All Comments (47)

Looks great! Easy to find helpful information. Very useful. I will bookmark!

xeromorphous tatusiidae otogenous tranquilization dermutation mycosymbiosis macrodactylic horsefish
Welcome to the Bristol Austin Seven Club
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/reberg/

xeromorphous tatusiidae otogenous tranquilization dermutation mycosymbiosis macrodactylic horsefish
Once More, From the Top
http://www.mts.net/~jgw/

xeromorphous tatusiidae otogenous tranquilization dermutation mycosymbiosis macrodactylic horsefish
Akron - Head Start and Pre-Kindergarten Services
http://www.mcmow.com/La_boutique.html

xeromorphous tatusiidae otogenous tranquilization dermutation mycosymbiosis macrodactylic horsefish
Molecular Probes, Inc.
http://members.tripod.com/chew-butt/

xeromorphous tatusiidae otogenous tranquilization dermutation mycosymbiosis macrodactylic horsefish
Thorson, Michael
http://www.stewartssolicitors.com/

xeromorphous tatusiidae otogenous tranquilization dermutation mycosymbiosis macrodactylic horsefish
James Desiderio Wholesale Fruit and Produce
http://www.hometown.aol.com/pillarmin/index.html

Its not for posting....just want to say this is a great adventure....tim

BGONE... I am talking about Anti-theism, anti-sexuality, and the basics of human biology. Any good Dawkinsist recognizes the symbiotic relationship between religion and human biology.

If you think you have a compelling theology of Devil Moses that is one thing, but your introduction of it into this dialogue is, quite frankly, a hostile non sequitur.

The anti-theists among us spend a lot of time quoting Dawkins on how “we can be moral; without religion” citing theories of kinship, reciprocation, reputation, and conspicuous consumption as reasons that biology may have selected for altruism. … ok, but what this analysis has not covered is the fact that biology may have had good reasons to select for the opposite of altruism -- “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.” They may be socially unpalateable, but these attributes certainly have their genetic usefulness. To the degree that these negatives are destructive to interpersonal harmony, religious memeplexes can ameliorate for the negative consequences of these biological tendencies and thus ensure cooperation and survival of the species.

Even if you want to reject the revelations of Moses, the Israelites' knowledge of God extends far before Moses, back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is with *Abraham* (not Moses) that Muslims and Jews (and by extension, Christians) identify as the common father of their nations. God’s character in the Abraham stories is seen as parental, self-sacrificing, dependable, and looking out for the interests of devotees. These attributes of God can be seen memetically as the character attributes (parental, self-sacrificing, dependable, and looking out for the interests of devotees) that we are supposed to reflect if we are to get along with each other. Circumcision is the Covenant-reminder of God’s promises and our dependence on God for all good things. In Christianity (and some forms of Judaism), circumcision that God desires is not physical (clipped foreskin) but memetic -- circumcision of the heart.

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/228/Circumcision-of-Heart.htm

This non-physical meme called "male circumcision" that the "Abrahamic memeplex" contains has shown itself useful to humankind in the past. It clearly protected the Jewish people from the ravages of sexualy transmitted diseases, and also symbiotically allowed the meme to continue. This circumcision meme also fused an ideological link between sexual responsibility and interpersonal respect/obligation. Circumcision as a concept is not directly biological, but is has played a hand in the genetic survival of the Semitic people and at the same time worked against violence of human nature through its insistence on circumcision of the heart. Circumcision is a uniquely religious concept, and it is socially beneficial.

Moderate “Religionists” recognize the importance of having a right inside as well as right external behavior. Part of avoiding religious (or anti-religious) extremism is doing a gut check on your biological tendencies towards wrath, explotitation, and retribution. Clearly flying planes into buildings is not an expression of love, but the Christianity memeplex preaches “Love of God and neighbor” and explicitly counteracts our genetic tendencies towards violent retribution.

Peace,
RT

Don't miss the articles on the front page her at the WPost;

under the heading "More non believers speaking out".

Very encouraging reading.Keep it up non believers.

Just keep on making sense.

