Religion always has and still tries to claim credit, for all sorts of things to justify itself.

Fact is, its not those doing the praying that have made the difference, but the innovators, inventors and freethinkers,
many of whom defied religious dogma, some who were burnt at the stake by the religious.

Lets not kid ourselves. Religion evolved to quell some peoples
anxieties, so it serves a role, just like astrology or fortune tellers. But if examined with any kind of critical scrutiny,
its no more valid then Grimms Fairy Tales.

Western society evolved despite religion, not because of it.

Sellick says:

"Where to from here? It seems that our society will have to learn even harder lessons before it will learn that it has been duped by what has been called “secular rationalism”. This movement will have to produce even more absurdity before we will see it for what it is."

I say: what could be more absurd than religion, especially organised religion?

Eg:

Silly men wearing silly outfits saying silly things, especially about contraceptives, gays and women; groups of men knocking their heads against walls in religious ritual; a belief in heavenly virgins and commiting to memory mediaeval nonsense.

Peter, when will you learn that it is you religious nuts who have been duped, and not the rest of us?

Sellick says:

"Where to from here?"

Sure, currently we are living in a culture where materialism is king and spirituality is lost in a void. But is religion the only provider of spirituality? I don't think so. We are seeing more and more people downsizing and making the sea and treechange. Of course this is a recent trend and we are discussing cultures that took centuries to form. Sadly I don't have a crystal ball to see where we are going but history rarely shoots off on a tangent. I am sure that the current materialistic trends will be reversed, perhaps the destruction of the environment will make it "uncool" or impossible to have too many worldly possesions.

What about the questions:

"The first is the question that asks if there is a God or not. The second is whether one is religious or not."

Has religious debate really boiled down to those two questions? Perhaps it has, unless both parties answer yes and yes to both questions, debate might be limited to "how can you take the bible literally" or "Why are the different protestants squabbling over seemingly trivial points of interpretation?" (I grew up in Holland) These are more information gathering questions than an informed debate created out of believe and conviction.

I think a "religious" debate can only be held among those knowledgable about that particular religion. With the plethora of religions practiced in our heterogenous society encounters between persons with a shared believe will be less like than a generation ago and so such debates will be less common.

That is not to say that debates about values and spirituality will be a thing of the past. With the national identities of the West coming under question after a period of sustained immigration during a time of multiculturalism, I can see plenty of debate about values in the near future.

Similarly the destruction of the environment and the emptiness (decadence?) of materialism without a communist counterpole will lead to plenty of debate on spirituality.

Oops the crystal ball is overheating, time to give it a rest.

Bosk.. clearly quite a bit of research there unless u have a photographic memory :).. well done! *clap*..

You may well have a point on the attitude to classical writings. Not that this deflects from the central import of the Gospel.

There are alway dangers of trying to justify the 'Church' by its works. For every positive, there will be some historical 'cringe' factor negative from a period or place or group which had the wrong idea about true Christianity.

Having said that, it is worth noting the central position of the Gospel in the rise of the civil rights movement in the USA.
Rosa Parks, one of the luminaries of the movement, said of a group of believers at a Bible school in the Appalachian mountains "Finally I've found white people I can trust". The movement was led by...who ?
REV... Dr...Martin Luther King.. 'reverend'.... a Christian pastor.
Not a bad effort when you think about it.

True faith does not discriminate against or ill treat those of another color simply because of that color or race.
Where you see those things happening, you are not seeing true faith. It's as simple as that.

Yabbs.. religion might be about controlling people.. when it becomes organized and 'socially desirable' to be a part of the 'Church', but knowing Christ is not about that. Lets be clear though, in the fellowship of the saints, there is such a thing as discipline, and a reading of the 1st letter of Paul to the Corinthians will show why.

The Christian faith is about knowing Christ, in your own heart, about God reigning as King in you, in your family, in small groups in your homes, and yes, in 'Churches' and in all of that, those who truly know the Lord are 'The Church'.

Never forget, there will be those like Alexanda the coppersmith, who 'did great harm' to Paul, because of vested financial interest in idolatry. We will always face such people who misconstrue true faith to bolster their own agenda's.

As it was in the beginning..is now and ever shall be.

Sells, I’ll try and help out here.

Is there a God? – probably not and most certainly not the christain God.
Am I religious? – you appear to be. I have been but I’m getting better. Putting away childish things so to speak.

Humanity has been duped by theistic irrationality for far too long, maybe about time that secular rationality had a run at it. Later well move onto something better as we learn more about ourselves and the nature of the universe we live in (if the theistic irrationalist’s don’t kill us all first in their squabbles for one 'truth' to be dominant).

R0bert

Peter is wrong in his definition of karma when he states:"ones's fate is determined, no matter how one acts."

Karma is a Sanskrit term for the logic of cause and effect.
Positive karma is the result of positive thoughts, words, or actions; negative karma, the opposite; neutral karma is the result of neutral words, thoughts, or acts. Everything that you do results in an effect.

This principle of cause and effect is well illustrated by Newton's Third Law: "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Unarguable.

Your fate is determined by YOU, not some mythical supernatural deity.

Perhaps Peter would benefit from some study of the teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha.
"Faustino" and "Yabby" appear to have, and gained an appreciation of reality.