Don't like sending christmascards? Send 'em this instead.

{"name":"590679","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/e\/5e29ea454f0a87c3785de0fbd6dba8f9.gif","w":467,"h":283,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/e\/5e29ea454f0a87c3785de0fbd6dba8f9"}

AE.

I'd rather have a holiday that preaches scorn towards all men instead.

A lot of Pagan traditions here in the UK were absorbed into Christianity anyway. So really we are celebrating Paganism.

Whoever wrote that has ignored the cultural aspects of Christmas. It's not about the origins of the holiday, it's not about the commercialization of it. It's about family coming together.

People will capitalize on whatever they can, that's not reason to discount Christmas or any holiday, just because corporations make a bundle. There's no price on family.

I think this guy needs to get the hum-bug out of his ass.

Edit: Man, I just realized something I have to do. My family has fallen apart since my grandmother died, and this will be the first Christmas we will all be spending apart from each other. I don't want this to happen. I don't care about our differences. We used to be able to tolerate each other for a day, for the sake of her. We need to share this year together, too. Otherwise it will just get worse. Sorry, continue with the thread now.

I'm not celebrating paganism, Rich. I'm celebrating Santa coming, having an excuse for not doing much work for a few weeks, and getting very drunk very often

So, same as normal then?

Q: If we didn't have Christmas, what would become of the world!?!
A: Less junk?

Really, Christmas is just plain neat. Holidays are like that.

6. Joseph confessed

True, but I find generic store-bought christmas-cards a bit impersonal for my tastes. Sending a christmas card with no additional letter is no substitute for a family get-together.

AE.

I don't see why you need a mythical entity's death as an excuse to relax and do stuff you want. All it does is cause pressure and grief.

I think it was it's birth. The death is celebrated on Easter, IIRC.

Details! I can't bother to remember all of these characters.

Actually I thinking what will you answer. You didn't let me down

I can see your point, but I like holidays like this because it's a an agreed upon time when A LOT of people relax and do stuff they want. Anyone can take a week vacation, but what are the chances that everyone in your family is also doing so and meeting for dinner on some random night? It's nice when society has traditional days for things like this--it simplifies the organization

I guess I should mention that I really like Christmas, I like getting together with my family, and the time is full of good childhood memories.

Getting together etc. is good. I even can stand presents (though I hate when somebody asks me what I wish, because there's nothing they could give me...). But when I knew that Christmas are coming on the first of november, I became very, very disappointed.

Two points: 1) Jesus was not myth, He really did live. 2) Easter is when He came back to life, not when He died. He died on Good Friday.

Kikaru: http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/588913/632924#target

Don't forget "Talk like a Pirate Day!" That's a holiday...right?

Strange. I'm seeing a correlation between religion and IE use on this site.

Are you sure, it was a long time ago. I don't even know if my great great grand-mother really existed.

Hopefully you mean religion as in Christianity, because then we'd have a lot of Christian guests.

Like stripping naked and frollicking in the snow. That wasn't blue paint those darned pagans were wearing

For those lamenting the commercialisation of Christmas :
{"name":"590685","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/c\/ac7842655af1e062e744bc4f28bd1a3a.gif","w":800,"h":229,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/c\/ac7842655af1e062e744bc4f28bd1a3a"}

Ouch, I didn't get half of the stuff...

Using Firefox, so so much for that.

Anyway, aside from me being a Christian, I agree with all points. Christmas is just a month of commercialized stress; bleh.

I never said the correlation coefficient was 1, did I?

Winter-een-mas, for getting together with the family you choose.

I don't like having to buy gifts on demand. It kills my lust to give anything at other times. All I want is good food and play some board games with close relatives, but I get that from time to time when birthdays are celebrated anyway so if christmas was no longer celebrated that wouldn't really put a dent in what I care about.

Oh, almost forgot Julmust! Gotta have julmust, that's definitely the most important thing about christmas.

I'm Christian too, so that drops your coefficient more.

Anyway, did anyone see this?

63 year old great grandmother, 27 year old mother with a 12 year old son. That explains a lot...

Send a Yule card instead.

Celebrating the return of the light was NOT invented by christianity
Instead they made the god of light: Lucifer (wich means light bearer) their devil.
Originally Lucifer was a celtic god associated with the moring star Venus (Venus rises just before the sun, thus announces the coming of light)

On top of that a lot of the christmas story comes from the god Mithras

So it's not just the cristmas tree that has a pagan origin

Ahem.

-->http://xkcd.com/c111.html

You know there is some difference between Wicca and Witchcraft, tough a lot of wiccans will tell you there is no difference

But Indeed I only use firefox

Explanation :
-- Witches have learned to think for themselves and not blindly follow a "leader" -- think about it, you might learn something

Christmas ham and julmust is why Christmas was invented!

Blindly following a bunch of recently made-up "ancient" beliefs is better?

I see you are refering to Gerald Gardner who "made" Wicca in the 1950's..
As I told you Witchcraft is NOT the same as Wicca

Is it so hard for you to read what others post ?

Is it so hard for you to write legibly?

My previous post stands. It doesn't matter if you practice "witchcraft" or "wicca" - you're just as foolish.

Like most people here, I know you're trying to offend as many people as you can.
But I'm not willing to make it too easy for you, you might get bored and become even worse

so tell me.. What is foolish about witchcraft? and why

Let's start with the part where you believe fairytale nonsense that's idiotic and just not plain grounded in reality, add the pretentious emo-ness to it, and we have a good basis.

Ok let's start with that part.

Short (and maybe rude) answer:
That part doesn't exist.

Longer Answer:
- Define "Fairytale nonsense" ?

- What make's you think I'm EMO ?? I celebrate life, like all "real" witches do
And I have no reason to complain.

- I don't believe in fairytales,
If there is one religion that's GROUNDED it's witchcraft

You mean, in the ground? Buried? Smells like old fish?~
BTW, one of my friends used to be a "witch," and he was really depressed and suicidal. He stopped that, and that, among a few other things, helped him be normal again.

Buried? I think you're thinking of Voodoo, a completely different matter.

No, I was being sarcastic.
Really, I don't see the benefits. It's an almost-deluded form of Satan worship.

Aren't all these end of the year celebrations really celebrating the fact that the sun is making its comeback? Christmas misses the solstice by 4 days, New Years is even worse... They "moved" Xmas way back when to merge with the Mithra solstice thing.

