Folks,
 We have discussed quite a bit in the aspect of religions that involved for the society what it meant to shape us now and what it is now. We evaluated a lot of verses written a few thousands years ago, in that context. And we do work hard to understand (interpret) in today's sense. And quite a few things still do make sense. 

Here is what I propose to ponder:
What should be the role of religion moving forward?
What should it teach, focus, encourage(discourage)?

Some religions talked salvation(Moksha), some englightenment, etc etc..(but only a few similar ones)

What is should be the purpose?

Moreover, thinking even more radically, is there even a place for religion?

What do you think?

There is always a place for religion. Religion makes us believe that there is something divine out there. However, religion has to update itself on many aspects mainly ensuring freedom for one and all. 

"Religion is the opium of the people" - Karl Marx

Atheists should also be held responsible for crimes againsts humanity committed by fellow Atheists. While they are the first to blame religion for all evil, they somewhat always fail to take "credit" for Jim Jones, Stalin, Kim Jong among many others. So what hapens if there is no religion, then will Atheists take the blame for poverty, crimes, etc?. Moral values are not common sense as one would like to believe. They have to be taught.
Religion is messed up but Atheism is not the way.  

Freedom you are comparing apples to oranges.

Killing in the name of religion is not the same as athiests who kill.

If athiests killed people in the name of atheism then it could be comparable.

@Rethink,
i think we should look at the numbers also, then it becomes grapes and pumpkins.

Spanish Inquisition=5000 to 10, 000 killed over a long time.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc  > 100 million killed.

So one can argue that lack of fear of God leads one to kill more people. Atheists always have this feeling that their hands are clean. So they should hope that religion never ends because then they will not have any scapegoat.  

 Freedom dude,

You're really confused. Atheism means lack of theistic belief as opposed to Stalin, polpot and Mao who may have been atheistic, due to their suppression of religion, but were driven by an idealogy --communism to be exact. To say they killed because they were atheists is "moronic" at best. And you don't see atheists go around bombing and killing each other for not adhering to their god, cause there aint one!

More people die in accidents every year than intended murders. You cannot blame accidents as the culprits for murders.

Insane people will kill whether they are religious or not, but it is a known fact that religious fanatics kill in the name of religion. Atheists do not kill in the name of religion, they just kill because they are insane.

Interesting observations going on here. Yet, I see the negative or positive sides that happened around the followers of certain religions or non-religions. I think we should be able to distinguish between the actions of followers (who have their own agenda; name, fame, wealth) and the core messages of the religions that those people happened to be in. Does it actually have to do with the religion?

I blame more to the culture (which existed before religions and is more of a natural phenomenon..dictated by geography, climate, terrain etc) than to the religion. Unlike Freedom talks about the scientific advancement brought by the Christians, Europeans (Christians in your defn.) were merely barbarians until 13th/14th century. Muslim were the most advanced followers. Now things have changed quite a bit. 

Even before Muslims, Hindus were the most advanced. So is it the religion or the circumstances that causes a lot of upheaval; development to discoveries to war (due to inferiority complex)...?

Also the question..what next?

Rethink nailed it. I keep hearing the same point from religious folks about how Atheists also have committed mass murders. But this is so different. Killing in the name of Allah is not same as killing by a person who is an atheist. Is the atheist killing in the name of ...well, atheism?? Is he saying you will not go to nowhere (as oppose to heaven) if you don't follow my nobody (God)?



Let's get back to OP's questions.
What should be the role of religion moving forward?
>Religion shouldn't be a doctrine to strictly follow to. It should be a philosophy. There will be tonnes of people who will continue believing in God no matter what so there's no point going against religion. Just don't let it rule everybody else.

What should it teach, focus, encourage(discourage)?
>It should first teach tolerance. It should allow acceptance of other ideas. It should also not be a cult, but an idea that people should be free to adopt or reject. It should focus on good behavior as oppose to increasing its base.

At the dawn of the civilization religion might have been a necesssaty. here I am not talking about the religion related to god. 
I do not beleive religion has anyhting to do with god or god created religion.

There were many unorganised religion developed as a "law" to govern the society. And at that time ther was no omnipotent government/transportation and communication so religion was developed. Later on as civilization needed more lawas, communities became more organised then organised religion started to appear they are,  jewism/hinduism/Greek religion/Persian religion.

