Interesting analogy, and I tend to agree with it, religion does seem to prey on those who are weaker and need the support of a higher power. However I am of the opinion that it is a somewhat necessary presence in society in supporting those people. My issue is that religion likes to think it has some kind of moral highground on everything, and seeps into places it shouldn't. These days religion is so up itself that people are realising that.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Interesting analogy, and I tend to agree with it, religion does seem to prey on those who are weaker and need the support of a higher power. However I am of the opinion that it is a somewhat necessary presence in society in supporting those people. My issue is that religion likes to think it has some kind of moral highground on everything, and seeps into places it shouldn't. These days religion is so up itself that people are realising that.

Well put. I don't believe it should be banned. I believe viewpoints should be balanced. I believe children should even be educated in *gasp* Islam, the religion supposedly entirely populated by bombers and terrorists (according to some...).

Well, I have issues with Islam in particular, while Christainity is rather overbearing and up itself, Buddhism is so conceited it's not funny (as well as being sexist) and Hinduism has got a bit of death cult thing going on, and the Jews just get kicked in the jaw by everybody, their problems stem from people and their interpretation of their religion. Islam as an actual religion is extremely primitive and its actual issues don't stem from misinterpretation, a 'correct' interpretation of the Koran is still frought with cultural practices that are considered outdated or fundamentally wrong by current standards, and while people don't take the Bible and its stoning of adulterers thing literally, Muslims do. People often accuse it of being an overly violent religion, and the accusation is not unfounded thanks to the 'Jihad' clause, and I hardly need to mention how sexist it is.

I disagree in teaching children, particular those in primary school, about religion. If they want a religious education, they can get it from their parents or their religious organasation.

Classifying following a specific religion to drug addiction is ridiculous and has clearly been constructed by someone who has a dislike for religion.

You're post also has me slightly confused. Confused; simply because no where in your post have you elaborated on the moral drug section of your title (that's an oxymoron by the way). Unless I have missed it?

Are you saying that religion is hypocritical? What are you trying to convey here?

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Interesting analogy, and I tend to agree with it, religion does seem to prey on those who are weaker and need the support of a higher power. However I am of the opinion that it is a somewhat necessary presence in society in supporting those people. My issue is that religion likes to think it has some kind of moral highground on everything, and seeps into places it shouldn't. These days religion is so up itself that people are realising that.

Religion preys on the weak? What nonsense, I am anything but physically and mentally weak. I choose to turn to religion for several reasons, none of which I expect you to understand. It's not religion you should be raging against, it is those who use it to stand upon the moral highground. Not everyone who is religious stands on the moral highground and is pretentious. Certainly I haven't met a religious person quite as pretentious and holier than thou than Richard Dawkins.

Religion in the West is declining, because it is no longer an integral part of Western Society, Religion has been replaced by Liberalism. However religion in the Eastern half of the world is still an integral part of how people view themselves and live their lives.

Originally Posted by Syphro

Well put. I don't believe it should be banned. I believe viewpoints should be balanced. I believe children should even be educated in *gasp* Islam, the religion supposedly entirely populated by bombers and terrorists (according to some...).

Only Christianity should be taught in Schools, any other religion should be taught by the parents of those children at home. Britain was founded upon Christian values, and no Eastern religion shares similar values, therefore are incompatible and should not be taught in schools. I am also against religious schools (Christian one's too).

Originally Posted by Syphro

I want you to imagine a high. Now, this high gives you a moral highground that is supported by scriptures about the drug throughout history.

The drug also comes in many varieties that can have highs such as forgetting wrongs (or sins) to justifying the murder of "infidels".

People are encouraged to spread their drug via peace, fear or the sword, depending on the type of drug you buy. The dealers have different strategies.

