Science Creates Religion? Religion Creates Science?

[PeterJ]

John - I think you need to go look up metaphysics in the dictionary. The questions I listed are not answerable in physics, They are metaphysical questions. No need to disagree about it, it's just a fact.

 

Delta - Yes, alchemy is sometimes physical chemistry. But check out Carl Jung for an explanation of alchemy as it relates to religion. Or google unus mundus.

Edited June 29, 2014 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

John - I think you need to go look up metaphysics in the dictionary. The questions I listed are not answerable in physics, They are metaphysical questions. No need to disagree about it, it's just a fact.;

And yet we know the answer to one of those questions to 3 significant figures.

The distinction between metaphysics and physics isn't as solid as you might like to think.

 

Two hundred years ago "what is love?" would have been a metaphysical question but now it is within the remits of endocrinology, psychology and evolutionary biology.

 

Galton, the guy who looked for bumps on people's heads to try to get a grip on what was happening in the mind was mistaken in his beliefs.

However he was the first (or at least one of the first and the first who got famous) to seriously consider studying the mind.

Prior to that, it was metaphysical and considered to be in the realm of religion.

Now it's science.

 

Now, perhaps you can explain why you decided to insult all the lab technicians?

Edited June 29, 2014 by John Cuthber

[PeterJ]

I referred to the difference between a theoretical thinker and a technician, and the difference of approach. If you think the lab technician is inferior then it will look like an insult. In mysticism the lab technician is superior to the theoretician. But yes, I suppose it was rude. Maybe I watch too much Big Bang Theory.

 

If you can not discern the difference between physics and metaphysics then are you not going to be any good at either. It is vital to be able to distinguish between questions that concern physics and those that concern metaphysics. If a theory is not testable in physics then it does not belong in physics. If a theory is not testable in logic then it does not belong in metaphysics. If a theory is untestable in logic or experience then it is not even wrong.

 

Nicholas - If this is your opinion of religion then you should quit it at once. This is sincere advice. Then, if you are serious about this, go and find out what religion really is. become a student of comparative religion for a few months. In particular, you should look into your belief that religion is entirely speculation. This is true for those who do nothing but speculate. But if you imagine that this is what the prophets and sages do, or what the practice is about, then you are reducing religion to absurdity.

Edited June 29, 2014 by PeterJ

[Nicholas Kang]

What do you mean by be a student of comparative religion for a few months? Are you atheism? I don`t think of religion as being too important. I am just a student, not a professor in religion. So, why continue talking about it? I am just asking is it possible to unite religion and science. If they are both incompatible. Then simply tell me it is incompatible and that`s all.

 

What do you mean by religion is entirely speculation? I do like some speculations but not all the time and in every contexts. Religion, as I would say, is nothing more than believe. You believe it, it exists. You don`t believe it, that`s your problem. But there is one thing you should always remember,

 

You have a religion. Always have. Must have. And that is you.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Essay]

I don`t think of religion as being too important.

===

 

You have a religion. Always have. Must have. And that is you.

Those two lines seem contradictory, unless you have a fairly unique definition of religion, which may be why some study of comparative religions seemed an appropriate suggestion.

[John Cuthber]

I referred to the difference between a theoretical thinker and a technician, and the difference of approach. If you think the lab technician is inferior then it will look like an insult. In mysticism the lab technician is superior to the theoretician. But yes, I suppose it was rude. Maybe I watch too much Big Bang Theory.

 

If you can not discern the difference between physics and metaphysics then are you not going to be any good at either.

 

 

So, you think technicians are necessarily distinct from theoretical thinkers?

Still looks like an insult if you ask me.

 

The difference between metaphysics and physics seems to be what century you live in.

The recent discovery of the Higgs' Boson indicates that the question "What is mass" is currently in transit from metaphysics to physics.

 

When you say "If a theory is not testable in physics then it does not belong in physics." you ignore the reality that physics changes and what is testable changes too.

[Nicholas Kang]

I mean you don`t realize the importance of religion because that`s you-yourself.

[PeterJ]

Sorry Nicholas. You said you were interested,, that you could not give up religion and that you thought it was all speculation. I took you at your word.

 

I said clearly that in my opinion religion and science are not incompatible. So you have my answer to your question. It seems you already have a definite opinion, however, so I'm not sure why you asked.

 

I'm away as a funeral for a few days so will leave you in peace.