This situation can be very easily resolved, once and for all. All we've got to do is have all the newspapers in the free world devote their front pages to cartoons ridiculing Allah (peace on him) and Mohammed (peace on him, too), for a whole month. By the end of that time, all of Islam will have self-destructed in a paroxysm of snits, hissy-fits and terminal apoplexy. WARNING: This will not be pretty.

My only regret here is that I cannot think of a similarly uncomplicated, inexpensive and efficient stratagem that would work on Christianity... but, oh well... one thing at a time. One only does what one can.

Richmond T. Stallgiss:

I'm talking about faith and 9-11. What are you talking about?

All faith goes back to a single point in history, Moses making a deal with some supernatural being that lives in a ball of fire. Notice that Jesus is the son of that supernatural being. Judging from your posts I suspect you are calling that supernatural being God. You do faith that Jesus is the son of God?

The bad news is at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

The good news is at http://www.hoax-buster.org

The bad news is the sacred scriptures identify the supernatural being in the ball of fire that Moses made the deal with, the same one that fathered Jesus is Devil and not God.

The good news is the whole story is a hoax along with most all the Bible, enough to declare it to be a literary hoax.

If the bad news is so then Reverend C. Welton and his fellow representatives of the being in the ball of fire are leading their flocks to hell.

If the good news is so then Reverend C. Welton and his fellow representatives of the being in the ball of fire are ordinary crooks. Perhaps they are mislead, products of child abuse but that does not excuse, only explain. "I didn't know the gun was loaded and I'm so sorry my friend" is not a defense.

I hope that's clear enough. I can say it again a different way if you like.

The question concerns the supernatural being in the ball of fire. It's the beginning point of all three great faiths and has been used successfully to get people to kill themselves and others with the notion that being wants them to do that and there are great rewards for so doing. That's nonsense is not likely to stop before we get honest with ourselves, give an honest answer the to question: Was that really God in the ball of fire?

YOYO... From Wickkkkkkkpeddia article on memeplexes: "Much of the study of memes focuses on groups of memes called "memeplexes", "meme complexes" or "memecomplexes" — such as religious, cultural, or political doctrines and systems. Some selfish genes propagate more effectively together. Similarly some memes propagate more effectively together; they are called memeplexes. Examples are sets of beliefs like acupuncture and astrology, sets of traditions like Christmas celebrations, circumcision, languages, political ideologies, religions and scientific theories. Memeplexes can be true and useful or false but able to proprogate."

BGONE: What the hell are you talking about?

Peace,
RT

Richmond T. Stallgiss:

You continue the dodge. This is not about China where they have no terrorist and plan to keep it that way. This is America where terrorism is revered, made official by the government and called faith.

Answer the question and stop playing change the subject. Was that God or Devil, either or neither in the burning bush? You know the answer and are now in denial.

That web site has the truth. You can't take the truth.

Memetics regards religion itself as memetics.

Some fundamentalist evangelical religious movements act predominantly to swell the reach of their faith-meme. These movements devote a large amount of time to evangelical activities.

Many of the world's most successful religions demonstrate memetic modification over time — the theologies of the 21st century differ to a greater or lesser extent from the theologies of previous centuries.Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism (and their descendants) have all developed through variation, modification and memetic recombination from a shared monotheistic meme: Zoroastrianism appears to have functioned as an important and widely-shared religious ancestor. Our Own Religion in Ancient Persia, Chicago, 1913), contributing through Judaism to Christianity, Islam and their many derivative religions.

from Wickepedia

Memetics offers maximum explanatory value in cases where one cannot demonstrate the truth of the contents of the meme.[citation needed] For example, one can readily show that washing hands helps to prevent illness, so the best explanation for the widespread popularity of this practice is that "it works", though memetics still helps explain the rate of spread, and details such as why the practice of washing hands before surgery took so long to catch on. Memetics, however, excels in explaining the spread of certain value-judgements ("chastity is important"), preferences ("pork is repulsive"), superstitions ("black cats bring bad luck") and other scientifically unverifiable beliefs ("'X' is the one true God"); since one cannot easily account for any of these phenomena by conventional scientific methods. Calling someone's ideas/beliefs/action a "meme", therefore, does not constitute an insult, but dismissing it as "just a meme" does. Calling a belief a meme does not constitute an insult in that most people who believe in memes regard all beliefs as memes anyway.[citation needed] For example, an atheist who classified a given theist belief-system as a meme would likely also classify his own atheist belief-system as a meme.[original research?]