[ ... ]

Whilst it's not an analogy I'd have used, I do see what you're driving at, and yes, religion is rather like a drug in the sense that it's often peddled to those people who are frequently amongst the most naive and gullible in society. People who are frequently, and generally through no fault of their own, trapped in circumstances which limit their horizons of understanding during the most important formative years of their lives - as they're growing up during childhood and early adulthood in most 1st world cultures - and throughout their lives when in the 3rd world, remote from much understanding of the real factors involved.

The way that religion is taught often emphasises the comforting aspects of a supposed god who keeps an eye open for the good and bad of the world and who looks after you whilst you're alive and will ensure that you go on living after you die (a bit of an oxymoron, but still). What it never emphasises are the exceedingly tenuous roots on which it's based, nor the ontological reasons for religion having first developed, nor the role the church's' self-interest has played in maintaining religion for its own self-interest. If the promotion of religion were to ever to come before the Advertising Standards or Fair Trades people, it would fall flat at the first hurdle!

Anything which is sold to people either too young or too naive to understand what they're hearing, and which only emphasises the good, omitting the bad and the downright lies, can indeed be likened to a drug.

Originally Posted by C.E.F

Only Christianity should be taught in Schools, any other religion should be taught by the parents of those children at home. Britain was founded upon Christian values, and no Eastern religion shares similar values, therefore are incompatible and should not be taught in schools. I am also against religious schools (Christian one's too).

I know this is a bit off-topic and the subject has recently been discussed elsewhere, but if one religion is to be taught, all religions should share an equal exposure and should all be taught as comparative religion with no emphasis on any particular one. Britain might be a nominally Christian country, however a significant and increasing minority of the population is comprised of people of other religions, and if there's to be any harmony and understanding, children, but only children out of junior education, should know exactly what, and why, those other religions teach what they do. Whilst still of a Junior school age, no religious education directed at children should take place outside the home.

Originally Posted by C.E.F

Religion preys on the weak? What nonsense, I am anything but physically and mentally weak. I choose to turn to religion for several reasons, none of which I expect you to understand. It's not religion you should be raging against, it is those who use it to stand upon the moral highground. Not everyone who is religious stands on the moral highground and is pretentious. Certainly I haven't met a religious person quite as pretentious and holier than thou than Richard Dawkins.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but at its core, Religion facilitates to those who need support and guidance. That's why God is supposed to be benevolent and helping.

As for moral highgrounds it seems those who are religious are more likely to claim the moral highground because of that, and Richard Dawkins doesn't claim moral highground without reason. He levels criticisms against the Church and a belief in God which are well reasoned and backed up.

Originally Posted by C.E.F

Religion in the West is declining, because it is no longer an integral part of Western Society, Religion has been replaced by Liberalism. However religion in the Eastern half of the world is still an integral part of how people view themselves and live their lives.

This only proves my view, those people who are impoverished and need to look for something in the future and to make sense of the rather random world around them turn to religion. The West no longer needs this support, and so religion is declining.

Originally Posted by C.E.F

Britain was founded upon Christian values, and no Eastern religion shares similar values, therefore are incompatible and should not be taught in schools.

While I agree that other religions and cultures in general should be turned down a bit while in Britian, are you implying that Christianity is superior to other religions?

Religion is the opium of the people, classic Marxism at it's best!

Originally Posted by C.E.F

You're post also has me slightly confused. Confused; simply because no where in your post have you elaborated on the moral drug section of your title (that's an oxymoron by the way). Unless I have missed it?

Are you saying that religion is hypocritical? What are you trying to convey here?

I was merely addressing a comparison I spotted in the trends between theists and atheists and theists against theists.

I am merely saying that religion is addictive to an extent. It takes the person who practices religion to question it and they are exposed to atheism which is another thing entirely.

It is mapped off my personal experience. I was devout and crashed into atheism over a very short period. I just thought that during that period where I was confused and depressed it felt like "cold turkey".

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Religion is the opium of the people, classic Marxism at it's best!

Marx was an intellectual. I can't blame him for beating me to it.

