Why Religion does not work anymore.

To start with, religion in general will likely always clash in some way with something, either with science, with modern society, or with other religions. Oftentimes, it has been the source of great conflict and tragedy. This much, based on evidence throughout history, I believe everyone here can agree on.

Namkcor's main point as far as I can tell is that religion is not required in order to survive, and it is not necessary in order to be happy or be able to find meaning in one's life. In fact, it generally has caused problems in society due to differences in belief. Gay rights is a big personal example we can use. Is religion considered pointless then? Would we be better without it, so to speak?

Let me ask something else then. The human race has continued for thousands of years through reproduction. Love between two humans is not a requirement in order to do this. All that is needed is a man and a woman. Yet, would you then say that love is pointless? Would we be better off without it? Logically you could say we would, given the rate of crimes of passion. But, it can provide you with happiness, meaning, perhaps even inner-peace. You don't need it, and in fact you could (or in some cases should) find the same happiness and definition without love. However, if you have experienced love at least once in your life, I'd dare you to honestly say that love is not worth having. It is not a tool that you use to make yourself feel better, it is just something you grow and know to have.

Religion can be much the same. It provides hope, meaning, purpose, insight, etc., and fulfills their need for definition or certainty in their life (not to mention it's quite obviously what you personally believe the truth to be). It is not a tool, it is a belief and connection just like love. Don't get me wrong, religion does cause problems at times because of differences in beliefs. Those people with coffins and shotguns, the 9/11 attacks, gay rights. When someone does what they believe to be right, it is always going to clash with someone else's sense of morals when they do not believe it to be right. Beliefs needs to learn to coexist better. Yet, religion itself does "work" moreorless, it does provide the happiness and purpose that it is supposed to (and again, it is not a tool but simply what they believe the truth to be), and we are a thriving society. The peace between beliefs can be improved, but religion itself works.

On a personal note, I'm torn in religion and believe mostly in the naturalization of the soul, the removal of the supernatural in life and stepping forward to "fill the shoes of God" as it were. I wish for morals and laws based on human nature and society rather than the words of ancient text and tradition. I wish for meaning and purpose to be found not in the promise of an afterlife but in life itself, as exceedingly difficult as it may seem sometimes. Kinda hypocritical of me since I'm technically in support of religion in this thread, but if someone believes in something, why should we tell them to "move on" from it aside from our own beliefs?

I was agnostic for a long time however, I've been atheist for a while now. Religion does nothing for me. I don't, however, care if others believe in it or not cause I'm not going to tell you that it's a waste of time. It's just a waste of time for me. I truly believe in "The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time". I don't remember who said it or where I found it, but that's been my most favorite quote for years now. Occasionally I go to church with a friend or two if they ask me to go, and I don't complain about it. I just sit there and day dream or something, lol. I always end up going to the Easter and Christmas services at my parents' church cause they make me. haha. I'm friends with some people at my parents' church too and occasionally help out with whatever church activities are going on. This past Easter I helped make peanut butter eggs.

So I say that religion doesn't inherently provide anything. It provides only what you want it to provide. Isn't there a religion based on Yoda somewhere? Odd, but whatever. People find what they're looking for there than they do Christianity so obviously it doesn't matter what religion you are or how it works in what time period. Anything can be a religion.

Jedism, I believe it's called.

AHH yeah. That's right lol. I kept thinking YODISM YODISM YODISM?? NOOO NOT RIGHT. lol

Thank you Zylos, that's exactly what I meant.

However people are taking "move on" to mean ignore your beliefs.  I'm saying we can exist peacefully without necessarily seeing eye to eye.  It's called agreeing to disagree.  If you don't agree with someone and you can't help but get in a fight with them, then don't socialize with them, or learn how to exist without fighting.  You don't have to abandon your beliefs to avoid conflict.

Also I said 'move beyond' not 'move on'.

While I don't have much to say about the original goal this thread sets out to achieve (I am not sure who it is trying to convince, but it seems very obviously versed in a handful of specific theoretical strains which I could probably pinpoint, if I were more interested in doing so), I would like to raise a few relevant points that everyone has touched upon already.

The nature of "religion" as a faulty institution is a very tired subject; no reasonable person, religious or otherwise, would say that it is a perfect or even universally positive entity. Alternatively, nihilism, atheism, existentialism or any other general "category" which attempts to find meaning (or to acknowledge a lack thereof) are all, in their intellectual springs, more or less neutral entities (which is to say, they do not produce anything radical; more often than not, these modes of philosophical discourse focus on the deconstruction of opposing radical ideas). When one of these discourses becomes radical, it leads to something close to extremism, which is where most of the problems arise. I think immediately of Nietzsche, who has been widely influential, but is just as widely discredited for his speculative and inconsistent philosophy.

