puxlit

Here's something slightly longer, but does a great job at describing the origins of religion and the striking similarities between most religions: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2740987755232169561.

Allow me to engage in a bit of reductio ad absurdum. Can you prove that the events described in Harry Potter are false? Can you prove magic isn't real? Can you prove platform nine and three quarters doesn't exist? Can you prove that Hogwarts doesn't exist? Science cannot completely disprove the existence of Harry Potter. What it can do is disprove the existence of Harry Potter beyond reasonable doubt. It is very hard to prove theories, but as rational beings, we can draw a line in the sand when we've ascertained substantial amounts of credible evidence in favour of a theory and no credible evidence to contradict the theory. Evolution is one such theory. Science is objective. We start with a hypothesis, design reproducible experiments to test our hypothesis, and draw conclusions based upon our observations. If our predictions hold, it becomes a theory. If a subsequent experiment yields unexpected results, our theory is disproved, and we go back to the drawing board. We most certainly don't try and bend the facts to suit our theories, and anybody who does is not a scientist. We no longer live in a world where we need to conjure up divine figures to explain our origins. As Stephen Hawking put it, religion is irrelevant. Religion was an adequate mechanism to instill a basic sense of morality and order amongst the masses thousands of years ago, but it's clearly past its use-by date. Flat earth, paedophile priests, and opaque financial records (avarice, much?) - how the pope can keep a straight face amidst these hypocrisies I cannot fathom. If you've read The Pardoner's Tale (part of The Canterbury Tales), you'll notice that Geoffrey Chaucer picked up on such hypocrisies over six hundred years ago. So, if you think you're a rational being (and may I remind you that the ability to think rationally is a distinguishing characteristic that separates us from nearly all other animals), ask yourself this: is faith rational? By its very definition, of course not! So how much faith do you have? You might have faith in your partner's fidelity, but that's usually backed by some form of evidence. Would you walk onto a highway with your eyes closed, and place your faith in the hands of your God (or, more rationally, the drivers on the road)? I doubt you would. You might say it doesn't hurt to have faith in a deity, but I'm sure the victims of any religious crusade would beg to differ. It doesn't take too much thought to come to the conclusion that science and technology have serviced humanity more than religion and faith ever will. Should religion be taught at school? I think it should, BUT ONLY FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, so that we learn from our past mistakes. Even then, I'd place it as a low priority. TL/DR:

If I could inject a little comedic relief... personally, my favourite quote is: Ouch... but let's not shy away from the abhorrent acts of indecency enacted by some members of the priesthood. Remember it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the barrel (or a bite if you're Adam to spoil it for the rest of us). Aren't religious institutions supposed to imbue the qualities of morality (that we atheists supposedly lack) amongst its followers? Or perhaps this "God" (who can supposedly churn out an entire planet in a week) is somehow powerless to prevent "Satin" from corrupting the very minions that do his ("God's") bidding? Or perhaps this "God" is testing the faith of children? I'll give you this: he's certainly testing my patience and faith (ha!) in humanity. To loosely quote Epicurus, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" I'll finish this post with another Lewis Black quote: