posted 06-18-99 01:39 PM ET        

I think being an athiest or a christian etc. does not dicate what type of person you are. It does appear though, that in general the more logical and scientific minds are most often athiests. Just like someone posted, the whole thing is psychological, and often people just want SOMETHING to believe in.

They like to group EVERYTHING that they do not understand and just bury it under the guise of religion.

But a large majority of Christians are simply selfish. It can be said that there is never a selfless act. For example, often someone gives money to charity so that it make THEMSELVES feel good.

It is very rare that people can be selfless......there are mainly just greater and lesser circumstances.

Because of the above.....I tend to get annoyed at people who say "I believe in God because I do not want to go to Hell". I mean, how ingenuine and corny can you get?

Most Christians go to church every Sunday, just so they can feel all self-righteous. They do it to feel like they are doing their duty to their God so that they "do not go to Hell".

I mean, I have never got on very well with those self-righteous Christian types because they are too ingenuiene for me, and flagrantly hypocritical. It's like these people are on totally different wavelengths to me, and I can hardly endure a conversation with them.

The same can be said for those Hollywood celebrity types who like to justify their greed by giving a portion now and again to charity to make themselves feel good, or just to raise their public profile.

But then there are those, who don't bother going to Chuch but admit to believing in God. When you ask them why, or ask them to discuss religion they do not want to have a bar with it. They are happy to thrust all their unaswered questions aside and never address them. They are usally those who don't go for all that Bible trash, but believe in the existence of a super-being. I generally relate to these people because they are genuine and not suckup christians who grovel for their place in heaven at the alter.

Then there are atheists, who in my opinion are some of the most down-to-earth, stable, genuine people around. When I say genuine, I mean what it means. Genuine people in my understanding are ones who know who they are, and are not afraid to stand up for themselves. For all it's worth, a genuine person could be a thief, but at least he knows it and does not pretend otherwise. But at least this thief may not be going to church on sundays then raping little boys in his spare time. Don't flame me here, I'm not stereotyping. This is meant to be a complete contrast. I concede that most Christians are good people mainly, but are often good because for the wrong reasons.

So my point, if there is one, is that you always get dogooder types, and they are the same the world over. Sometimes, in rare circumstances they are genuine but from my experiences most religous people are actually two-faced, and if the Devil managed to get into power, they would be the ones grovelling at his feet for mercy.

I will never fully grasp why some apparently smart people just cannot live their lives and be content with the fact that there are unanswered questions in life, and just be happy with 80 years or so that you are on this Earth. Dieing is not that bad. You can have morals without religion. Why cannot they get their sh*t together and be strong willed and face up to the facts that life is what it is?

Some christians are very smart....and they will argue very well avoiding the main issues. They will try to prove these little petty points in the Bible are true and argue that if you cannot prove God doesn't exist, then he must exist etc.

I am not saying that all that Biblie sh*t is false.....I am not saying I can prove God doesn't exist. All I am saying is that you don't need it. Grow out of it.....Live your own life....be your own God.........do what YOU whole-heartedly feel is right...and don't go by some bullsh*t rule, that I must not do this I must not do that because I will go to HELL. Instead, go with your gut, and NOT murder because YOU think that it is simply just WRONG.....you may aswell be saying that I will NOT murder because I will go to jail if I do. Don't base your morals on what if's and what not's.

I have a simple solution for myself. I handle all my own problems and don't bury them under the carpet. I do not think there is a "God". I think there is more chance there are aliens. I do not beleive in the Devil.

And if it does so happen that there is a God, who gives a Sh*t, I dont need him, I'm am not a weakling who needs a God to hide my troubles, God can go screw himself with all his pathetic losers trying to crawl up his ass.

posted 06-19-99 07:29 AM ET            

ps, when I refer to religion, I am talking about organised religion, not personal belief. Evangelism, for example, and it's more sinister form, fundamentalism, is the enemy of good people everywhere, and should not be tolerated by anyone.

posted 06-19-99 11:33 AM ET            

Maybe one day society will learn the foolishness of religion. Maybe society could do what is right based on what we belive, not based on the threat of going to hell. Maybe people will realize all the bad that has come out of religion, such as The Inquisition, The Crusades, even World War II and the conflict in Kosovo!