It is no less foolish to think that religion is obsolete than it is to think that a lack of religion is obsolete, as they are much the same thing, only mirrored. Consider a Buddhist who is moderately fervent in his or her beliefs and a nihilist that is moderately fervent in his or her beliefs; the degree to which they are invested leaves room for a remainder of theological tolerance. If you imagine that each person is invested in an idea to a certain degree (or in more than one idea to certain degrees), then the question becomes not what their belief is, but rather what is left over from their investment in these beliefs. It may sound silly to assume that someone who is only half Christian would tolerate an equal or lesser amount of another philosophy simultaneously, but give it some consideration (although not too much--this is still a digression!).

Now that we each have the image of a human measuring cup filled with belief A or belief B, I should note that the problem does not arise when the cup is full. In other words, someone who is wholly devoted to their beliefs is not necessarily someone who is wholly incompatible with other ideals (although, it is very likely that they will not take in any other ideals). The problem arises when someone who is wholly devoted to a specific belief is uniquely incompatible with another human being or belief.

Religion, therefore, is often confused with the convenient scapegoat labeled as the cause of an individual's hatred for another person or beliefs. Consider the crusades, for a moment. Countless unnecessary deaths were caused in the name of "religion." But consider for a moment how war works (we are all somewhat familiar with it by now): a person--generally a person of significant influence (or a person straightforwardly in charge) will order his armies to action for reason X. The armies comply because they are either told that it is the right thing to do, or else they feel as though there is no choice. Let us assume for the sake of this conversation that "reason X" is religious differences. A Christian leader therefore orders his armies into action because the enemy is non-Christian. The impetus is still ultimately one man's desire, regardless of the resulting death toll. A person (or persons) in charge (whether truthfully or not) declared that the reason for war was religion, and therefore it is recorded as a war which can be attributed to religion. But we are now faced with a new quandary: that of a person ordering armies to action based on a religion which professes peace. Is it therefore the religion's fault that its followers have chosen to disregard the tenants of the very thing they claim to be fighting for, or the person's? And since the person is fighting for something by which he does not truthfully abide, does it remain a religious war any longer, or a war of personal pride and hatred (two more things Christianity will preach against)? The obvious contemporary parallel becomes 9-11.


This has all been a very convoluted way of saying that philosophical beliefs cause problems directly proportionate to the sensitivities of the individual man, and his intrinsic flaws, and that it does not particularly matter to which belief you are referring.

Please forgive the inevitable mistakes--it's 2:30am and I'm more or less in a state of semi-consciousness.

Interesting...

The only point I would argue there is that there are certainly cases where people do truly believe that their religion dictates the violence they administer onto others, not because their cup is half full. I believe it's mentioned in various religious doctrines of how wrong-doers must be stoned or put to death, though if anyone can confirm this and provide exact examples I'd be grateful. These problems can also be subtler. Take gay marriage for an example. Many Christian denominations believe that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore they would vote against the legalization of same-sex marriage because "it's not moral" in their books. Anyways, the point is that these clashes of beliefs can be personal, but it can also just be solely because of religion (or at least interpretations of it since it can be very ambiguous sometimes).


I also have no idea what we're really arguing about now to be honest, so just go to sleep, you drunkard.

Yeah, I can't be held responsible for what I type at such hours, and under such influences.

technology doesn't require science to function or be used by a community. Science is a rather recent invention, a school of philosophy designed shortly after the Renaissance and just before the Scottish Enlightenment. Roman water canals and plumbing, Egyptian pyramids, Chinese gunpowder, Japanese hygiene, Greek calculators, and Mayan calendars all functioned perfectly fine without it, and most were financed by religions. 

I think you'll find the problem of antinomianism isn't universal to all religions, and you may also realize the law of averages say it's always better to be religious.

For example, if you have two scenarios, Nothing, and Something, but may only attain something by reaching for it, even if you are blind folded, it behooves you to reach for the something, even if nothing is there. If there is no karma, tao, ain sof, or afterlife, you really don't lose anything by believing it, and stand to gain if it's true. By not believing it, if its not true, you lose nothing, but if it is true, you also gain nothing, and possibly lose a great deal.

Ecumenical theologians would agree, with most systems, even being faithful to a 'false cause' or entity is better than being faithless or not even trying.