YOY...

(*---> cheek*)

PP said... "For the record, I only submitted that certain *kinds* of (literalistic) reverence for the written word may in fact be something like a cargo cult of a technology once reserved for certain classes of society whose implications certain folks are unwilling to really think through. You have Teh Pow3r of the coke bottle, Richmond."

I have reverence for the power of the Logos, which is accessible to Scribes and Pharisees as well as to those who do not read or write.

The miracle of the Gospel is that it translates well into all languages.

Peace,
RT

PP said... "For the record, I only submitted that certain *kinds* of (literalistic) reverence for the written word may in fact be something like a cargo cult of a technology once reserved for certain classes of society whose implications certain folks are unwilling to really think through. You have Teh Pow3r of the coke bottle, Richmond."

I have reverence for the power of the Logos, which is accessible to Scribes and Pharisees as well as to those who do not read or write.

The miracle of the Gospel is that it translates will into all languages.

Peace,
RT

PP

Apparently my text-based communication to you did not sufficiently transmit the sense of irony intended.

Peace,
RT

Hi Pagan
With all due respect,Dawkins himself calls religion a meme.Religion is an idea.
That snippet is in Wikipedia's MEME info,if you scroll way down after getting there.
Dawkin's thought-up the concept,so if he says religion is a meme,that's good enough for me.
I believe it says he coined the term to explain how cultures evolve.

The entry is worth looking up PP. Its really interesting. I wouldn't have looked it up myself but that Stallgis kid (he's gotta be a kid) mentioned he reads a lot of Wikipedia,so I looked up "meme" and it's a good read,and RT obviously never read it.
Cheers.

For the record, I only submitted that certain *kinds* of (literalistic) reverence for the written word may in fact be something like a cargo cult of a technology once reserved for certain classes of society whose implications certain folks are unwilling to really think through.

You have Teh Pow3r of the coke bottle, Richmond.

What next?

BGONE...

1) re: ... "usual dodge" ... you said "The Chinese are doing a fairly good job of controlling both and for a very good reason, their survival depends on it." ... so you are basically affirming the right of the state to control the sex and thought lives of their citizens. If not totalitarianism, such control is clearly handing the state immense centralized ideological power. Are you really in favor of this? The US was founded on the basis of the exact opposite of this, decentralized power, which is the form of government I happen to support. Lots of religions people are libertarians, but you state "They could be totalitarian just like the US government would be if the religious had their way." Clearly, you believe that all religious people are totalitarians. That's just crap.

2) After Bush asked people to pray, he appointed Tom Ridge to the Office of Homeland Security on October 8, 2001. Up to that point, terrorism was combatted via FBI and CIA cooperation. What are you trying to say?

3) Your last two paragraphs are meaningless gibberish to me. That's not an insult, that's just my observation that you are making up sentences with various permutations of God and Terrorists and Devil strung together at random.

Peace,
RT

"*All* written text is an incomplete representation of reality. *Some* is useful."

I suppose you presume *your* text is therefore infinitely-useful, while others' texts must obviously have something wrong with them?

"Would you throw all language out because select groups of people have misused it throughout history for nefarious purposes? Of course not."

Your strawman, you tell me.

Richmond T. Stallgiss:

Sorry I didn't get back sooner, the Devil is loose on Wall Street and now entrenched on Main Street too. Been busy keeping a weather eye on him.

I see you use the usual dodge, "Are you really suggesting that the United States ought to adopt the Chinese totalitarian model of government? I am sure that many atheists here would disagree with you."

What did I say? Did I say anything about forms of government. Absolutely not. So in your MO let me ask: are you suggesting that only totalitarian governments have the brains to recognize terrorists or enforce the law? Communism and capitalism are economic systems and have nothing to do with criminal law. Nuns and Monks are communists. Are they totalitarian? They could be totalitarian just like the US government would be if the religious had their way.

Now back to the question. What are you, we, us going to do about stopping terrorism? "Go to your churches, temples, synagogues and mosques and pray" as advised by your president Dubya, his first words after 9-11-2001 isn't cutting the mustard. Only the weak of mind see any future in his policies to stop terrorism or even slow it down. Al-Qaida grows strong with his religious based policies.

Step one - learn to recognize terrorists else you'll end up arresting the wrong people. I only used China as an example because they recognize terrorists, people with terrorists manuals, Bibles, Korans, and BOMs preaching and teaching the word of Devil, not God, Devil.

God is not a terrorists. Only those headed for hell say God is a terrorist. They use God as an excuse to terrorize, threaten the children with the fires of hell and damage them for life. What would you think about that if you were God? That's not God's work but it is the work of Devil.

Saying the Bible is the word of God does not make it the word of God or excuse the committing of the most mortal of all sins, saying Devil is God. Saying Devil is God does not make Devil God but you can bet it makes Devil happy, as happy as a being on fire can be. The big money put on the big plate, "gifts to God" go to Devil's agents to pay them for leading the multitudes to hell. That money is extorted with threats of hell.

YOYO... I would agree with PP that religion isn't just one meme... that's what I was trying to say.

Religion is not a meme in itself but, as Dawkins would say, a memeplex... (Google that one). Neuroscientists tend to believe that over the eons, monkeys got bigger and bigger brains because more and more processing power had survival value. Dawkins believes that highly costly brain capacity (what with the blood and energy it takes to keep a brain alive) earned back its costly upkeep because it provided the ability for the sapeins lifeform to house selfish memes and memeplexes that acted in the lifeform's interest (thus preserving the fleshy brain tissue that housed the memes).

IOW, ideas and sapeins co-evolved symbiotically.

IOW, religion-housing is part of our genetic raison-d'-etre

The "idea of God" may be a meme, but "God" himself is no more a meme than "the universe" is a meme. I take it as an article of faith that things exists outside of 'me.'

Anything beyond that, really, is also an article of faith.

To the degree that you can trust any of your inborn senses, you can trust your innate sense of religions exploration.

Yoyo, your implications that I am an ignorant Christian... are ignorant. If you want to dialogue that's one thing. If you want to mud wrestle with straw men... I'll just say you don't have me pegged.

Peace,
RT

*All* written text is an incomplete representation of reality. *Some* is useful.

Would you throw all language out because select groups of people have misused it throughout history for nefarious purposes? Of course not.

Posters here have villified religion for the same bad reasons.

Gaddy's essay rightfully distinguishes 'critique of extremists' from 'the evilness of all religion, always and forever, since the beginning of time'.

Religious belief, like sexuality, is a powerful force to be reckoned with, and can be used for good or for evil.

Peace,
RT

"Religion" isn't a single meme.

The idea it is...

Is a meme.

RT

Wikepedia calls a meme a unit of cultural information
that can be passed on down through generation after generation.
Dawkins suggests that religion is a meme that we should stop passing on
to future generations,because it's a silly meme,with no more credibility
than the myths of the Greeks and the Romans.
A meme is an idea,or a belief,or a custom that's passed on down.
And of course,it doesn't have to be a true idea,or a good idea.
Racism is a meme,patriotism is a meme,religion is a meme.
And God too is a meme;a unit of cultural information.
Maybe you should read a lot more of Wikipedia.

And, btw, if your response there won't tell you bout certain untenable literalisms you're given to hold about the written word, I dunno what will...

Seriously.

What'd you just say.

"Richmond T. Stallgiss:

"Paganplace... there you go again... writing things down... in language."

It's not language that's the problem. We live in language.

But this is the Net. For all practical purposes except nefarious ones, ...as ephemeral as the spoken word.

"You cognitive-dissonance-provoking writers-of-things-down should be banished from the planet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

; )"

Hey, as a punk rocker, I used to like to write "The written word is a lie."

Seriously.

Look a bit deeper, Richmond. :)

I will say, though, that 'extremists don't assure a broad-based rejection of religion.'

They assure a broad-based rejection of what these religions claim to be *about.*

The fault is inside the religions, not without.

If you like the 'goodness and love' in your religions, and lack the courage to *actually* renounce the hate and war within them, then,

What do you *really* expect?

Paganplace... there you go again... writing things down... in language.

You cognitive-dissonance-provoking writers-of-things-down should be banished from the planet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

; )

Peace,
RT

I mean, not that it isn't a moot point *now* when it'd be easier to apply the concept we've learned: "Don't Believe Everything You Read,"

...but actually, written language and a refusal to really deal with such *is* a problem that goes all the way back to cuneiform, and why 'People Of The Book' are always involved when things get ugly in these prosperous days.

Mmm?

Richmond:

"So what I am saying is that in order to make the world a more peaceful place, we need to eliminate all writing systems."

Well, no, but this surely is what happens when you use a legacy-bookkeeping system to try and define the sacred.

Some things really are best left to oral tradition, or... perspective, especially if you're a Gael looking at what came out of the Mess O'Ptamia. :)

YOYO said..."You really should do some serious reading;seems like you never got any further than the bible."

RT says... I read a lot of wikipedia.

YOYO said..."Sexuality is what we are all about.It's how we pass on our genes.It's the most vital thing we do. It's why our genes created us. We have no other purpose."

RT says..."is does not equal ought" ... also, according to Dawkins (God Delusion Chapter 5) our memes also had a hand in creating us. If you were a good atheist you would read Dawkins and realize that religion is a part of who we are as well.

Peace,
RT

If there weren't Sumerian society, there wouldn't be cuneiform.

If there wasn't cueniform, there wouldn't have been Phoenician alphabet and therefore no Hebrew, Arabic, or Brāhmī script.

So what I am saying is that in order to make the world a more peaceful place, we need to eliminate all writing systems.

.

Peace,
RT

If it weren't for the Torah, there would be no Christian bible - and if it weren't for the Christian bible, there would be no Koran. Given the history of violence, persecution, war, etc. attributed to these faiths over the last 2000 years, the real question should be how long will the world have to be held hostage by the destructive dogmas of the God of Abraham?

"Left to the rabid whims and radical convictions of religious extremists, the world never will trust religion as a source of truth, reconciliation, and community."

I would note, on this, though, that extremism itself is often a product, not of 'deluded masses,' but rather, people who have a certain amount of intelligence to apply to the situation: in order to reconcile the ideas of what they were taught and 'truth and community,' some will 'fight for what they believe in' in order to have the kind of 'clarity and certainty' that a lot of 'moderate' religious mouthpieces insist to them is necessary from a young age.

It's a simple, if uncomfortable, fact of psychology that to 'fight for something' tends to banish the consciousness of doubts about it...

This is why wars are convenient to extremists in the first place.

Note how on 'our side' in recent wars, every effort is made to confuse the idea of 'Support Our Troops' with 'Support The Policies...And Religious Ideas... They Die Cause Of.'

It's a comforting fiction of sorts, both to Christians who believe they have the 'One Right Way' and are superior, (and, OK,) and to atheists with the same idea, (or, really, potentially to anyone who sees the world and goes, 'Now, this ain't right,') ...to figure that those who disagree or are enemies or who bomb things are hapless, deluded, uneducated and mis-educated people.

Let's not forget that 'the terrorists' are smart.

This idea of 'war' simply seems to be part of the only way they find acceptable to *make sense of the world and their place in it.*

They cause suffering because that's the only thing that seems to validate their own.

This doubtless mixed with a good dose of genuine grievance turned to something they feel they can live with. Geopolitical, social, economic, and personal problems are complex in a way that it actually *takes* a lot of intelligence to realize how intractable and painful the reality can be.

