We've flogged this horse pretty thoroughly, but I wanted to make a few points before bowing out of what has been a very interesting and mainly civil debate...

There have been some statements regarding the origins of moral/ethical codes which govern human behavior (ie thou shalt not kill). I would contend that, due to the universal nature of prohibitions of such things as murder, theft, and wife-stealing in unconnected cultures and religions throughout the world, that these laws were a product of a natural human urge toward behavior that tended to allow people to dwell together in relative peace, and not an imposed religious edict. Their presence in religious law simply represents a codification of existing moral behavior.

I was lauded by Little Hawk for having said that the natural human impulse is to feed the starving, when he called that a "spiritual" notion. I want to say that I have no argument with spirituality. I think there is a realm of existence beyond what can be seen, tasted, smelled, and touched. The fact that most religions perceive this realm in terms of what those senses can detect (example; lounging in a scented garden with a flock of virgins) seems to me to be a gut-level desire for a spiritual realm where everything is exactly like Earth only nicer. Neither do I see Science as a substitute for religion. Science is a tool for acquiring information with which we can (and I emphasize CAN) make better judgements about what will benefit ourselves and mankind in general.

LH said something about the promise of an afterlife redeeming the drudgery and pain of earthly existence, and that life without that notion is mere existence. I disagree. The continuation of my personal being throughout eternity is not necessary for me to gain an appreciation of what grace and beauty there is here in this life. If anything, this promise of dwelling in heaven becomes a stumbling block in the path man could truly take....using Reason to make of this world, the only world we have any evidence of, a place as close to the human concept of heaven as is possible. Spirituality could function on this level, that of helping mankind toward a more satisfying and happy term on Earth, as well as it does in assisting the individual, like LH and Amos, toward greater personal happiness.

Finally, regarding the absence of suicide-bomber Buddhists, I believe that many of us will recall several Buddhist priests who protested the continuation of the War in Vietnam by burning themselves to death in the public square in Saigon. Counter this act of self-sacrifice in a cause to that of the Muslim suicide bomber who seeks to take a host of those who believe differently from him along, and you can see that there is a substantial degree of difference in the impact that people of two different faiths have on their fellow human beings. I have contended and will continue to contend that the basic Islamic belief that death incurred in making Holy War guarantees entry to paradise is perhaps the most dangerous piece of religious dogma there is, and that's saying something.