[Fred Champion]

 

 

 

The definition of religion is quite clear and 36% of the world’s population (from a 2012 poll), including me, may take exception to your claim.

 

 

The definition you refer to: A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

 

I have no problem using that definition, but I have a few questions about its application.

 

How organized must the collection be in order to qualify as a religion?

Who determines what must be in the collection?

Does knowledge gained from experience count as belief?

How broad must participation be in cultural systems to be included?

What must be included in one or more world views?

Is the relationship of life to an order of existence limited to considerations of human life?

Just how ordered must the recognition of existence be?

 

And one last question: what is the minimum number of individuals subscribing to the collection as described in order for you to accept his, her, their collection as a religion?

 

You and the 36 percent you refer to, whoever they are, may take exception as you wish, but you, them and the other 64 percent of people each have a religion and it is, as I have said, your individual philosophy for living.

 

Theism is belief in God, a god or gods. Not all religions include theism. Atheism denys God, a god or gods. Atheism does not deny religion. You, I and everyone else has our own individual religion and we cannot escape it.

 

I suspect that the majority of those who would characterize themselves as practicing one of the major religions which does include theism actually do not truly believe in the existence of that deity in any "real" sense. My experience is that very few are able to present even a feeble apology for their preferred religion. When questioned, most will admit to "trying to live a good life" and beleiving most, but not all, of what their religion includes. In other words, they take what they want from the religion and approach living their life according to their individual customized philosophy. In other, other words they have their own individual religion.

[Phi for All]

Theism is belief in God, a god or gods. Not all religions include theism. Atheism denys God, a god or gods. Atheism does not deny religion. You, I and everyone else has our own individual religion and we cannot escape it.

 

Inescapable individual religions that atheism does not deny? Citation, please.

 

I can't imagine a religion that would be necessary once you've removed its god. Or are you torturing the definition of "religion" to make it fit your purpose?

[Delta1212]

 

Inescapable individual religions that atheism does not deny? Citation, please.

 

I can't imagine a religion that would be necessary once you've removed its god. Or are you torturing the definition of "religion" to make it fit your purpose?

I think he's using it as a synonym for "worldview."

[dimreepr]

I suspect that the majority of those who would characterize themselves as practicing one of the major religions which does include theism actually do not truly believe in the existence of that deity in any "real" sense. My experience is that very few are able to present even a feeble apology for their preferred religion. When questioned, most will admit to "trying to live a good life" and beleiving most, but not all, of what their religion includes. In other words, they take what they want from the religion and approach living their life according to their individual customized philosophy. In other, other words they have their own individual religion.

 

 

My personal philosophy is just that, personal, there’s no dogma, nothing written down and no-one else is involved; it changes/evolves as I live and learn, I have no idea how or when it will do so.

 

Language and the meaning of words also change over time, nobody knows how, when or why; but one thing is certain, it’s not for you to decide.

 

If you persist with your own definitions, then our discussion is at an end because you’re talking a different language and I don’t speak ‘Fred Champion’.

[Phi for All]

I think he's using it as a synonym for "worldview."

 

I suspect as much, too. We've also had people claim that anything one believes in or spends an inordinate amount of time on can be called a "religion". Through such a tortured definition, hobbies, careers, and watching sports become equivalent to Catholicism, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism.

[Fred Champion]

I think he's using it as a synonym for "worldview."

So, you do not recognize Buddhism as a religion? I expect 500 million people will disagree with you. From Wiki: Buddhism is a nontheistic religion^[1][2] that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha, meaning "the awakened one".

 

I suspect as much, too. We've also had people claim that anything one believes in or spends an inordinate amount of time on can be called a "religion". Through such a tortured definition, hobbies, careers, and watching sports become equivalent to Catholicism, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism.

Also from Wiki, on nontheism: "religion can be defined as a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing".

 

 

My personal philosophy is just that, personal, there’s no dogma, nothing written down and no-one else is involved; it changes/evolves as I live and learn, I have no idea how or when it will do so.

 

Language and the meaning of words also change over time, nobody knows how, when or why; but one thing is certain, it’s not for you to decide.

 

If you persist with your own definitions, then our discussion is at an end because you’re talking a different language and I don’t speak ‘Fred Champion’.