posted 06-19-99 09:14 PM ET         

Harrison...you're frightening me with those generalizations. Huge numbers of people attend church not because of threats, but because it gives them a feeling of comfort and security. And the HUGE majority of Christians that I've met (and ALL of the Jews) couldn't care less what you believe. The whole religion is not, as you seem to think, focused on avoiding hell. Most people just want to get to heaven. Religion gives hope, comfort, and meaning to THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE! How can this be inherently wrong? The only problem arises when one group tries to force its faith upon the other.

posted 06-19-99 10:10 PM ET            

This is just as offensive as the notion that the "common man" can't behave in a moral or ethical fashion without the threat of hell/reward of heaven bearing down on him. Elitism and smug self-superiority is not a desirable trait, for either side of this debate.

It's perfectly possible to be a reasonable, thoughtful religious person. I happen to think they are wrong, and self-deluded, but most of them are neither evil nor under the boot of some evil "religious organization". There are only two types of religious people I have problems with: people who have been raised in a religious faith and have never questioned it or examined the althernatives (I'm suspicious of anybody who doesn't question the party line at least sometimes) or people like the religious right in America who try to push what I consider to be warped religous views on the rest of us, based solely on their "moral authority" from their religion.

posted 06-20-99 01:12 AM ET            

The fact of the matter is, many religious people are more sceptical about the existence of God than atheists. While this may seem at first like a silly comment, you have to walk a mile in our shoes. For instance, since I do not go to the store and buy God, or see God walking down the street, it takes quite a leap of faith to believe in his existence. That's why many of the most religious have dark times of the soul (or the dark tea time of the soul as has been written in a good novel you may know about). On average, atheists think much less about God, because they do not believe in him. For a religious person, they think about him every day and have to live with the nagging doubt.

"I think being an athiest or a christian etc. does not dicate what type of person you are."

Of course it doesn't dictate it. It seems to help many times, though. For instance, why is murder wrong for a christian? It's because you are taking away the dignity of the person whom you are murdering. This dignity is rooted in the fact that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God. A person does not have the right to take someone else's life from them. You don't make the reasoning the same way, but can you see how this could help determine how good a person is?

"Just like someone posted, the whole thing is psychological, and often people just want SOMETHING to believe in."

Of course it's psychological. We're all psychological beings. I think your argument here is that people are believers by default. We are stupid and will believe anything. This argument goes nowhere. Again, religious people think about this stuff more than atheists and most often have very detailed justifications for their beliefs.

"It does appear though, that in general the more logical and scientific minds are most often athiests"

And most often religious too, oddly enough. I have made the beginnings of a case for a "higher order" which I think appeals to the scientifically-minded. It is a winding road, however.

"They like to group EVERYTHING that they do not understand and just bury it under the guise of religion."

If you believe this, you are foolish. One aspect of early religions was that they attempted to explain what was at the time unexplainable. Most of the modern religions do not attempt to do so. Of course you have some religious people who look at everything in life through the prism of religion and talk about nothing other than religion, but this is a minority.

"But a large majority of Christians are simply selfish."

I would dispute this opinion as groundless. Most of us want to do good, make the world a better place, and help our fellow man. Many of us set aside a percentage of our income to see that this goal is furthered. This has little to do feeling good (I would rather invest it, all things being equal) nor does it have to do with guilt or fear of damnation. Not that there aren't religious people out there who have these motivations, just that this "vast majority" of which you speak is not really based in an objective examination of the average religious person.

"It is very rare that people can be selfless......there are mainly just greater and lesser circumstances"

This is a cynical view of the world and doesn't hold up in reality. I see small selfless acts every day in every shape and form.

"I tend to get annoyed at people who say "I believe in God because I do not want to go to Hell"

While I am not alone in not wanting to meet perdition, it really has little to do with my life and the way I act. Most modern religions are moving away from a focus on damnation. I daresay, as a Catholic, this is mentioned very, very little. Not that there aren't some out there who are afraid of damnation (there are some people out there who are afraid of microbes too--just a case of the fringe). Most of the focus in modern religions are positve, i.e., they try to teach how to the religious how to live well and what are the goods things to do, rather than what shouldn't be done. Most of the prayers are geared toward asking for help in doing what is right.

"Most Christians go to church every Sunday, just so they can feel all self-righteous."

