₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
Sometime ago i was baby sitting my sister's 11 month old daughter, she was seated on the floor playing with some toys, i was on my phone but had a constant eye on her.

I noticed as she was trying to put a bigger toy through a small rubber bracelet, i knew it was impossible.

Naturally there is a need to correct this, you'd be compelled to but i kept watching her and started thinking.

"there is nothing i tell her right now that will matter or be relevant as her level of consciousness is still at that naive stage, so even though correcting her is good it is still irrelevant at that stage therefore useless"

I then likened it to NL..

When you see myths, superstitions and most times ignorant postulations, you feel the need to correct them, you are compelled to speak [that is why a lot of irreligious people speak against religions] but then again even though it is ok it is still irrelevant.

So i realized certainly we are all at different level of consciousness, there is a certain stage of illumination you get where all you want to do is speak your truth and not convince people of it.

It is irrelavent convincing a baby they should walking when they are at that stage of crawling - that truth is meaningless to them.

Endless debates, going in circles and emotional banters are not only irrelevant but also useless.

so when ever you can simply speak your truth and not convince or argue endlessly over it.

While l commend you for trying to correct ignorance and superstition, something tells me you also see all religious people as babies( l might be wrong), and then you see yourself as the matured uncle, though l understand why you may feel this way, l ask you...
Do you at least agree, that there are some religious scientists or people who know all of what you think you know but interpret them differently or come to different conclusions? Do they still come across to you as babies who need to learn? Note, this is not an attack on your person, just curiosity on my part.

ValentineMary:
From the bold text, I can say that u mean God is nothing and I kind of agree.

Must there be a creator? can't we be an accidental product of an infinite uncreated nature?

Does this sound reasonable to you? That everything about you, your brain, eyes, legs, etc which all seem to serve one purpose or the other are nothing but accidents? I just seek to understand your thoughts here and why you think this way.

hopefuLandlord:
Bros, not every atheist accept the big bang theory bro

If you ask me how we came about, I'll simply say "I don't know" but most people just fill that gap in knowledge with an imaginary being

But like I said; the world is NOT perfect, it could be better

Lol, the world is not perfect it could be better, really? If chaos could arrange your brain so well even to the extent that you value your thoughts and decisions in most cases, don't you at least agree that is quiet amazing and unnatural. What you may list as imperfections doesn't preclude the fact that accidental chaos guided by only time and chance would not produce the world we see, the probability is low. I don't know about you, but to me this doesn't seem logical at all. Yes you are against religion, l have nothing against that. You claim that you do not know what may be responsible for life or order in the universe, fine l also do not know. But by reason l claim that there must be an extra ordinary first cause which we are still out to understand even as we continually discover and learn( this has nothing to do with religion) but by your own reason you do not accept this premise. Which makes me wonder, do you reject this premise only based on logic, or just your bias against religion?

hopefuLandlord:
Bros, the world is NOT perfect

The universe is actually quiet organized and not what we would expect to be created by time and chance only.

oglalasioux:
Since it's the bible that introduced us to God and all the creation story told by the bible is wrong then same god is wrong too. How can a god tell conflicting stories about how he made the universe; giving Moses one version and science finding another thing entirely?

If anyone can give me a reason why the ancient biblical people didn't have a clue about the universe until Galileo's telescope, I'll personally open a church.

Even without the bible, several cultures had one god or the other in their folklore. The bible is part of the spiritual fossil record of mankind, it shows us how men inspired by God understood the spiritual, and records their walk with God. Genesis account refutes ancient Babylonian myths of creation and asserts that Elohim created the world, this would have been very clear to the people in that era. We are still making discoveries through science and maybe in the next 500 years our descendants would look back and then call us ignorant but this doesn't preclude the fact that God is using and inspiring men and women today who display the love of God even in our ignorance. The fact is if you read the books of Ecclesiastes and proverbs you would see that some of these inspired men also sought knowledge, and of course there are only certain factors in our growth that allows for scientific breakthroughs hence even when inspired by God there are many things we remain ignorant of in our time. What is important is your spiritual man, mental capacity and how well you affect your world via the love of God rather than knowledge alone.

HCpaul:
Paul didn't. He only used Christianity as an opportunity to invent his own religion but he failed.

Nevertheless, Paul still shares a higher percent credit and recognition in the new testament.

Paul is just a learned person hired by the Messiah's crew to help them organized the new testament epistles since most of them are unlearned.

