Martin, I'm not an atheist, and much as I dislike labels, they are a useful shorthand for description. I suppose I could be described as an agnostic, i.e. one who simply does not know whether God exists or not. I'm not saying "God doesn't exist", I'm just saying "I don't know".
Definition of science, which I personally find satisfying (from Wikipedia):
"According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted."

It is hard to find a good definition of religion, but this is also from Wikipedia:
“sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken many forms in various cultures and individuals. Occasionally, the word "religion" is used to designate what should be more properly described as "organized religion" – that is, an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). There are many different religions in the world today. Religion implies a belief in supernatural beings or powers. This definition would put religions like Buddhism into the philosophy section.”

To be religious implies to me the suspension of one’s critical faculties for a certain “belief”, regardless of any objective evidence.
I think if anyone wants you to believe something, they should be able to prove it with objective evidence. Simply pointing to the “Holy Book” doesn’t do it for me.
However, and in answer to the previous poster about “religion bashing”, I personally don’t care what you believe. Believe what you like, as long as it doesn't impinge on the freedoms of others. Just don’t try imposing it me (or others for that matter) with threats of eternal damnation, or whatever else you try to use to coerce my compliance. And I don’t care either to make you an agnostic. That is entirely up to you.

Fellow Human

You didn't answer Matthew.S, you only gave a weak, vague reference to wahabism. Not all Muslims are wahabi's, although persecution in the middle-east of Christians is shocking, brutal, and commonplace.

I suggest you visit all the sites you Muslims are fond of quoting when it comes to percieved Israeli aggression against 'helpless' Palestinians, such as Amnesty International. To deny that the persecution is rife, on both a day to day level and via the government, you aren't taking this debate seriously.

You surely have heard of the Coptyic Egyptians, and you say you lived in the mid-east for 29yrs, you must have been very wealthy not to see reality.

Palestinian Christians? Sudanese Christians? Although you may not have heard of them as they are fast becoming an extinct species, due, once again, to Arab supremacists, this time called the Janjaweed.

Are you serious that you don't know about all this? Wow. You guys know how to block the truth out well, an art form.

ALL ELSE

Many arguments made here are great, it's good to see debate, although it seems to me that it doesn't matter how much you write the reality, it seems some Muslims simply refuse to listen. As I said, an art form.

numbat, "How can we trust or believe any pagan moslem - read their book. Now ALL! islamics believe in that book". For the same reason that I trust some christains dispite having read their book.

It is my belief that for the most part we all get out of our belief systems what we want to get out of them. Just as some christains are able to somehow love the God of the Old Testament and live peaceful lives so to are some muslims. I judge people not by their creed but by how they live, in the case of OLO that is via words but also the approach taken to issues, the preference or otherwise for personal attacks on others (especially those who have not attacked them).

So some of my fellow agnostics and athiests see the lack of a God as an excuse for cruelty and a lack of responsibility in their actions while others of us see it as raising the need for responsibility on our own part. Some christians get something very sick out of the christain gospel others have brought something good into the world with how they have lived their faith. Likewise with muslims etc.

Just as I don't judge my christain friends integrity on the basis of their book or the worst actions of christains throughtout history I refuse to judge Fellow Human, Irfan and others on the basis of their book or the worst actions of muslims. Quite easy really.

R0bert

RObert,
I read you suggestion clearly. Earlier I said I could see through FH.
You underestimated my judgement. My subsequent sampling of FH postings only confirm my early impression of him.
Which leads me to a concern about your mental state...If you are despondent about the nasties, then take leave, get a life, come back later.
FH is a strong Muslim and a heavy poster, a quietly evangelical one. Don't you worry I attack him the way I do. He's adept at defense. I do NOT support him even though he is a moderate because the real battle with Islam is NOT a physical one. External violence do not worry me too much because we can see the enemies. It is the nice, gentle evangelical (and almost always deceptive) Muslims in our midst that's the real danger. Sound dreadful huh. Too bad if people do not listen when I talk tough. You need to judge me on the merit of my analysis, not on the basis on being nice and pleasant. It is the truth that really counts. For truth will set us free.

Fellow_Human,

Once again you are being evasive and worst, twisting the facts as well. Don't do that please.

What you previously mentioned included a 15% non-Muslim population as evidence of Islam tolerance. I refuted that. You never did mentioned social fabric and what not. In any case it does not alter validity of my argument that existence of non-Muslims does not prove that Islam is tolerant. You have been hypocritical.

Now that you mentioned it, I hope you know why there are so many non-Muslims working and owning businesses in the Islamic states. (Which is no proof of Muslim tolerance either )

Personally I believe secular humanism IS a religion of sorts, and therefore it has as much right to interfere with politics as Christianity. Disagree with me if you wish.

“Religion is a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. secular humanism denies supernaturalism.”

I don’t believe supernaturalism defines religion. It denies religious status to “Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” (Claimed in Torasco v. Watkins, 367, U.S. 488 to be religions).

“It is still a belief system, but it takes that stance of belief that something ISN'T true.”

Not according to the Humanist Manifesto, which affirms many things as true. Actually quite a lot of secular humanist writers have defined secular humanism as a religion, a “new religion” that will (paraphrasing) ward of the tyranny of old-school Christianity. Also, in America, almost all secular humanist organisations have “religious exemption” for taxes.

KR: you defended religious belief with alternate religious/faith beliefs. “How is the self-existence of God any more intellectually viable than the self-existence of the universe?”

You also rebut other religious beliefs with philosophical questions “You are prepared to put your trust in a loving god whose ways are so mysterious that he would allow natural disasters to wipe out tens of thousands of his faithful.”

"According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted." Sorry to open a can of worms, but evolution, particularly macroevolution, is strictly a theory not a fact under this definition. However, many base their “moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals” on such a belief. Thus such people also operate under faith. If this theory is false, then technically, people may have allowed the “suspension of one’s critical faculties for a certain “belief”, regardless of any objective evidence”.

“I think if anyone wants you to believe something, they should be able to prove it with objective evidence.” I think faith is more closely defined by trust than wishing. Faith trusts God that He will bring justice to the earth, right the wrongs, yet show mercy to those who have asked Him for forgiveness, based often on a personal subjective revelation of God PLUS an objective analytical study of the veracity and claims of the Bible. And you are free to agree with that or disagree.

I think there is a degree of fundamentalism in secular humanism, that most people don’t practice, that when taken to its logical conclusions can be very dangerous. Thus why I don’t believe S.H. should be hallowed as one step above/something entirely different from every other religion.

N.B. I brought this up because people often get so tired of religious bickering, such as in this freedom of speech vs. freedom not to be offended thing, that they argue for an entirely secular state.