[JussiUt]

[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, sure. Like I said, we've clearly had different definitions of religion in mind. If you want to use the largest definition possible that's fine but I don't like it.

I guess we have to make a distinction between a-theism and a-religiousness. I'm a strong advocate of the first but if the latter is an agnostic, mystical, non-dogmatic and personal version of religion then I don't think that's a problem in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
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'd say you still overemphasize the community aspect of religion. Secularization has been a strong force at least in Europe so I don't see how atheists have this urgent need to congregate at least very often. Sure, people love to speak about their experiences and again people have a strong tendency to be apart of a community but individualism and secularism are strong forces too.

If only the community aspect of religion survives you're still free to call it a religion. I wouldn't because it would be completely different from other religions of the past. A better word for it would be nice.

I understand your frustration. One thing you have to bear in mind is that I'm talking to you here on this board way differently than I would be talking to a stranger or someone religious. I know that by attacking God and religion directly and strongly it doesn't bear good results.

The main "disagreement" we have between us isn't the goal we want to achieve. You like to call the end goal as a sort of religion too. Ok, fine. Definitions are definitions. I don't like to use the word religion there.

The main disagreement isn't even the mean by which we want to achieve that goal. Your psychological points make sense and I agree. I know people have very personal faiths and it's usually awful to put words into other person't mouth in this instance.

I understand where you're going with this. You like to call the end goal Christianity too. Again I wouldn't. The main point of Christianity is a belief in Christ. If you don't have that belief the whole word loses its meaning. I guess you want to keep that word alive for tactical reasons. That's fine and that's probably the only way to achieve the goal we have. Just undestand that we're both trying to eliminate Christianity in every sense possible except for the name part.

I don't think we have any main disagreements at all. That's kind of sad actually, have we really been dancing around the issue and not been getting what the other has tried to say? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]