What are you actually saying my guy, Paul was just writing letters to his converts whom he couldn't be with physically, he had no idea some of his letters would later form part of what would be called a new testament.

johnydon22:
As usual the misconception keeps coming - the argument i answered was "God of the gap". if you don't know this then god did it.

that was the argument and it has always being shown to be weak and baseless.

if you don't know this, it means you don't and that's all. . . Simply be humble enough to agree you don't and not nickname your ignorance "God".

Ptolemy a greek natural philosopher after observing planetry movement onced said

"As i observe for my own pleasure the to and fro movement of the planets, i no longer stand on the earth with my two feet but on the presence of zeus himself."

Ptolemy didn't know the mechanism behind the planetary motions, he invoked God(zeus) as an explanation.

Centuries later Newton using Keplers work as a foundation solved the problem Ptolemy answered with God and thus Ptolemy's God became irrelevant and unneeded.

Newton again like Ptolemy came to the limits of his knowledge, solar stability and he again put God into the answer.

Leplace came along and solved the problem of stability with his pertubation equation and thus the God newton invoked fell of the equation. when asked where God fit in the picture Leplace answered "i have no need of that hypothesis".

If you use "God" to fill a gap left by your ignorance, this doesn't answer the question but rather postponds it and if you or someone else however somehow gets the actual answer, your initial answer of 'God' falls apart.

that has been the plight of 'God of the gap argument' simply accept ignorance when you are faced with one and don't make your ignorance evidence of your assumptions - it simply does not work.

I think you are the one misunderstanding me here, l never said we should name our ignorance God like Newton or Ptolemy did, but rather the discoveries we make in science and even the one made by Laplace help us understand God and his works, l mean God's works may not be magical at all like Ptolemy expected it to be but may all follow the due and logical process in his infinite wisdom, hence the supernatural may be the natural that yet defies logic or simply too complex to fathom for now.
So our many discoveries exalt God rather than rule out God from the picture. The quest for knowledge via science and the understanding of how everything works may eventually teach us the purpose behind life itself and help us understand the mind of God.

johnydon22:
No sir there musn't be because if that is a "Must" then a conscious intelligent God must also require another designer.



Employ this to the world, instead of assume God or any other superstition over universal causality simply say You don't know.

why employ such special pleadings only for God, we all know honestly you don't know how anything start but just had to assume God but refused to stretch your assumptions of questions regarding God.

isn't that dishonesty?



You should just live your life for now, waiting for death is a miserable way to live



we know much more than our ancestors did, coming generations will know far more than we do now



This is a lie, using God as a place holder for ignorance is a pathetic argument. . That we cannot comprehend life means we cannot comprehend life.

Ignorance is evidence of ignorance not god, if that is how you want to play this card then you'd make 'God' totally useless the more we find out and get to know things.

Invoking God cus of ignorance has always turned out as a little whif of discovery murders God at different level chasing it further above to the next level of scientific ignorance.

You may find places to invoke God(s) but if you can only do that on places shielded by scientitic ignorance then God will always remain and ever receding pocket of ignorance.



Then God is no more than human ignorance personified and not an entity - this fits the very notion of imaginary.

Saying God is responsible for something, does not necessarily mean that he did it by magic, hence l wonder why you feel scientific discoveries eliminate God from the picture. Science could be a way of understanding God afterall via his works.

Well, what more can l say? Good for you and congrats on your atheism.

tim1256:
Vroooom! Pammm! Pamm!
Scriiiiiii! The tyre halts!
I almost hit you with my car young man!
What's the problem poor soul?
You look so battered and shattered,
Where are you coming from depressed,
Lost in deep thought of despair?
Well, its a long story that we all don't
know the end,
My name is humanity from a place call
earth,
I was sent into oblivion by the human
race,
They call me stupid,boring,too free and
weak,
It was all peaceful till a man called
religion creep in,
He intoxicated them with lies, he has no
surgery tools but remove senses and
add nonsense,
He sedated them into illusional peace,
He gave birth into different children but
they all don't recognise him as their
father,
Every child with different way of life,
They all claim their way is the truth, but
deceit is the strength of their root,
If you adore religion you should be on
sick bed,
Cause they believe they see
something,they go closer, closer and
closer but they found nothing but a
mirage,
Its like the blind leading the blind,
Religion has divided humans than how
oceans has divided continents,
They all have a book inspired by God,
but they never told us chapters written
by man,
Religion have made mad people saner
than humans: reason? Cause mad people
has no belief,
They all have holy lands where they
converge yearly, but they haven't told us
the economic impact of those pilgrimage
in their country,
Is it that the supreme being is only
present in some countries in a particular
month of the year?
Nooooo! If you tell them is just an
excursion to generate money to those
countries they will give you a quote from
their holy book to back it up,
How come they all have different way of
life and yet the supreme being answers
all their prayers without segregation?
Cause the supreme being see them as
one,
They convert from one religion to the
other,the question is if you had died in
your previous religion how do your
current religion tells you the current
religion is the way not the previous?
Truly, religion remains the opium of the
masses.

