You may have noted in the original post that the word "religion" is set apart in quotes. I also made a distinction between adherents to a religion and believers. I also left believers as a vague, general term. I asked a QUESTION which was related to the other thread about a religious survey which caused me to wonder as I did? And quite contrary to many of your perceptions of me about what you THINK you know about my beliefs I am not a big supporter of organized religion. I have a very narrow view of religion. I am in agreement with the writer of James. To him, true religion is the caring for widows and orphans within the Christian community and without as Christ demonstrated who a person's neighbor is in the story of the Good Samaritan. All the horrendous acts that Mrrzy listed and all the awful acts he could have listed are, to my way of thinking, horrible abuses of the religions involved and the doctrines of peace espoused by many of them.

Whether it is a religious movement or a political movement there seem to always be those who will corrupt the intent or goal of either for their own evil purposes. And there always seems to be a mindless cadre that will follow the corrupt to oblivion while never catching on to the truth about either or seeking out answers for themselves. It doesn't mean there is no God nor does it prove there is a God. It is, perhaps, a true picture of the state of Man and an indicator of how far we have to go.

I could argue from a Christian perspective that God shares your concerns and understands your criticisms as He voiced similar concerns over those who were supposed to be His people. I believe God hates most all the same evils you hate but not those who perpetrate the same. I can argue this from scripture but somehow, I don't get the impression that many are willing to endure such, here and now. Closed systems of understanding our world and the folks in it are intolerable, be they political or religious or some other specie. Shame to the person who allows someone else to do their thinking for them. Not only is the unexamined life not worth living, it is downright dangerous to those about.

Religion can be a response to a spiritual awakening or epiphany or it can be a cop-out. It can be a way for making business contacts or it can be a means of fleecing people. It can be a pathway of psychoses as in the Jones Town incident or it can be a political tool. Is it any wonder why religion cannot be ignored?

Guest David E. (whose given name means, in the Hebrew "Beloved") thinks that humanism was already in place before religion but doesn't bother to demonstrate how he knows this. It is an unsubstantiated claim. Humanism as it is understood today as a movement began in the 1800's AD that is. I think religion, in the general term has been around a little longer than that. I would hold that Mankind and religion grew up together and that religion, his ability to question that which he did not understand, was the impetus for all that has followed. Earliest man is always found in proximity with those things which are considered religious.

To address Foolestroupe's list of concerns:

My response to Jim Carroll's statement was to the point and logical. He made a blanket declaration against "religion" based on narrow and anecdotal information at best and regardless of the ABUSES of religion it still does not touch in any meaningful way the phenomenon of religion or faith or belief in a supreme deity or many deities nor does it address any object of many Far Eastern religions. And yet how many of you looked at his post and unquestioningly agreed with him? I find THAT scary.

And to which Foolestroupe somehow discerns that I must be talking about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Which, you will note is NOT an ARGUMENT. It is, rather, a question. Even if this were an attempt to set up a straw man argument, it is a non sequitur to what has gone before. But just for fun, I'd like to answer anyway. If the entire universe could fit inside the seminal infinitesimal that preceded the "Big Bang", why all of them AND none of them!

"To the non-believer in any religion, all religions ARE merely offshoots of the same basic belief, the only argument being which one is supreme over all the others! Because since almost every religion claims that it IS the Supreme one and all others are merely 'mistaken beliefs' and 'you should come over to their side'."

Again it is the informal fallacy of the hasty generalization. You do a great disservice to many religions that do NOT believe in ONE supreme being. You do a historical disservice to many polytheistic religions. You need to check out Sufism, Baha'i, Rosicrucian and some other religions I could name. They are NOT all the same and their followers would be the first to tell you so.

"I was raised a Lutheran and well schooled in the subtleties and history of the RC church from day one. What he was searching for was not that God did not exist (he was never an agnostic!), but that his own particular invisible magical sky fairy that spoke in his ear had said that he was the only one right and everyone from the Pope down was wrong, that they 'had lost the true path'."