Originally Posted by Midas

I know this is a bit off-topic and the subject has recently been discussed elsewhere, but if one religion is to be taught, all religions should share an equal exposure and should all be taught as comparative religion with no emphasis on any particular one. Britain might be a nominally Christian country, however a significant and increasing minority of the population is comprised of people of other religions, and if there's to be any harmony and understanding, children, but only children out of junior education, should know exactly what, and why, those other religions teach what they do.

There's no "might be" about it, Britain is and always has been a Christian country. The teaching of any other religion is an insult to British values as Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam have little in common with the British way of life or Christianity. I don't believe British values should be compromised because several sections of society do not view themselves as British or value the concept of being British. I was taught and strongly support the "When in Rome" saying.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but at its core, Religion facilitates to those who need support and guidance. That's why God is supposed to be benevolent and helping.

As for moral highgrounds it seems those who are religious are more likely to claim the moral highground because of that, and Richard Dawkins doesn't claim moral highground without reason. He levels criticisms against the Church and a belief in God which are well reasoned and backed up.



This only proves my view, those people who are impoverished and need to look for something in the future and to make sense of the rather random world around them turn to religion. The West no longer needs this support, and so religion is declining.




While I agree that other religions and cultures in general should be turned down a bit while in Britian, are you implying that Christianity is superior to other religions?

You are using generalisations. Not everyone chooses to use religion as a coping mechanism. And by your definition those who use substances, organisations and other people as coping mechanism are equally as weak.

I know a lot of religious people who aren't so pretentious as to claim any ground as their own, let alone a moral one. There are religious people who are pretentious and claim they are morally superior, but what they fail to realise is that we are all sinners regardless what our stance on religious maybe.

He has every right to dismiss religion as a explanation of how we came to inhabit the earth and if he chooses to believe in Darwinism and Science that is his prerogative, but I find atheists like him follow Darwinism and Science in the same way that they accuse religious folk of following the bible. Indeed there are many Scientists who disagree with Darwin's - Natural Selection theory, the very theory that atheists like Richard Dawkins uses to repeatedly attack Christianity.


I have never said that Christianity is superior or inferior to any other religion. How have you drawn that conclusion?

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Religion is the opium of the people, classic Marxism at it's best!

I believe the quotation is "Religion is the opium of the mind". Marx's views on religion are highly cynical and preposterous. He viewed religion as an opiate which dulls a person's mindset in the face of exploitation and oppression. He viewed religion as something the working class became addicted too and therefore did not overthrow the ruling elite of society. Yet many people who belonged to the ruling classes were religious themselves. Marx and Engels argued that the heaven and the hell concept were designed by the ruling elite to keep the working classes in line. An entirely false notion of religion lies at the heart of the Marxist view of religion.

Originally Posted by Syphro

Marx was an intellectual. I can't blame him for beating me to it.

For all of Marx's intellect, he was socially inept, his Marxist theory highlights that whilst everyone was hard at work, Marx was at home being a dreamer. Unfortunately for Marx, the world was created by grafters and not dreamers.

Originally Posted by C.E.F

He has every right to dismiss religion as a explanation of how we came to inhabit the earth and if he chooses to believe in Darwinism and Science that is his prerogative, but I find atheists like him follow Darwinism and Science in the same way that they accuse religious folk of following the bible. Indeed there are many Scientists who disagree with Darwin's - Natural Selection theory, the very theory that atheists like Richard Dawkins uses to repeatedly attack Christianity.

There are many scientists who would agree that Darwinism isn't the full answer, in just the same way that virtually everyone would agree that science doesn't have all the answers. However what you will find is that they are both correct in identifying the vast majority of the major steps and mechanisms, if not all the fine detail. For example we mightn't know exactly how the Earth was formed, however we know in considerable detail all the necessary steps which go to make up the theory of its formation, confirmed by many independent branches of science.

