't believe in a God.

man in their ignorance is what's wrong. It's the ignorance aspect.

And science and reasoning are synonymous with education, and atheism allows science and reasoning to flourish, with no illogical limitations.

Atheism is a bloody good idea worth spreading - it helps fight ignorance, the real cause of what's wrong with the world. Religion adds and protects prejudices, it locks them in to a set of unquestionable laws - women should be whipped and stoned if they have the audacity to be raped!

What secular state* has ever said something like that? Atheism is that solution you allude to (because it certainly isn't to become more religious!)

edited from *atheist to make it more of a relevant statement.

My final thoughts on this:
It's impossible to know whether there is a God or not.
People confuse 'religion' with 'Faith', 'Belief', and the Abrahamic traditions.
From an objective point of view, the hoopla about atheism reminds me of so much religious rhetoric.
The truly scientific mind would weigh the vast mountain of information of the 'known unknowns' (to borrow the phrase from Rumsfeld) and then consider all of the information about life, the universe and everything that we cannot even begin to comprehend, let alone string together a meaningful interrogative question about, and conclude that it is simply impossible to dismiss the prospect of some form of intelligent creator of the universe.
We just don't know enough, and it's starting to look like we never will.

So live and let live. Some people think there's a God; that's fine.
Some people don't think there's a God; that's fine as well.

What gets up my nose more than anything else is people on a mission to perform conversions, be it Muslim, Christian or Atheist.
You have your opinion, I have mine. Neither is any more correct than the other, and you're a fool to think otherwise. The human mind is a marvellous thing, it's perfectly capable of entertaining two opposing thoughts at the same time.
Although, as I mentioned before, I don't see the presence of a creator, a God to whom we owe our existence to be entirely unscientific - rather that science is, in some regards, painfully limited in explaining some things.
As far as science goes, the knowledge that we can detect sub atomic particles and describe neutrinos that travel faster than light does and possibly one day cure cancer is a fine, useful thing.
What religion is about is an experience of connecting yourself with an idea that there is something out there that is immeasurable, ineffable and at the same time overwhelmingly benevolent (although not necessarily in the childish solipsistic 'reward me now' sense).

And as far as the argument that a secular state is some sort of utopian idyll - how quickly we forget. Many of the more popular secular movements have massacred millions of souls 'for the mother nation'.
It's human nature - we just clothe it in the prevailing precept of the time. As much of the time it's ostensibly about 'my God's better than your God', it's just as much as 'I'd rather like to gain the geographic/mineral/political control you have in that region'.
But being coldly analytical, I'm sure I needn't remind any atheists that taking anything at face value is a fools errand, as equally befits the village fool sat in the front row of a church on Sunday.

Is that really what a scientific mind should do?

I hold that I have every right to try and persuade someone not to follow cults. Call me overly compassionate if you will, I can take the criticism.

And the atheist way of thinking also would protect you from following ANY set of illogical [LIFTED] such as dying for communism, so no, just because there are other things just as bad as religion doesn't mean we shouldn't fight religious fundamentalism or religion's erosion of the the US syllabus and the presence of religious thinking in international politics.#

It's like saying well if they weren't dying for a personality cult then it would just be something else, so don't try to persuade North Koreans for thinking for themselves.

Or well if they weren't killing animals for Chinese Medicine then they would be killing them for something else, so it's cool that they think shark fins will give them firmer erections! It's the duty of non-idiots to persuade them otherwise.

You're disregarding the possibility of society improving once a personality cult is broken up or species populations increasing through education about myths and legends about virility.

EDUCATION WORKS, and to do that means to not just accept the status quo.

Yes. The limits of that question, as you've crudely misquoted them, only apply to the limits of human experience. The universe is rather more than that.
That is, right here, now, over a period of a few millions of years (next to no time, on a macro scale) on a small ball of rock that's in the third orbital in an unremarkable solar system.

Sciene is rational? Like eugenics? Or this global warming bollocks?

I'm not going to bother responding to that if you're not going to bother tackling any of my other points.

Be careful you'd be hanged for saying things like that a few hundred years ago.

One further point - responsibility for the creation of the universe and what happens after you die have not (as far as I'm aware) ever been blamed upon any of the creatures you've mentioned. One of them's even a well known publicity stunt.

My talking salmon created the world, I keep him in my cupboard.

And scientists should respect his existence.

Good for you. I think, however, that scientists might have a rather simple time to prove or disprove your salmon's existence, as it's rather simply grounded in testable, common or garden physics.
That is, we can look in your cupboard and see if it's there.
Then we can further test it to see if it can talk.
This may involve vivisection to find vocal cords.

The question of whether or not it created the universe is rather more between you and him. Given it's already rather startling qualities, it might just be possible.
However, the main point is that you're not doing anybody any harm in believing in your talking, Simon Cowell, Big Brother, genocidal, AIDS creating salmon. Just don't ask me to join in. Ta.

No he's invisible. The cupboard is invisible.

(see how he's already dodging your attempts at rationality?) And I just made up up 5 minutes ago! Imagine if I had thousands of years to perfect this carp (salmon).

I see.
Well, good for you.

Thanks for respecting my views. I'm truly offended when people start to question the existence of my invisible talking cupboard fish. He could help you win the lottery if you talk to him btw.

In order to talk to my invisible salmon you should stand on one leg and lick your left wrist and just think what you want to say.

I'm thinking of publishing a book with all these rules in actually.