July 10, 2008
-
What is your stance on religion? Are you a religious person?
I am staunchly opposed. (My regular readers won’t be at all surprised to hear me say this.)
I am very proud to not be at all religious.
Religion is anti-scientific; it is morally dangerous; and above all, it is factually false. You shouldn’t live your life based upon a falsehood. How do I know it’s false? If you could believe in it rationally based on evidence, they wouldn’t call it “faith” or “religion”. They’d call it something else, like “science,” or “history,” or “philosophy.”
And… bring on the wolves, since I just said this on a Featured Question rather than to my own readers.
I just answered this Featured Question, you can answer it too!
Comments (2)
Ehh..
I’m a hardcore atheist without a doubt, and agree with you. But I think it’s a little out there to say that religion is factually false. It’s more of an opinion than a fact that religion can be contradictory and hypocritical. I’m sure if you had some tangible proof that God didn’t exist we wouldn’t have as many religious people in the world as we do today.
Religion makes factual claims about the universe; they are either true or they aren’t. How do we determine if factual claims about the universe are true? We test them empirically. What happens when you test the claims of religion empirically? They fail.
Therefore I do not think it is at all “out there” to say that religion is factually false, any more than it is “out there” to say that geocentrism or astrology is factually false.