There's absolutely no analogy between that and the way that many use the bible. Science is very precise in the way that repeated experimentation and observation are used to test hypotheses, and if something doesn't quite fit, experimentation along strict guidelines continues until the underlying theory is either confirmed or modified. Religious people will use the bible as supposed 'proof' for there being a god, whereas it's no such thing. It's simply a modern translation (one of many) of an interpretation (one of many) of a collection of ancient texts of unproven provenance which stem from between two and three thousand years ago. There is nothing in the bible which will stand up to even the most basic of scientific scrutiny with regards to the veracity of its content, nothing at all!

Why does Science have to be the centre of this debate? It seems that Religion has overcome an obstacle course designed and constructed by Science. It seems unfair doesn't it? At the end of the day, I do not blindly follow Science or Religion for that matter.

I accept that a religious text offers no evidence that their was good, no more than Darwinism offers evidence that God doesn't exist. Atheists continue to show that they encompass the very things that they accuse religious people (like myself) of harbouring.

Originally Posted by C.E.F

You are using generalisations. Not everyone chooses to use religion as a coping mechanism. And by your definition those who use substances, organisations and other people as coping mechanism are equally as weak.

Religion originally existed as an explanation for things in the natural world that weren't immediately apparent to ancient peoples, such as lightening or floods. This is why I'm a strong supporter of 'pagan' religions such as Hinduism, as they still try to offer such an explanation and their Gods are quite real in that you can draw a picture of them. Many modern religions don't cater to explanations, they cater to trying to keep people moral (according to their own teachings of morality), and off heaven and hell as incentive. While many turn to religion, we have to understand why they do this, and as you yourself pointed out, it's often during times of strength, because people still seek reassurance, whether that be from a higher power or the strict traditions offered by the Church. I would say almost every person turns to religion to find reason for problems in their life, people don't like to admit that s**t happens.

He has every right to dismiss religion as a explanation of how we came to inhabit the earth and if he chooses to believe in Darwinism and Science that is his prerogative, but I find atheists like him follow Darwinism and Science in the same way that they accuse religious folk of following the bible. Indeed there are many Scientists who disagree with Darwin's - Natural Selection theory, the very theory that atheists like Richard Dawkins uses to repeatedly attack Christianity.

Science has proof, Religion doesn't, therefore science can lord it over religion. It isn't a case of believing in Science over Religion, it's case of believing the facts or ignoring them.

You can't argue that Atheism is wrong because it can't prove that God doesn't exist, what it can do is poke an absurd number of holes in the fairy stories that make up your belief, therefore discrediting your source of belief in God.

Originally Posted by C.E.F

Why does Science have to be the centre of this debate? It seems that Religion has overcome an obstacle course designed and constructed by Science. It seems unfair doesn't it? At the end of the day, I do not blindly follow Science or Religion for that matter.

Science is at the centre simply because it's the discipline which governs our whole being, from the first moment of the formation of the universe to the last, and everything within it. No-one has said you have to follow it blindly (following anything blindly is dangerous), but you cannot deny that the whole world around us is built on a system of logic and rules, complex as they might be in part. Following on from that though, you have said elsewhere that "I believe in God, I believe in Jesus Christ and his escapades around the Holy Lands. I believe in Heaven, I believe that Noah took animals two by two on his arc." Unless you can provide evidence, what other than blindly following religion would you call that?

I accept that a religious text offers no evidence that their was good, no more than Darwinism offers evidence that God doesn't exist. Atheists continue to show that they encompass the very things that they accuse religious people (like myself) of harbouring.

Neither Darwinism, nor science in general, has ever set out to try to offer evidence that a god doesn't exist. What is does do is show from several centuries of evidence that there is absolutely no need for a god to exist. It's not up to science to try to show a negative, it's up to believers to provide their own evidence, but since we all know they can't, they resort to this sort of tactic; trying to throw a burden of negation elsewhere.

I will no longer parttake in this debate as I feel my part has come to and end, but I do love atheists. After all Science has a completely messed the world up, we have nuclear weaponry because of Science. We have an aging population because of Science. The world's natural resources are being depleted in the name of modern medicine as well as people living longer, that's a product of science. People who cannot have children are having children thanks to science. Science is inherently evil, fundamentally more evil than any religion.