Hmmm... Some go to sing and dance, some go to pray, some go to clear their minds, some go because of a sense of duty. I go to clear my mind and to attempt to focus on the important things in life (with varying degrees of success each week).

The sense of duty you talk about has very little to do with hell. It's more about trying to do the right thing.

"I mean, I have never got on very well with those self-righteous Christian types"

OK, are you saying that a majority of christians are like this? If not, I agree with you. There are the self-righteous christian types out there. They are to be avoided.

"They are usally those who don't go for all that Bible trash"

I suspect that you have been reading the Bible selectively, if at all. Most of it is about loving your neighbor, etc. Hardly trash by any measure.

"Genuine people in my understanding are ones who know who they are, and are not afraid to stand up for themselves."

OK, but why would you exclude strong believers from this group? While you see weakness in the belief, I most often see strength.

"Sometimes, in rare circumstances they are genuine but from my experiences most religous people are actually two-faced, and if the Devil managed to get into power, they would be the ones grovelling at his feet for mercy."

Wouldn't you?

"And if it does so happen that there is a God, who gives a Sh*t, I dont need him, I'm am not a weakling who needs a God to hide my troubles, God can go screw himself with all his pathetic losers trying to crawl up his ass."

Hehe... Who pissed in your cornflakes. Why such anger at a God who doesn't exist?

"This is something I've always wondered. If not beliveing in God sentenced you to eternal damnation, why does he make his existance so ambiguous?"

Not believing in God doesn't sentence you to eternal damnation (at least this isn't the case with catholicism).

"Does God expect us to base the way we think and the way we act on the "teachings" of an abstract book and the rantings of a million holy men?"

Well, I have respect for these holy men, so I wouldn't call it ranting (whether they be catholic, protestant, orthodox, buddhist or hindu). These teachings get some good hard thought on my part. Nobody has ever asked me not to question every aspect of my faith.

"Maybe one day society will learn the foolishness of religion. Maybe society could do what is right based on what we belive, not based on the threat of going to hell."

Why are you guys hung up on this hell stuff, anyway? Most religious people don't think about this too much, since it doesn't really help us live our everyday life well and it's such an abstract punishment.

"Philip, the problem is when two religions are placed in relativly close proximity, one will try and force each other's religion upon each other. The problem is even more evident in third world nations, such as Yugoslavia."

Are the perpetrators of these acts of heinous violence really men of God? Wouldn't the situation in Yugoslavia, for instance, be more attributable to ethnic strife?

"Athiesm is not the course for 'the masses', because 'the masses' can't cope with reality without a little help."

As I understand it, perhaps a majority of Europeans are atheists. Are you excluding them from this "masses" comment? Octo is right, it's a bit insulting and not that realistic. You got it right up to that point, though.

posted 06-20-99 11:56 AM ET            

I always respect other peoples views and it is unfortunate that my post comes across as otherwise. I am one of those people who always tries to think laterally and from different perspectives. On a different subject perhaps, you would hear me saying the exact same words as you.

In saying that, I am going from my OWN experiences, therefore it is purely circumstantial when considering my social experience with Christians. But on the conceptual and pyschological side I believe I just came to clear cut conclusions from the evidence at hand. I thought I was clear in my post that I was basing my opinions from my own personal experiences. I am not saying there are not some really good Christians out there, I am just having a go at the Christians that I seem to come across all the time, the Ned Flanderesses et al.

The reason that I am more single minded than usual in my posts about religion, is that I see it so clearly in my mind. I try not to betray my conviction my giving other peoples arguments too much respect in this regard.

My main point in all of this, is not to BASH at Christians, but rather to say why can you not get spiritual fulfillment without it? In being a Christian you are leading a sheltered lifestyle hampered by archaic ideals.

I don't mind the fact that people look for fulfillment, but I would like to see them show more character and find it within themselves, their family and friends rather than a rediculous myth that is brainwashed into them.

So, fine I agree in this instance that I do not respect other peoples views here, because I am so sure that there should be no other views. It is all so clear to me, that is all I can say.

I wonder, can the same be said for yourself? Is it all so clear to you that God must exist? Is it all so clear to you that because of your religion, you will lead a better life and be rewarded at its end?

If you have any doubt with any of those questions then you are the only one who needs to respect other peoples opinions.