Hmmm... I guess. The idea was the birth of Christ, then it got fused with a winter festival, so yeah I guess.

@Kikaru

Wrong again, but according to my religion everyone is here to learn

Witches don't worship any "devil"
The devil is a christian "invention" created to force people to do as they say and believe what they say.
Deities of other religions where "incorporated" into their devil, so they would have an excuse to concour and murder. The trident of poseidon for example.

Don't take my word for it, read some history. About the conquistadores for example

P.S. to a real witch suicide is nonsense, you'll probably start over with the same life.

@Arthur Kalliokoski

That's true Jesus was born in spring (that's a fact !)
The christians moved his birthday to take over yule (wich is the celebration of the return of the creating force of nature) in french it's still called "Joel"

so what Do witches "worship"
Nature itself. As far as I know it's the only religion that has a god and Godess that anyone can see and touch

If I needed to worship some godness I don't need any religion. Besides I trust in myself.

We all know I'm Jesus, and I was born in July.

Fact? Are there any other documents besides the Gospels? And the Apocryphic Gospels? Some may study them and figure out that the shepherds wouldn't have been there doing what they did if it had been in December. Some say therefore the whole event took place in autumn. But I find the Gospel (Mark's Gospel, I think) rather fictional on this point. It is more of a legend with literary value. The author's idea may not have been to point out the right time of the year for us. I bet he wanted to tell other things.

Some have studied ancient astronomical calendars to trace events like the Christmas star (constellations, comets, supernovas...) and placed the event to year 3 BC (there are lots of other possible dates, too). Again, that's kind of interesting but a bit off the main subject.

So far off the main subject that it's laughable, in fact.

What was the main subject again? I recall something about muffins ...

Yeah, that's the generally accepted theory. So it's a "fact" Jesus was born in the spring, eh? Facinating.

Kikaru: step away from the Chick Tracts and come out with your hands over your head.

With most major religions, you at least have some kind of "wisdom of the ages" excuse to fall back upon - not so with "witchraft" or wicca.

That's not entirely true. Wicca as it's taught today may be a relatively new thing, but it's based on religions that are thousands of years old, and can share their wisdom as well. And lets face it, modern christianity differs from ancient christianity quite signigifcantly as well.

Scientology doesn't have any of that wisdom stuff. It's just for Star Wars fans.

"omg thetan count? im ttly in!"

At this point, I take offense. A few things: Jesus was born (roughly) on October 3, so December 25 has nothing to do with it. At this point, I will say this much: The New Testament is most likely the most historically accurate collection known to man, next to the Old Testament. I would suggest you read the New Testament through, with no outside biases. It could be very educational.

Yeah. "Based on" as in "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is based on a true story". You take something with a grain of truth in it (e.g. Ed Gein) as inspiration and then you simply make shit up.
Both Wicca and contemporary "witchcraft" (and all other "revival" religions I know of, like the modern Ásatrú) are still entirely modern constructs. The historical source material is Just. Not. There.

Didn't I tell you to step away from the Chick Tracts..?

This is not a point for sarcasm or humor, I take this as a very serious insult to myself and my God. This is quite frankly unacceptable.

The events in the bible are neither factual, nor historically accurate; hell, even for a book written a few hundred years after the events it's supposed to have chronicled, it does a pretty crappy job when you get down to the relevant details.

And let's not get started on the old testament, which has very little grounding in reality to begin with...

Put down the Chick Tract and get down to Earth with the rest of us. You'll like it here.

EDIT: Oh! I almost forgot! I just have to revive this old classic, while on the topic:

http://olympus.olf.sgsnet.se:9660/cthulhutract.gif

SUPER-EDIT:

There's no flamewar; just a debate on the historical veracity of a set of documents.

For reference, the earliest known copies of the gospels are from the 4th century; earlier than that, we just have fragments. Even being generous, most estimates as to the age of the gospels range in the 60-110 CE ranges, long after the events they are supposed to be relating.

(For further context, also consider that the average lifespan was much shorter back then; some 30-40 years at most. The gospel according to John was written in 90-110 CE, meaning he can't even have been born by the time of Iesus ben Yosef's death, and the earliest - Mark - is from around 60-70 CE, meaning that if he had a generous lifespan of 40 years, he would have been no older than 10 at the time of his death.)

I take this as a very serious offense. You don't seem to have enough intelligence to investigate for yourself, as all that I have seen has been simple myth that tries to disprove the Bible.

(I hold no lasting grudges against anyone on this forum)

The old testament was copied word by word and letter by letter. If anything did not match, the scribe who did it would most likely be killed. They even had the spacing between letter and lines to be the same! The New Testament was written not 15 years after Jesus' death, which meant that people who had seen him were still alive. This meant that it was not long enough for legend to entirely replace truth. End of argument!

Amen. If I was a moderator, I'd end this unholy flamewar immediately.

IIRC, Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's Gospels were written about 60 AD and John's Gospel about 90 AD. And one of them had at least two authors. And the New Testament was edited (i.e. put together) some 300 years later. Lots of books were left out. It is very obvious that the books left out would have told us a bit different story. Some may think this would mean that the Bible gives us a false and biased story. But any biasing here actually has to do with religion and faith itself. The events in the 4th century were very crucial for the whole Christianity and what we call today Christian belief relies heavily on the "biasing" where the "right" books were chosen and the "wrong" books were left out. The "wrong" books may be loaded with historically interesting things, but they are not important for the Christian belief itself.

The left out Gospels may tell stories about Jesus from Nazareth as a mean little kid using his super power to bug other kids. And about a 30 year old man, who actually tried to become the king of a unified Jewish people. Not to mention Maria from Magdala, who obviously played an important part in the life of the strange man from Nazareth.

The New Testament might not be historically very accurate, but Christians believe the editors did a good job anyhow. History as a scientific discipline has its written laws, but religion is belief and simply is not science.

DIDN'T SOMEBODY SAY THIS WAS AN "UNHOLY FLAME WAR"!?!? THEN WHY HASN'T IT STOPPED YET!?!

It's probably not unholy enough.

Because you keep replying.

Just PLEASE stop talking about it? It's really taxing on my nerves. I have too much stress already. Please...

Just hit the "Hide Thread" button, if you can't handle reading a few words.

Learn to accept other people's point of view. I mean, geez, I'm a Sunday school teacher; if anyone around here should be taking offense, it's me. Some people are just ignorant, love 'em anyway.