I suggest you investigate the meaning of the terms religion, theism and atheism on a broader perspective than belief/nonbelief/denial in/of Abrahamic religions. From Wiki: Abrahamic religions (also Semitic religions) are the monotheistic faiths of West Asian origin, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham^[1] or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him.^[2][3][4] They are one of the major divisions in comparative religion, along with Indian religions^[5] (Dharmic) and East Asian religions.

 

Of course your personal philosophy is yours and yours alone; so is everyone's. Why else do Jewish-Christian-Islamic teachings say that you have choice? You are the authority, you are responsible; no one else can choose for you, not even God. Grace cannot be forced upon you; it can only be offered. Your statement is proof that you are making that choice.

 

I hope your philosophy does change over time. Probably one of the saddest things that can happen to an individual is that their philosophy will not change as they live. All religions encourage you to "grow your faith", to "seek enlightenment", or something similar and to avoid "hardening the heart".

 

The idea that because you have no written doctrine or dogma you have no religion is a red herring. The fact is that if you were to take the time to develop you thoughts fully, if they aren't already, and write them down then you would have them in text form. So what? What difference would it make to you if your philosophy was published? Would it not still be the same? Would writing it down somehow turn it into dogma that is isn't already? Again from Wiki: Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. You are that authority.

 

I expect no one has much of a clue as to how they or their ideas will change with age. That's not something one can plan. What you are probably doing is working your plan to educate yourself. My experience is that that process never ends. I feel it would be sad if it did.

 

Inescapable individual religions that atheism does not deny? Citation, please.

 

I can't imagine a religion that would be necessary once you've removed its god. Or are you torturing the definition of "religion" to make it fit your purpose?

Where in the definition presented by dimreeper is the term "god"? I think I am not the one doing any torturing.

[Delta1212]

I didn't actually claim that religion needed a god, but you've made much more expansive claims about what qualifies as a religion than just "it doesn't necessarily need a god."

 

In the context of "everyone has their own personal religion" it is effectively a synonym for "worldview." Not everyone who doesn't believe in a god subscribes to an organized belief system like Buddhism. Obviously, most people share most of their beliefs about the world with at least one other person, but religions tend to be large sets of beliefs encompassing many aspects of reality: what it is, why we're here, how we should live, etc.

 

A religion tends to cover all or most of these subjects and its adherents will thus generally share the same beliefs across multiple categories.

 

Once you drop away from organized religion, where people get their answers varies wildly as they draw them from different sources. So two people who agree on the nature of the world may not agree on how to live in it and vice versa.

 

If you're grouping all of these beliefs together and calling them a person's religion, even if they don't share their full set of beliefs with any other single person, you are effectively using the word religion to mean worldview.

 

In which case, sure, everyone has one of those. I think it leaves a rather large gap in the language in terms of describing large, organized worldviews if we strip the word religion down to that particular definition, though.

[Phi for All]

The idea that because you have no written doctrine or dogma you have no religion is a red herring.

 

Of course it's a red herring. And you're using it as a strawman, since you're arguing against it when no one else brought it up. So doubly fallacious reasoning.

 

Look, atheism isn't the opposite of theism. It represents NOT being a part of any religion or god. You can't tell me my hobby is not-collecting stamps just because you claim everyone has hobbies.

[dimreepr]

Fred, why do you insist on this definition of religion, what difference does it make?

 

I know I’m not religious whatever you may think.

[Moontanman]

Why natural selection? Why not other theories?

 

 

 

I have to ask, what other theories?

Religion did teach us good values. I agree with that.

 

 

what moral values would that be?

I don't understand why you believe the two are so different. For the most part, both are expressions of what the practitioners accept as the best way to live their lives. Religion and science are both very practical. The "rules" in both are our attempt to bring ourselves into harmony with our environment, through both understanding and action.

This is nonsense, religion is not practical in any way, neither has any rules about bringing ones self into harmony with the environment.

 

For religion this is probably, from what I understand of them, more obvious in "eastern" religions than the Jewish-Christian-Islamic ethic. It should be quite obvious in science. For example, the last 6 or 7, depending on how one separates them, of the 10 commandments are exactly the first directives social science would give for establishing and maintaining a stable and just society. The first 3 or 4 commandments are statements establishing authority for giving commandments not unlike the first paragraphs of almost every constitutional government.

This too is nonsense, the so called ten commandments are not anything but primitive nomads plagiarizing earlier religions and have little if anything to do a stable or just society...