So... some smart people, especially if culturally-predisposed and seeking status, *will simplify.*

It doesn't make *logical* sense, but a 'Great Satan' or 'The Evils of Religion' or 'Our Underdog War' are *easier to deal with on some important levels.*

And once the fighting starts, people find it easy to take sides.

It's about *competing worldviews* ....but not in the way advertised.

I try to remember how much the terrorists and some of their leaders are *my opposite number,* ...relatively smart, educated, well-spoken, definitely-dissatisfied people... who chose a different path than I did. I decided, if I ever really decided, that helping people was the way... people see the trouble in the world and believe lines about 'Fallen and awful human nature,' ...I figured, 'Heh. We'll see how fallen,' They decided, it seems, to hurt people and hope that control by Something Good will come of the suffering and the chaos.

Simple, that way. If supplying plenty of diversion and validation.

There's a reason that the best success with 'reconciling' terrorist followers actually comes of sending in moderate Islamic clergy to debate captured extremists.

Cause it helps them make sense of the world.

At least in a non-violent way.

I think, unfortunately, that certain views of the world inherently spin off into violence and all.

I mean, what's an extremist Pagan gonna do, put tofu in your Hummer, or feed you garbanzo beans till you only eat venison you dressed yourself? :)

(joke)

But there's factors here that go unconsidered in the lens of conflict:

Look at some of our own domestic issues: Society's changed in recent centuries, and whenever people get dissatisfied with how our family lives are organized, they don't go, 'OK, let's do the work and reorganize,' let's get more insistent on things being Biblical: My 'family is in decay,' let's bring back child-beating and get really freaked out like gay people getting married is why the divorce rate is so high and my kids don't *like* me. Let's make the standards even *more* divorced from reality, at least then there's someone to blame and it'll explain why the righteous people I keep voting for these wars about can't keep it in their pants...."

Not easier. Not more rational, not more harmonious or productive... Simpler.

LIke... People sit in traffic four or five hours out of a day, every day... Choke on the fumes, complain about the gas prices, fight over whether it's happening politically, ... Solution? Buy a bigger car to sit in traffic in, build a bigger road to fall down, and start a war that's somehow supposed to make gas prices better.

Last thought in anyone's mind?

Reorganize so you live near work or transit again and can walk to the market again, genius.

Which sounds kind of ambitious, at least till you realize that a lot of people trying to make policy for the world think it's simpler to get everyone believing they ought to pick a side for the 'End Times.'

Extremist religion has a way of making things *simple* for those with the most inclination to be burdened by complexity.

One thing neither of the religions that *breed* these extremists seem to consider is the *premises* that they do in fact share with those who hurt others in their name.

Neither wants to let go of the built-in *ideas* of conflict.... that in fact all 'evil' in the world *comes* of people not being Brand X or Y religion..

That in fact we could all do better, together.

In that sense, it's not a problem of extremists.

It's the rest of us they're trying to impress.

rt

You really should do some serious reading;seems like you never got any further than the bible.

Sexuality is what we are all about.It's how we pass on our genes.It's the most vital thing we do.
It's why our genes created us. We have no other purpose.

Religion is man made,like astrology is man made.
God is man made too,of course.He's a legacy of our ancient struggle to make sense of existence and the cosmos.When we didn't know anything about anything, all we could figure was that somebody must be responsible for all this.

But that was long before man invented science,and realized that god was more than likely made up,because there is not a single bit of evidence to suggest that there is one;but a whole lot of evidence to suggest that people make things up.
We have been making things up since time began.
Its what we do.

Richmond T. Stallgiss writes: "Then will these extremists realize that both religiosity and sexuality are normal expressions of being human?

I don't think removing religiosity is what it needed. I'm not convinced that religiosity has as much to do with biology as it does with socialization, but I can't argue that we aren't wired for pattern recognition.

In any event, religiosity isn't the problem. What amounts to hate speech in religious texts that is perceived by adherents as having the authority of some god or other, combined with the intrinsic gullibility of faith, are the root problems. Those are all the tools that a mischievous evil-doer needs to wreak no end of tragedy.

