Religion is based on tradition and authority and is not to be questioned. The logical consequence of that is that one can act in a horrific manner in the name of religion (most likely even thinking he/she is doing the right thing).
Imo religion poses a great threat to human life on this planet based on the reasons given above.

I'd like to hear some of your opinions on this matter.

"Science flies you to the moon, Islam flies you into buildings"

not christianity

Yes, Christianity only inspires people to stone you to death for saying Earth is round and make them blow up hospitals for helping a woman who thinks she has the right to choose

What's the difference between Islam and Christianity?
Both base on faith rather than reason and can therefore not be questioned.
Why wouldn't this be a lethal combination for Christianity?

Islam believes deeds get you into heaven (e.g 9/11). The bible says repent and trust that Jesus is the Saviour to get into heaven. The 6th commandment is thou shalt not kill and in Isaiah 64:6 it says that all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.

It's a shame we don't seem to have any Muslims posting here(except hardball??)

Where does atheism fly you?

don't you think that there is a huge bias on this Dawkinsian notion? I would certainly concede that there is certain fundamental nature that runs in religion especially in Islam (not one Muslim country will allow freedom of religion and speech)

But, i would expand on what you have to say, stating that people in power with their greed unduly do not want their authority questioned! (Francisco Franco, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam) Certainly some have used religion as a catalyst or a binding factor.

"Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue" (p.346 The God Delusion).

The New 10 commandments
#7 "Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them" (p.299 The God Delusion)
I think we can all agree with this commandment. But, it isn't a new idea. In fact it is a christian idea. To name just a few off the top of my head:

Paul wrote 1Thessalonians 5:21 "Test everything": 1 John 4 test the spirits :and, Jesus 'beware of false prophets' (judge and test). Jesus also tested the major religious authority of his day!

We all ask questions! All of us! We all have a deep sense of a moral and ethical code. The pilots of 9/11 made a conscious choice not an unquestioned choice.

"A faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it" (intro. xvii The Reason for God, Timothy Keller)

Atheism offers nothing. It never has, and it never will. It doesn't make me feel good, or comfort me. It's not there for me when I'm sick or ill. It can't intervene in my times of need. It won't protect me from hate or lies. It doesn't care if I fail or succeed. It does nothing when I've got nowhere to run. It won't give me wise words or advice. It has no teachings for me to learn. It can't show me what's bad or nice. It's never inspired or incited anyone. It won't help me fulfill my goals. It won't tell me to stop when I'm having fun. It's never saved one single soul. It doesn't take credit for everything I achieve. It won't make me get down on bended knee. It doesn't demand that I have to believe. It won't torture me for eternity. It won't teach me to hate or despise others. It won't tell anybody that they can't be lovers. It won't tell anyone that they don't belong. It won't make you think that life is worth living.

It has nothing to offer me, that's true. But the reason atheism offers nothing is because I've never asked it to. Atheism offers nothing because it doesn't need to. Religion promises everything because people like you wanted it to.

I want to feel reality and nothing more. So atheism offers me everything.

Nobody owes you a damn thing. You're lucky to be alive, make the most of this life and forsake your presumptuous desire for another one.

Yeah, me too. Of course we have different ideas of where to shop for that feeling.

You're assuming a conclusion. Whether you were created by God or luck is one of the main points at issue in this forum.

No I really am not.

Look at the amount of sperm in a male ejaculation. You were one of about 20 - 100 million to have the chance to fertilize your mothers egg. God did not select you specifically to fertilize that egg, you did it yourself.

Thanks to this knowledge provided by science, we are all "lucky" to be alive in this sense, at the very least.

We both won a sort of biological lottery to be here right now, at the very very least, regardless of any claims to the nature of the universe.

This is science. This is not an opinion. This is not debatable. You, in fact, are the one assuming the conclusion that you might not have been lucky when science has already proven that we are.

The bolded part is an error. The "you" that formed in the womb is a consequence of the union of sperm and egg. There was no "you" before conception to influence the formation of you which began at conception.

Also, there remains plenty of room among the very many other variables causing this particular sperm and egg to get together to accommodate decisive influence by God. Restricting the narrative as you did is insufficient smokescreen for the handwave you attempted, sorry.