Those religion started to get old ( what happens when a human gets old?) lots of bad practice started to take precednce. Instead of doing good to humanity they started to become a burden to the society.

As the society moved forward it neeeded somehting different. And governments also started to become more and more  promonent hence  the Budhhisn emerged as new religion avoiding many bad practices of Hinduism. In middle east there was already a need of new revolution to fight against Rome and old religion. So, in middle east Jesus Christ started a revolution which later on became Christianity.

Its like Karl Marks wrote a book "das capital" he was paid by a publisher to wrtie a book about emerging problems in new industrialised Europe. I think Marks got 25 dollars or somehting like that for writing that book.

Lenin later thinking that book is the solution to the emerging problem of then Russia  started a Revolution, in the begenning it succedded but eventually it failed because it had no consideration for human nature.

Christ started a revolution in Jerusalem, Rome was very powerfull so he was curcified (a common way of killing rebellains by Rome). but later his followers were able to dismantle rome and its religion 

Offcourse at the time Rome became Christian, Roman empire was already a weak empire ( actually not even a empire). In human history no empire has lasted that long as roman empire.

Fall of Rome at the hand of Christian was a black day for science and technology. Christian started to become dominant religion of Europe. But at that time the Christian religious movement was already captured by "non competant/greedy people" so once Christian religion become dominant its cunning leaders used it for their personal benefit. Modern thoughts were punished. Science and technoly was forbiddon. Bible became sole source of everything and its interpreters father/priests/brother /sisters created a evil empire which lasted more that 1500 years. Authoritrin rule of Christianty destroyed the government ( because it stood against the ever hungry greed of priests). If you read the history of Europe after  Europe fell into Christianity there was power struggle between church and government, finally church prevailed. and it lasted almost 1500 years.

Renaissance in Europe

Common people in Italy realised Christianity has enslaved tham , so renaissance (rebirth) started in Italy and by 1700 it engulfed entire europe. There was once again struggle of power between church and govt. church and kings. This time govt prevailed. (Because of these there are many big church/cathedrals in europe but they always remains empty. Mostly tourists visit those place.

Renaissance was real revolution for human kind, people started to think differently after renaissance many scientific discovery have been made.

Prists  lost the judiciary power/ governing power but they knew how to survive they change the trick so they used human lust for  heaven after death  to collect the donation and keep themsleves.

If there was no christianity, what the world would look like today ?
Nobody knows how it would be today but based on the fact that 1) christinas punished scientific ideas and 2) after renaissance where christianty lost the power, many idea flourished and humen achieved a lot, so one possibility is that we could have colonised Mars by now if there is no Christianity, you never know.

Hinduism

Started as a natural religion worhiping sun/earth/water and fire . Because these things are very essentials for the survival of life as we know.
This religion keep on adding/ adopting many different practices. Because of this it never got chance to as powerfull as Christian religion but people are people they devised a cast system so that professionalism always emained within the family. 
As we all know  it is easy to pollute water in pond then the water in river. Because in river there is alwasy flow of fresh water. Becauses of cast system professnalism remained only withinn certain group so the flow of new idea was preventd. To save family dominance lots of bad practices were introduced. religion beacme polluted and finally it cripplled the society and its developement. 
Only now you can feel new ideas /discoveries done by the people following hinduism as it was before.

Islamism

What can you expect from a teenager? feeling itself as invincible ?? comapred to other prominent religion Islam is a teenager. They always complain about everything which is not islamic. I think Christianity and Hinduism was like this after 1000 years of their fromation. Hinusim/budhhism/Christiany judaism  even though behaved  like this during their first 1000 years  society was completely different then. Now many people dont feel the necessaty of any religon to guide their life. So in many instances islam is like odd man out. born in wrong time. And you know what  muslims are most of the time, in receving end of the punishment. Isalm is not saving them. This is the main problem with Islam.

Judaism


Born as a natural religion , later accepting  many cultural things during their revilution against Egyptin and Rome . Never had a chance to influence the government of many countries of that time. People suffered a lot in Judaism so Jews know how to manage money and how to fight for survival. Their money saving skill developed during  scarcity worked a lot in later years. They spread,used that skill of trade and make profit They have suffered a lot in human history. Their religion didnt save them from all those suffering. And they are still struggling for survival.

