West, it seems we are dancing across a few contentions here. We are also switching between the generic and specific which can cloud the issue.

To risk another tangent: It is a usual assumption to believe that we have advanced as a species and that we have become more intelligent and more able, etc, and that the races and civilisations of the past are inferior or not as developed as we are, ie. less evolved (as the equation of evolution implies steady forward progress).
I do not necessarily dispute this, but it is a common assumption taken against religion , eg. those primitives back then didn't know what we know now and therefore they were mistaken and their beliefs were just superstitions.
I do think we can be a little full of ourselves sometimes. There are certain fields where one might wonder if we are actually advancing, such as the arts. And it is also true that knowledge and technology can be forgotten or lost or altered to become ineffective.

Getting back to claims, the act of making a claim should be differentiated from what the claim is being used for. These are two different matters.
You are now arguing against "claim-pushing", ie using some method to get others to accept a claim or belief, regardless if the facts are lacking. You have no argument from me on that one. I dislike authoritarianism as well as propaganda, manipulative advertising, and other such devices.

"Christian fundamentalism ... The MOST Christian devoted to modes of physical violence"
I'm not making the claims that you are refuting here, however, this is clearly slanted evidence.
It could also be argued that fundamentalism in any form is a corruption of religion not an extreme version of it - A destructive element cloaked in religious dogma.

"There is something suspect about a person who needs external moral guidence in order to not harm others"
So did you not learn anything from your parents on "right" behaviour?

Donnie I am not suggesting as far as religion or superstition we have advanced. I would contend we have stayed the same. Religion exists devoid of gained wisdom, devoid of progress. Yes stories and characters change and the type of political leadership which defines religion and spirituality changes but all religious beliefs are only a collection of fictitious stories which people happen to decide to believe to satisfy superstitious fears justify ideas of social hierarchies and reinforced through occult rituals . From the beginning religion was then only a collection of stories, religion has not changed. I stand by my position there is no justifiable ‘excuse’ for the claim of god and soul.

The ritualistic aspect of religion is an obvious clue to religions relationship with the neurosis, paranoia and fear and suggests the issues are not to do with magic or supernatural ideas but something psychological.

The fundamentalist Christian is the most Christian, the fundamentalist any religion is the most religious because they are totally immersing themselves in the ideology presented to them in religious dogma. Something Moslems and Christians like Kevin Rudd would be to afraid to accept. The fundamentalist encapsulates the totality of expression, the height that the given religion offers. If it means violence or slavery, misogyny, or any crime it is because those are the height that ideology will attain. It is no coincidence that fundamentalist Christians in the U.S are war like and 500 years ago Europe was wracked by sectarian violence, or those suicide bombers in Iraq are willing to kill and be killed for god and Janissaries 500 years ago were willing to give their lives to become human plugs in broken fortress walls. Violence is impossible by people who follow religions of peace (which have existed smattered around the globe).

How many adults have to ring their parents for moral guidance? Even if some do, do they do it often and do they expect others to ring their parent? I believe I probably have more refined values than my parents who are a little archaic in their views.

waterboy,

Happy to discuss more specific matters, but you need first to show me, where I (and a legion of historians) are wrong. Can but wont introduce new subject matter until you justify the inaccuracies you claim for 1~5, above. We need take this first step to calebrate at least some histories, you refute and I in my ignorance believe. One of us is wrong about 1~5.

Oliver,

Fermicus Maternus, in the 4th Century, described a group of Pagan religions being "religions with mysteries.." which were dualistic in nature believing that the soul was liberated from the body in death and thereafter persisted independently of any physical body. Furthermore, salvation was achieved through initiation into the truths or 'mysteries' of the respective religions.

Christianity affirms the resurrection of the body and is not dualistic in the sense of the mystery religions or in any sense. Salvation, in Christianity, is an action of God extended to all and not limited to the 'initiated few', certainly not achieved by any sort of initiation into secret knowledge or indeed by any particular personal effort. To be sure, there are Christians, and plenty of them, who do hold to a flesh/spirit dualism but this is not orthodox Christian Doctrine and to make the distinction between Christianity and the Mystery Religions very clear, in Christianity their divergence from orthodoxy does not preclude them from salvation.

While you choose to argue from similarity to identity, it is equally valid to argue from difference to non-identity. So, I say, along with Fermicus, who first classified the mystery religions, that Christianity is not a mystery religion.

West, I agree that religions are used for many different purposes, get mixed up with politics, get misinterpreted, get embelished, etc. I don't think religions are meant to be just collections of stories. The stories (parables) are meant to be mediums for "truth". If truth is unchanging then it stands to reason that a religion built on truth should not change.
I am suggesting, or rather speculating, that religions may have deteriorated from truth as opposed to your assertion that they evolve from fiction. I am not presenting this as fact, merely something to consider.

Perhaps ritualism is a clue to something psychological, but the rituals of religion are separate to the beliefs of relgion. One may hold religious beliefs and engage in none of the rituals.

Catholic Nuns are more fundamentalist than right-wing Christians. I don't remember Mother Theresa advocating war. Your generalisation doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

The point about parents is that everyone gets external moral guidance at one stage or another. It doesn't make a person "suspect", perhaps not everyone is born with the "good morals" gene.
Not all followers of religion are constantly in need of repeated moral guidance anyway. That's another generalisation. Usually they have their moral code already, the religion may help refine it, but it would not be the sole or even the main reason they follow the religion.

The Mother Theresa we know of is a parody created by the celebrity cult of the post war Vatican which had to distance itself from its alliance with fascism during the war. Certainly there are many who knew her who advises us she was no angel but who knows when truth has been muddied by celebrity cultism?

Nuns are directly based on the Vestal Virgins, priestesses of Vesta who despite their purity had many a scandal during their era. Like nuns they were slaves to a cult of superstition. The Vestal priestesses were kept in strict check by Roman law. Catholic nuns are famed for their child abuse and there has been no Catholic run orphanage or Catholic school which has escaped the test of time and has never had an instance of Child abuse. The question then is why is there a link between religion and cruelty, especially monotheism and other cults which worship humanesque deities?

Most likely it boils down to the type of personality which is attracted to superstition. The religious are obsessed with happiness, mortality and the righteousness of their own beliefs. A nun is a good example because she devotes HERSELF to HER god. Helping others can be done any time anywhere by anybody it does not take devotion to god to help others, helping others is an excuse to distract that the nuns agenda is purely selfishness. This drags god back to the ego, not only does god share the believers ideals, and looks out for the believers best interests but is limited by the believers imagination.

God is ego but dogma, prayer , miracles, religion , scripture is a game like dungeons and dragons. The parables in the Bible for example are not truth; they are meaningless unless they are attributed as meaning something by the reader. Again the meaning of Bible stories lead back to the ego. By ego I mean self worship here.

It is obvious that the religious is so self obsessed that it is impossible for them to recognise this self worship.