How do you know what it was like before religion creeped in? When did religion creep in? Because even sumeria, which is perhaps the earliest civilization already had their organized religion.

biglord:
Hey everyone, I have a friend who is going for this winter semester, his wife also applied and they both have their interviews for 30th August. They just got married this past Saturday. My question is, will this affect them negatively, also what does the wife need to show that she now bears a new name. They re both going via student visa and using blocked account. Pls all the ogas I need ur opinions and ideas on this. @justwise, @eke40seven, @nevillbot, @pauluche @obiwann

I would advise they do not indicate their changed marital status for now, that would be safer in my opinion. Let the wife continue with her old name, due to the fact that she started with it already to avoid complications. Probably when they get to Germany after some time, they can then marry legally again, or in whatever legal way they would prefer to change their marital status then. This is just my opinion though, others can contribute.

Empiree:
where are Muslims "covering up" rape? . Rape is punishable offence in Islam. And stop giving excuses that you don't support it. Quiet frankly, there are verses in the Bible supporting rape. It's crazy.

The bible has punishment for rape, but surprisingly punishment for rape is not in your Quran. Why is that the case?

orisa37:
Scholars are Theorists. They make the World go round but never really change anything.

Even scholars do not agree with him, tell him to name the scholars who says Jesus doesn't exist. All of what he posted is nothing new, and has been debunked by scholars even atheist scholars, yet his likes keep repeating thesame nonsense perhaps just for fun.

01Mysticdon:
that's after they evolved

Lol, do you even know the meaning of evolved. You don't even understand your own argument, you are confused. Christianity began with Jesus Christ, he was not a warrior and never commanded any inquisition. So even if all Christians today take part in an inquisition, it doesn't change this fact, and that would be a sign of devolution rather than evolution ( speaking in your terms). I hope you now see why l believe you might be confused.

01Mysticdon:
Read the inquisition and you will agreed that christianity evolved. Type the inquisition in google.

Read my post again, l said Christianity did not evolve from savagery, but when the Romans used it for politics, it was then exploited from that time on. Prior to it becoming a state religion it was never known for any form of savagery, hence you can't say it evolved from savagery. If you had read the latter part of the post you quoted you would have understood this point.

stephenmorris:
our religion would have evolved just the same way European Christianity evolved from savagery**the problem is this religion are not ours and therefore do not belong to us

Christianity did not evolve from so called savagery. It was never savage. Go read about the plague in the 3rd century that ravaged Rome, it was the Christians who took in those afflicted even at the risk of their own lives. Christians abolished the gladiator games which was enjoyed by the Romans the way we enjoy football today. Definitely when Christianity became a state religion and when the barbarians converted and sometimes only had the fear of hell as a motive in their dedication to the pope, Christianity was then exploited. They also brought in their pagan beliefs and live style into it. The bible was also not read by all in those days but only the clergy men.

dalaman:
How am I wrong? Christianity spread mostly through conquest. Once it was made the official religion of the Roman empire they made sure that all the people they conquered practiced the religion. That was how the religion was spread through out the Roman empire and subsequently most of the world. He slave masters and colonialist brought it here to us through conquest as well.

Why was it made the official religion of the Roman Empire?
Answer....Because it was already spreading fast in the decaying Roman Empire, even among the elite class.

dalaman:
The gospel was spread through conquest. You guys don't even know the history of Christianity. After Emperor Constantine accepted christianity, he made sure his subjects also accepted the religion. Later on christianity was made the official religion of the Roman empire and as they went around killing people and conquering their lands through conquest they made sure that the people were forced to accept christianity. That was how christianity was spread through conquest and force. The conquistadors did same to the whole of South and North America some few hundred years ago and killed close to 100 million people in the process.