I know, I'm just a little irritable right now...

Why does the historical context of the books matter? We don't debate over the time of writing of The Iliad... Of course, nobody took The Iliad and made it into a belief system.

Could we please not talk about this anymore? Couldn't we get back to the "topic?" Please?

Ok!

7. Delay your personal Christmas by two weeks and save 50 %.
8. SMS and e-mail is invented.

Because of this statement:

And yes, there is still a "hide thread" button...

Somewhat on topic:

{"name":"headtrip.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/5\/d5bdc57bd12eb2fa7875ae7601b9ecd3.jpg","w":500,"h":400,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/5\/d5bdc57bd12eb2fa7875ae7601b9ecd3"}

Witchcraft is not a "revival" religion. It'a a way of "knowing" how the world fits together and works.
Most Witches are not "forced" into a religion by their environment but chose a religion that fits with their believes.

Tell me what's the smarter way:
- Believing something because you have a certain religion
or
- Having a certain religion because it fits with what you believe.

...And ALL other revival religions you know about...
The way you talk about Witchcraft and wicca tells me you know nothing about it except some "faitytales" you've been told

If you truely want to know what witchcraft is, read a good book about it.
Before giving an opinion about something you know nothing about.

@ 23yrold3yrold
I didn't say your (or any) religion was wrong , did I ?

My thread! My lovely thread! What have you done to it!!!

I always thought that average lifespan meant average expected age at birth. Due to the high infant mortality in those days, it meant that in order to bring the average age back up, several people lived well beyond 40, and I wouldn't be suprised if it was not uncommon for some people to live until their 70's.

AE.

True..

And it depended on where you lived also. for some reason people in colder area's had a bigger life expectency

Did I say you did? Was I even talking to you?

It was normal to die around 30-40, I would've been considered an old man if I lived then. But if you lived past 40 you could live on just as long as the oldest people today. Some people just have it in them to live a long life.

As for the bible, my humble opinion is that it's just a tool created by man in order to control people. Religion probably didn't mean anything more than a route to power for those who created it. Christianity really doesn't give of much shininess when it comes to spirituality.

Buddhism, hinduism, asatru, american natives belief in nature etc. all have some form of spiritual base. They all try to show people a path to improvement while christianity just acts like a big brother society that makes you feel guilty no matter how you live your life.

As I see it, if you were totally free of religion and had to choose one. Christianity sure hits rock bottom on the list. It looks totally pointless and has no unique selling point. If it was a game, only idiots would pay for it.

Trezker: you think in similar way as I do.

Religion was once banned as a topic of discussion in the Allegro.cc Forums (along with politics). With good reason, it seems. I just don't think it's possible to hold an intelligent discussion about religion - both side's arguments are void for the other side, and eventually, one of the sides forgets about any sort of respect for other people's beliefs. How about reinstating the ban?

Jakub: that's not a bad idea. Besides I have nothing to say to this topic, since I know that theese discussions are pointless and my sig should be applied to them. Oh I must sincerely and frankly admit that as long as someone doesn't force me to believe his religion I have respect for him...

Yeah, the believers will never see beyond the mist of belief and always spam on with the same pointless and mostly invalid arguments.
There are always people who fill in with spam that sometimes hold interesting info but mostly just crap.

The intelligent conversation just gets lost in the masses since most people are idiots. Only a few of us have broken through a barrier of awareness and see the potential of mankind. Sadly, mankind may very well destroy itself before it breaks through that barries as a race.

If mankind ever becomes an intelligent race, communism will finally be possible.

Probably because they don't discuss the same thing. And neither side knows that.

And if we can't? If we blow ourselves up over something we made up in the first place -- be it money, territory, or religion -- is it really a bad thing? I figure, as long as we go quietly and don't take the entire planet with us, it's all good. We've had our go and blatantly failed so far; if we can't, or won't, redeem ourselves, then the planet as a whole is better off. Let some other species have a shot at it.

Wow, what a funny thread. It seems the non-christian team (not mentioning how far they out number the opposing team) have scored quite a few more points, despite a few irrelevant arguments. I'd try to shoot a three pointer to bring us back in the game, but gnolam's a friggin' tall foe. I'd rather just suck on my thumb.

Anyway, can't we all just get a long. Yes, I mean a "long", not "along". Pssh, I said I'd rather suck on my thumb...

d

[that's me sucking on my thumb...well, licking it...]

I really like that statement. I'm going to use it sometime

I like to think I do, since I used to be the other side. Main reason I laugh at certain posts here is because I used to say the same thing.

I really want to know what YOUR definition of witchcraft is. Yes, really. Because normally, witchcraft refers to one or more of the following:

1. Any norm deviation that got women executed in the 17th century.

2. Neopaganistic beliefs or rituals (see ¹ or ²).

3. Variants and derivatives of Crowleyism (see ²).

</li>

Kill it with fire! (the thread that is)

Religious and political discussions never "work out". No one will "win". No one will change their minds about their personal views. Lets let the Christians believe in their little magical prophet and let the atheists/pagans/whateverians burn in hell or whatever it's at stake here.

Just close the darn thread and ban religious and political discussions

And so this is Christmas
For weak and for strong
The rich and the poor ones
The world is so wrong
And so happy Christmas
For black and for white
For yellow and red ones
Let's stop all the fight

A very Merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear

From my point of view religion is generaly bad - just see what it does among us, or, what is more, in the world (think of crusades, Jihad, ...). Howg.

Maybe there should just be one megathread for religious discussion. I don't think banning it, period, will stop the urge to discuss it. At least this way we can keep it contained?

Argh, there's a bat outside my window and it's driving me insane with its incessant yelling.

That the god Brangur's bat, he's keeping an eye on you!

Maybe we should make a seperate forum for it. On another web site! Yeah! I wonder if that's been done before ....

Hilarious, you. If people want to discuss it, they're already atheists. And what's the point of going "Theists are dumb!" "Yeah, theists are dumb!" "I agree!"?

And that's why a fairly neutral place like allegro.cc is appealing. I understand that a lot of people don't want to talk about it, but if people did talk about it, wouldn't everyone be better off? Imagine if scientists all did their own independent experiments and never shared their discoveries. We'd still be in the stone age!

I am? I mean, I was, but ...

Anyway, the main point is if you want to discuss it, there's no shortage of outlets. This one, for example Atheism, religion, evolution, you name it.

