look at the catholic church--the richest in the world--allso the querist.,.,its funny how god allways needs more money--still cant figure it out--

<What an amazing way to look at it, Bill. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just can't wrap my head around that, as it seems that religion spreads like a diseased weed, rather than occasional smallpox or other lesser ailment. What a lovely concept, however.>

Actually that was just a simile. Actually religion is a social neurosis. It is a survival mechanism that has long since lost its purpose or reason for existing. Today it exists a millstone around our collective necks.

<How much money do you suppose the Mennonites have, or the Quakers, or the Amish ? Many religions don't start spirituality with an $.

I spent three years of my life selling windows in Pennsylvania Dutch country. I can say with some authority that the Amish have more money than the Vatican. I have never met a tighter crowd than the Amish and I grew up Jewish. There is a family in Lancaster who have been trying to sue Disney over Mickey Mouse for the last 72 years. The suit has been passed down to the great grandchildren, and those bastards are not going to stop until either they win or the Messiah comes. The Amish are masters of removing money from tourists. The Amish around Lancaster make millions of dollars a year on tourism. Stick your head in an Amish barn someday and you are not going to see cows. You will be watching Amish making handcrafts on an assembly line. The Amish may not have electric power in their farms, but their Mennonite cousins do. What is a Mennonite but an Amishman who didn't inherit the farm. Quite often they are the city end of Amish owned businesses. A lot of handcrafts sold to the tourists are made in powered factories owned by Mennonites. The Amish in Lebanon County have a multimillion dollar tobacco crop. It's no good for cigarettes but perfect for wrapping cheap cigars.

Mennonites are also financially and socially established in PA. Lehigh, Lebanon, and Carbon counties are all run by a Mennonite mafia, who are so conservative that they make Pat Robertson look like Karl Marx. This is why there are laws in PA that make it illegal for an adult woman to make reproductive choices without her husband or father's permission. So all those bastards have money pouring out their ears.

<Is not Anti-religion, when pressed so vehemently, a religion in it's self ? >>

No, Atheism is a lack of belief, and the New Atheist movement is simply sick and tired of having baseless superstition running our lives and our nation. The Churches have essentially controlled American life since the John Adams administration of 1797. It is time for that to end. It is time for children to stop dying because their parents are too screwed in the head to bring them to doctors. Please do not mistake this for a purely Christian insanity. I have known Pagans here in California who were also too screwed up in the head to bring their kids to a doctor. This is not us telling you what to believe. This is us drawing limits.

See the difference?

I'm reading a sci-fi book at the moment about people who had colonized other planets by "seedships," robot-controlled ships full of genetic material that is raised and educated by computer once they arrived at their destinations. Or at least the first generation of colonists were raised and educated by the computer programs. Funny thing is the humans who programmed the computers deleted any and all references to any religious beliefs whatsoever so that the humans that were reared by the computers wouldn't be infected by the tragic madness of Earth....which had ceased to exist by this point.

Pretty good book so far....

And, after reading through this entire thread, I'm quite glad that I was never forced to go to any church or required to believe in any of the 1.5 million gods that humans have invented over the last eight thousand years. I went surfing instead, which is a far better way to spend one's time.

Here's a quote from another book:

"...monotheism does simplify things. But when people conglomerated their gods into one grand old man in the sky, they lost all respect for natural processes. It's a very dangerous philosophy, because we are NOT a special creation. We're products of the natural world, and if we're going to survive, we have to live by its rules." M.K. Wren

I think we're at the point where we are going to find out just how far out of synch we are with natural processes....

Bill: religion is a tool of oppression.


I agree Bill its a tool of oppression...but so is money, class and at time even race and gender; and lets not forget the government.

Humankind has used a variety of tools to oppress people. I think money is fairly high on the ladder of oppression

Bill I hope you're not thinking that I was implying the bible was created in English....

Hebrew is not easily translated into English due to one word having multiple meanings. Case in point would be the word "wife". In Hebrew, the word wife meant several things...which include the words female, woman, wife. Because of the loose interpretation of the word wife many people understood some translated material to imply a man was often married or even involved with "several" wives. Which is also part of the problem with the ongoing contradictions folks often notice. A passage can state a man had several women, yet the way it was often translated it seemed as if a man had several wives...yet it created confusion when folks would debate how the Hebrew religion practice multiple marriages....which wasn't the case..usually a man would have the "one" wife and several "lovers" or "women". The lovers or women were free to marry because they did not "belonged" to the man. Only a married woman "belonged" to the man. One thing marriage originally was a property arrangement, both for real estate and companionship.

