As social animals, human beings are biologically programmed to co-operate with and care for each other, as it enhances our chances of survival, both as individuals and as a species. This is actually the origin of the moral sense that religious people have such a hard time understanding without God, but which is in reality a very simple and logical consequence of our evolutionary history. But like all animals, however, we also have a selfish survival instinct, particularly when resources are limited. This naturally leads to tribalism—we tend to form groups that are large enough to give us what we need to survive, but not so large that we run out of resources. Of course, just how big that group can be depends on how efficiently we are able to use the resources available to us, hence technology has led to an increasingly globalised society. But at the time the holy books of most of the world’s major religions were written, tribalism was rife, as our ability to utilise resources was indeed limited.

It is very clear that religion is both a cause and effect of tribalism—religion serves to reinforce the social cohesion within a particular tribe, as well as reinforcing the separation from other tribes with a different religion. This idea is nothing new. However, what may be a new idea (as far as I am aware) is that religion helps to resolve the conflict between our selfish and co-operative survival instincts. Even when we kill somebody from another tribe, we still experience natural feelings of guilt, as our co-operative instinct comes into play. Religion, however, provides us with a moral justification to kill anyone from another tribe, which allows us to overcome the guilt that our biological instincts would make us feel otherwise. In other words, religion is not only a leading cause of war, it actually helps us to wage war in the first place (even if that war isn’t strictly for religious reasons), by providing us with a moral justification for it. Hence, not only is religion completely unnecessary to explain human morality, it is actually one of the best explanations for human immorality, especially at a group level.

This is yet another reason why I cannot accept the religious moderate view that we would still have all these wars and do all these awful things without religion anyway. Once again, religion gives these things both credibility and moral justification, and that has got to make a huge difference to how we can get into a situation where large groups of people are willing to kill and/or harm others. On top of all that, we have the problem that the suspension of rationality and morality that religion allows can also lead us to harm those who are close to us, or even ourselves. And that is to say nothing of the fact that most of our holy books actually directly and clearly advocate murder and violence as well.

It is a mark of the progress of civilisation that the tribalism that religion facilitated—as well as all the other purposes religion once served—are now obsolete in the face of science and technological advancement. But the psychological power of religion remains as strong as ever, which means it is now not only obsolete, but actually a direct threat to the continued existence of modern civilisation.

EKET, Nigeria—The 9-year-old boy lay on a bloodstained hospital sheet crawling with ants, staring blindly at the wall.

His family pastor had accused him of being a witch, and his father then tried to force acid down his throat as an exorcism. It spilled as he struggled, burning away his face and eyes. The emaciated boy barely had strength left to whisper the name of the church that had denounced him — Mount Zion Lighthouse.

A month later, he died.

Can you imagine the excruciating pain this poor boy must have suffered over that month? This must be some kind of crazy, whacko religious cult, right? It is in reality Christianity, as brought to Africa by American evangelicals. And as shown by this article, this boy’s case is not an isolated incident.

So why on earth are preachers condemning innocent children to this fate? That’s the most shocking part of all: it’s good for business. The preachers and churches who identify the most “witches” are seen as being the most powerful, and parents actually pay them willingly to exorcise their children.

This is a great example of why atheists like myself can no longer accept religion as a benign belief that gives people comfort. Because when a person’s most cherished belief is something for which there is no physical evidence, they are susceptible to believing anything—including that their own children are witches and must be tortured, or that blowing themselves up to kill “infidels” will give them 72 virgins in the afterlife. Religious moderates and liberals will argue that these people are extremists, but their actions are a logical consequences of their belief systems, and are very often actually directly supported by their own holy books. Yes, these people are often poor and desperate, but certainly not always (most of the September 11 terrorists were actually fairly wealthy and well educated), and only religion could twist their minds so much as to do something like this. Indeed, the more poor and desperate people are, the more powerful the false certainty of religion becomes. This then allows business interests to prey on their desperation, as is so tragically the case here.

I also find it absurd that we condemn new religions as cults, while allowing larger, more established religions to do the same sorts of things, or worse. They are both equally delusional—and dangerous.

I’m sure you’ve all heard about this story by now: Obama gets asked by a 4th grader why everybody hates him so much! Although I obviously can’t personally agree with his Christian sentiment, he actually does make a valid point: Christians are supposed to be loving and tolerant, but far right wing conservative Americans have shown themselves to be about the most hateful and intolerant group of people this side of fundamentalist Islam. And at least Muslim fundamentalists are honest about their hatred and intolerance—fundamentalist Christians go on about love when all they do is hate, and go on about freedom when they want to suppress the freedom of everyone who disagrees with them. They claim to represent American values when in fact America was founded on secular values (hence the separation of church and state in the constitution), and they claim to represent Christian values when in fact their behaviour is very much against to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

And why do they hate Obama so much anyway? I mean, Bush sent hundreds of Americans to their deaths in a senseless, illegal war, but that’s okay for them. On the other hand, Obama is trying to do something to bring health care to more Americans—even if you disagree with his plan, surely any sensible person can see that he is at least trying to do something for the benefit of the American people? Bush basically sent hundreds of innocent Americans to die for the benefit of Halliburton and the arms trade, while Obama is at least trying to save American lives, by taking them out of this war and trying to improve their health care. How could anyone have such a twisted value system and delusional world view as to think they should hate Obama, while at the same time supporting Bush?

POSTSCRIPT: I forgot to ask everyone what they think of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize! Personally, I agree with Obama himself that he doesn’t yet deserve it, and I hope he makes good on his statement that he will take it as a call to action. Perhaps he can start by putting some teeth into his administration’s demand that there should be no more Israeli settlements on Palestinian land…

We’re currently working on something pretty big and serious, so while we’re doing that, I thought I’d post this hilarious bit of comic relief—it’s actually a very accurate retelling of the Biblical creation!