I personally don't think you should do anything that wastes your time, but that gets dangerously close to nihilism and antinomianism if you aren't careful. I think programming our own little pocket dimensions in RPGmaker is sufficient for some including me to recognize the possibility that something more awesome than me is busy decompiling or writing new worlds that I may some day explore.

Firstly, I have only skimmed over some of the long posts and most of the short ones. I have tons of input for this conversation. There are many things I think need clarifying, and many things that really need to be straightened out.

 Now, I'll just come out and say I am an Agnostic Atheist (if you need help understanding why both simutaneously apply, I am more than happy to explain) and to a lesser degree, an Antitheist. This sets the stage of my position and my arguments to come.

Unfortunately, it is 4am here; I will only address one point that is right at the end here, and I'll have to wait until tomorrow to continue posting. The one thing I am choosing to oppose is this idea:

For example, if you have two scenarios, Nothing, and Something, but may only attain something by reaching for it, even if you are blind folded, it behooves you to reach for the something, even if nothing is there. If there is no karma, tao, ain sof, or afterlife, you really don't lose anything by believing it, and stand to gain if it's true. By not believing it, if its not true, you lose nothing, but if it is true, you also gain nothing, and possibly lose a great deal.

The idea you are presenting is called Pascal's Wager. Under the pretense that the options are something and nothing, grabbing in the fark for either, would be beneficial; This is what you are saying, and what you are saying is true, and follows with Pascal's Wager. However, this is not the case when comparing belief in religion/Cthulhu and disblief. I will clarify using an example:

There is a barrel, it is closed and no one can see inside. There is a possibility that there is something valueable inside, or there could be nothing. So, would you put your hand in? By Pascal's Wager (your argument), you should put your hand in the barrel since there may be something, and you have a possibility of gaining that thing. But here is the dilema and problem with that idea; the third possibility. What if you put your hand iin the barrel and there is something, but not something good? Like, let us say, used syringes? Would the risk still be worth the possible reward? What if, just to get to the barrel, you have to first pay a relatively large sum of money just to see that barrel, no matter how poor you are?

I digress. When it comes to Pascal's Wager and religious belief, it is not a matter of only something and nothing; this is because there is a price paid for the -possibility- of something, and no price is paid for the possibility of nothing. Not only is the price paid on a personal level (time, money, resources) but it is also paid on a worldly level (wars, genocide, indoctrination). There is also the issue of what that -something- is. In the example of the barrel, if there was something in the barrel, at the very least you are guaranteed that it will be something knowable and measureably present. In the case of Cthulhu or religious promises, you cannot verifiably test wether or not that -something- was attained.

And then, there is another thing that seems off. You reference Karma, Tao, Ain Sof, and the Afterlife, however, the belief in any one of those phenomenon would not change wether or not the phenomenon would occur. IE, even though I am a disbeliever in the afterlife, I would still be reborn; my belief or lack therefof plays no role.

And finally, how would you distinguish which of the 30000+ religious views is the one to follow? It is impossible to follow all of them; you couldn't follow more than a couple ideologies without running into walls (IE Judeaism, Christianity, and Islam... try following all of those). How could Pascal's Wager calculate the odds of the 30000 religious beliefs independantly? the truth is, it cannot. It is only applicable to the Something vs. Nothing stance, not Nothing vs.  Possible Something vs. Possible Something vs. Possible Something vs. Possible Something vs. Possible Something vs. etc....



BTW, NAMKCOR, you got this idea partly from the Stephen Hawkings discussion that was aired this week?

actually I posted this entirely from my own head because I'm getting sick of how every time someone tries to make the world a better place for some alternative belief or minority (in the past: women's rights, interracial marriage, black rights; in the present: homosexuals) religion, the people who claim to have a monopoly over the open-minded, respectful, humanity-loving, equality-respecting people of the world are the ones rabidly fighting the new liberty tooth and nail because it somehow hampers their ability to respect their beliefs if something against them is legally sanctioned by anybody else in the world.

Note: this is a generalization about the BAD PART of religions that we all know exist, I don't judge and am not prejudiced against people who follow religions as a base point, I just dislike these hypocrites who do this.

Could you explain what "agnostic atheist" is?
Is it the belief that there is nothing to suggest a creator deity's existence, so you are open to the idea but without anything to suggest the existence of one, you do not believe in it?

I think I know a guy who might be one, actually.

Technically, anyone who says they are "atheist" or "agnostic" are usually both. I'll explain.