I think freedom of speech should outweight the small problems with certain persons;)

@gnolam and anyone else who wants to know :

Witchcraft is a religion but it's NOT a belief.
Like Buddhism it's a way of looking at the world (in the broadest meaning)

So how do witches see the world?

1. There is more than just molecules and physics. In essence we are spirits (now and here) in a physical form.

2. For life (and other things) to flourish there has to be balance between 5 "Elements" The interwoven line of a pentagram referes to that.

3. If you look at the world in a bigger of smaller "level" things will repeat themselves

4. Things are in vibration (repeating movement) for example Tides and seasons

5. "Earth is "frozen" fire" Matter and energy are interchangable

6. All things are connected like a clockwork, change/destroy one thing and the whole system will change or even fail

7. Nature has a will of it's own.

As for the ten commandments, you can live to all ten of them and still treat people (or others) verry bad.
Witches only have one "commandment" DO NO HARM !
It brings responsibillity and having to think over your actions. But it is a clear mesage.

What is Wicca ?

In the 1950's Gerald Gardner "made" a new religion and he borrowed a lot of things from Witchcraft.
He also added a hierarchy in his new religion. Witches don't believe in "All follow the big leader" and history has proven we where right.

Is Wicca bad (or evil)?
No !, as any religion it has some good things. It opened up the discussion about pagan religions.
The only problem is they (mostly) call themselve witches wich adds to the confusion.

Other religions:

Witches strongly feel that everyone should be free to choose his / her religion.
And as long as a religion doesn't enslave or restrict people, or make people unhappy, one religion is as good as the other.

There is a lot more to tell about witchcraft but I hope I made some things clear, at least to those who want to know

Yes. Or believers.

Atheist: "Religion is stupid. It's not science."
Theist: "Well, if it were science, it wouldn't be religion."
Atheist: "Sorry, our fault. But you keep on claiming that science is false."
Theist: "Sorry, our fault. Guess we're talking about different things here. What were you talking about?"
Atheist: "Science. And you?"
Theist: "Religion."
Both: "AHAA, right!"

590832

So, yeah, $NEOPAGANISM_VARIANT. Probably. I ask for a definition and I get... Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-day Unspecific Rambling About Elements and Gaia.

I now officially give up trying to get something decipherable out of that man.

- Witchcraft is more than 3000 years old so skip the "neo"
- I gave you a definition, the problem is you don't want it

Definitely! I mean, it's not like it's a bunch of heteregonous beliefs, each with a whopping great historical discontinuity, blended into one another when reconstructed by non-historians in modern days! I'd better go tell my archeologist buddies - they'll be thrilled to know of this! I mean, dude, 3000 years!

... so yeah, neopaganism, which means my previous posts still stand. And with that, the thread holds nothing more for me.

I think you mean Anthropologists
Archeologists dig more in the "Earth" element

and believe it or not the solstices are even older

Witchcraft never discontinued.
It's only more "visible" now, because more and more people don't believe the lies of the christian church anymore. So more people are attracted to religions that fit with how they think.
If whole families are murderd because they think different (even a little, Protestants where also burned at the stake or beheaded if they where lucky) you have a good reason to hide.

This is a privately owned website. Matthew could delete every thread on religion if he wanted and not be stepping on your rights at all; like I said, you can just go to another (more appropriate) site.

Shouldn't we give the good example?
you know Democracy and so.

[Edit]
-----------------
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Dictator
-----------------

There goes our democracy

[/Edit]

Democracy doesn't suddenly mean you can do whatever you want without consequence. Not that this place is a democracy, nor should it be ...

How come this thread is still open?

I don't believe in any gods. However, they must be real, because we can feel the effects they have upon humanity (mainly wars -- and flamewars ). Yet that would mean that all gods do exist and then no religion is 'the true one'.

If there is any god it would not allow such bad things happen (like wars, etc.)...

A god doesn't necesarily need to be good.
Several religions believe in gods of war and disease and other bad stuff.

So I don't think that there cannot be any god. I just don't think they are good enough for me to spend time worshipping them.

I do however think that there is no good and allmighty god, because then we wouldn't have the common cold or hangovers or wars etc...

Christmas is the only day they preach about being good to mankind. Otherwise, you are free to hate anyone and everyone you meet until then.

Yes, it's like Mother's day, when you have to be kind to your mother. And your birthday, when everybody has to be nice to you.

Interesting, this is very similar to what Jesus taught.

Quite true, actually. Logic ftw.

There have been a lot of wise people in history who thaught this.

- Buddha

- Gandhi

- Quetzalcoatl (Featherd snake)
Interesting since he was a white man with blonde hair and NO western man knew about the new world at that time.

- Jesus

to name a few

True but it's a bit more complicated.
In history Gods of disease , Death and destruction where also gods of Healing and life.

It's an old wisdom that to heal, something must die or be destroyed.

And this is more true than you might think.
For example a Defibrilator stops your heartbeat, it actually kills you (for a moment) so your lifeforce can take over again.

One of the things that I like to do is to try and abstract religions. Many of them have common themes (eg. a wise person or an incredibly kind person inspired a great feeling of awe in their tribe). I've found that many religions consist of an undelying philosophy with a culture attatched to it. The underlying philosophy of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is pretty much the same (although there are a few differences here and there) - most of the differences are cultural. Together, these religions are known as the Abrahamic religions. Further abstraction could even lead to some connections with the Dharmic religions.

Taoism is a philosophy that just exists on it's own (it's debatable whether or not Taoism is a religion or not). Many religions are compatible with Taoism. It has no associated rituals, and the great thing is you get to make up your own. You can immagine that Taoism is to religion what Lua is to programming languages.

AE.

I don't know much about LUA but I DO know about Taoism
John Blofeld wrote some interesting books about it.

Taoism is a religion but it's NOT a belief

Dammit, now you force me to go back into the thread.

I wonder what religions the Aliens out there in the Universe believe in?

All beliefs are religions, but not all religions are beliefs.

Example:

Buddhism is a religion but it is not a belief
freemansonry is a religion but not a belief
Humanism is a religion but not a belief
Christianity is a belief thus also a religion
Hinduism is a belief thus also a religion

You dont't believe in a religion, you have a religion and somtimes this means believing in certain things

[shockwarning]
Atheism is a religion too but most of them go bananas if you tell them so
[/shockwarning]

Stop trying to be clever.

Shall we go on?

Stop trying to be clever.
</quote>
I concur.

