The religious are more trustworthy and generous - BUT...

I think it was a fairly unbiased article, it made points for both sides.

I can see now what an important role religion has had in the survival of our species. But I can also see how we're starting to move beyond the need for it.

Exactly. I don't really need a good book or a bearded dude to tell me to be nice to people. People like to use the defense of "well, if I don't send my kid to church, how is he going to learn morals and ethics?", which is utter crap.

Morals and ethics are only a illusion to begin with. Christians who believe in the ideal of the law drive me crazy. Christianity is not nor has it ever been about morals and ethics. If the Law was such a good thing then why were Adam and Eve casted out of the garden for partaken of the knowledge of good and evil.

Oh believe me, I know, but everytime I try to argue about Christianity, I always get the same "well, Jesus' teachings were goooood!"

As a believer I would say that Jesus' teachings are good, but they are not about morality, ethics, or the law. See the story of the rich young man, a man who was the soul of virtue, but could not inter in to the kingdom of heaven, or the the story of John the baptist. Jesus kind of steps all over Jewish law, morality, and ethics. Paul even go further buy saying the law is dead, and all is lawful to the believer.

Well, being the stern agnostic I am(I used to be a militant athiest..until I started to take some of my observational critcisms on religion and apply them, philisophically, to my own worldview), and a huge cynic to organize religion. I really don't think religion is ever going to go away...just for the mere fact that it attempts to ask questions that science doesn't really care or want to answer(philosphical ones like "why are we here?"for example..granted, for some that is not an important question..but for others that is the ONLY question to ask)

The way I see it, Religion will just contort and change with the times...there will always be the "God of the Gaps"...Religions may start to merge(with other religions) in the next couple hundred years or maybe a new philosophy rises from the ashes. The point I am trying to make is...I just don't think its pragmatic to think that religion will inevitabley be abandoned outright(its always been around in one way shape or form)..

Especially when in the case of a literary character like Jesus Christ..there is some real depth and moving introspection to be gained(even if you don't believe in the divinity..which I don't)

If they behave better, what does it matter that they only do it because they think God is watching? Shouldn't we be thankful for the positive result of them behaving better?

that is an excellent point, I say that religious folks should be allowed to play with their toys all they want. I just don't want to be forced to play with them if I do not want to(paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens)...

However, there is one point of discussion, Fundamentalism(whether it be religious, social, economic etc)usually happens in cycles. What I see now is the end of the cycle of the Christian right(evangelical)movement. Now, that doesn't mean in twenty years time a new religious movement doesn't perk itself up..

That's the way I thought as well, but then I realized how depressing it all was. Would they be doing good deeds if God WASN'T watching? Are they doing it just for the feeling of self-righteousness, or do they legitimately want to do a good deed?

Of course intent doesn't matter when compared to result, but this brings me back to my original problem: the only benefit to it are these good deeds, but these are good deeds that could be done WITHOUT God or religion getting mixed up in it. No matter what, the ugly, bad deeds done in whatever lord's name far outweigh the good deeds that have been accomplished.

Yeah, but there is nothing anyone can do about changing someone's philosophical outlook on their religion. Its an individualistic experience and everyone is going to internalize it differently. Again, I think you have the right idea...its all about the results

Jesus never said he came to abolish the law, but to "fulfill it". That is why it's called the "New Testament". I agree the old law is done away with though. Jesus was still about ethics and values to serve the ideal man.

The law is a contract, what happen when a contract is fulfilled?

I disagree Jesus is about the fruits of the spirit. The fruits of the spirit may seem similar to ethics, but are not the same. Fruits of the spirit are things that are given, they are not acquired. Ethics are acquired.

Galatians 5:22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

After all the rich man was ethical in all things, and could not enter in to the kingdom. Also if law or ethic are important, then why did Paul say twice that all things are lawful to the believer.