Looks like another "cool story" atheist fail at the most basic levels of fact and logic. Oh well.

I'm sorry, I was talking scientifically and not repeating something that a priest babbled about in front of me.

If there's no "you" in sperm, that is to say that they are not alive, how exactly do they swim? Is this a scientific claim that sperm are not alive, or that they are not linked to the baby coming out of the womb? Or is this just a "cool story bro" that you heard from a priest that you believed knew what he was talking about but in fact does not?

Oh, the ****ing irony.

"You" that formed in the womb, yes, in one part of the cycle is a consequence of the union of sperm and egg. But earlier and moreover, "you" are a consequence of spermatogenesis.

Sperm are alive. They are alive before reaching the womb. This is a scientific fact, despite what employees dressed in fancy clothing at your church tell you.

So the fact that you and I were, in fact, sperm in a desperate struggle with other living sperm to fertilize our mothers' egg, does in fact show that we are "lucky" (the odds were majorly against) our individual development to the point of having this conversation.

So no atrocities have ever been committed without the influence of religion?

At no time in history has anyone ever ruled an unquestionable rein? By that I mean, no one has ever accomplished blind allegiance without the aid of religion?

Since this is a science vs religion thread, I'll list some amazing things science did:

1. Medicine
2. Electricity
3. Computers
4. Airplanes
5. Weather forecasts

Now, your turn to list five amazing things religion gave to mankind, then I'll list some more from science.

Well, I believe quality over quantity so I will just give you one for now.

1. Peace with yourself

Now I will wait till you can give me something that science has given us that is better than that. Then I will give you another.

Since many atheists and agnostics including myself are at peace with themselves, religion can't take credit for this one.

Religion is not something that should not be questioned. Many religious people recognize that you should in fact question the religion often. It's healthy to do so and can strengthen your relationship with God.

1. Swimming doesn't imply life (although sperm are obviously alive anyway).

2. Saying there is no "you" in sperm is NOT the same are saying they aren't alive. You created this definition and I'm not sure how you justify it. I in fact don't know of anyone that believes there is a "you" until at least the sperm and egg merge. Moreover, is every living cell in you "you?" When you bleed and lose living cells in your blood, are you now left behind on the ground?

Well, sperm cell is not like any other living cell that you lose. Together with the egg, that initial sperm cell that succeeded is the most important cell.

But I do agree that there is no "you" in the sperm cell until after it merges.

So sperm are definitely alive, but are not representative of the people that they turn into after developing in the egg? How does that make any sense?

If a single sperm pre-fertilization is not representative of the person that it turns into later in life, what in the **** is it exactly? The sperm fertilizes the egg, and then what? Just disappears? It's the same sperm that fertilizes the egg that was swimming around outside of it minutes earlier.

You, in fact, don't know anyone that has a different opinion from you? That's great. I guess you have had talks with many thousands of people on this or should I take the 3 or 4 people's who's opinion you've gotten on the subject as fact? This must be an incredibly successful way of convincing people that you're right about something.

Technically, yes. Take away enough of them and you die.

Can't the sperm be part of the male they come from, instead of some other being? Once they are absorbed into the female, can't it be seen as part of that female instead of some other being? How is this inherently illogical?

Um, the standard arguments are that either life/you begins at fertilization or later, such as during brain/consciousness development. Starting earlier is very non-standard, and I'm honestly not sure that anyone on this forum will take that stance with you.

Also, your hate/insults are misplaced. I have not in fact met anyone that shares my opinion (I choose to start at birth). So maybe you should stop making assumptions and tone down the argumentation.

How is this an argument? Is there some magic number X where if you take away X pieces and you die, then those pieces are all "you," but otherwise they're not? Would you say that the oxygen molecules in the air are "you?" Take away enough of them, you die.

What do you mean how is that an argument. Living cells inside your body are, in the realest and deepest sense, you. Each cell is an individual part of you. Their total summation is you. I'm struggling to see how anyone can argue with this.

If the cells that make up your body are not "you"? What are "you"? Pixie dust?

Sure they could be. But they aren't. They move with a life and purpose of their own. They survive outside of the male body from which they come for a long time for how small they are. They survive inside female bodies. They are their own creature.

So then how can we speak of sperm being "alive" and "dying" as we did earlier and as scientists do?