I'm not going to dignify that with anything other than "::)".

Not at all! As gnolam posted, a religion is (loosely) a set of customs around or based on a belief. However, it is quite possible to belief something without being religious. I think you're confusing phylosophy or way of life with a religion; it's neither. In practice though, some beliefs are coupled with a certain phylosophy and a particular religion.

No, you belief in something and sometimes that means you follow a certain religion.

Again, you're confusing matters: atheism is a belief (specifically, the belief in there not being any god(s)). It is not a religion.

If i remember correctly, the new testament was written at about 60 AD and so obviously they didn't have enough time to forget the truth, nor could they have enough time to let their imagination exagerate it.

And the old testament was written about 336 BC, so they really knew what was going on. You can take everything that the old testament says as gods own words.

However! The thing that pisses me off the most is when people actualy want to believe, they are truly interested in the true religion, yet they are filled with misinformation. If only they knew, they would feel so embarased, but at least they could fit in properly in the afterlife. So everybody who beleives in morality should go to church. This is because god is a homosexual, otherwise he would have a partner wouldn't he?

No partner = teh gh3y. Also he doesn't like you. You are not funny enough. You should commicly kill yourself so that he laughs and is still laughing or just finishes by the time you fully die so it is still a fresh memory and has a positive impact.

Something that is all trippy like ball bearings rolling down some slides making clock-work things do stuff and then a big thing crushes you and sprays blood on a cat which runs away but slips, and falls inside a toaster and gets eletrocuted. Something like that.

Remember: winners don't use drugs.

That's strong atheism. Strong atheism requires just as much faith as theism.

I am a weak atheist. I will believe in God when there is sufficient evidence for me to do so. Weak atheism is simply the default state -- what everyone is born into. It requires no "belief".

To sum up...

Strong atheism: I believe there is no God.
Weak atheism: I don't believe in God.

And for bonus points...

Agnosticism: I don't believe anyone can know for sure whether or not there is a God.

Note that you can be an agnostic in combination of any theological outlook; agnosticism is a philosophical concept. So you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic Christian, and so on.

I would say KibizOr says some words of wisdom there. Weak atheism sounds like a good definition. Only problem is that "weak" sounds a bit negative. As if all weak atheists struggle with their faith and sooner or later they turn into strong atheists or strong believers. I guess being a weak atheist simply means not turning the issue to the most important life guiding idea.

I also think the "strong atheism" is originally an idea coined by "strong believers". A common statement is something like: "You atheists do have a God. It's the one you don't believe in!" There lies a seed of truth in that idea, I know one strong atheist and his way of thinking is something of a belief or religion. Something like if man only gets rid of all beliefs in divine entities and clears his mind from any religious thoughts, he will develop a pure sense of moral and act good.

In a way, the weak atheism is more pure atheism than the strong atheism. But who am I to say (or anyone, for that matter), I'm more of an agnostic Christian. And I think that is the only way to be Christian today, if you wan't to define the meaning of the word "know, knowledge" in scientifical terms.

Then weak atheist -> moderate atheist / sensible atheist

You sorely underestimate the ability of the human mind to warp things up that didn't happen too long ago. Remember, they mostlyhad to rely on word-of-mouth and oral communication in those days (yes, I know they had books and publishers and many in the Roman world could read).

Erm... it lists events from long before that time, which were handed down orally for a long time before being written down. Either way, when you get down to it, is it really the letter of the bible that matters most?

I never understood nor cared about that distinction.

So will I, as well as any reasonable human being, I would say.

Apart from the grammatical construction, I see no difference in the meaning of those two sentences, and I certainly wouldn't attach meaning to the difference. My reason for stating I believe that there is no god actively is to emphasise that it's a belief. In casual day-to-day conversation, I would use the passive form.

Multiple eye witness acounts of public events (for starters) don't count for too much anymore, do they?

The Bible in its entirety was written over a roughly 1700 year period. The youngest book in the OT was written before 400 BC IIRC.

You mean, like the evangelia that were rejected because they didn't fit the officialy accepted version? There were lots of eye witnesses, but not all of them were taken into account.

even more ..
The bible as we know it and christianity are from around 400 AC.
It was the tool that made Feudalism work.

Surpressing by the christian church was THE way to force people into a system where a few chosen people could live in welth in expence of the majority of the population.

"You are a peasant and you belong to my land (property)."
- Why?
"God wants it so"

The reason why "heretics" and other "Diffrent thinkers" where hunt down and burned at the stake was NOT because they really thought they used "Black magic", but because those "diffrent" thoughts could bring the system to fall.
There was a danger people could realise that being born as a "noble" doesn't make you a better person or make your life more valuable.

I had to Google "evangelia" to make sure you meant what I thought you meant, and I'm still not 100% sure what you're refering to. I can only assume you mean different books like the Gospel of Mary, Thomas, etc. which were (and still are) deemed inaccurate for a lot of good reasons; try reading them sometime. Most of the objections people raise to the Gospels being inaccurate or influenced by lengendary elements actually apply to those books.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. Even a lot of hardened athiests don't put the gospels writing as being anywhere past 150AD (with most of it being written before 100AD; how did Paul write his letters after he died?), and we have thousands of ancient copies of these writings to show they haven't changed since their original writings. And I would still say the historical evidence for the Gospels being written at the times they say they are (most before 60AD) is the strongest by a long chalk.

Hey, I'll bash religion and corrupt church officials with you all day; I hate 'em too. But that's not really relevant to what we're discussing, is it?

I don't say that Religion is stupid, but discussions about Religion are. Because one fact about Religion is that you can't prove or disprove it.

So, if you go on discussing/arguing, keep in mind that no one can be right or wrong. That means that there is no sense in discussing further.

You do realize that if everything were just perfect, then it'd be normal and boring. Think of how good your feet feel when you pull off a pair of too-tight shoes. You need the contrast to make "good" stuff "good". Also, how many consecutive meals can you eat your favorite food before it becomes repulsive?

Exactly. So you might as well be an agnostic atheist. That is, unless you think that Pascal's Wager actually applies to real life.

As for the distinction between weak and strong atheism vs. theism...

//Religion constructor is Religion(bool _godExists)
Religion *myReligion = NULL; //How we are all born, this is weak atheism
myReligion = new Religion(true); //This is theism
delete myReligion;
myReligion = new Religion(false); //This is strong atheism

It's a bit convoluted, but you get the idea.