I'm sure many Lutherans would be dismayed at your portrayal of their faith. I never said he was agnostic, YOU did. It is so much easier to shoot down a lame argument of your own design, isn't it? And you were studying Roman Catholicism and it's subtleties? I thought you were raised Lutheran!! (yes facetious, sort of). Nor did Martin Luther believe in magical sky fairies. I have read his life story from different authors and no one mentioned sky fairies. I know he did learn Greek, Hebrew and Latin and the discrepancies between what he read and what the Roman Catholic Church was putting forth at the time cause him to QUESTION the church and later to seek to REFORM the same. You see, you need to get your facts straight before you launch out with an "argument" otherwise, you look kind of foolish to the honest inquirer.

"What causes me to fall about in laughter is the widespread strongly held delusion by many Americans - just read Yahoo Answers for a while - that some how Catholics are not Christians.... thereby showing that many US Protestants are raised in total ignorance of the history of their 'Protestant' Faith. What are they 'protesting' about? The original Protestants were protesting that oh, here we go again, the RC had 'lost the true path'...."

This next comment assumes that "many Americans" are delusional and you cite that most learned and prestigious institute of higher education "Yahoo Answers" to substantiate all that follows: "that some how Catholics are not Christians". You don't say WHY anyone might hold this view but you do tend to imply that the reverse is true, that Catholics (Roman?) are true Christians. Now if YOU are an atheist this is a most extraordinary statement! How can you tell? You are an unbeliever! Nonetheless, you conclude from the article that "many US Protestants are raised in total ignorance of the history of their 'Protestant' Faith." How so? Luther was not a Protestant but a Reformer. For his efforts the Bishop of Roman tried to have him silenced by that age old, tried and true Christian method: murder. You know, the same one that was used against, uh, Christ! His protege, Philip Melanchthon was more responsible for the German Protestant movement. Nowhere did Luther or Melanchthon say that Catholic people were not Christian but everywhere that the Church was not correct in it's teachings in all things. And yet you would have us believe that Yahoo has the inside story. Where are your FACTS?

"Ignorance is not bliss for a 'believer', but ignorance by your followers is definitely bliss for a dictator, religious or secular"

Finally a point upon which we may agree. I'm certainly glad YOU are not ignorant, my friend.

"Religious Intolerance is inevitably caused by the bigoted delusion that only one approved set of religious beliefs is 'correct' - the atheist simply says - it's all just made up by people, no divine inspiration is possible, because there is no magic sky fairy, so none is correct .... "

Shall we discuss bigoted delusion? Could it be delusional and bigoted to assume that everyone's religion teaches that all other religions are wrong? Could it possibly be that you do not speak for ALL atheists? Isn't that bigoted? And that religionists and believers knowingly "made up" religions and "God"? Isn't THAT bigoted? And somehow (and you don't say how) you just know there is no divine inspiration because there is no sky fairy? By the way I am really curious about this "Sky Fairy" religion. I've never come across it in my studies. Could you sarcastically be using that as a substitute for deity? History and most of the world is wrong but you, the enlightened one KNOW there is no God. And that is a FACT?

"Religious Tolerance is thus only a wimpy cop out, because if you say that others may also be correct, then you admit that no path is 'Supreme' and thus no others can be correct.... "

And this is your stunning conclusion. First, nothing was made mention about religious tolerance or intolerance. But that aside your "ergo" your conclusion is, that if one were to admit that someone else in some aspect of their beliefs were correct then no other path is "Supreme" (whatever that may mean) and then your second conclusion "thus no others can be correct..." I'm really having a hard time following you logic here. Thus you are defining religion as a "path" to the divine? The breadth and scope of your understanding of religion simply amazes me. Had I know that, I could have foregone 7 years of intensive study. Oh well, you live and you learn. And how does it follow that no others can be correct. Do you mean inside knowledge on the pathway to the divine(s)? Or do you mean having God in your pocket, so to speak?

Well, at any rate, thanks for clearing all that up for us. And I hope none of you will fault me too much for MY sarcasm (I expect yours) but so much that passes here, unquestioned as logic , just isn't so. I could go on but I bet you are kinda tired of it by now. I know I am. I'll check back with you all later.

But hey! I really am learning what and why atheists and agnostics are so concerned about religion. Many valid points have been made and for that I thank you all.