 

 

It is worth noting that some authority is necessary for a sustainable social system. We have observed that a society in which everyone can do exactly as he/she pleases just doesn't work. We cannot escape our human nature; we are almost never completely rational.

Your point here would be?

 

At the fringes of every human endeavor we will find some irrationality, some conflict with other endeavors. Perhaps this is what you see as the conflict between science and religion. For example, we consider ourselves to be intelligent beings. That we should question our environment and our origin should be no surprise. That we should anticipate an intelligence as the agent of our origin should not be a surprise either.

To assume intelligence is the agent of anything but human endeavor demonstrably wrong.

 

We have restricted our science to what we can observe with our five senses and instruments which enhance those senses. It should be no surprise that we require science to rule out anything we cannot "see" and demonstrate. The fringe here is that science describes our origin as the ultimate non-demonstrable event, a "Big Bang". Even that origin as described is not an origin. Everything that was in the singularity was there before the bang.

Science is by definition restricted to that which is demonstrable. Science by definition rules out anything that is not demonstrable. All science has to say about the beginning is that we can't at this time investigate back any further. Your assertions about the big bang are not part of science...

 

So at best the Big Bang must be seen as a continuation, and so must the creation stories; in order for a creator to create, that creator, that agent, that force of change, however it is described, must have been present before the act of creation. I expect most of us would like to believe that we have the capacity to understand what was before, but it seems to me that it must be so far out of our shared experience that we have no words to describe it. Religion calls that status mystery, science calls it unknown.

No, religion calls it revealed truth, science calls it as of yet unknown, which is more honest?

 

Note that I refered to shared experience. Many have had experiences not directly attributable to the five senses. These are common enough that they cannot be entirely discounted. I suggest that if you never look for that sort of experience you will not find it, and even if you do look for it and have an unusual experience you may not be totally convinced you have found what others say they have experienced. We are capable of convincing ourselves of almost anything.

Yes we are capable of convincing ourselves of anything, our brains play tricks on us, that is why a personal experience is meaningless to anyone else unless you can demonstrate it to others, the supernatural falls into this category of personal experiences.

 

I can only tell you that my experience is that there is more than what one can experience with the five senses.

Please demonstrate this assertion.

 

The focus of our space programs is our search for other life. If we find it will that prove or disprove anything? I doubt it. It will likely raise even more questions. My suggestion to you is to keep searching even after you are comfortable with your approach to life, your philosophy for living, which is your religion, and appreciate the benefits of science.

 

You miss define religion, you miss define science, and you tell us nonsensical drivel about how to live your life, that sounds like preaching to me...

[Phi for All]

Fred, why do you insist on this definition of religion, what difference does it make?

 

Metaphor madness. If you keep using them often enough, you start taking them literally.

[Fred Champion]

I'm trying to figure out why some are so opposed to the idea of having a religion, even if that religion is of their own construction. It is as if "religion" is a dirty word. It is as if by saying they have a religion I have accused them of something terrible. Mostly what I see in the responses to my posts seems to be a desire to be firmly on the side of rejecting any belief in God, and especially as presented by Christanity.

 

I expect this is a result of being brought up in a society which is based predominately on what are considered Christian values. I would not expect these responses from, for example, those in a predominately Buddhist society. People are not going to rebel against or reject establishment views unless those views are present. Agendas may have some bearing here, but I'm not interested in determining that. I'm a bit more inclined to believe that perceived political correctness is a factor.

 

I have posted nothing, I hope, which could be construed as encouraging anyone to believe in anything other than that he/she has the authority and responsibility for his/her life. Perhaps even that is too much for some. The idea of authority and responsibility must be, to me, part of the answer to the original question of this thread. Any reconciliation of science and religion must begin with what the individual accepts as authority.

 

To me the ultimate reduction of science is that it is discovery; the ultimate reduction of religion, again to me, is that it is one's philosophy for living. Much may be added to both for various purposes, but I believe these are the base definitions. Reconciliation should proceed from authority to the recognition that both intuition and curiosity are part of our nature and both play a role in both science and religion. Beyond this I think each individual must decide to ask more specific questions.

 

Finally, if "world view" is required as a politically correct substitute for "religion", fine, I acquiesce for the sake of the thread.

[dimreepr]

I’d be similarly opposed to you insisting I’m a woman because I have nipples.

[Phi for All]

I'm trying to figure out why some are so opposed to the idea of having a religion, even if that religion is of their own construction.