[Wrote and lost this this afternoon, I think this is roughly what I wanted to say then]

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, especially after 30 years. There's been some recent research about the reliability of crime-related witnesses, and the results were worse than was expected. Think about it, how well do you remember events from 20 or 30 years ago? You can apply the same line of reasoning to recent history, which immediately shows that it's shaky ground.

I suspectit's the typical non-English word for Gospel. It certainly is the Dutch word.

I fully plan to (after reading the rest)! I think they can be quite interesting.

I think his point was that before the fourth century, there was no canonical text for the christian bible (even now, catholics and protestands disagree to some extend), nor was there an organised church as we know it today. Both statements are true. Doesn't mean there were no christians before then though.

The oldest texts we have show very little deviation from the canonical texts, though I think there are some subtle differences (paragraphs moved or omitted, or appended), but they're minor. This is to the best of my knowledge anyway.
Do you have a reference for your "thousands of copies"? It's not the sort of number I would trust for any ancient (and at the time (earlyfirst century AD) somewhat obscure) text without a reference to a reputable source. Actually, I think you pulled that number out of thin air.

Best source I have dates Mark as roughly 60AD and John possibly as late as 120AD, with Luke and Mattheus somewhere in between. Different sources seem to quote different dates though.

I disagree, at least as long as the discussion is civil and free from name-calling and insulting remarks (and `I'm upset now because you don't belief in my religion so please stop talking about it'). Then again, my interest in religion is from a historical and sociological (maybe phylosophical) perspective, not a theological one.

You're confusing belief and religion here, but either way, I don't see that as the point. I don't want to talk about religion because I want to be converted (or to deconvert people) - in fact, I'd rather not.

Sometimes the point of a discussion is not who is right or wrong, but the discussion itself.

I don't think in sourcecode, so I'm not sure how to read that. Either way, my standpoint stands and I am equally likely to say "I don't belief in god" as "I belief there is no god", depending on wether I want to emphasise the "belief" part.

I could name quite a few references which put the count at 24,000. I didn't pull it out of thin air; on the contrary, it's the number I keep hearing when I read material about manuscript evidence for the reliability of the NT. We of course have far fewer references for the OT ....

Out of amusement, I did a Google for new testament 24000. Pluck whatever reference you like from the 113,000 results.

I don't come from an oral culture where rabbis became famous for having the entire Old Testament committed to memory, either. Hell, I can barely paraphrase The Book of Ruth. And the things Jesus did had lasting obvious impacts; how much research does it take to confirm Lazarus died and came back? Was he alive or not? Do some reading on those old oral traditions and how communities monitored what was said to preserve the integrity of the messages.

Most of the theories I've heard for later writings seem to stem from the writer's idea that if these things had been written before such and such an event, then it might be true and we can't have that. I can't remember exact dates, but Mark was written well before 60AD, with Matthew and Luke probably written also before then (and must have been well established before Paul started quoting them in one of his letters; keep in mind he died in 65AD), but well after Mark. John was somewhere around 70-80 AD.

I did just that:

That I'll believe. Maybe we were refering to different things, but when you say "thousand of copies showing it did not change since its original writing", I assumed you meant "thousands of copies from the first half of the first century AD", which I still call into doubt - especially if you mean complete copies.
Anyway, on the topic of the manuscripts being unchanged since they were first written, from the same source that quote came from:

Certainly most of those are minor and inconsequential, but there is the occasional paragraph changed or dropped, or the wording slightly changed (which shifts the emphasis or meaning slightly).

Granted.

The things that happened during the second world war had obvious lasting impact and affected a good deal more people at the time. Look at how much confusion there is over that, even in the face of contemporary written, audio and video records.

You tell me! How do you tell if someone had died before and is alife again now? It doesn't take much to belief such a thing from heresay, but I doubt anyone from a few hundred kilometers away went over there after hearing the story to confirm its authenticity.

I actually do know a bit about that, mostly having to do with epic poetry where the rhyme and metre help preserve the structure of the text. Anyway, I didn't say it was hard to preserve the essence of the message, but the text itself is very likely to change over time. That's why it's important to hear stories first hand instead of second (or higher) hand.

A man trips over a carelessly-discarded toilet-brush. He falls down and hurts his knee. A woman notices the commotion and comes to the man's aid. While comforting the fallen man, the two of them start talking and realise they have a lot in common. They then fall in love and get married. It was the toilet-brush that sparked the whole thing off, so they decide to keep it and place it prominently on display. Every time, they pass the toilet-brush, it gives them a reminder of how they were brought together, and thus, it lifts their spirits. However, some new visitors come along, see the toilet-brush in all it's glory and say "Why have you put a toilet-brush on display? That's just stupid!". This deeply offends the couple, as this calls the very thing that brought them together 'stupid'. "If only you were to experience the joy this brush would give you, you would forever feel guilty for what you've just said" was the reply. "Listen, let me tell you where to stick the brush!". At this point, all discussion deteriorates and a fight breaks out causing massive injuries for both parties.

What has happened here is that the toilet-brush has become a metaphor for the inner sanctum of the couple - in other words, a sacred object. In fact, the couple have created a religion based on this toilet-brush. The rituals they perform when re-charging their spirits are a metaphor for getting in touch with their inner sanctums. In other words, they are worshipping the toilet-brush. However, when their beliefs were insulted, instead of trying to brush the comments aside, the couple tried to force the others to comply with their set of rituals, which they did not see the point in doing. Instead of rationally difusing the situation, it exploded into a big fight.

So we now have a religion followed by two people based on a toilet-brush. Scale up the underlying idea by a factor of a billion, and you have organised religion.

And the moral? Don't insult anyone's religion, but if you are religious, don't force your religion down other people's throats.

AE.

That is the worst advice I have ever heard.

Why is religion up on this pedestal? Why does it deserve our respect? What if we extended the same privileges to science?

What if I got up on a podium at a conference and declared that the sun was made of paper and Pluto is closer to the sun than Mars?

I would wager that someone would challenge my ideas. We would engage in rational discourse and, together, find the truth.

But what if, instead, I said "Don't insult my ideas!" Well, that's no big deal. Then I'd just be one crazy person.

But what if I changed this idea to something more... comforting. Like, an invisible man that created all of us and loves us and watches over us, and when we die we will go to a wonderful place to live for all eternity.

Do you think people might want to believe that? Sure, and why not? It can't be disproven, and it's certainly pleasant to believe. Still, there's no problem here.