Bgone... Are you really suggesting that the United States ought to adopt the Chinese totalitarian model of government? I am sure that many atheists here would disagree with you.

I have no problem with atheists living in the United States and pretending that they are free from ideology. I DO have a problem with anti-theist ("we ought to have the government eliminate all religion") ideology that you are currently espousing.

Peace,
RT

Correct Richmond, "normal expressions of being human" can't be eliminated, unless people in general are eliminated. Can they be controlled? The Chinese are doing a fairly good job of controlling both and for a very good reason, their survival depends on it. Religion only confuses attempts to control, "normal expressions of being human."

Every other case of using a hoax to extract wealth from the unwary is a crime, deemed to be a confidence scam or extortion where severe bodily injury is threatened, hell for example. Why is religion an exception to that rule? Maybe it shouldn't be? A little "truth in advertising" is all that's needed to solve the religion problem?

Terrorizing children with threats of hell is unlawful in "Godless" China. Are the Chinese Godless or religion-less? Maybe they take exception to confidence scamming and extortion. Terrorism is unlawful in China. Why not here? Freedom of religion is freedom to terrorize?

All these people lament the evils of religion as fervently as the ascetics complain of the evils of the sexual urge.

Then will these extremists realize that both religiosity and sexuality are normal expressions of being human?

To pretend you can eliminate them is to contravene the basics of human biology.

-RT

The Reverend C. Welton Gaddy said, "Keep in mind that meanness, depersonalization, division, and destruction fomented in the name of religion are still attitudes and actions antithetical to the beliefs and behavior of religion."

This is like the young fellow at the doctors office fervently begging the doctor to take the soreness away and leave the swelling in. He doesn't have in mind a change in his life to avoid the soreness and only wants to improve that. Are you in favor of improving the disease or curing the it and ending it's recurrence?

Ethics as a human being must see them are in conflict with religion for obvious reasons, the same as the fellow with the disease that brings both soreness and swelling. Religion brings both and has failed over an ungodly period of time to effect a cure that does what religion wants, take the soreness away and leave the swelling in place.

Such statements as the one I just made always lead to rebuttals like, "we must protect ourselves so the 5th commandment must be interpreted." If you want to get rid of the soreness you must also get rid of the swelling. No, I'm not suggesting arguing whether or not the 5th needs to be debated, just point out the chaos religion brings. 9-11 is chaos supreme and the product of faith. Ir reveals all faith for what it is, terrorism.

We must begin by noticing what causes both the soreness and the swelling. It's faith that brought 9-11. It was faith that burned people at the stake for fornicating. Faith is the problem and there is but one cure for that. It's called truth. Watch the absence of rebuttal.

All faith is in Devil. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul shows us the source of faith, that which brought us 9-11. It was Devil and not God in the burning bush. You may not take Devil away and leave God in. Devil is the soreness, 9-11 and God is the swelling.

There is a God and there is also a Devil. You can't acknowledge one without the other for Devil gives meaning to God worship. God without Devil requires no worship, puts religion out of business, the business of Devil worship that began with "appeasing the gods." Those gods were all devils that terrorized our ancient ancestors.

Name a terror greater than hell. All religions are terrorists organizations that threaten children with the fires of hell, terrorize them and mentally/emotionally scar them for life. That's the source of 9-11. It began in ignorance on the part of our ancestors and is now a raging river that must be damed else terror never ends.

Maybe we should just dump religion.After all it causes more grief than anything,and makes no sense at all in this modern world.
Religion is why we are in Iraq,and religion is why the world trade center is gone,and religion is what makes George W Bush do really dumb things.
If there really was a god,that would be different.
But clearly there isn't a god,otherwise we wouldn't still be arguing about his existence 2000 years after we made him up.

EPS

Excellent essay. I couldn't agree more.

How do you envision such a thing coming to pass? In other words, how do we make certain that individuals choose the good that their religious texts offer instead of the bad? How can we achieve this, for lack of a better phrase, 'right understanding'?