[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm seeing that we're pretty much agreeing on everything except on the definition of 'religion'. You're right this all gets back to the definition of it.

This is Webster Online Dictionary's definition of religion:

[ QUOTE ]
1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality".

2. Institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him".

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a divine power involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only it were that easy. There is a HUGE debate on what the definition of religion is. The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion in the following way:


In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

And I'm sure there are countless people who would disagree with this definition as well.
[ QUOTE ]

If the point you're making is that if one uses God in a metaphorical sense he's still religious, I think you're using the word 'religious' way too liberally. We agree that we should enlighten people and get rid of religious dogmas. If we take those dogmas out, what is left of religion?

a) the spiritual element. A feeling that there's something bigger than us. Usually related to mystical, spiritual experiences (which I've had in my mind). And if we want people to be reasonable they must be agnostic about God. What we're left with is a mystical, agnostic way of talking about the mystery of the universe. This is basically the Einsteinian way of using the word 'God'. Maybe I should've been more clear what I mean by Einsteinian.

b) the community aspect. You're right, people have a need to belong to a community and discuss about their feelings to a degree. But I'm not sure if there's any sense for these "enlightened, modified" Christians to pray to a higher power since they don't believe at least in a personal one anymore. The communities will find other ways of functioning.

Besides, do you see atheists/agnostics gathering together? I don't. Some may go to a church because of their social network but if all people think like those few the church loses its meaning. I wouldn't say religious communities or gatherings are necessary at all. People can find ways to happiness without chruch meetings. It's happening right now.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're quite mistaken that atheists and agnostics don't congregate. There are many "liberal" congregations of the various world religions and there are many atheist organizations.

People will naturally congregate and associate with people who share their experiences and interpretation of the world. When these shared experiences and interpretations have to do with anything spiritual, mystical, or beyond our current knowledge I would see that as tending toward religious belief.

[ QUOTE ]

I know that you think we should try to modify religion instead of trying to get rid of it. What I'm saying to you is that we agree and are just talking about the different sides of the same coin. I'm all for making current religions more liberal. That's the only way, nobody can make religion vanish. What I'm saying to you that you're proposing a gradual modification of religion to a point where I would be not calling it a religion anymore. We both have the same goal basically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why it is so frustrating to me. I don't think you realize that many people would agree with you but still call themselves "religious". When you rail against "religion" and "God" they perceive it as an attack on them and they tune you out. Or worse yet, they circle the wagons and actually do protect some of the more ridiculous beliefs.

There are also those who consider themselves religious, but haven't really thought about or evaluated some of the supernatural claims of religion. They don't even know half of the claims their religion makes. I guarantee that if you poll Christians, you'd find that many of them don't even know about all the deplorable sections of the Old Testament. That's why it's insane for atheists to say, "your religion says X is true." Their religion DOESN'T say that it's true. That doesn't make it less of a religion in my view, it's just a different religion. Everyone's religion is their personal philosophy. EVERYONE picks and chooses.

Do you understand where I'm going with this? You don't need to eliminate Christianity to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. And trying to eliminate Christianity makes your end goal even harder to achieve.