Perhaps an atheists biggest crime and a crime that I feel should be punishable by death is that they marry in a church despite not being religious or not caring for the church they are using for their marriage. When they are told they are dying, they enter the church again and seek support because suddenly the heaven and hell concept becomes very real to them. Suddenly the fact they have been an ar*ehole for much of their lives worries them as they face the unknown. I laugh at those people and it gets better yet. When they die, a lot of the time they are buried in a cemetry which makes me sick. They should be burned in their backgarden and their ashes either kept in an urn or flung into a skip and done away with.

Well, that was fun while it lasted...

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Well, that was fun while it lasted...

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings

Originally Posted by C.E.F

I will no longer parttake in this debate as I feel my part has come to and end, but I do love atheists. After all Science has a completely messed the world up, we have nuclear weaponry because of Science. We have an aging population because of Science. The world's natural resources are being depleted in the name of modern medicine as well as people living longer, that's a product of science. People who cannot have children are having children thanks to science. Science is inherently evil, fundamentally more evil than any religion.

Now how many times have I heard remarks like this before when people who believe in religion ultimately fail to provide any basis for their belief! Instead they almost always resort to making such attacks on either those who question them from an objective viewpoint, or on completely unrelated issues in an attempt to try to score some final and totally irrelevant moral high ground.

Perhaps an atheists biggest crime and a crime that I feel should be punishable by death is that they marry in a church despite not being religious or not caring for the church they are using for their marriage. When they are told they are dying, they enter the church again and seek support because suddenly the heaven and hell concept becomes very real to them. Suddenly the fact they have been an ar*ehole for much of their lives worries them as they face the unknown. I laugh at those people and it gets better yet. When they die, a lot of the time they are buried in a cemetry which makes me sick. They should be burned in their backgarden and their ashes either kept in an urn or flung into a skip and done away with.

And your point, other than relating to my own remark above, is? Many people, atheists or not, get married in church simply because it's the traditional thing to do. In fact I would suggest that the largest majority of such weddings are between people who nominally call themselves Christian but whose only church attendances have been to other weddings, funerals and when they've had to attend for pre-wedding purposes, and whose only religious thoughts have been along the lines of "what's this god stuff really all about I wonder".

I don't understand why it's a sin to make people live longer, if Jesus thought so he would have just let the sick die.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Religion is the opium of the people, classic Marxism at it's best!

I would just slighter alter that, (Marxism works best that way anywho) to say "Religion is the placebo of the masses".

Originally Posted by C.E.F

I will no longer parttake in this debate as I feel my part has come to and end, but I do love atheists. After all Science has a completely messed the world up, we have nuclear weaponry because of Science. We have an aging population because of Science. The world's natural resources are being depleted in the name of modern medicine as well as people living longer, that's a product of science. People who cannot have children are having children thanks to science. Science is inherently evil, fundamentally more evil than any religion.

Yes, science is evil. All those damned advancements in medicine and technology, curing the incurable and making people live longer. Damn you scientists! We were all better off praying to the Sun God and making blood sacrifices before you came along with your penicillin and antibiotics and sending people to the moon and all. What a waste of time. We should just stop now before we come up with renewable clean energy or a cure for cancer, I mean who wants that?

Originally Posted by C.E.F

Perhaps an atheists biggest crime and a crime that I feel should be punishable by death is that they marry in a church despite not being religious or not caring for the church they are using for their marriage. When they are told they are dying, they enter the church again and seek support because suddenly the heaven and hell concept becomes very real to them. Suddenly the fact they have been an ar*ehole for much of their lives worries them as they face the unknown. I laugh at those people and it gets better yet. When they die, a lot of the time they are buried in a cemetry which makes me sick. They should be burned in their backgarden and their ashes either kept in an urn or flung into a skip and done away with.