Theist and Atheist are both positions based on thelogy. Theism is "I believe there is a God", Atheism is "I do not believe there is a God". 
Gnostic and Agnostic are both position based on knowing. Gnostic is "I know without a doubt" and Agnostic is "I do not know without a doubt"

Gnostic Theists are people who say "I know for a fact there is a god"
Agnostic Theists are people who say "I dont know for certain, but I believe there is a god"
Agnostic Atheists are people who say "I dont know for certain, but i do not believe in god"
Gnostic Theists are people who say "I know for a fact there is a god"

Anyone who is gnostic on the position of god have their work cut out, because they have to prove a supernatural entity.
Anyone who is agnostic on the position of god can choose to wait until more evidence for or against god to arrive before making any supernatural claims.

Technically, anyone who has a position on religion falls into one of those four types.

This is similar with Politics; there is not only Liberal vs. Conservative. there is also Authoritairian and Libertarian that play a role in political poistions.

It is a False Dichotomy when people say "You are either a Theist or Atheist" or "You are either a Liberal or Conservative"

Since I brougth it up, I am a Liberal who wants balance between Authoritairian and Libertarian goals.

I know this is completely off-topic, but I will get back to replying to the other bits. I must go to work now.

Hmm. Fascinating and convincing etymological analysis, my friend.

Now, I am a person of faith, but here are some interesting things to consider on the subject of the belief in the divine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Follow the links to other arguments such as The Flying Spaghetti Monster and The Dragon in My Garage, all of which seem to illustrate the point that people will believe what they want. However, Carl Sagan's Dragon in his Garage is possibly the happy medium we are looking for in this thread; it expressly states that science cannot prove a negative, and thus with no other explanation we follow the principle of Occam's Razor- the simplest explanation must be true, which is that there is no god. However, it also states that scientific thought is not nearly as powerful a motivator of belief as is faith. I'm paraphrasing there, but that's what I got from it.

I've only skimmed the conversation so far, but I thought I'd leave my two cents as I'm new here and quite opinionated on this topic.

Firstly, I've read it here and heard it said that we should let people believe whatever they want. After all, beliefs are internal and completely private, right? Wrong. Beliefs inform our actions, we act according to what we believe.  I don't think we should respect the right of racists to have racists beliefs, because sooner or later they will affect someone negatively. They should be corrected, for they are clearly wrong. Racism is a belief that is morally wrong, but there are also beliefs that are factually wrong, such as a geocentric view of the universe. Holding those beliefs are dangerous because it can cause ill-informed actions. I don't think society will progress if we continue to act as if all beliefs are equally valid. If we actually care about whether something is true it has to be open to fierce debate, not protected as 'sacred' or 'personal'.

If we can agree on that, than the question is: Are religious beliefs logical and do they have a positive effect on society? Personally I would answer no to both parts of that question.

Now obviously science cannot disprove the existence of God. There are plenty of things we can't disprove, like the flying spaghetti monster which was already mentioned. What's important is not whether something COULD exist, but whether we have any reason to think it does. The amount of things that could exists are infinite. Despite being brought up as christian, I have not found any evidence of a God, let alone a specific one.

I must say I completely agree with Savarast, Pascal's wager is dead

I have nothing to contribute to this thread except that my wordfilter makes this all HILARIOUS.

That and I believe Carl Sagan was right in that science cannot disprove the big man upstairs.

I miss our friend Carl...

You know, you can work around the wordfilter like this:
"Jesus Christ!"
"God dam neck!" (in reference to Dam Neck, an area near Virginia Beach, I think?)

You can also break by just opening and closing a tag right in the middle of the word God or Jesus Christ.

(Quote me to see.)

Carl was/is awesome.
Humans also think too much of themselves, which I think is another reason why a creator deity cannot exist for some.
There's nothing wrong with the disbelief of a creator deity, though.

"What's important is not whether something COULD exist, but whether we have any reason to think it does. The amount of things that could exists are infinite."
That's actually a pretty egotistical statement. Who gave you the right to say something might only exist if we have objective reasons to believe that it exists? (I do not say this to you specifically, but rather the entire race.)
It's about damn time people stopped thinking that they're gods unto themselves, and making up all of these stupid philosophical and scientific questions and rules that try to rationalize personal belief.
I love science, but I don't like science as a way of life. It should tell us about life, not how to live it.

I love science, but I don't like science as a way of life. It should tell us about life, not how to live it.

It doesn't.

Carl was/is awesome.
Humans also think too much of themselves, which I think is another reason why a creator deity cannot exist for some.
There's nothing wrong with the disbelief of a creator deity, though.