I think we all should disregard the argument if God does exist or not. That is impossible to prove. Why don't we stick to the real argument, In this day and age is Christianity or religion in general for better or for worse?

I say for worse. It holds is back. Everyone else has made my argument for me, no need to repeat the pros and cons.

posted 06-20-99 01:05 PM ET            

These questions are, for me, the most important ones in life. I put quite a bit of effort into thinking about how my life is going and what I can do to make it better. Christianity helps me immensely in this regard. Brain-washing doesn't have this element of questioning, so it's not a good label.

"I always respect other peoples views and it is unfortunate that my post comes across as otherwise. I am one of those people who always tries to think laterally and from different perspectives. On a different subject perhaps, you would hear me saying the exact same words as you."

Well for me this question is "The Big Kahuna" and if you can't think laterally on this one, you might have need of some self-introspection. It may not The Big Kahuna for you, I don't know. Rather, just another question like "Favorite Movie."

posted 06-20-99 02:42 PM ET            

Well, without trying to sound to cocky, for me it's 'been there done that'.

When I was in High School I did plenty of self-introspection. It wasn't always "cut-and-dried" for me either

Questioning my beliefs is over and done with for me. But since you brought it up, I see your point also, and because I have been in your position at a time in my life, I respect the conundrum that Religion can cause you.

"There must be a reason the good schools preach this stuff..."

posted 06-25-99 09:45 AM ET            

Religion is obsolete. We have a new model of thought nowadays (the past 100 years). I am quite frankly surprised that people still believe in any kind of mystical entities. The evidence is before us, and that is our only source of knowledge. Not a book.

posted 06-25-99 01:44 PM ET            

Religion requires you to be able to take something on faith. If you need proof, then you're out of luck.

posted 06-25-99 04:13 PM ET            

The Age of Enlightenment: the Terror of Robespierre and the Jacobins - very reasonable that was not!

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot - so much better than Russian Orthodoxy, Confucianism and Buddhism - NOT!

100 years ago Arthur Quiller-Couch, along with most other prominent atheists, was boldly asserting that the Universe had no beginning. Although some are still trying to put that line, the evidence of the Big Bang shows that AQC and co. were boasting of a conclusion when they didn't know anything of the sort.

The observation of entropy should have clued them into the likelihood that the Universe hasn't been constant forever and ever. But, oh no, they were so determined to "prove" the Bible wrong that they were willing to use outrageous and untestable claims as the axioms of their argument. Hypocrites!

As regards atheists being more genuine and wise: Bertrand Russell was no brighter or better than his co-author of the Principia Mathematica, Alfred Whitehead, who was not an atheist.

And if you really wish to discuss moral character, Russell was driven by a love not of people, but of promiscuity.

Voltaire reneged on alimony.

As for child abuse by church officials, that is evidence in favor of the truth of religion, because Jesus warned his disciples against just that.

Contrast that with the wild promises of the French "Humanist" Revolutionaries and the Atheist Communists who promised that the new society would create a new Man immune to the vices of earlier ages.

The atheists were so sure that they were so smart, but look what their social engineering produced. Mass purges, many tens of millions dead in one generation, through neglect, starvation, beatings, torture.

The Inquisition was horrific, but modern "science" has done several orders of magnitude worse.

If you're going to judge people by their actions, instead of their words, which is fair enough, then "rational" atheism is a hundred times worse than religion.

It can be argued from history that both religion and atheism are evil, but religion is erratically evil, whereas atheism is more destructive because it is "scientifically", methodically, systematically evil.

Many atheists are "moral relativists", which reveals how little they know about Einstein's Relativity, which far from introducing a new "relative", refined the Galilean observation of relative motion to include a new _absolute_, namely the *constant* speed of light.

Not only was Einstein not an atheist, most of the original thinkers in history (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, William of Occam, Nicolas of Cusa, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Mendel) have not been atheists.

The atheists are the lesser minds, the copycats, and the science journalists who garble the facts, the theories, the formulas, and the philosophies of the great scientists.

Incidentally, even the maligned concept of hell has a scientific basis - where do you suppose each cosmos emerges from and returns to? A state of unimaginably high pressure and temperature.

St Peter described the end of the universe in terms that are only comprehensible to the modern scientific mind: "space rolls up like a scroll, and the elements melt in the great heat".

That's exactly what happens when a universe collapses.