You are wrong, Constantine had no choice but to accept Christianity because it was already spreading too fast in the empire amidst other competing pagan religions. He observed that even his military men had begun to accept the new religion. Part of the reasons why Christianity overcame other pagan religions so easily was that it was free for all men and women of all classes and was unlike the other cults where the secrets of the religion was known only to a few. It was also not very ritualistic hence less expensive

raphieMontella:
1.Deut 17..we are asked to kill persons who dont believe in christianity
2.Proverbs 3:5...we are asked not to be scientific...
Kingebukasblog and co...come and see what ur god said...
Hypocrites

You are just like Amen Ra, l don't think anyone should waste his time arguing with you. Your arguments to me are some of the worst arguments from the opposing side on this particular topic. I think you can do better than this.

raphieMontella:
the fact that u re able to use ur phone to troll on nairaland is the result of the hardwork of an atheist..
I suggest u shud stop using anything that deals with computer science..

So was Charles Babbage also an atheist? Lol.

AnonyNymous:
Ahh. I see why you created this thread. You completely missed the point of those statements. Ok, look at the modern world Christians. They are busy signing petitions to the white house against stem cell research. Telling us not to try to become god. That's ridiculous, imo. Do you know the different breakthroughs we could achieve if it was allowed? The possibilities are too many. That's exactly the point. Religion has stopped people from questioning the world as we know it. People like Galileo were afraid to report their findings because the church would be on their neck for invalidating the previous religious belief that the earth was the centre of the universe. People can achieve things, irrespective of their religion. But a problem arises when religion is trying to stop people from learning more. Most of the scholars you named did not create things that affected the Bible. The point isn't that 'atheism achieved more' because atheism is just unbelief in religion and nothing more. The moment we started to free ourselves from superstitions, we were able to question things openly. The development of the world in the past 100 years is more than the development of man since the beginning of time.

You are wrong about the scholars not creating things that affected the bible, Newton wrote books on theology, the book of Daniel also occupied his mind, Charles Babbage, lord kelvin and Blaise pascal were Christian apologists. Boyle was an evangelist who sponsored evangelist works, and Michael Faraday was an Elder in his church. We haven't even mentioned the Jesuits of catholic history or the monk Gregor Mendel, as well as Belgian priest George Lemaitre. To state that these men didn't also focus on religion or the bible is false.

oglalasioux:
Please read Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose. I think your opinion about Roger Bacon will change. All these people you mentioned have the fears of burning at the stake if they came out as atheists. This shows you that religion's blackmail didn't start today. To really know what scientists were actually thinking about religion vis a vis the threat to their life if they said anything bad about religion, read the book I mentioned above and James Michener's The Source.

If Newton for instance was not afraid to deviate from orthodox Christianity into the Arian sect of Christianity then how could he be afraid to say he no longer believed in God?

While it is true that we are no longer in tune with our culture, you must understand that some aspects of our culture were also dangerous, and did not help in leading us forward, and l believe you are aware of that. Also if the days of our ancestors were that great, then why didn't we make strides in inventions or at least scientific philosophy like ancient Greece on our own? Our African literature is wonderful, and the ancient Benin kingdom had great work of arts but that was it for many thousand years, we weren't interacting with the world, same thing ancient China was guilty of. True we are not to totally abandon our roots, but do not speak like we would have experienced a form of utopia by now if the missionaries didn't arrive.

[quote author=joseph1013 post=48642520][/quote]I concur with this article, except for the fact that Christianity did not necessarily drive Europe into the dark ages. Europe going into the dark ages was inevitable due to the fall of Rome. It was Christianity that actually played a role in taming the barbarians who conquered Rome else it probably could have been a continuous cycle of conquest. I am not saying Christendom has been all bread and butter in history, of course not, but to correct this impression of dark ages and Christianity. Part of the reason why it was initially called dark ages was because we know quite little about events and developments during this time frame( 500-1000) A.D. From the 11th century Europe began to bubble slowly and only had the muhammedians to worry about.
Nice article though, l jumped in here because there are some atheists who for instance argue that Christianity is too passive and Pacifistic which led to the fall of Rome, but same atheist would turn around to blame Christianity for all the wars in Europe. Not saying you are one of those atheists though.

peacesamuel94:
why stirring up hate against Christians and Christianity, we did not come to earth, just to die and go to heaven, There is a reason we came to earth in the first place. God created us to dominate in all spheres of life, although some so called Christians now worship materialism. This few Christians should not be used as the yardstick for judging what Christianity truly entails.