By the way, most Jews think no other religion has contributed to human society like judaism. for evidence they site four great jews

1. Jesus Christ
2. Karls Marx
3. Sigmund freud
4. Alber Einstein


Budhhism

Most modest religion. I think Budhha never said I am "god" or "son of a god"  or " I am sent my god" or " if you donr follow me "you will go to hell". (i am neither buddhist nor i was born in Budhhist family). There is not a central authority in Budhhist religion. There is no provision of Dalai Lama" in Budhhism. In history they have suffered too. They tried to influence government and soceity through modesty not by force. Dalai Lama is exception I already mentioned there is no such things as "Dalai Lama" in Budhhism. That is just howm it is so easy for cunning people to bend the religion for personal benefit. And, God is unable to stop this "sin" . It was developed by cunning people to use Budhhism as their personal benefit like Christians have developed father/sisters/brothers preist.
Budhha said "dont worship me but follow my teachings". Budhhist are doing the opposite worshiping but not following   his teachings. So in practice it is almost non existance.

Why we need religion 

1. Do we need religion to become good person/good citizens ?
nope.  In order to become good citizen you need to work hard. dont do things prohibited by law and pay taxes, thats it.

2. Do we need religion to donate money?
nope You can donate money without being a religious. you can donate dirrectly to needy. Your tax is a sort of donation to govt where it will be used for needy ( to some extent).

3. Do we need religion for peace?
Nope, in fact, if you take out religion from society approximately 70 % of world conflict will disppear. We will be in peace.You can be peaceful without a religion.

4. Do we need religion to go to heaven?

does heaven even exists?

History  shows that 

religion

1. Hindered the development of science and technology
2. Created conflicts that lasted hundereds of years among humans

Then why we need religion for ?

When you ask Richard Dawkins who created him, he says "The Universe". And when you question him who created the universe he says that the question is not valid. Yet he is always the first one to ask Who Created God?. This shows typical Atheist mentality. They always want to have their cake and eat it too. Always in denial. Once Kadar Khan said in an old movie that regardless whether a potato falls on the knife or the knife falls on the potato, it is the potato that gets cut. 
Come to think of it. You can never question them. You can never blame them. So Atheists in a way behave like God,
100 million murders by Atheists is not an accident. And this figure is a very modest number, the real number is much higher.
Someone said those were mad people. However, there cannot be any mad people within religion. What kind of logic is that?.
Prachanda killed thousands. If you hear his swearing in ceremony as PM of Nepal, instead of saying "bhagwan ko naam mah", he has said "janata ko naam mah". So who is this janata?. These janata who do not believe in bhagwan=Atheists. So there you have it.
"Atheists ko naam mah" = "janata ko naam mah". Janata is just a code word.

Someone mentioned without religion there will be peace. I beg to differ. History has proven that horrible people emerge from Atheism who kill millions of people without hesitation. Even if you label these people as MAD, why take the risk to nurture them?. Consider it as two groups. Do you want to belong to a group which has a proven history of giving birth to maniacs who kill in millions or do you want to belong to a group which may not be perfect, might kill in thousands sometimes but is very much of lesser evil?.

For those investors out there. Do you want to invest in a company that you might risk losing 100 million or will you invest in a company that might make you a loss of 100K at most?. 
 
  

Freedom bandhu you seem to be so indoctrinated with the fetters of religion that you subconsciously categorize atheism as another religion! There is a big hole in your logic that athiests have killed more than religious fanatics so it's better to be religious than atheist.

It is the same kind of logic as saying car accidents kill more people than gun shooting so cars should be banned.

The basics of religions may teach people to be good, but instead of being a moral grounds to help humanity, it has become more of a competitive grounds where different religious groups compete with each other. If you look at it objectively, most religions are nothing but stories passed down through generations. Human beings must have a serious need for belonging to continue to believe in these stories as if their lives depended on those stories. In order to feel as if they are part of a bigger cause and not just another ant that gets squashed on the ground, they have make believe stories that make them part of a bigger picture that of God, and how happily they are willing to foresake every basic rule of humanity to be part of the bigger picture and to prove that their own believe of religion is better than that of others' belief in their own religions.

