I find it interesting that it's a handful of non-believers who are so strident and lead the attacks in here. They start endless insulting threads and are as judgmental as those who claim to be "religious".

This statement is of course not itself a less than helpful 'judgement' of one's fellow posters and it is also not going to be accused of being a generalisation.

But Jerry why is holding and expressing your honest views here on organised religion thought by you to be leading an attack on you or anyone else? Perhaps you would accept that you can find insults everywhere - if you are looking hard enough for them?

But as far as ORGAINISED religion is concerned - are not most of the contributors to this thread in fact non-believers (to use your divisive term)?

For are those posting here who are members of organised religions unwilling to swallow the whole shebang?

Do they freely express their own selective approach to the tenets of their organised religion?

Are not those dreaded 'fundamentalists' generally the dengrated whipping-boys who it is safe to place the blame?

But what is a 'fundementalist' but one who just holds the tenets of their organised religion to be true?

There is a logical progression of thought on organised religion from the (very) general consensus we seem to have arrived at and the use of some joined-up thinking should allow us all to build on this.....However, I suspect that it won't.

The old shoe - even with lots of re-soling and when wearing them now is the cause of many blisters and the patched-up old teddy bear - even with little of its original stuffing remaining and now smelling rather unhealthy - are still too much of a habit for many of us to discard completely.