The problem comes about when there is killing in the name of this idea that was really wishful thinking in the first place. The problem comes when cures to diseases are forbidden, out of respect for an insane belief. The problem comes when access to condoms in certain areas of Africa is restricted, and women are beaten for requesting their partner to wear one.

Do you see now why that is horrible advice? Why would you allow such horrible things to go on, in the name of insanity no less, out of respect?

And yes, I had decided (yet again) to not argue religion anymore. I looked at the figures, found out that atheism is the fastest-growing religious affiliation in the US, and decided that if progress happened without me having to shatter anyone's world view, then I would just let it be. But I had to say something when I saw that.

Religion doesn't, but an individual's right to choose to believe what they want does. You can bash religion all you want, but should refrain from bashing people for choosing that religion.

Hear, hear!

I did not. But call it into doubt all you like.

My Bible notes paragraphs or verses that don't appear in all manuscripts, and while wording can change slightly (inevitable if only during translation) the sheer volume of material can be crossreferenced to show the original meaning. There's not a single essential Christian doctrine in the slightest jeopardy due to confusion over what a verse originally said or meant.

Confusion by who? By the people who were there? I'm rather misinformed, but I make no effort not to be, and you don't see people interviewing me for material on the next documentary on it either.

cough*John 12:9*cough And it's not like it wasn't done in a crowd of witnesses to begin with. Please play the "it was staged" card ....

Oh, granted, granted. I just consider the preservation that did take place more than adequate.

In addition to what was said, it is never a sign of intelligent or civil conversation to insult anyone over anything.

In which case, I'm not sure we disagree. Shows again how important it is to make clear wether or not you're talking about the same thing.

Certain elements who maintain "the holocaust never happened" to begin with.

Quote please?

What would be the point in staging something like that? I tend to think of Jesus as a sensible man, and it's not the sort of thing I would see a sensible man do. If I have any opinion on this at all, it's that he helped cure someone who gravely ill and then the tale grew in the telling.

Isn't that along the lines of what I said?
Believe it or not (there's that phrase again), but we actually agree on points.

Well, I can't say I've ever heard of that nonsense ...

Never said we didn't. I went off on this subject replying to others.

Really? Iran even held an international anti-holocaust conference this year.

It isn't just Jew-hating idiots who maintain that the holocaust never happened, or that it did not happen on the scale history books record. When I was at university, there was a guy who had just submitted a contraversial masters thesis stating that the number of jews exterminated by the Nazis was far less than what people believe. There's a bit about it on his website if you feel like reading it.

The point of my pervious post was to explain what religion actually is and to show what people see in their religions. Some people seem to think that it's nothing more than a conspiracy to eradicate science. While many people throughout history have attempted to do so in the name of their religion, often, they were abusing the religion as a means of obtaining or maintaining power.

Also, some people may also take it too personally when their beliefs are contradicted. They percieve this as an attack against themselves, and will become unreasonably upset. They will then end up being closed to alternative ideas. That's not what religions are about - that's just fanboy-ism.

Science is not a religion and the two are like apples and oranges. Faith in science is a religion. Having faith in science is the belief that science will eventually unlock all the mysteries of the universe.

AE.

Nicely put. Whenever I hear someone say "science is a religion too you know?" it really makes me want to hit them.

Um, no. For example, I have faith that electrons, neutrons, and protons exist. Have I seen them or evidence of them? No. Can you show me them? No. But I still believe they exist.

I believe in the Q source.

You can get practical evidence of the existence of protons and their effects. Real evidence, not just "this holy books says it!!11". I know, there's no point in arguing this with you, but I just couldn't resist.

You haven't got a clue the evidence of God I've seen in real life; the stuff that happens in the Bible still happens today. It's not like God passed away from old age or something. Which is why I find these conversations so amusing, my practical evidence of "religion" is, in general, much stronger than my practical evidence of the findings of science. Yet I'm told I'm gullible and naive for believing in the former, and smart and educated for beliving in the latter.

And yes, I know that anything I could name as evidence from personal experience will just be dismissed as things I made up, so I'll spare you. But you have to admit that from my point of view, most of you are pretty funny.

People are funnier than anybody.

Not necessarily made up (I don't think you go sit in a corner and think about what you're going to tell us next), but you will agree that it is personal and subjective, which means that it is, strictly speaking, anecdotal evidence. Which is no good since anyone can claim anything. Even if you are correct, your personal experience doesn't prove anything for anyone else.
Come up with a falsifiable test (ie, something I can in principle reproduce) and we're on equal ground (yes, that's the scientific method for you).

Oh, I know. That's why I don't apply science here, nor do I feel a sensible person would. But I guess when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail ...

If I understand that statement (and Evert's) correctly, you are dismissing the scientific method because it won't fit to your subjective appreciations. Am I right?

Um, no. I'm dismissing the scientific method because it's impossible to apply. Science is a terrible tool to study unique past events that can't be reproduced, religious or otherwise. I appreciate the condescending tone of your post though. I'm sure a lot of people like to insist on the scientific method because they know it's futile and they can continue in their own "subjective appreciations" without fear of their views being challenged, which I guess validates the "science is religion" view a bit. Not that I believe that personally, but like I said above, the hypocrisy is all a bit humorous.

Well, I'm not the one who started with the condescending tone. And I'm not claiming to "believe" in science, I'm merely questioning your line of thought to understand the reason you believe in a religion.

As I've stated early, I do believe gods exist, in a way. I just don't think they exist as almighty, unknowable entities in some kind of heaven.

I think I can "measure" religion just as I can measure any force I can't see: by its effects. I can see lots of people doing good deeds during christmas, which is a religious time. I know lots of people pray five times a day to a god. I know millions have been slaughtered during religious wars too. Those are all effects that gods have on the real world. Since we've stablished that beliefs are subjective, I conclude that gods exist, but only as unconscious forces in our minds; and everyone believes in a different, very personal divine entity.

I can't see anything condescending in what 23yearold has written.

Neither can I, though I apologize if I came across that way (except for that last post, but that was a response to you ....)

I guess that goes the other way around, too. Someone else, who is not dismissing the scientific method, does so because it does fit to his subjective appreciations.

As a witch I do not dismiss sience, on the contrary, sience is "proving" more and more pieces of the old wisdom.

The biggest joke of all:
Double blind evidence.. they deny the existence of magic but the do take it in account in experiments.

