Key points on Religion

Here I hope to outline some basic arguments against the existence of an all powerful God, in particular, the mono-theistic Abrahamic religions. However, some arguments can be generalised

• Simplicity: we don't NEED a sentient uncreated creator. Currently we have no mechanism to explain how the universe started, however, that only means we need to invent the axiom "The universe was started by something". That doesn't mean we need the something, to take a sentient form, that merely poses more questions.
• Multiplicity: The number of religions means that one cannot simply be picked based on faith. They need to be tested and the decision needs to be based on evidence, just like everything else. Furthermore people who never get to hear about religion x because of religion y are at a disadvantage in religion x and at an unfair advantage in religion y.
• Justice: Infinite punishment for finite sin seems fundamentally unfair. God loves everyone, cares for his creation and it can be argued punishment can be for the purpose of discipline. Then why punish people for eternity, it serves no purpose.
• Inconsistently: most religious books contain inconsistencies in various different forms
• Evidence: many scholars would agree that many important bible characters and events did not exist or happen.
• Morality: religious books give moral guidance which is at odds with modern thinking (homosexuality, slavery, womens rights etc) If God is timeless and ultimately just, why didn't he for example tell the Jew's not to persecute homosexuals? We know and agree that the are right now, surely God would know that too. Furthermore, it is not just that he didn't tell them about these morals, he directly made statements opposed to them. To use an example: we would never contemplate stoning people for homosexuality in the civilised world, and you would be hard pressed without going back a few hundred years to find someone who would agree. Also, why allow homosexuals to be born? I understand the idea of a fallen creation, but to allow people to be born who's most powerful drive is fundamentally "evil" is nothing short of malevolent.
• The structures of religion appear not elegant and simple as would be expected from a being with ultimate creativity and computation, but overly complex and man made.
• God controls the rules, so why doom us by knowingly making them stringent? He could simply have not made those rules and saved everyone.
• Res ipsa loquitur: is an idea that irrespective of any evidence, someone can be guilty of negligence if he has a duty of care and failed. In this case and all powerful God has a duty of care toward us, and therefore guilty of not stopping sin and suffering. This contradicts either his perfection or power/existence.
• Divine hiddeness: why does god hide himself, it seems malevolent to do so. By providing evidence of himself it would allow people to properly decide whether or not to follow him. 
• There is nothing inherently righteous or moral about blind faith, in fact quite to the contrary.
• Our reason for creation seems narcissistic and proud

If you have any interesting additions/rebuttals, I encourage you to comment.

A few good quotes

 "This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

 "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams

Where do I begin?

The question of who the burden of truth rests on is an important question. Humans often reach a conclusion then fill in the evidence, giving slant to the evidence so as to to align it with the conclusion. Religion actively encourages this behaviour, promoting faith and trust before evidence is received. This is a fundamentally flawed concept.

So where do I begin? As a Christian? As an atheist? As a Muslim? How about a Buddhist? Each have an equal right to claim me, and have my journey start there. However, as does any belief system you can conjure up, a Russell's teapot argument if you will. Furthermore, the potentially contradictory belief systems imply I can't satisfy all at once. So it cannot be a startpoint of belief then, it must be disbelief, disbelief in everything. It is 0: the null vector in the many dimensional space that is religion and belief. From here I can properly explore the space of belief, with evidence and logic.

Religion and Fiction

I regularly find myself engrossed in a novel, where strange worlds and exciting lives keep me entertained. Time goes at massively accelerated speeds and there's always an overarching feeling that either things are going to end happily ever after or I'll walk away from the book having had an adventure myself. The world of a novel is written by humans, for humans, to entertain and at the same time convey part of the belief system of the writer in a sort of proof by example. Communication coupled with the ability to convey a fictional story is a powerful and ancient tool, and is truly one of the most beautiful aspects of humanity. However much we would like to live many lives, we can't, but in our heads we can experience as much and as fanciful worlds as we or someone else can imagine.

And what a striking parallel we can draw with religion. All evidence would suggest we are unremarkable, but complex and beautiful pieces of machinery rotating an unremarkable sun in a normal galaxy. However, religion postulates that we are important and central. That there is something special about humans and something more out there, if not true it is certainly fanciful. Furthermore, the afterlife offers a kind of novel type experience, where our true selves will live on in happiness forever. The kind of doublethink which, if correctly applied can give us the same feeling that we are simply reading a novel. It appears to form the same structure as human written fiction. A good friend used to joke that eventually people might believe Harry Potter to be a factual account of reality, and I don't think he is far wrong.

Perhaps then religion is a more remarkable invention, a fiction so rich and fanciful that is can be believed, shielding us from the harsh realities of this cold nothingness.