"What's important is not whether something COULD exist, but whether we have any reason to think it does. The amount of things that could exists are infinite."
That's actually a pretty egotistical statement. Who gave you the right to say something might only exist if we have objective reasons to believe that it exists? (I do not say this to you specifically, but rather the entire race.)
It's about damn time people stopped thinking that they're gods unto themselves, and making up all of these stupid philosophical and scientific questions and rules that try to rationalize personal belief.
I love science, but I don't like science as a way of life. It should tell us about life, not how to live it.

** I can't be bothered to fight the chat filter. It makes it more interesting anyway.

Actually I found that I became much more humble when I became an atheist. Tell me which view is more humble.  The one that says we are insignificant pieces of carbon, or the one that says the creator of the universe loves us deeply and created the universe for us? Face it, religion has always revolved around man. Gods have always been like men, and in most religions man tends to be more important than other things. That is why the church adopted a geo-centric view of the universe, because it fit with their religious beliefs that the whole universe should revolve around them.

I don't claim to know there are no Gods. That would be arrogant. But I do claim we have no good reason to believe in a Cthulhu. The statement you quoted from me was not egotistical, perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. The point was that there are an infinite amount of things that could exist. Just think about all the Cthulhu's that man has thought up. Each one of those Gods could possibly exist. If the fact that something could exist were reason enough to believe in it, we would have to believe in all Gods, all mythical creatures, and all flying spaghetti monsters. You see, we actually don't believe in most of the things that could exist. We require some proof of their existence first, not simply the possibility of their existence.

I'm saying this because too often I've heard the theist say in a debate; "well you can't prove there is no Cthulhu!", or something to that effect. The point is they are the ones trying to prove that Cthulhu exists, and you can't prove me wrong is not a good argument.

Now if you think I've made a mistake somewhere feel free to correct me, but please don't try to assume my state of mind. I do not think I'm a Cthulhu. Science doesn't tell us how to live our lives, but it does tell us what we should believe. It tells us how the universe works, and therefore what to believe about the universe.  The problem is that religious beliefs seem to be put in their own category, in an area that doesn't require justification. I find it odd that you seem to oppose rationalizing personal belief. Don't you want your beliefs to be rational?

I think that FSM and IPU are absolutely terrible analogies; I have no idea why otherwise intelligent people think that they prove some point. They aren't a proper comparator to any actual religious belief because those beings serve no purpose, which is not true of a belief in a religion. It approaches it as if a belief in God comes prior or is distinct from other religious beliefs. As I mentioned in an earlier post:

I think it happens the other way around. I think it's as simple as this: the majority of human beings believe that their lives and the lives of others mean something; are worth something. They think that to kill another human being is wrong; they think that to love others is right. This can easily be an evolutionary trait - certainly it is one that promotes societal groupings and that would present an evolutionary advantage. But at the heart of those feelings of compassion and love is, I would say, an inherent belief that human lives have meaning.

That belief, absent some supernatural belief, is illogical; or at least I have never been persuaded by any reasoning to the contrary. From a purely material perspective, human lives have no inherent value whatsoever. As I mentioned in my first post, we live for maybe 80 years as an insignificant speck of dust on an insignificant planet in an infinite and probably also insignificant universe. To say that it is wrong to kill another person is to say that it is wrong to shorten an insignificant speck of dust's life.

Whether objectively true or not, whether simply another trait developed through evolution or not, most human beings have an inherent belief that human lives matter and empathize with other human beings. Moreover, they think some things are objectively wrong. I think you probably share such a conviction, considering that you condemned racism in fairly absolutist terms in an earlier post. A belief in objective morality is entirely irrational, unless you postulate some supernatural truth that would make it rational. At the very least, religion gives a rational basis to the belief that human lives matter, one that cannot possibly be supported without supernatural explanation. I think that is one very good reason to believe in God. There are others. I therefore disagree with your assertion that there are no good reasons to believe in God.

Also, FSM and IPU are so incredibly stupid.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was not saying one is better than the other, nor was I taking a side.
You know...I even said "There's nothing wrong with the disbelief of a creator deity, though.", and I myself am not a religious person. I was tired when I wrote that, so I can see how it may have come off sounding as though I was.

I agree that every belief revolves around man. You think that being an atheist and thinking that you are an insignificant piece of carbon makes you more humble, and you like that. Believing in Cthulhu to some makes those people happy. It's just a another guise. You like being humble, and atheism gives you that feeling. You can happily believe in it. But can I ask you to put forth your rational explanation of why and how it will bring about the feeling of humbleness in others (just so I know it's really objective)?