Ancient Hebrew was replaced by Aramaic which was the language spoken during the living period of Christ. Prior to Christ, the bible as we know it today was not the same, since what is popularly used in "Christianity" is the new testament.

The old bible-old testament was known as the Torah - 5 books of Moses ( Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). These 5 books were basically laws of conduct and created TONS of confusion due to the mis-translation of an Ancient unknown language. For starters Ancient Hebrew, then Aramaic which is basically extinct and then Ancient Greek. All these Ancient languages not only confused the masses with words representing several different ideas at once, but also since the language was not being retained, many translations became diluted and COMPLETELY altered. This is one of the main reasons the 5 books of Moses creates such a spiritual blockage since few people can relate, understand or even care to follow some of the bizarrio translation.

For those of you wonder where some sources for these comments feel free to look at the links below:

www.bl.uk/onlinegallery...syriacbib.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

Do keep in mind as an Interfaith Minister I can honestly say in the Seminary many of us debated and battle endlessly over the real meaning of some of the material in the bible which influenced many religions. Of course us pagan feminist battle the loudly, but so did many others who were not Christians, as well as Christians had issues with some of the many sexist, racist and dividing passages.

As Ministers we learned to agreed that the bible was a source to inspire thinking and provide "organized" group interaction and it was not to be taken literally. This of course included the 10 commandments, (a spin off the 613 Mitzvot) which were again laws of community conduct, and not the direct word of God, but rather laws written and oaths taken in the "Name" of God.

Here's a link for the curious: www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

For us pagans think in terms of making a ritual oath to follow some spiritual path or fulfill a promise, and let's say Odin is your witness and you vow not to break this oath, otherwise you give Odin permission to smite you.

Religions are hard to adhere to cause they were created to serve those in charge. Its often their vision and their "beliefs" being preach under what they consider is the correct Godly inspiration.

What many religious leaders fail to realize is that everyone seeking spiritual guidance simply wants a place to be spiritual in, and not to be told "HOW TO" be spiritual.

No one but ourselves can design our spiritual relationship, because our spirituality needs to reflect who we are and how we live.

Religion fails people, because religion is seldom about the Spiritual Entity it claims to be honoring. In fact, many times religion is a self-serving position for those in charge. (I'm thinking of the Church across my apartment, with its Saturday disco)

And this sadly also includes the Pagan religion. I noticed even in some covens I've visited how the HP often does "rituals" to enhance their lives and often forgets to ask others if they need something....this makes me wonder and turns me off as well with the Pagan groups I've ran into. Spiritual leaders need to check their egos at the door when serving the public...or at least be straightforward and admit they are in it for the glory as well for themselves.

Religion needs to be redesigned...by individuals for individuals and not by leaders.

<Arguments against religion are often just as fallacious, most commonly cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Most anti-religion arguments go along the lines of "bad things happened this one time and the people who did it had some sort of connection to religion, therefore religion clearly caused this".>

The most damning argument against the existence of God is that God cannot be disproven. Not being able to disprove something is not proof that it exists. No two people can pray the same way and receive the same results. Statistical analysis shows that less than fifty percent of prayers go unanswered. Statistically that shows random coincidence. There is more statistical evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than there is of God. "The bad things happen to bad people" argument is another way of saying, "I wasn't impressed with the good news of the Bible the first 10,000 times I heard it. What makes you think I will be impressed on the 10,001"?

<Anti-religion arguments also completely ignore any good results that come from religion, like local charity, the music of J.S. Bach, and the artwork of the Renaissance. I think the net result is neutral. >

Back in 1981 I witnessed an eightball of heroin saving somebody's life. Is this an argument to legalize heroin? J.S. Bach was a genius. In modern terminology he could be called a savant, as his talent was passed onto his children. That is a pretty good indication that his talent was genetic. The Bachs would have had their talent with or without a belief in God. Here in the 21st Century, charity is an abomination. All it does is serve the status quo. The Renaissance was the result of expanded economics based on trade with the Middle East. The Medicis and the Borgias had to take over the papal offices to maintain that trade. Had they not, some papal goombah would have started another crusade, and the Renaissance artists would have remained serfs.