 Freedom,

You are advocating religion by saying killings because of religion is less than killings don by others. Are you sure of it ? I checked and find otherwise

In the following table they have not added  casulties caused by Indo- Pakistan war, Arab- Israeli war, and casulities caused by religous terrorism if you add all you will get the magic number.

Lowest estimate	Highest estimate	Event	Location	From	To	Religions involved	Percentage of the world population[21]
3,000,000	11,500,000[22]	Thirty Years' War	Holy Roman Empire	1618	1648	Protestants andCatholics	0.5%–2.1%
2,000,000	4,000,000[23]	French Wars of Religion	France	1562	1598	Protestants andCatholics	0.4%–0.8%
1,200,000	3,000,000[24]	Nigerian Civil War	Nigeria	1967	1970	Islam andChristian	0.03%-0.09%
1,000,000[25]	2,000,000	Second Sudanese Civil War	Sudan	1983	2005	Islam andChristian	0.02%
1,000,000[26]	3,000,000[27]	Crusades	Holy Land, Europe	1095	1291	Islam andChristian	0.3%–2.3%
130,000[28]	250,000	Lebanese Civil War	Lebanon	1975	1990	Sunni,

Copy Paste bro,
you are mistaken. The Civil Wars listed were not religious wars. If you research on them, you will find other factors. The other 3 had a religious component but there were other factors such as political and economic. When you say religion kills, you have to prove that the factor is only religion and nothing else. For example a Christian killing a hindu just to promote his religion and vice versa. In all the above examples, even the opposing sides had been Atheists, the conflict would still have happened as the other factors of the wars would still have been there.
 
The good thing is that on reflection, many devout Theists will reflect on them and acknowledge the mistakes. They will say that what happened in the past was wrong. Had Stalin, Pol Pot been a devout Jesus lover or for that matter, had they been a devout Buddhist, they would not have killed. There is a possibility of that. 

What we need is for Atheists to come together and acknowledge their mistakes also. We very well know that this will never happen. That is why it is better to join a group which after making some mistakes can reflect on them, admit their mistakes and learn from them. This is how society grows to be better. Why join a group who will disown you as MAD after you have made some mistakes?.  There is no sense of Accountability then. 




 

Freeedom,

"When you say religion kills, you have to prove that the factor is only religion and nothing else. For example a Christian killing a hindu just to promote his religion and vice versa."

You have been the most self contradicting gorkhey who posts here. You just held Stalin and polpot responsible for the killings for them being Atheists and you quickly turnaround and say the religious murders in Sudan and such is not killed for religion. At this point you have forced me to ask myself if you are some paid " christain propogandist"

Sidster bro,
in this thread i am speaking for religion in general. Other than that, i know rest of the other religions can adapt and improve and make society a better place.
After all, what is the contribution of Atheism to the world?. Can you list any positive contributions that improved society?.
At least religious doctrines teach us to be good human beings. And the other thing is that just because someone says that he is a hindu or christian doesnt make him one. Because religion has a doctrine to be followed which encourages good behaviour. Someone who deviates from that good path automatically loses his right to that religion. So in order to prove that a crime was done by a religion, you have to prove that the person doing that crime was a devout believer and was doing as per the teachings of his faith. For example, the war in the middle east was for economic reasons, superficially it looks like chrsitians vs muslims. You also have to prove that those so called religious wars would NOT have happened if there was no religion component to it. 
I am not saying the Sudan war did not have a religious component to it. But if you read it as our friend has kindly put the link above, and do more research on it, you will realise there were other factors as well. So do you mean that had there been no religion, those wars would not have happened?. 
Yes Pol Pot and Stalin need some accountability. As they both were Atheists, then fellow Atheists should reflect.

  

" After all, what is the contribution of Atheism to the world?"

You are really funny, man.

You are funny too bro as you did not answer the question. Atheists would like a religion free world because religion is evil and kills people. By default it would mean Atheism will be good and people will not be killed. Correct?. After getting rid of religion, you will still have other factors to deal with like greed, selfishness, cruelty. So what would be your solution?. How are you going to get rid of the greed, selfishness and cruelty in society?. At least religion is trying.  

95% above scientists in the world are atheists.

You can deduce the rest.