I snipped your quote here because this is all that's needed. The rest is just your own cognitive bias on the subject.

 

The reason I'm opposed to religion is precisely why you think it should be the norm. I see nothing but age to distinguish any religion from another, or from one I might "construct" (VERY interesting choice of words, btw) myself. It's all guesses and fabrication and allowing people with poor critical thinking skills to determine the ethics of how you should live your life, based on the ancient guesses and fabrications of iron age mystics (or something fabricated I've told myself to make me feel better).

 

I'm capable of being a moral and just person, a benefit to my society and a capable husband and father without religion. In fact, I would posit that I might be a bit more trustworthy in that regard, because I know why I am this way, and it's NOT because I fear the retributions of a god.

 

Finally, if "world view" is required as a politically correct substitute for "religion", fine, I acquiesce for the sake of the thread.

 

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It's about the precision of definition of the words we use to communicate with. If I say "religion" (a group organized to worship a god or practice spiritual beliefs), but you hear "religion" (any activity people place a supreme amount of importance on), how effective is our discussion going to be?

 

We should always be wary of changing a definition to suit our purpose.

[John Cuthber]

I'm trying to figure out why some are so opposed to the idea of having a religion, even if that religion is of their own construction.

I'm not opposed to the idea of having a religion and I'm not opposed to the idea of having a sister.

It's just that I don't have one, so it's silly to say that I do (unless, by "sister" you mean what everyone else calls a brother).

[Fred Champion]

I snipped your quote here because this is all that's needed. The rest is just your own cognitive bias on the subject.

 

The reason I'm opposed to religion is precisely why you think it should be the norm. I see nothing but age to distinguish any religion from another, or from one I might "construct" (VERY interesting choice of words, btw) myself. It's all guesses and fabrication and allowing people with poor critical thinking skills to determine the ethics of how you should live your life, based on the ancient guesses and fabrications of iron age mystics (or something fabricated I've told myself to make me feel better).

 

I'm capable of being a moral and just person, a benefit to my society and a capable husband and father without religion. In fact, I would posit that I might be a bit more trustworthy in that regard, because I know why I am this way, and it's NOT because I fear the retributions of a god.

 

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It's about the precision of definition of the words we use to communicate with. If I say "religion" (a group organized to worship a god or practice spiritual beliefs), but you hear "religion" (any activity people place a supreme amount of importance on), how effective is our discussion going to be?

 

We should always be wary of changing a definition to suit our purpose.

When Nicholas made his inquiry regarding reconciliation of science with religion, he said religion, not belief in a god. I would like him to say if he actually meant belief in a god instead of religion because they are two different things.

 

A precise defintion of religion includes the idea that belief in a god may be included but is not required. Can we agree that "religion" and "belief in a god" are not the same? Or shall we deny that Buddhism is a religion?

 

I find it very curious that you are "opposed to religion". I have heard it said that 95 percent of the world's population has some sort of religion. Those religions form the basis of a moral compass for those individuals. And as you say, they are pretty much all the same when it comes to everyday living. You imply that you are opposed to people accepting as the basis for their morality anything you don't accept . What happened to the idea of live and let live? Does the religion of the Inuit hurt you?

 

It is not that I think religion "should" be the norm, it is a fact that it is the norm, in one form or another world-wide.

 

When you say " It's all guesses and fabrication and allowing people with poor critical thinking skills to determine the ethics of how you should live your life" I take it that you refer to at least what I'm going to call the major organized religions, and I suspect more specifically Christianity. Am I right? I'm not going to try to push you towards having a religion or any specific religion, it is just that I would not expect your responses from one exposed mainly to another organized religion.

 

I think you do yourself and the rest of the human race a disservice when you paint all religions with the same brush. You ask for precision, yet your brush is quite broad.

 

I did not say religion is "any activity people place a supreme amount of importance on". The activity I included is how we live our lives, not "any activity". I will admit that, if we must rank our activities in terms of importance, the way we live our lives is, to me, at the top. Is there anything you do more important to you than the way you live your life?

[Moontanman]

I'm trying to figure out why some are so opposed to the idea of having a religion, even if that religion is of their own construction. It is as if "religion" is a dirty word.

How can can someone create their own religion with out lying, in fact I would assert that religion is dishonest in it's very nature due to dogma being used to explain things in a slanted dishonest manner.

