Is it to just
- - give false hopes?
- - breed ignorance and hatred?
- - retard the growth of society and science?
- - because weak minded people with out it, couldn't live?
- - mass social control.
- - coax people in to believing you must do good or face a higher consequence,
- - control mass portions of society while making a large profit.
- - as long as there is religion in the world, science will be held back, and so will mankind.
With the exception of coaxing people to do good, you gave a list of negatives. If you see religion and are this negative does that mean you are religious?
Lets cut and paste your list again and deal with your criticisms, Father Negative.
Please name them? That being kind and loving will make your life better? That there really is no heaven: if you believe there is no heaven do you have evidence to support that proposition?
- breed ignorance and hatred?
Unlike communism, capitalism, ism-ism and any other philisophy of human-kind? How human?
- retard the growth of society and science?
There certainly was a lot of that in the past, say the Middle Ages. There was a lot of good too. Got any conclusive information of harm versus good over history that you can put in a chart or graph?
- because weak minded people with out it, couldn't live?
Like sickos who can't live without meds and treatment, you mean?
Like democracy? Communism? Monarchies? Consumerism?
I think you err in blaming all the negatives on religion instead of the very human nature that religions try to help. Not to say there are not nasty humans and nasty human motives within religions and religious people, but then some teachers are pedophiles and I still agree with the overall benefits of secular education.
- coax people in to believing you must do good or face a higher consequence,
And this is a problem?
- control mass portions of society while making a large profit.
Yes, some do. Some cops steal. Some leaders take bribes. Some teachers are pedophiles. Human nature is not a pretty thing.
- as long as there is religion in the world, science will be held back, and so will mankind.
Held back from what? Why? By whom?
Do you mean science like partial birth abortions? Or have you heard of this blessing of modern science and secular health professionals? Research firms pay poor mothers to get pregnant then abort late term fetuses to farm stem cells. Because the need is for fresh cells, the fetus is killed part way out of the mother before it can draw a breath so that at the moment it is "killed" it is not yet legally "alive". By killing the baby before it takes a breath the law is technically satisfied. In the absence of a legal code to stop this kind of activity the only thing to prevent it is morals. Think about the religious aspects for a second: in the absence of legal protection there are only morals, and unless you make up your own morals as you along that means religion of some kind.
I think you are taking a too narrow view of religion in the same way that religion initially took a too narrow view of science. I believe that religion and science are totally compatible.
Religion is a human concept. ?Religions? per se are human institutions. A first duty of any institution is its own survival, and that of course is inconsistent with a duty to God. Let?s face it, human nature is nasty and humans who compete and rise to the top of institutions are no exception. There is nothing wrong with being prudent about your approach to any institution.
It sounds like you are against the concept of God and public worship? Am I right?