Atheism is the opposite extreme to theism as both claim to know something without proof. Although I'm nearly certain a "god" doesn't exist as depicted by most mainstream religions, it is still feasible that a higher entity has the capacity to engineer things beyond our current comprehension. Furthermore, claiming there is/isn't a “god” assumes too much knowledge about what “god” is.
Human perception of the universe is biased and always changing... thus to follow a belief “religiously” is ignorant; conversely, to follow a belief “scientifically” is to be willing to relinquish that belief on a whim should contradictory evidence be discovered.
I mostly follow beliefs "scientifically", but this implies that they're likely to alter/improve in the near future. Maybe my strongest belief is that the scientific process will enlighten and lead us.
Many of the old writings and tales from the bible (and other religious writings) offer advice, but they shouldn't be taken as historical facts without scrutiny. It's fine to base moral beliefs on certain aspects or stories (so long as they don't contradict scientific findings), but that moral belief alone isn't "religious". I'm particularly annoyed by those who pick-and-choose which parts to believe. Most religions do not give this "wiggle room". The scriptures either need to be accepted in their entirety as the infallible word of “god” or rejected under the concept that it was merely invented by archaic men (glorified cavemen) who had vastly limited views of the universe. Calling a book "infallible" is an extraordinary claim to uphold because if even one part is falsifiable, then the whole thing must be rejected. It can no longer be trusted.
Even worse is the hypocrisy shown by certain politicians and corporate owner's in America claiming to be "Christian". Jesus would be considered a liberal socialist (if he even existed at all) that advocated for giving up material belongings, freely helping neighbors or those in need, not seeking power or wealth. Some people are walking examples of an oxymoron. Self-proclaimed "Christians" ignore the basic principles of Jesus' teachings and the ten commandments (thou shalt not kill).
If human perception of the universe is biased, and ever-changing, then what explanation can be given to why we have static morals and beliefs even in the face of change? Evolution has determined that it is desirable to have some ideas/traditions which remain static within a multi-generational time span. Society progresses on a much slower timescale, and society could progress faster if people were more perceptive to change; however, evolving too quickly could also be detrimental. For one, it's not a good idea to rush into new methodologies without proven experience, but we also need to accept change when necessary.
"Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come."
The human lifespan is a significant timescale, and as life expectancy increases, this could have implications, i.e. larger conflicts arising due to the increasing gap between the youth and elderly. Religion offers a mechanism for young people to be indoctrinated into conservative groups, allowing static ideas to be retained through generations. This holds back society with a great force on a much larger scale. If you look back at the dark ages, intellectual stagnation (and even some regression) lasted for centuries, but I'm hopeful for the future of reason and logic.
Here's a little humor to close