I also agree with Modern. The arrogance stems from the "objective" stance that many of us like to take. Survival instinct is a good example. Killing another member of your own species is "irrational," but if if you were in a life or death situation in which the only way out is to kill him, it would in fact be the rational decision (as set in place by our survival instincts). To say that killing is the irrational decision is to say that you know what is actually rational and irrational, which goes back to the idea that you don't actually know. The fact is, if we only believed in things with "rational" justification, there would be this TINY group of things we believed in. Probably wouldn't even exist...I mean, yeah believe in rational things. I believe in that, but I don't think it, in and of itself, is completely rational. I have and will continue to draw conclusions based on experiences as to what is rational and what is not, and I shall act accordingly. Beyond that, who knows. Rational to me may not be rational to the next man.

IPU and FSM are annoying as hell.

 I don't believe things because they make me happy. In fact, looking back I might be less happy as an atheist. This is because my family, friends and community are highly religious and it creates tension. Also I can no longer believe the assurance 'everything will work out for the best', and know that God's got my back. There are certainly withdrawal symptoms in some cases, such as loneliness or lack of purpose. Modern was saying how humans inherently think life has meaning. That's true by default, but I think it can change. I can not say for sure whether life has any meaning or not, and that's the honest truth.

What it comes down to is this. If our beliefs are formed by what makes us happy or what we would like to believe, that makes them pretty much useless. We would have no idea if our beliefs accurately reflected the real world. However if we approach beliefs skeptically and test to see if they are true, than we can be much more sure our beliefs are true. I can sum it up in this question; "Which is more important to you? Truth or happiness?

I'm slightly confused by your last paragraph SirJackRex. Whether an action is rational or not depends on the context. Morality is not simple, which is why I don't like how holy books try to make it simple. I think killing is wrong...in most circumstances. But there are circumstances where it might be morally praiseworthy to kill. I think we agree there?

Living rationally does not mean only believing things you absolutely know. You can believe things that you don't know. If the chance of rain tomorrow is greater than 50%, It would be rational for me to believe it will rain. I don't know that however. An example of living irrationally is not going to work in the morning on the off-chance your office was hit by a meteor.

Modern, while I agree that the existence of a God solves the problem of objective morality and purpose, I do not think this is a reason to believe in God. In short what you are saying is you want to believe human life has worth, if God exists human life has worth, therefore God exists. Surely you realize that your desire that human life has worth has nothing to do with the facts? While we are dancing around the subject, the utility of a belief is also not a reason to believe it. For example, let's say believing in God made you live longer. That has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. When I say a reason to believe, I literally mean evidence that the belief is true. Perhaps that clarifies things.

I think that FSM and IPU are absolutely terrible analogies; I have no idea why otherwise intelligent people think that they prove some point. They aren't a proper comparator to any actual religious belief because those beings serve no purpose, which is not true of a belief in a religion. It approaches it as if a belief in Cthulhu comes prior or is distinct from other religious beliefs.

Perhaps you two will have to elaborate as to why the FSM is so bad? I know that some find it offensive, but it does make a good point. I should be clear I'm not talking about religion. Religion involves hundreds of beliefs, community, as well as various other factors. I'm talking about a single belief, whether God exists or not. The point of the FSM is to confront the theist with the fact that they have about as much evidence for the existence of their God as we do for the FSM. The other purpose of the FSM is to be ridiculous. I don't mean to be rude, but some atheists(including myself) do find religious beliefs to be ridiculous, and will continue to think this way until there is evidence for them.

Logically, belief in God MUST come before any other religious beliefs. I view the entire belief system of any religion as some sort of upside down pyramid, all balancing and dependent on God's existence.  Now you bring up a good point Modern, and that is some beliefs that can be considered religious such as human worth could have occurred naturally and would have been selected for. Religion would than be our way of using reason to justify an otherwise illogical belief. That makes sense, but what I am saying is that we can overcome that human need for worth and purpose, and instead make logic the priority. If we do this we no longer need religion to justify human worth, as we can simply leave the question of human worth unanswered for now. What I just said sounds kind of cold and inhuman, but you'd be surprised how many good arguments there are for morality and worth there are that don't involve God.

Science doesn't tell you what to believe, and it certainly doesn't tell us how the universe works.

Science is the process of finding our best possible conclusion based on the data we can derive.  It's a system of observation and debunking previous observations with new data, not about proving anything.