>> Continued from above…

For a child – or indeed an ostrich – this process of wilful deception is perhaps excusable. But for a full-grown adult, it is really quite pathetic. Worse still, it is nihilistic, and likely only to promote an attitude that advocates running from rather than addressing problems at their core. Many of the world’s destitute choose to deceive themselves this way; they turn to the otherworldly in order to give some kind of meaning to the suffering they are forced to endure. However, the tragic flaw with this head in the sand approach is that the initial problem that pushes people away from the worldly in the first place is never dealt with.

Unless the great problems of existence are dealt with HONESTLY, and at their core, they will never be overcome; the ostrich will surely be eaten by its predator, those living in destitution will do so for longer, and those struggling with the meaninglessness of existence will never find themselves in a position of being truly comfortable in affirming life for what it is. The pious will never develop practical-philosophical worldly capacity to deal with life’s difficulties – for they will always be preoccupied with the nihilistic vocation of creating and affirming otherworldly stories that provide them with the comfort blanket that their inner-child – or inner-ostrich – desires.

To this I say, be brave my friends! For it is surely time to relinquish your comfort blankets, give up your childish stories, affirm life and all that worldly, earthly existence has to offer, and live like the adults you are!

I don't have a problem with what anyone believes, whether you be a christian who believes in miracles, a christian who doesn't, a muslim, a buddhist or a passionate believer in the super flying spaghetti monster. If it makes sense to you, go ahead and worship it.
However, where I part company with all religions is when they try to tell all humanity - whether a follower of their brand or not - how they should live and what they should think. I have also always had a problem with the fact that all religions seem to have a problem with women being allowed to exercise their full humanity without being controlled by some pack of old (usually) men telling them how they should live, dress and behave.
As an unbeliever, I am perfectly happy for believers to follow any old rules they like, however irrational and strange they may seem to me. Why does it seem to be so hard for many believers to accord the same freedom to me? No athiests have ever gone around beating young women on the ankles with canes because they think they're not dressed modestly enough. Conversely, I don't approve of athiests banning women from wearing headscarves - argue with them by all means, but freedom for the unbeliever has to mean freedom for the believer too. Unbelievers haven't often held serious debates on whether women are fully human, either, or banned them from standing in front of an altar, or called them unclean or polluted. Whenever that happens there is some sort of religion at the bottom of it. Either god is a hoary old mysogynist, or deity's really are man-made.

I wonder how many people really believe, or just need to believe.

How many more are just participating in Pascal's Wager without even knowing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Rebuttals

How many more think that this is the only way you can hope to "know the unknowable" and make sense of the universe.

From my experience, going to a church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

Arguments, so many well constructed arguments....

Like Tommy Teddy said, "A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument"

AnthonyMarinac, you raise an interesting point – “I wonder though whether you still have a religion once you remove the supernatural bits? Or do you have a philosophy?”

Some “religions” have few if any supernatural embellishments (Confucianism, some types of Buddhism).

Many secular political philosophies operate a lot like religions (Marxism, the more extreme forms of environmentalism, dare one say Dawkins and his memes), with doctrines, prophetic and apocalyptic predictions and warnings, an evangelical and redemptionist message and scant tolerance for heretics.

Quite a few self-describing Christians argue that Jesus’ message was mainly anti-religious, and that authentic Christianity is in fact a rebuttal of religion as commonly understood (including supernaturalism, the corrupt, controlling and self-serving tendencies of the church as institution, exclusivism etc).

Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously called for “religionless Christianity.”

So, the semantic questions remain important - this time, how do we define a religion: as a set of ideas and beliefs about God, as faith in the supernatural and miraculous, as an institution promoting a set of beliefs (and its own self-interest along the way)?

By the definition of many on this forum – both self-described Christians and non-belieivers – I don’t qualify as a Christian. As Rache puts it so succinctly, the fact I go to church (almost) every week doesn’t make me one, if I don't believe all the things Christians are supposed to believe.

Yet I think the evolution from naive and literal faith to something broader (if fuzzier) is an important part of spiritual growth. Fowler famously (though, in my view, rather mechanistically) identified common stages of faith development that begin with literalism but progress and can lead ultimately to what he describes as universalising faith, though many adults get stuck in the earlier, more literal stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stages_of_faith_development

After a certain point in this process, whether this is “religion” or “philosophy” maybe doesn’t matter so much.

How about this? Religion is an ego-based way of being. It imposes protocols to sustain a system to distinguish the 'saved' from the "unsaved'. Christianity creates an 'it' out of god which is embelished with some little fables and corruptions of what all other religions point to but often without the harshness of Christianity (and Islam).

The bible is a corruption. Irenaeus in 180 AD took out any bits that undermined the system (the "church") such as the Gospel of Judas (which gave people direct access to the light). Today Christianity sits as an aberant religion underpinned by a uncontestable book (one is a heretic if one should question that book.)

There is only god. Burn the bible, koran and torah and the world would be seen as heaven for the soul.