The collapse of space is also why St John describes the stars as falling to earth: that's how the end looks wherever you are in the universe when it's occurring - everything is falling toward you, because everything is falling together.

But the brilliant atheist minds of 1900 never comprehended a jot of that.

posted 06-25-99 04:25 PM ET            

The Age of Enlightenment: the Terror of Robespierre and the Jacobins - very reasonable that was not!

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot - so much better than Russian Orthodoxy, Confucianism and Buddhism - NOT!

100 years ago Arthur Quiller-Couch, along with most other prominent atheists, was boldly asserting that the Universe had no beginning. Although some are still trying to put that line, the evidence of the Big Bang shows that AQC and co. were boasting of a conclusion when they didn't know anything of the sort.

The observation of entropy should have clued them into the likelihood that the Universe hasn't been constant forever and ever. But, oh no, they were so determined to "prove" the Bible wrong that they were willing to use outrageous and untestable claims as the axioms of their argument. Hypocrites!

As regards atheists being more genuine and wise: Bertrand Russell was no brighter or better than his co-author of the Principia Mathematica, Alfred Whitehead, who was not an atheist.

And if you really wish to discuss moral character, Russell was driven by a love not of people, but of promiscuity.

Voltaire reneged on alimony.

As for child abuse by church officials, that is evidence in favor of the truth of religion, because Jesus warned his disciples against just that.

Contrast that with the wild promises of the French "Humanist" Revolutionaries and the Atheist Communists who promised that the new society would create a new Man immune to the vices of earlier ages.

The atheists were so sure that they were so smart, but look what their social engineering produced. Mass purges, many tens of millions dead in one generation, through neglect, starvation, beatings, torture.

The Inquisition was horrific, but modern "science" has done several orders of magnitude worse.

If you're going to judge people by their actions, instead of their words, which is fair enough, then "rational" atheism is a hundred times worse than religion.

It can be argued from history that both religion and atheism are evil, but religion is erratically evil, whereas atheism is more destructive because it is "scientifically", methodically, systematically evil.

Many atheists are "moral relativists", which reveals how little they know about Einstein's Relativity, which far from introducing a new "relative", refined the Galilean observation of relative motion to include a new _absolute_, namely the *constant* speed of light.

Not only was Einstein not an atheist, most of the original thinkers in history (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, William of Occam, Nicolas of Cusa, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Mendel) have not been atheists.

The atheists are the lesser minds, the copycats, and the science journalists who garble the facts, the theories, the formulas, and the philosophies of the great scientists.

Incidentally, even the maligned concept of hell has a scientific basis - where do you suppose each cosmos emerges from and returns to? A state of unimaginably high pressure and temperature.

St Peter described the end of the universe in terms that are only comprehensible to the modern scientific mind: "space rolls up like a scroll, and the elements melt in the great heat".

That's exactly what happens when a universe collapses.

The collapse of space is also why St John describes the stars as falling to earth: that's how the end looks wherever you are in the universe when it's occurring - everything is falling toward you, because everything is falling together.

But the brilliant atheist minds of 1900 never comprehended a jot of that.

posted 06-25-99 04:46 PM ET            

Dilbert's garbage man? Is he the same as the guy who exchanged his suit for stick-it notes, and started surreptitiously living off post-conference leftovers? (Because it's more economically efficient to be a scavenger?)

RyanG: the question is, why are they the good schools?

Suggestion: It's because they value what's good, which atheists by and large don't.

Incidentally, I was where _you_ are. I was raised as an atheist by both my parents. So being a keen defender of all atheism and staunch opponent of religious superstition, I aimed to find out what the underlying principles were upon which one could build a sound case for atheism, and found that there are none! That atheism has no scientific or logical foundation.

PH: "I will argue with you, but only on a scientific level". Funny, that's what the Inquisition said to Galileo when he tried to argue theology with them. He said, look the Bible supports the heliocentric theory; and they replied, but we want to see your astronomical observations that support that hypothesis.

You see, it wasn't Galileo versus the Church, because there were three astronomer factions within the Roman Church of the 1600's: the heliocentrists, the geocentrists, and a third group whose view I don't recall.

The heliocentrists wanted Galileo to present sound argument to support their case, but he spent much of his effort in writing personal insults against not only the geocentrists, but also his heliocentrist friends. He had a major ego problem, and that's what got him into trouble.

