To think that God doesn't exist and is a manmade concept

[Perimama]

As it is taboo to talk religion politics with people socially, I often wonder whether many people think like me. As a species we have dismissed all the other "Gods" ie Greek gods etc. What makes the Christian God any different? I wasn't born into a religious household although I was baptized Christian. The whole concept seems so unbelievable to me.

I recommend you read some philosophy books to answer your questions.

@Achildbelongstoitsmother I'm sorry to go on, btw. But you did address me by name, several times.

Brainwashing from a young age is why people believe in god

It's a load of BS

natural selection is a theory which many feel has not applied to humans at least as a species.

The fact that now we have 'unnatural' selection (of animals even more than humans) in no way negates the many millions of years of natural selection leading to Homo sapiens.
How anyone 'feels' on this subject is somewhat irrelevant as it's a matter of objective evidence not subjective views.

You have made a very interesting point. There is an idea that we should all be upholding our religious communities churches etc even if we are atheist because we have nothing else and that atheism does not offer anything to those without faith in terms of life markers like baptism and funerals, marriages etc. No structure to the week, no moral code, no marking the seasons. No centre of a community to uphold values and help people. The idea being that until secular society creates a viable alternative to replace faith based practice then we need to continue with the old.

But you simply don't need a religion for most of those things. The idea that atheists have 'no moral code' is entirely wrong and frankly offensive. Our civil society allows for entirely secular marking of births, marriages and deaths. There is obviously structure to our weeks - the 'day of rest' may have been decided by one religion or another but is firmly entrenched in working practices. We have a justice system and social services. They may not work as well as we'd like but as far as I can see these things are better in the secular present than the religious past.

Which period are you referring to? What do you mean by 'Education' and 'masses'? This is such a blanket statement it doesn't really mean anything.

I do get exasperated with the "atheists have no moral code" line! Of course we do. And there are already non faith based alternatives to church weddings, baptisms and funerals. Sunday ceased to be a day of rest many years ago.

Disclaimer: I haven’t read this section yet, I’m working my way from the start of his blog but might find this interesting as he is an atheist with a history background

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/

The idea that atheists have 'no moral code' is entirely wrong and frankly offensive

I agree. I'm extremely honest and have always (quietly) done lots of charity work and am generally a decent person. I behave like I do because it's the right thing to do and it makes life easy and relaxing for me. I'm not doing it because some all-seeing God is watching me and I'm not doing it to get a pass into heaven or access to virgins or whatever it might be.

Well google says that we only had compulsory education for children in 1880 so before that only rich people could be educated.

That is why religion was needed to control the masses before then.

@eardefender

Ancient people were not uneducated at all. For example, their maritime knowledge was exceptional and advanced. Ancient people also had deep faith as we can see from the monuments they left behind. I think that religious and spiritual connection and experience is innate to us as human beings and its part of our shared subconcious.

I'm not a historian but as far as I understand most religious monuments were built by power hungry men or 'churches' to control their populations. Building such as the Pyramids and St Peter's Basilica were not serving the spiritual needs of the locals but the megalomaniac desires of the leaders of the time.

Of course atheists have a moral code according to individual values and obeying the law. What might be different is that it varies more and also is more culturally based. Not saying that's bad but just likely to be different from the for eg Christian values

I don't agree with your view that religion was invented to control the masses. I think this is far too simplistic (and sorry a bit lazy). If this were true then why would every culture have religion at the heart of it and why is religion a very strong and real factor in peoples lives and culture regardless of education levels or wealth. Religion, education and wealth have been around a lot longer than 1880.

You could argue that the law and individual values come directly from religion. There is nothing wrong with being secular but still following Judeo/Christian values. I am not sure we can really separate ourselves from our heritage that easily or that quickly.

I respectfully disagree. My local churches are stunning and one is over 1,000 years old. Its quite an experience to be in one. Stonehenge and Newgrange are also incredibly spiritual places built to honour the dead and possibly to connect to some kind of afterlife. Churches were educational centres, community hubs and the local charity rolled into one. They were the best building in the village. I think your view is a bit dismissive.