Wow, bit of righteous indignation there. Break out the Fire and Brimstone. I'm no fan of religious hypocrisy either, but isn't it a basic doctrine of the Christian faith that forgiveness is always open, and anyone can come back to the church? You're talking about punishing people by death for getting married in a church and laughing at the terminally ill.

But science is the evil one. Of course.

If you don't use religion to cope and you don't use it to put you on a moral high ground, what do you use religion for CEF?

Originally Posted by claire

If you don't use religion to cope and you don't use it to put you on a moral high ground, what do you use religion for CEF?

Good question.

I use religion to help me achieve goals. I'll give you example, I had to walk 40 km in eight and a half hours over the unforgiving Welsh terrain. I managed to walk about 26 km and I was exhausted, I was about to give up and then I thought to myself if Jesus could walk battered and beaten with a heavy cross on his back bare footed across stones, thorns and loose chippings than I could walk the other 14km I needed too walk to completely my hike. I completed the task within the time limit.

Originally Posted by C.E.F

Good question. I use religion to help me achieve goals. I'll give you example, I had to walk 40 km in eight and a half hours over the unforgiving Welsh terrain. I managed to walk about 26 km and I was exhausted and I thought to myself if Jesus could walk battered and beaten with a heavy cross on his back bare footed across stones, thorns and loose chippings than I could walk the other 14km I needed too walk to completely my hike. I completed the task within the time limit.

You don't have to look up to Jesus to finish a bike race. Lance Armstrong can pull you along just as well. The thing about religion is, it's pretentious in nature. To believe in one faith you are declaring other faiths to be inaccurate. Drawing a line between wrong and right. It is empowering to think that you know all the answers and they come from God or Jesus (what have you), but also quite vain.

We all gain our inspiration from different sources, mine happens to be through my religion, I see no reason why that makes me intolerant of other religions, I see no reason why that would make me pretentious or vain as you eloquently put it.

I first have to note that I am not addressing you specifically, but rather religion in general. (I like to use "you" a lot. I'll avoid it.) It is vain and pretentious because by being religious one claims to have the answers to life itself. I did not say you were intolerant. But by subscribing to a specific religion you are putting down the beliefs of another. It doesn't mean you're intolerant. You've just found a different answer to the same question. Unfortunately that question drives everybody crazy. That's how wars start.

I take a different view. I feel at times those who are non-religious and those who struggle to find their place in life or struggle to find a happy medium tend to view religious people with contempt because religious people who live by the bible tend to feel that they have found their place in life and have a clear idea of where they are heading with their life. I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is the case for everyone, but it is an observation I have seen. This is where the pretentious comments stem from in my book.

Can you elaborate on how religion enables a person to be vain? From the definitions of the word vain, I am ignorant as to how religion instigates vainity?

By subscribing to a specific faith doesn't mean that you as a person are intolerent of other religions, not everyone who is religious is bigoted or extreme in their views. I feel at times that the Catholic Church are too welcoming of other faiths which is why I find this present Pope to be rather refreshing in his views, even if I disagree with a majority of his views.

As for Warfare, more wars have been fought for monetary and material gain than for religious purposes. The only significant wars that have been fought in the name of religion are as follows: The Muslim Conquests, the French Wars of Religion, The Crusades and the Reconquista.

Perhaps, but I personally don't feel contempt for religious people. Just religion. I think it's vain because it's a person claiming to know the answer to life. To have a connection with the creation--God. The man-made idea just seems vain to me.

Originally Posted by claire

Perhaps, but I personally don't feel contempt for religious people. Just religion. I think it's vain because it's a person claiming to know the answer to life. To have a connection with the creation--God. The man-made idea just seems vain to me.

Would your contempt for religion stem from your lack of understanding of it? I don't mean to sound patronising, but religion is a personal journey for most people and most religious people will feel they know the answer to their life. Again, religious people don't view God as a creation made by man, but as the creator of man, there lies the difference between those who are and those who aren't religious.