<It's kind of like when you take your car to the mechanic. Sometimes you've got a pretty good idea what the problem is, and you tell the mechanic what you think it is. Let's say, your car is running roughly and you're convinced that you have clogged fuel injector. When the mechanic looks at everything, she concludes that the problem is a bad oxygen sensor. You can insist that the mechanic replace the fuel injector, but that may not solve the problem. When it comes to the fundamental problems of our civilization, I'm not a mechanic. I'm not sure anyone is.>

Before I can even begin to refute that, you would need to see four videos. Here is the first.

video.google.com/videoplay

As citizens of the United States, as residents of the Earth, and (perhaps) future participants in galactic culture, it is our duty, obligation, and privilege to educate ourselves so we do not need mechanics to diagnose what is wrong in our society. I could sum up the entire problem in one word: ignorance. The videos I posted are just one of the ways corporate interests exploit our ignorance to their own advantage. Religion is the main means used to manipulate ignorance. It worked for the popes. It worked for Henry VIII of Great Britain and it worked for George II of the American Empire. You do not need a masters in history with a concentration in economics to diagnose what is wrong with this country. (But it helps.) You have the opportunity to learn just as much as I know from your own computer. As a friend from Israel said about the internet, "We have the sum of human knowledge at our fingertips, but most people just use it to download porn."

<Not at all. In fact, I have no idea what social class you come from or consider yourself to be part of. Just saying I come from a lower social class (the PWT's of the Deep South) than you probably think I do. Our biggest differences are generational. You're a Boomer and driven by ideology, and I'm a Gen-Xer, who tend to be a bit more nihilistic (I'm not saying anything is wrong with either).>

Is Greencove Springs Florida deep enough in the South for you? I had my ass beaten by Leonard Skinner himself, and Ronny Van Zandt was a neighbor. I grew up as one of the few Jews who knew (or cared) that hominy grits are kosher. So you are right, generation is a major difference. I grew up before Reagan and before homelessness became a major crises in this country. You grew up with the homeless as part of the landscape. I can remember when everybody who wanted to be housed was housed. (I am not counting substance abuse or the hobo lifestyle as homeless.) The Simpsons were in their second season when congress repealed the tax breaks for landlords and rents went sky high. How old were you then?

Homeless is a social class in this country and it is a social class subject to the same libel and stereotypes as any other minority, and it is churches who work the hardest to maintain those stereotypes. One such stereotype is that homeless people are homeless through sugstance abuse. Bullshit. Most people are homeless through outsourcing. As a mortgage salesman or as a loan origination officer, I have never seen a loan go to somebody who could not afford the payments. However, once the customer's job went to the mysterious east, of course they could not keep paying the mortgage. Most of the people I met in the transitional housing program (AKA shelter) were like myself, ;professional people whose jobs simply disappeared, but we were still treated like a bunch of drug addicts and had to go through humiliating substance abuse meetings in order to maintain our temporary housing. To be fair, the staff did their best to treat me like the person I am, but they could have gotten in trouble for helping me find a job according to my skills and experience rather than the job their bosses expected me to get. The entire purpose of the program was not to help me get housing as much as it was to confirm my status as the very lowest of society.

<Stalin used that ideology in much the same way that other rulers use religion to control people. The end result is the same. Both the PWE and the (Leninistic Work Ethic?) justify requiring to someone work for someone else's benefit. >

Absolutely wrong. There is a huge difference between the American system and the Soviet system. Stalin was a bank robber who seized power after poisoning Lenin. He maintained power through brute force. The PWE was one of the founding principles of this country. Read the works of John Adams when he talks about the natural aristocracy, or that wealth is god's way of showing who is fit to rule. Idealy, the socialist work ethic requires that we work for everybody's benefit and not just our own. The PWE requires that we work for the benefit of the rich for the rich are the favored of god. (John Adams.) Soviet left wing fascism is imposed through force. American right wing fascism is something that we do to ourselves.

<Indeed I do. I work in the intersection of several dangerous industries, and I have several dangerous hobbies. I don't like the word "dangerous", though, because that implies an element of derring-do or thrill-seeking behavior. I'd say that I am engaged in a lot of activities that inherently have some risk of injury. Do you think it's fair for you (who lives a presumably less "risky" lifestyle) to have to support my lifestyle? It's one thing to say that everyone should contribute for someone else's Leukemia treatment, but is it another to say that you have to pay for my injuries that come as a result of my personal choices? These aren't rhetorical questions, I'm looking for more detail on your beliefs.>

What part of food, housing, clothing, and medical care are human rights do you not understand? If you were scuba diving off the coast of England or France and had an accident, you would be provided with the same medical care as any Frenchman or Englishman. Your personal choices do not negate your worth and rights as a human being. If a Frenchman is hurt scuba diving off the coast of Florida, he will be given every courtesy and France gets the bill. If you are hurt scuba diving you are dependent on your health insurance. Have you read your entire policy? I have no personal experience selling health insurance for the Diver's Alert Network, but if it is anything like the rest of the country, there are riders in that policy that essentially state that your coverage can be yanked at the discretion of the insurance company. Does your policy cover accidents that are not related to scuba diving? What happens if you step off your boat and get hit by a garbage truck or something? How much of your disposable income goes to pay for that policy?