I'd argue that's a bit arse about face, and what is commonly described as "Christian values" are just those which Christianity has co-opted from general humanity and labelled as their own.

Like previous posters, the attempted religious monopolisation of morality, and associated dire prognostications breakdown of natural law and order should we cast aside religion, irk me no end. Humans have an innate sense of right and wrong, decency, and a natural inclination toward helping other human beings because we all share and understand the human condition to one degree or another.

The fact that some transgress, and some choose to be hateful, immoral, or violent, is not in any way an indication of this being untrue, nor is it the case that this occurs because of a deficit in religiosity, because it still occurs even in the most religious of places, and then you have all the examples of violence, territorial dispute, disharmony, and so on which are fundamentally underpinned by difference in religious dogma.

Religion understandably has a vested interest in declaring a monopoly on morality, and maintaining the facade that humanity would collapse without it, because religion also frequently claims that it is the source of human morality even though this is blatantly untrue. If you come to that realisation though, it is yet another quandary that calls into question the need for religion and religiosity at all.

@eardefender Just to say that I am really enjoying your posts

I never said that education wasn't around until 1880 in the UK, I said free education of the masses wasn't.

Of course every culture has to have religion to control the masses before they were educated. It carries on today because people were taught to feel guilty or isolated from their families if they dimissed religion.

Religious leaders make sure that their victims cannot think for themselves and are brainwashed in to feeling guilty if they do something that is against the religion.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

Religion understandably has a vested interest in declaring a monopoly on morality, and maintaining the facade that humanity would collapse without it, because religion also frequently claims that it is the source of human morality even though this is blatantly untrue. If you come to that realisation though, it is yet another quandary that calls into question the need for religion and religiosity at all

I feel that what you have written down is typical of a secular view of religion and religious people. May i be so bold as to suggest that you don't understand that some people have faith. They really believe. If you ban religion tomorrow people will still worship. Not all religious people are part of a power crazed mafia based on control.

Actually the church has been providing free education to the masses long before 1880. I think your generalisations about all religion are quite frankly bonkers and also just bigoted religious discrimination. I really think you need to think about having some tolerance and understanding of others beliefs and faiths. I hope you can see that many will find what you have written quite offensive.

Of course the church provided free education. How else could they brainwash their victims?

All religions are cults.

I am sorry if some people find the truth offensive but it is the truth.

Xdown:
Not really because Christian's take their way of behaving from the Bible and Jesus' example. For eg if I was acting as a secular person I might think it's ok to be fall out with someone if they were annoying/ unreliable etc but as a Christian I might think harder to empathise with them and cut them slack.

this is hateful, you are not here to debate or discuss at all. Sad.

I have never doubted that people have "faith", and I'm also well aware that religion and faith are two wholly separate things.

I also have no desire to "ban religion", and nor do I doubt that even were it to be banned, people would still practice. There is, after all, historical precedent for this even in the UK.

I'll just reiterate, it is clear, to me at least, why religion frequently attempts to monopolise morality, and declare itself the origin and source of morality, as if it is something that humans required to be "taught" instead of something that is innate. If you take this as read, it follows that if you remove this moral authority, humans will regress back to an animalistic state, whereupon they are incapable of behaving with any sort of human decency whatsoever, therefore, it is imperative that humans retain their religiosity and religion persists.

The problem is though, that simply isn't true, because there are plenty of examples of non-religious or atheistic humans still behaving with perfect human decency when religion is completely absent. So it's clear that human decency and morality is not dependant on religion and religiosity at all, and therefore any argument that posits this as a reason as to why religion must be preserved is nonsense.

I'm not saying "we need to do away with religion", I'm merely demonstrating how "we need religion to stop society falling apart" is baseless nonsense.

Or conversely, you as a Christian, might still reach the limit of your patience with them, whereas someone who is more patient than even you, despite being an atheist, may still persist with them.

Patience may well be a "Chrisitian value", but it is also a human value, and unless you want to go making wild claims about all Christians, without exception, being more patient that atheists, then I think your point is nonsense, quite frankly.