My views on religion and morality can fill an entire book (hey! I'm actually writing one...)
In short, I don't believe in morals being defined by people. There is a set of morals out there that create a perfect society. Throughout our history, we have been developing our morals to attempt to reach perfection as best we could. Societies that refuse to adopt the morals most of us already have are left in the dust. They are the third world countries, the tribes, etc. While often times their cultures are still rich and interesting, their lives are without a doubt an infinite amount less luxurious than ours.
I don't believe in the notion that everything comes down to a moral issue either. "Pirating music is immoral." How so? To what extent does theft prevent moral perfection? In a society where theft is encouraged, you will have a countless number of issues. However, in a society where theft is incorrectly defined, that in and of itself is preventing us from reaching moral perfection. If pirating music, or anything else, over time shows to be a detriment to our society, then it can be defined as a bad moral standard. On the other hand, if it ends up enhancing society, it should be encouraged as a good moral standard. Neither of these events are likely, and it's my belief that an issue such as that is not a moral one, but along the lines of deciding what cereal to buy at the market.
I am a total utilitarian, but I define emotions as material things as well. A typical utilitarian ideology is that if it doesn't benefit society, then there is no need for it. I agree, but I know that a society wherein love, hate, elation, depression, etc. are looked upon as illogical frivolities (a core utilitarian belief) is also a society doomed to fail and resemble the societies in stories such as Brave New World.
When you acknowledge that moral perfection exists regardless of what we as people are currently deciding good morals are, you realize religion is insignificant when it comes to affecting your actions. Logical paradoxes prevent God as defined by any religion from existing, but the concept of moral perfection prevents religion from being a necessity in defining what is good and evil.
Because of this mentality, I would argue that a person with no religion doing a good deed is a better human being than a person with religion doing that same deed, and this is basically just reversing arguments that many proponents of religion use. "Atheists have no morals" is something I hear often. Without god to guide the atheist, who knows what they are capable of? Well, without guidance, you get to see people for who they truly are. No fear of Hell, no desire for Heaven, no doing good deeds to be in god's good graces. When an atheist donates to charity, it is purely because he or she has a true desire to do good.
As far as the whole battle of "is there a god?" goes, I think that battle has long been over. God as defined by modern day religion is completely and utterly false. Most religious people now are turning to spirituality and the belief in a higher power. This is not provable, and I personally think that there is nothing wrong in choosing to be spiritual. However, anything that is claiming to be true while having infinite paradoxes at its core is wrong.
Religion had its utilitarian purposes in the past, and those days are now over in many parts of the world. Civilization in the West is at the point where we simply cannot look to the Bible to help us understand complex issues like marriage, abortion, murder, etc.
Lastly, to anyone here that is religious, do not be offended by an atheist's ramblings. Instead, take a moment to consider their thoughts and challenge your own beliefs. You don't have to change them, but by definition the very thing that makes a human a human is the ability of introspection. An animal will blindly follow their habitual instincts. I guarantee the absolute worst thing to come out of opening your mind to beliefs that challenge your own is knowing you are inherently a better person than anyone who has yet to follow suite - and that goes for any side of any argument that has ever existed.
In retrospect, this was not "short" at all.
