> Instead, we got dragged into wars, instigated by rulers who manipulated followers of so-called 'holy books' into killing their brethren. We denied education to large parts of the population. We suppressed anything resembling science&progress because it might offend an imaginary being.
Actually, the biggest and dirtiest wars of at least our recent history were actually driven by men who were atheists (or at least non-theists). Hitler, Pol-pot, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Lenin... all atheists with body counts in the tens (hundreds?) of millions.
Furthermore, Some of the biggest advances in the sciences (take for example the scientific method as described by Sir Francis Bacon assumed that the universe itself was ordered by God and therefore science was actually possible) and the institutions of higher learning were started as ways to train people for purposes of theology (thinking here of places like Oxford and Princeton).
Religion has actually been a huge driver in our ability to teach and understand the world.
Hitler was a catholic, he killed atheists and despised the evolutionary theory. After all, Arian people were supposed to be god's chosens not those jews. He wrote this himself in Mein Kampf.
Stalin was a student at a seminary.
Every US president has been at last a theist. How many wars has the US been in? How many deaths?
Wars have many reasons, most of them non religious. Religion is just used as a excuse and it works every time.
> Hitler was a catholic ... Stalin was a student at a seminary
If you can prove to me that these men were actually acting in accordance with the stated doctrines of the institutions that they claimed, then your point might be valid. However, it isn't and it won't be because they were not.
Man corrupts religions to his advantage—that is not religion's fault. It is man's.
First you lie and claim Hitler was an atheist when in fact he was a catholic until the day he died, and then is somehow my fault? Isn't lying in the ten commandments?
I don't know if in his heart he was truly a devout servant of the lord or if he was just pretending, but most importantly, you don't either. All we can be sure is that he claimed to be one, and that the Catholic church embraced him, made treaties with his government, celebrated his birthday officially every year and never excomulgated him. That sounds like a better catholic than most, he made the church a lot of money and, they gladly took it.
Whatever he was, he was not an atheist. And he didn't claim to be one, in fact, he claimed the opposite.
It's a very narrow viewpoint you are having. Dragging out the few instances where churches allowed and protected some science.
Completely disregarding the hundreds of years of oppression of intellectual progress.
Actually, the biggest and dirtiest wars of at least our recent history were actually driven by men who were atheists (or at least non-theists). Hitler, Pol-pot, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Lenin... all atheists with body counts in the tens (hundreds?) of millions.
Furthermore, Some of the biggest advances in the sciences (take for example the scientific method as described by Sir Francis Bacon assumed that the universe itself was ordered by God and therefore science was actually possible) and the institutions of higher learning were started as ways to train people for purposes of theology (thinking here of places like Oxford and Princeton).
Religion has actually been a huge driver in our ability to teach and understand the world.