To give a more accurate picture of how the Church stood from 1400 to 1640 on astronomy, consider Nicolas of Cusa (Nicholas Krebbs, he was born in Germany, and posted to Italy).

It was the 1400's, and he was a Bishop when he proposed that the universe was infinitely large (or as the HHGTTG might have put it, "really really big"), with the countless stars all being suns.

What do you suppose the Church did when he published that? I bet you atheists cannot guess.

posted 06-25-99 06:52 PM ET            

You seem to have completely missed the point, which is why you will never, ever be able to convince an atheist away from his views. Time after time, atheists ask the question: "Provide me with proof". Time after time, the God-botherer responds with historic examples to back up his argument, and these examples always criticise the person, NOT the theory.

Most atheists are prepared to believe in God. And they are prepared to listen to even the slightest bit of evidence that supports the supposition, but you have to do the following:
1) say what your theory is (and don't mention anyone else's theory)
2) state some previous rules/theories that you are going to use that you are pretty certain that the person that you are trying to convince does believe (and don't mention whether or not the theory was developed by someone who had a limp, so it's bound to be true)
3) propose an experiment to determine the truth of the proposition AND provide a 'control' group/proposition. This experiment must be repeatable, by someone with the correct tools.
4) provide your results, such that they can be independently verified.
5) sit back and let someone repeat the experiment, so that your theory attains a measure of likelyhood.

Remember - the only branch of science that contains any 'proof' is mathematics: all other science is composed of theories that have attained a level of probability nearing one because lots of different people have proposed lots of different scientific experiments to support or destroy the theory, and only the supporting ones have been accepted as successful by a vast majority of critical scientists.

Now, if you can follow these rules you will gain acceptance by atheists who work within the scientific framework. If you can't follow these rules, and insist on bringing someone's personal habits into the argument, then you will be just the same as every other creationist - or whatever - who has been laughed out of court.

Fancy the challenge?

posted 06-25-99 07:23 PM ET            

"The Age of Enlightenment: the Terror of Robespierre and the Jacobins - very reasonable that was not!

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot - so much better than Russian Orthodoxy, Confucianism and Buddhism - NOT!"

You later mention the Inquisition, but what about the Teutonic conversion of the north eastern Europe, the Crusader's behaviour in the Middle East, human sacrifice in Mezoamerica, cannibalism in the South Pacific, the Salem withc trials, etc.
Atheism may not have a better record than religion, but it's certainly no worse.

"As for child abuse by church officials, that is evidence in favor of the truth of religion, because Jesus warned his disciples against just that."

Now you've completely lost me. How does it follow that because Jesus warned the disciples against something that some members of the Church have fallen into that this supports Christianity?

"Incidentally, even the maligned concept of hell has a scientific basis - where do you suppose each cosmos emerges from and returns to? A state of unimaginably high pressure and temperature.

St Peter described the end of the universe in terms that are only comprehensible to the modern scientific mind:
'space rolls up like a scroll, and the elements melt in the great heat'.

That's exactly what happens when a universe collapses.

The collapse of space is also why St John describes the stars as falling to earth: that's how the end looks wherever you are in the universe when it's occurring - everything is falling toward you, because everything is falling together."

Only if the universe is closed, which is certainly no proven.

DanS:
"These questions are, for me, the most important ones in life. I put quite a bit of effort into thinking about how my life is going and what I can do to make it better. Christianity helps me immensely in this regard. Brain-washing doesn't have this element of questioning, so it's not a good label."

Two points.
First, while it may aid you in living your life, that does not mean Christianity of religion in gerneral is 'right'. It could be a purely secular effect that rethinking your life every few months helps keep you on track and that the religious aspects are superfilous.
Second, many religious people today don't like people questioning their beliefs. Certainly during many periods of history people that dared question the promulgated religious dogma were branded heretics.

----

posted 06-25-99 07:43 PM ET            

In my opinion, I belive God was mearly created to explain the origin of the universe when no other ways could be thought of. The people of the past thought that nothing short of an all-powerful dieity could create such a massive universe. Now that we have thoeries such as the Big Bang and Evolution, we do not need religion to expain these things for us.

"Mr. Darwin, what do you have to say to all of the creationists out there?"