…Continued

<<What modernism does is to attach a completely new meaning to an old word which is dear to the hearts of a significant section of the population and is still in active and meaningful use amongst them.>>

Then why don’t you just say, “That’s not what religion means to me”? Once again, there’s a difference between what religion is and what it means to someone. But in your attempts to protect religion from all criticism (e.g. your nonsensical “God does not exist; there is nothing but God” claim), you’ve overlooked this and try to re-define religion while telling everyone else that they’re wrong. You can have your definition of religion and the rest of us can call it “schmeligion”, if you want. It makes no difference. The criticisms still stand or fall on their own merit. This is why your attempts to re-define religion are futile.

<<The question unfairly assumes that the explanations of scripture are irrational…>>

You’re free to give a rational explanation if you'd like. In fact, doing so would answer my question, so there’s nothing unfair there at all.

<<…while the neurological explanation, that which claims that one's experiences are derived from the brain, is rational: the brain is a fine physical mechanism, but there are billions of those just on this planet. Why should you have an experience because some electrical-current or biochemical reaction occurs in one of them, but not in the others?>>

What you’ve said here actually make no sense at all. Nor does it appear to come close to answering my question, or challenging its validity. What relevance do other people’s brains have?

<<But it's not true that everyone else agreed so. That agreement is essentially between those who believe that religion doesn't exist…>>

Not in my experience. Theist or atheist, I have never had difficulty coming to an agreement on the definition of ‘religion’. Such a universal understanding of the definition of ‘religion’ has spawned the whole 'Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus' thing. It’s also why some Christians will claim that Christianity is not ‘a religion’ but ‘the truth’.

Actually Yuyutsu, there’s something I should probably add to the following to strengthen my point there:

“You can have your definition of religion and the rest of us can call it “schmeligion”, if you want. It makes no difference. The criticisms still stand or fall on their own merit. This is why your attempts to re-define religion are futile.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197839)

What I should also add - to demonstrate the futility of re-defining ‘religion’ - is that both religion and schmeligion cannot be divorced simply by accepting the validity of what it is that you refer to when you say “religion”. This is because it would still have been the process of religion that helped form the thousands of schmeligions (warts ‘n’ all) throughout the ages.

That schmeligion can have so many disastrous results, is, in part, due to the inability of the god, in which the process of religion attempts to come closer to, to adequately convey to us the ideal methods of coming closer to it (that which is not discernible from brain mal-function and neurological misfiring is not adequate). Therefore, religion still carries with it the baggage that schmeligion brings it.

If it weren’t for the existence of religion, there would be no schmeligion and people would have one less reason to fight.

It is for these reasons that your re-defining of religion is futile and does not achieve the avoidance of criticism that you hope for it to achieve.

The following link may be of interest:

http://theconversation.com/its-not-just-islam-most-religions-are-discriminatory-13817

Some of the points the link makes are as follows:

"Religion is a set of beliefs that people either reject or
accept and in a democratic society such as ours it should
not be acceptable to point to any religion as the basis of
prejudice and discrimination...what is unacceptable is that
the critics ignore the behaviour of other religions and
concentrate on attacking Muslims because this plays well
in the current political environment."

"...as soon as religions start trying to impose their
views on non-believers they have crossed the line that makes
a truly democratic and liberal society possible, but while
this is seized upon where Muslims are concerned, it is
largely ignored when Chritians and others do the same."

Quantum physicists agree there are several planes that stuff is happening, possibly 10 or 11 and even possibly an infinite number. We live in one of those planes/realities but are influenced and affected by the others we cannot see, taste, touch or smell. In this reality, made up of atoms and subatomic particle there is more empty space than there is matter, yet we experience the world around us as though its solid.

We share the same reality and yet often see and experience it completely differently. Influences that effect me don't necessarily effect everyone, and visa versa.

Not being able to perceive or scientifically prove something doesn't mean its doesn't exist. Take acupuncture as an example, Western science still doesn't recognise the medians on which the acupuncturist treats, but it does work.

There is so much unknown that it is very narrow minded refute the existence of things we don't believe or want to believe, such as a divine force at work.

David f,

You said " With the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire the Dark Ages settled on Europe."

You don't seem to realize that the term "Dark Ages" has no basis in fact as you used it and the term is no longer used by any serious historians because there was no "Dark Ages".

Hippie wrote, "not being able to perceive or scientifically prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist".

It also doesn't mean it DOES exist. Hippie, using your exact same logic it also means you must think it's "possible" that a three headed, undetectable, invisible, supernatural, floating Pink Fairy is living in my garden" ... after all "not being able to scientifically prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist" according to you. That's your intellectual justification for the "possibility" of the existence of gods, or your specific one god thingy.

It's interesting and revealing, that you also wrote you consider people who don't share *YOUR* beliefs about what you call a divine force, to be narrow minded. That says a lot about you, not them.