For example giving half a group of patients a placebo (dummy) to rule out the healing powers that are within themselves.

The whole group will see some effect but the "working effect" of the medicine is the working of the medicine substracted by the working of the placebo

Got it ?

The placebo effect is one of the most ridiculous things scientists blunder with. Ariesnl talks about healing powers, Christian talk about the power of prayers and other things, not very different from Ariesnl's stuff. But what do the professional modern healers do (I'm talking about just ordinary physicians)? They know the placebo effect in medical terms but they refuse to use it, because it is not exact science. They can't rely on it as they can rely on modern chemicals. Modern hospitals and health care centers seem to do everything to get rid of the placebo effect. As long as the patient gets the right pills, there's no difference how they treat him, how they speak to him and listen to what he has to say and how he says it.

Of course there are exceptions. In our town we have a Russian physician, who doesn't speak very well Finnish, but in spite of that he asks lots of questions, listens to the patient and checks alot of things that seemingly has nothing to do with the patient's problem. After visiting him, the patient feels much safer than usually after any physician. Even if the patient gets the very same pills.

History isn't a science, for a reason. That said, you can adapt the method to study history: collect contemporary accounts, artefacts and archaeological data, present that in simple, neutral language, then place it into a particular context and draw conclusions from it. This is never truely objective because one can always doubt if the interpretation is correct, and indeed there are often more interpretations possible. Within that framework and with that reservation, however, the method can be applied.
Either way, that's not what I was asking about.

See, you don't understand what science is about at all! The scientific method is a way to avoid subjective interpretation as much as possible to arrive at objective truth. In so far as there is a conflict between science and religion (which there needn't be), it is on the point that religion refuses to be objective and insists that being subjective somehow makes it more believable.

Careful here! The Placebo effect has to do with a feed-back between mental health and the immune system; basically, stress reduces the efficiency of the immune system and the body's own restorative powers. Reducing stess (eg, by making people believe that they are being helped) strengthens the immune system and helps thehealing process. This is actually well known and used inthe medical world. But make no mistake: placebo's are not a viable substitute to all medication.
Let me tell you in no uncertain terms: if I do not take my medication, I die (almost did, in fact), regardless of wether I want to believe that or not.

Cool, because that was directed at Rampage.

I know what it is, and I'm sure it'd be nice if we could do that. But the point is we can't, for reasons you yourself gave, so why waste time harping on it if not because you don't want to risk your own views being challenged (not directed at you personally)? Religion doesn't refuse to be objective on purpose, it's just a difficult thing for the scientific method to be applied to. I have never heard of religion insisting that being subjective made it more believable; such a thing seems kinda ridiculous ....

I think the better wording is insisting that being subjective was the "point" of religion, not nenecessarilyhat made it believable. Not saying it isn't be a personal thing, but I'm not sure I'd want to make that the defining property.

Indeed!

I think it would be impossible for mankind not to believe in something. We would go mad!

But things like Reiki and Qigong can be a valuable addition to "normal" medication.
However the regular medical world refuses to reccon it's value.

you DO agree that believing in something can set something in motion ( just like NOT believing in something can stop something from happening)
If you don't believe you can do something you will never be able to do it

It's not one thing OR the other.. use them both and don't judge too quickly on people who can add to the well being of others, even if they use powers unknown to the western "Homo technicus"

Our experiences differ, then.

I have no problem with people using or advocating alternative medicine in addition to regular medication, or people using alternative medicine for non-lethal illness. I do have a problem with people dieing because some quack told them they didn't have to take their medication. Or with people who tell me that diabetes is a mental disorder that goes away as long as you believe it does (yes, that's first hand experience).

Your pain is all in my mind!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha!!

The problem is .. there ARE money focussed "healers"who dont have your well being in mind.

some witchcraft rules that apply here:

- Always think for yourself
- Beware of those who ask money for their help. Weak spirits are easily corrupted by material posessions, and can become evil in persuit of greed.

As for diabetes:
It's a disorder in the fire element.
Thogether with what your Doc. tells you, you will help yourself if:

- you stay far away from stress
(don't poke up the fire)

- take exercise
(use the energy, energy that has no way to go will damage something)

compensate with the other elements:
- Drink enough clean water (Water)

- Breath clean air, walk in the forrest once a week
(air)

- eat well, and don't eat too much carbonhydrates
(earth)
(obvious, you'll know this but I'll put it here to complete the picture)

- Don't worry too much about it. and WANT to "balance"
I admit it's easier said than done but it will add to the balance
(spirit)

offcourse it won't take away diabetes but it will make you feel better.

I call those common sense - especially the first one.

That is what my doctor tells me. Quite literally.

Not sure what that means, but if you mean it's my immune system killing off my pancreas, that's about right.

There's a lot of common sense in witchcraft

As Dr Phil says, common sense isn't very common at all. That's why the things Ariesnl is rabbling about is good for all the idiots out there who don't understand that they should be drinking clean water instead of coke.

Common sense is atually something that has to be taught to most humans. By disguising it as a religion it has a much greater chance to reach out to the idiot masses.

Saying some individual doesn't have "common sense" almost always means "You don't agree with the prejudices I was taught as a knee baby".

But this backfires badly when the 'idiot masses' get enough education (via TV) to realise that they were lied to about God & Devil, and then extrapolate that to they were also lied to about Good & Evil.

If you're a real idiot, noone can convince you that your religion is false.

so there are a lot of idiots in this world

People calling other people idiots are idiots themselves!

.. wait..

SCIENCE!!!!!
(sorry, had to be said sooner or later).

I call those common sense - especially the first one.
</quote>
One thing you notice is that if you try and abstract religions, you end up with a lot of philosophies that are essentially the same (eg. prayer is just another form of meditation). The religion part just spices up the advice with cultural content.

Basically, religion is just a way of expressing the abstract concept of faith by associating it with rituals. Faith in science (the belief that science will eventually unlock all the mysteries of the unvierse) is just one such faith (in fact, my personal beliefs are based on 'faith in science' with a Taoist undercurrent). You just have to recognise the difference between 'science' and 'faith in science'.

The only thing that religious people have to be aware of is to be open minded about new scientific discoveries. For example, the fundamentals of Christianity are not affected by the discovery that the Earth orbits the sun, or that geologists have determined that the Earth is 5 billion years old. In such cases, concepts like 'original sin' and rituals like praying remain unchanged.

AE.

Found this today, thought it was worth posting