What's there to understand?

Originally Posted by claire

What's there to understand?

Religion like doctrines, analogies and theories have concepts. Religion is comprised of thousands of concepts each as individual and complex as the last, just look at all the strands of Buddhism that exist from the Chinese mountains to the plains of India.

It also it is probably a waste of time for an atheist like yourself to bother learning about religion, it's counterproductive.

Originally Posted by C.E.F

Would your contempt for religion stem from your lack of understanding of it? I don't mean to sound patronising, but religion is a personal journey for most people and most religious people will feel they know the answer to their life. Again, religious people don't view God as a creation made by man, but as the creator of man, there lies the difference between those who are and those who aren't religious.

As someone who is an atheist, and have been all my life, I have studied religion to a considerable depth, far more than the vast majority of so-called religious people. The major difference being that when I've done it, I've looked at both the bible and belief with a dispassionate eye and have tried to find both the real facts which best fit the myths and legends, i.e., the confirmed textual, archaeological and geological facts, the psychology behind the way that the people of the time - say 1,500BCE to 100CE - perceived and interpreted the world they lived in, and the way that religious leaders have used and manipulated those myths and legends to their own ends.

I could almost write a book on the subject, in fact I might even get round to doing that at some point in the future, and I'm on pretty safe grounds in saying that whilst there might be a factual basis for many of the biblical stories, the way they are told in the bible bears no relationship to fact and certainly not to any god other than one which is firmly in the minds of man. Some biblical stories have external corroboration, those which name names and places, but the vast majority don't; even Jesus himself has only two extra-biblical references, both of which were written at least second-hand and at least two generations after his death. Wouldn't you think that if he'd genuinely been what he's supposed to have been, and had genuinely done what he's supposed to have done, someone, somewhere, might have written it down? After all, they wrote plenty of about their every day lives and loves and social happenings and commercial dealings......

Claire is quite right when she says you don't need Jesus to finish a race! Why look to some legendary historical figure of very uncertain origins when all you need do is focus on the task itself and have the personal determination to finish? Surely living in the here and now and looking to the real world is being far more true to both yourself and to life in general than constantly harking back to beliefs from two or more millennia ago which invoke the supernatural? Believe it or not there's a whole world out there which got along just fine for billions of years before mankind ever invented gods; distorted mythical and legendary events from a couple of thousand years ago are little more than a blip on the horizon.

Incidentally, you're incorrect with regards to wars in the name of religion, or rather your list of just four is a fraction of the total. One of the most complete lists is available here, and it's estimated that a total of around 800 million people have one way or another died worldwide in the name of religion.

I like your persistance Midas, but ultimately your views on religion are of no concern to me and I had stopped responded to your typically crafted anti-religious rhetoric, because it was typical of someone who is too narrowminded to accept that people hold religion in higher terms than your beloved science. In fact you are cut from the same cloth as fundamentalists like Al Qaeda.

I'm almost certain that many more people have died from non-religious wars based on Colonialism even the two World Wars were fought based on Colonialism ideas of the Germans.

I see the problems in Northern Ireland is listed as a religious war which is nonsense, the problems in Northern Ireland arised when David Lloyd George decided to partition Northern Ireland to appease the Ulster Loyalists, a proportion of which are Catholic in origin.

The Dutch Revolt was a revolt by the Dutch against the Spanish Empire. The Netherlands then became a Republic. The American War of Independence was fought based on Religion? The French Revolution was fought based on Religion too? The Civil Wars fought in Nigeria and Rhodesia were based on religious conflicts were they? The uprising against Communism in Romania in 1989 is based on religion?

How about my personal favourite, the Six Day war fought over Israel's perceived illegal settlement on the land of Palestine and because of the religious connotations, it must be a war based on religion.

Next this site will be listing the Battle of Thermopylae was fought based on a clash of interests between Islam and Greek mythology.