The secret of insurance is that it takes a little bit of money and turns it into a huge damned pile of cash. Taxation works the same way. Everybody puts into the same pot, the money collected is invested, and the money turns to a huge pile of cash. Here is another secret of insurance that also applies to taxation. The more people who contribute to the pot, the less they have to contribute to have the same service. So if you have 1000 people paying into the same health insurance policy they will have to pay more per person than 10,000 people paying into the same health insurance policy. So an entire nation contributing to a single payer system will have to pay a lot less than they would for private insurance.

Let me anticipate some of your objections here. The first is why are European taxes so high? The answer is that European nations have lower populations than the United States. If we have the better part of three billion people paying into the same pot, we will be paying less than England or France. As the EU grows and taxes are siphoned from individual nations to a major pool of all nations, we will be seeing European taxes dropping. What of quality of care? Speaking as somebody who had a knee operation while in college in England, I would say that I got the best of care. It was not fancy. I did not get a private room, but recovered in a ward with about two dozen other people. I could not afford TV, but being the only American on the ward, I got plenty of invitations to watch TV from those who could afford it. Most importantly, in the last thirty years I have not had any trouble with this knee or the plastic kneecap Britain installed for free.

The question you should be asking is, once I don't have to pay my health insurance premiums, where does that money go?

The answer is, in your pocket. This is why the average European worker can afford to go abroad during his vacation.

Bill: "We will simply not mention that unlike America, no European has gone homeless, hungry, or without medical care."

"The European Union is contradicting world trade rules by putting the interests of big drug companies before the 2 billion people in the world who cannot access essential medicines, according to a new report today by Oxfam and Health Action International, Europe. ... The EU’s trade policies demand that developing countries protect the interests of drug companies above public health priorities, and the EU demands exceed even those made by the much-criticised US administration of President Bush."
www.oxfam.org.uk/applicati...essoffice/

EU Economics: "All forecasts predict economic decline for the EU - this chart is from the European Commission itself. The single market and the euro have failed to boost EU trade, jobs and economic growth, according to a devastating report from an official French think-tank, which includes 40 of France's best-known economists. "Economic Policy and Growth in Europe"* was published in 2006 by the Conseil d'Analyse Economique, chaired by Prime Minister de Villepin. It says "economic integration has stagnated and no longer promotes growth. The Euro's creation has not produced the knock-on benefits expected... The inability of the EU to revive the economy turns investment away” " www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/c...ml

Homelessness:
EU: 3M/500M = 0.6% (2004)
US: 672k/300M = 0.2% (2007)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness

Evan: The amount of murder done by individuals is dwarfed by those serving a religion or government.

You got that right!!

It is beyond me how anyone could so vehemently oppose everything he disagrees with..
Good thing Atheists do do any thing bad , huh....

How can you not see that you're not any different than any of the " religious " folk ?
They have their thing, and try to find a place in this world, and a little happiness, and peace here and there, and you have your thing, trying to find...OK I 'm not sure what you're trying to find, I doubt you do either.
But the point is that religion / spirituality / superstition, whatever, is not all bad, it helps many people too. It is up to the individual and what they do with it.
I doubt anyone has been, "converted" to atheism by argument. They most likely had a bad experience along the way and targeted the belief in god , or what / whoever as the cause, and turned their back on the whole mess of interactive soup in the process.
What happened to you, were you molested by a ugly Nun as a boy ? Do you genuinely think that someday the world will be "free" of religion, and spiritual belief ? I asked you this before, and your response was that the EU was free of it, -paraphrased-. Which is TOTAL bullshit by the way !
You're trying to cram you belief down the throats of others, like no Jehovah's Wittiness, or Evangelicals I've ever seen. Do you talk to people this way ? do they respond or just walk away. You are guaranteed to shut believers down in the first sentience or two, what do you think you're accomplishing, if anything ? You're not jousting with windmills, you haven't even gotten on the horse.
Or are you just a wanna be lawyer troll ? I'm inclined to think the latter.

"Remember, almost everything that the former primitive religions called spiritual, you can redefine as being immeasurable right now by our level of equipment." EVAN this is what the Rastas call revelation as being NEW YET OLD. But the definition is that MYTH is not static, it is representative of how ultimate reality transpires as before you--just as you relate thru Leary's words. The problem is, as in Ram Das's edification, asking, why are we looking out under the street light for the keys we lost in the alley?