 

 

It is as if by saying they have a religion I have accused them of something terrible. Mostly what I see in the responses to my posts seems to be a desire to be firmly on the side of rejecting any belief in God, and especially as presented by Christanity.

I am an atheist, I was a theist until I realized how dishonest and unsupportable religion really is.

 

I expect this is a result of being brought up in a society which is based predominately on what are considered Christian values. I would not expect these responses from, for example, those in a predominately Buddhist society. People are not going to rebel against or reject establishment views unless those views are present. Agendas may have some bearing here, but I'm not interested in determining that. I'm a bit more inclined to believe that perceived political correctness is a factor.

What are Christian values and where do they get them? So reality is PC?

 

I have posted nothing, I hope, which could be construed as encouraging anyone to believe in anything other than that he/she has the authority and responsibility for his/her life. Perhaps even that is too much for some. The idea of authority and responsibility must be, to me, part of the answer to the original question of this thread. Any reconciliation of science and religion must begin with what the individual accepts as authority.

How can something based in mythology, something that prohibits questioning a book that is demonstrable wrong about nearly everything it asserts be a part of science... I accept reality as authority not an ancient book or books.

 

To me the ultimate reduction of science is that it is discovery; the ultimate reduction of religion, again to me, is that it is one's philosophy for living. Much may be added to both for various purposes, but I believe these are the base definitions.

 

Science plays no role in religion, Religion only serves to impair or impede human progress. Please show some evidence for what you "believe" to be true, you seem to be defining both religion and science in an odd way.

 

Reconciliation should proceed from authority to the recognition that both intuition and curiosity are part of our nature and both play a role in both science and religion. Beyond this I think each individual must decide to ask more specific questions.

I see no reason to accept an authority based in mythology.

 

Finally, if "world view" is required as a politically correct substitute for "religion", fine, I acquiesce for the sake of the thread.

I don't understand how you are using "world view" I know that lack of belief in a god is not a world view.

When Nicholas made his inquiry regarding reconciliation of science with religion, he said religion, not belief in a god. I would like him to say if he actually meant belief in a god instead of religion because they are two different things.

It would depend on which religion you are describing would it not?

 

A precise defintion of religion includes the idea that belief in a god may be included but is not required. Can we agree that "religion" and "belief in a god" are not the same? Or shall we deny that Buddhism is a religion?

Buddhism does have a supernatural component and it's the supernatural I reject, god is supernatural by definition.

 

I find it very curious that you are "opposed to religion". I have heard it said that 95 percent of the world's population has some sort of religion.

The number of people who believe something is not indicative of it's validity..

 

 

Those religions form the basis of a moral compass for those individuals. And as you say, they are pretty much all the same when it comes to everyday living.

Religion provides a moral compass? I suggest you back that up with more than an assertion.

 

 

You imply that you are opposed to people accepting as the basis for their morality anything you don't accept . What happened to the idea of live and let live?

Religion in general, Abrahamic religions in particular do not play well with others, it is religion that will not live and let live, Most major religions are commanded by their deity to convert others.

 

I Reject the moral code of the Abrahamic religions due to the fact it is immoral...

 

 

 

 

Does the religion of the Inuit hurt you?

 

The religion of the Inuit doesn't knock at my door to bring me the good news nor does it try to inject Inuit Religion into schools, government, and politics.

 

 

 

It is not that I think religion "should" be the norm, it is a fact that it is the norm, in one form or another world-wide.

And your point would be?

 

When you say " It's all guesses and fabrication and allowing people with poor critical thinking skills to determine the ethics of how you should live your life" I take it that you refer to at least what I'm going to call the major organized religions, and I suspect more specifically Christianity. Am I right? I'm not going to try to push you towards having a religion or any specific religion, it is just that I would not expect your responses from one exposed mainly to another organized religion.

No, I hold all religions to be equally invalid.

 

I think you do yourself and the rest of the human race a disservice when you paint all religions with the same brush. You ask for precision, yet your brush is quite broad.

I call em like a see em, yes their are moderate religious people but they share the same delusion that every one should worship the way they do.

 

I did not say religion is "any activity people place a supreme amount of importance on". The activity I included is how we live our lives, not "any activity". I will admit that, if we must rank our activities in terms of importance, the way we live our lives is, to me, at the top. Is there anything you do more important to you than the way you live your life?

 

Living your life by following the morals of bronze age savages is not a valid way to live your life..