Thank you, the purpose of life right from Genesis is to be fruitful and have DOMINION here on earth, l believe by ushering in the kingdom of God into this very world, though this would be brought about by God himself but he calls us to be partakers of this ahead of time. God's judgment of sinners is real, but the judgment is not the focus of the gospel. This is a quote of Isaiah 61 by Jesus in the gospel of Luke..
.Luke 4:18 , The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Note how he stopped at the first part of Isaiah 61v2, and didn't complete it(even though the second part of the verse is also real).

Ranchhoddas:
It seems so. Magical thinking has far-reaching effects.

Hmm if you truly believe that, then l'm afraid it seems you are the one with the magical thinking here.

dorox:
You appear to be focused on the proverbial tree instead of the forest. Society is made up of many people that are interconnected to each other such that the action of one person can affect the wellbeing of others not directly connected to that person.
Like the woman in your example, though she is a brilliant medical practioner, have you ever considered what she might have become if she had been nutured in a society that places a premium on education and ecourages children to develope their crtical thinking abilities?
Perhaps she might have been counted as one of those brilliant indivviduals taking the lead in advancing the boundaries of medical practices or any other field.

If looked from this perspective you will realise that even in her relative success the society may have failed her by not creating the space necessary for her to achieve her potential.

My problem with atheists is that they believe that religion itself rather than how it is practiced is the problem Nigeria has, even if there was no religion in Nigeria l am not convinced the problems we face as a nation would be gone. Our politicians are corrupt, and the nation is corrupt even with religion, there's no proof that without religion we would be any less corrupt or the society would be better.
Don't get me wrong, l am against dogmatism, fanaticism and ignorance at all levels but atheists speak as though there cannot be a form of religion where all of these are reduced to the minimum. Many atheists even from what l see on Nairaland believe they are more scientific or intelligent than the religious. They blame religions for everything, in my opinion blaming religion for our downfall at the Olympics when we all know why we failed is ridiculous. You can blame some form of religious worldviews in Nigeria for our limitations in science but come on, not the Olympics. Even without religion we may not still perform well at the Olympics, what would you heap the blame on then?
Anyway it was nice having this chat with you all, l think l have made my point about this thread in particular

dorox:
This I agree with and it it exactly the point that I have been driving at. But if we refrain from calling out the idìocy and hypocrisy of of holding such ridiculous beliefs because the people holding them identify as christians, then we would be helping the atheist who are quite comfortably and happy to point at the ridiculousness of having magical thinking.

Lol you are right, though sometimes l Wonder, since we have so many atheists in Nigeria like we see on Nairaland, and since they believe religion is anti science or limits potential, l would prefer if they begin to show us the way in Nigeria by becoming much more productive than the religious in Nigeria in all spheres of life, that is what Nigeria needs now and not just talk, talk or condemnation of religion. I say this because while in school, l knew a dedicated choir mistress in the medical department, she was quite excellent as a medical practitioner and in her department, even better than most of her non religious colleagues, it is obvious that her dedication to the work of God hardly prevented her from being the best at what she does. What about Michael Faraday? or the monk Gregor Mendel, these people had active religious lives but it never stopped them from utilizing their time in other ventures. Hope you get my drift? The most important thing is to use your time wisely(religious or non religious).

cloudgoddess:
Very good points. Your post reminded me of this quote.

https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-just-in-terms-of-allocation-of-time-resources-religion-is-not-very-efficient-there-s-a-lot-more-i-bill-gates-69086.jpg

I think what the theists on this thread are neglecting to acknowledge is that there are different levels of religiosity.

When a person attributes his successes to god(s) (like many athletes and celebrities around the world still do) yet did all of the work himself, and understands that without training and hard work he would not have made it, he's what I'd call moderately/casually religious. The type of person to ace an exam and say "Thank God" knowing full well it was their many hours of studying that got them there. The vast majority of religious people in the developed countries fall into this category.

Religion is a source of comfort for them, which they relay their achievements and gratitude through, but when push comes to shove they don't truly believe god miraculously steps into people's lives and does things without them having to do what it physically takes to make them happen.