This website seems to suggest that every war fought over the past 400-500 year period was fought over religion or based on religious differences and I find this to be fundamentally incorrect, but then atheists hope that by throwing enough mud against the wall, some of that mud will stick.

Why shouldn't we hold science in better esteem than religion? Science has proof to back its views, religion has collection of second and third hand sources from thousands of years ago about events that happened hundreds of years before.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Why shouldn't we hold science in better esteem than religion? Science has proof to back its views, religion has collection of second and third hand sources from thousands of years ago about events that happened hundreds of years before.

I'm not saying you shouldn't, hold whatever views you wish, but don't then preach these views to people who don't share those views. Every trait you accuse me and other religious of folk of possessing are the same traits you hold. I hold religion in a higher regard than Science, it seems you have a problem with this? Then again I expect nothing less from someone who calls himself a fascist. You'll be throwing religious people out of windows of six story buildings next because they don't buy into Darwinism.

But religion preaches to people who don't hold it's views! That's its entire aim! (or it kills people who believe in something else, whatever does the trick). Science merely asks "why are you believing in these things when here's proof that they A: Didn't happen or B: Are completely retarded."

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

But religion preaches to people who don't hold it's views! That's its entire aim! (or it kills people who believe in something else, whatever does the trick). Science merely asks "why are you believing in these things when here's proof that they A: Didn't happen or B: Are completely retarded."

You seem very ignorant, who says the Church or the Pope speaks on behalf of every single Christian or Catholic. Who says Al Qaeda represents the attitude of all those who follow Islam? Your ignorance is not surprising at all and might I ask, did your ancestors slaughter native Australians in the name of religion or in the name of monetary and Political gain? After all as Midas has pointed out most wars in his little list were started by religion.

Originally Posted by C.E.F

You seem very ignorant, who says the Church or the Pope speaks on behalf of every single Christian or Catholic. Who says Al Qaeda represents the attitude of all those who follow Islam? Your ignorance is not surprising at all and might I ask, did your ancestors slaughter native Australians in the name of religion or in the name of monetary and Political gain? After all as Midas has pointed out most wars in his little list were started by religion.

So the men who turn up to my door, the ads on TV (Yay Scientology!), the signs outside of almost every church, the speakers and the countless missionaries from almost every variant of the Church are all completely non-representative?

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

So the men who turn up to my door, the ads on TV (Yay Scientology!), the signs outside of almost every church, the speakers and the countless missionaries from almost every variant of the Church are all completely non-representative?

That's one part of a diverese religion. Clearly an aspect you fail understand.

So are you saying the majority of the Church has no interest in converting people!!??

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

So are you saying the majority of the Church has no interest in converting people!!??

I have attended Church and I am religious and many people I have met do not try and convert people. You make assumptions that everyone who is religious wants to convert people. I and hundreds of thousands, I dare say millions of people like me have no interest in converting people. Of course there are those that do have an interest and the worst one's for preaching and trying to convert people are the Evangelical Church and Jehovah Witnesses who are generally perceived by Catholics and Protestants as nothing more than a blemish on the face of Christianity.

But it is the policy of Mainstream church to promote itself and its beliefs over others.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

But it is the policy of Mainstream church to promote itself and its beliefs over others.

No it isn't.

Then what the hell was Paul and countless other disciples doing running around the Mediterranean? The Catholic church strives to spread it's faith, that's a fact. You may not personally, but it does as an overall organisation. That's why EVERY. SINGLE. CHURCH. has advertising!!! They work the same way that any other organisation does! By 'converting' people to their ideas.

The Church doesn't represent religion quite like you think it does. I seldom venture out to Church because I don't need to share my personal views with like-minded people in the confindes of four walls.

As for advertising, I agree the church does advertisement and the Church encourages people to attend, it doesn't force people to attend or plead with people to attend and your tone suggest that the Church tries to spread itself like a cancer to people, something I find deeply offensive. If anything is a cancer to our world it is Science and people like Charles Darwin.