I. My view on religion: (which may be wrong, but I am mostly concerned about Christianity)
Ok, I will try to be brief, and turn this into a topic for people to argue, this is not my intention.
Many religions have 2 sides:
- an explanation for man's biggest questions
- an ethical code
Each ancient civilization had it's own religion, with various stories, each civilization had a need for religion at that time. The need is very mysterious, do we actually understand it? I do believe religion had many positive aspects at that time, such as uniting people, for a cause and giving them a code of behavior.
-you must do that to please your God
-you will be punished if you do that
So, this way, an attempt to contain bad behavior, and promote good behavior was created. Those times were lawless times, it was rather easy to get away with murder. So faith was required to contain things. ...That makes perfect sense.
But it all backfired, because of the power religion gave to the church. There are very few human beings who wouldn't get corrupted by power. War was carried, in the name of God (and it still is), murdering a christian citizen was not OK, if you were christian, but murdering a person who had different religious views was perfectly OK. (arabs in particular)
Which is possibly one of the biggest hypocrisies generated by man.
Scientists were considered heretics, the church's held on to it's authority in every possible way, inquisiting rational thought.
Religion does not make sense, as a theory, but our need for religion makes perfect sense.
II. My argument against religion. To prove my point I will use 2 popular ancient theories:
In the 4th century BC, two influential Greek philosophers wrote works based on the geocentric model. Plato and Aristote, the theory was reworked later.
This theory supported the idea that Earth is in the center of the universe, so basically, EVERYTHING revolves around earth.
It was supported by our egocentrism, by the fact that we saw the sun spinning around all day long, and because we did not know what gravity was.
This is how they imagined space:
What didn't make sense was that, some planets weren't moving like the sun, for instance Mars. It's orbital trajectory viewed from earth had irregularities, it went forwards then backwards. The problem was that they thought the orbits were perfect 'holly' circles, so Mars didn't make sense at all. But some guy drew more circles on the initial circle of Mars's orbit, to prove geocentrism.
It was first proposed by a Greek astronomer and mathematician in 270BC (Aristarchus )
He calculated the size of the Earth, and measured the size and distance of the Moon and Sun.
Aristarchus thus believed the stars to be very far away, and saw this as the reason why there was no visible parallax (the idea was if that the earth would move around the Sun, the stars would also have to move, but they were so far away that Earth's movement was irrelevant, they would have needed very accurate instruments to detect the stars movement because of Earth's movement)
This guy, did not think the universe moved around Earth, and also explained Mars's irregular orbit (Earth was closer to the Sun, and therefor would pass Mars, making the planed look like it's going backwards).
Which theory won the contest and became the next holly theory of everything?
Geocentrism of course.
The guy who measured Earth in 390 BC was obviously not a credible source.
And geocentrism it was, for about 2000 years, and anyone who dared to oppose was considered a heretic.
Now we have 2 similar theories, and the story repeats itself.
1. The big bang theory
2. The God almighty created the universe theory
And again, the universe revolves around Earth.
I'm not saying I'm 100% sure about the big bang, but I am sure that we don't know much, if we know anything at all.
The God theory will never be updated.
The big bang theory can always be changed it it's wrong.