In other words, their level of religiosity is nothing like the brand of fervent miracle-touting, night vigil holding, holy-ghost fire summoning, Nigerian religiosity. Their behaviors (praying rarely or only before certain events, not taking prayers as seriously, investing way more time in training/studies than church, fully embracing secular ideas and lifestyles, not screaming for Holy Ghost fire to consume their enemies) show they are further into the realm of reason, but still have god/religion as an emotional crutch.

Nice one, although god/religion and the realm of reason are not mutually exclusive.

wirinet:
The OP asked a valid question. Why is religious Africa underperforming at the Olympics and indeed every other indice of human development. Instead of the theists to reflect on the questions, there are going on the attack and comparing us to other continents.
Religious Africa is underperforming generally because we waste so much time in unproductive activities, instead of developing ourselves, individually and collectively, couple with the fact that we lack ability long time planing and foresight. We want instant and huge gratification with little planing and work. This is exactly what our brand of religion offers and why people spend more time with religious affairs than with actual productive activities.
A typical religious Nigerian will spend an average of two hours everyday in prayers. The average Christian would attend mid week service on Wednesday, night vigil on Friday ( making Saturday morning useless), then probably fellowship, choir practice or other church activities for the rest of Saturday. Some attend cell meetings or fellowships during the working days. If you add up all the time an average Nigerian spends on religious activities, I am sure it is not less than 25% of his/her waking time.
Now let's interpolate this time wastage with others from other parts of the world.
Athletes from other spend less than 10% of their waking hours on religious affairs, those from Europe and Asia even spend less. So obviously they put in more physical effort at trainings than our African based athletes. Furthermore, other athletes starts training for the next Olympics immediately the present Olympics ends. We Africans generally start preparing for the next competition a few months to the games. How do we hope to compete.
This same over religiosity affect all facets of our lives. I was miffed while university that science and technology students who should be spending most of their waking hours at research and study, waste lots of time with religious activities. You expect these students to compete with others from other parts of the world or lead Nigeria's technological development?

Exactly, you are very correct. Just like l said there's probably a flaw in the way the average African practice religion, of course there should be a way to balance things. The book of Proverbs even says... Seeth thou a man diligent in his work, he shall stand before kings not mere men. Even so, Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and unto God what belongs to God.
The problem might be with us Africans, for even before the missionaries came, we were still in our own little world without any sort of powerful invention, and there's no proof that without religious activities we would be better than other nations. Afterall in terms of the Olympics you wouldn't say the lack of preparation of the athletes was due to religion, would you? When we performed better in Atlanta 96, were we any less religious? Are we more religious than the Britons were when they experienced their industrial revolution? The problem is not religion but the African man and his inability in most cases to use things properly.

dorox:
Since my view is not representative of the general christian population in Nigeria, it would be grossly inaccurate to judge christianity based on my view.
The op is about the majority of religious people in the country that have refused to engage their reasoning ability just because of religion.
Take for example, the average Nigerian will call anybody a liar that claims to have driven a car for hundreds of miles without fuel. But when Daddy G.o Adeboye and Pastor Chris told this same lie in front of a full church, their members forgot how to think and began shouting praises to God for the awesome miracle.
The average christian in the West would instantly say it cannot be true.

Then we are saying thesame thing, perhaps the problem is with those Nigerian Christians.

It is not possible for man to be without religion, religion was ever present even from the time of the Sumerians, it is a vital part of the human story and psyche.Also religion does not necessarily impede science. Science in those days was taken seriously by the catholic church and Gallileo's case was a rare case of extremism. Funny how Gallileo seem to be the only matyr of science you could find. Go read about the Jesuits and how they educated so many in the western world. The reason why the west made great stride in science was due to the high literacy rate that began in the 15th century. Thus many people could read, even the lowliest in society, allowing for a great feedback in the culture which in turn gave birth to the rennaisance. The reason for this was the printing press and the book they were so eager to print was the Bible, and then the Greek materials. With the advent of protestant theology which emphasized salvation of individual souls by their knowledge of God's word, the literacy rate became high as all men had to read the bible for themselves to gain salvation, clergy or no clergy, great and small. This enabled them to read scientific materials as well so that in the 19th century, the literacy rate of Britain and USA were incomparable. You can also read about the protestant work ethic by sociologist Max Weber. Most institutions and Hospitals were also pioneered by men of faith.
To summarize, religion is not all that dangerous as you make it look, but fanaticism and dogmatism( which is not peculiar to religion) is the danger, and would still be the danger even without religion.