Dear Foxy,

<<I would define religion as a system of communally shared
beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some
sacred, supernatural realm.>>

This indeed is how religion is commonly viewed from a secular perspective.
No wonder that without the actual religious experience, what is left is to watch and document the REFLECTION of religion on the world and society and report that reflection as if it were the source.

This definition also ignores the possibility of personal religions which are shared by no community, as well as religions that do not involve beliefs and/or rituals - merely because the above do not leave a social reflection behind.

Take Suseonline, saying:

<<As a nurse, I frequently get told I am an angel, so I must be a 'good' atheist>>

Well, she may well be very religious, more than myself - perhaps by her dedicated devotion to her patients she is approaching God in leaps and bounds without even having to hold any formal belief.

---

Dear Is Mise,

<<A good definition of religion is "A way of life".>>

So is alcoholism, but I don't think you would consider it a religion...

---

Dear Trevor,

<<the consistant themes of theistic religions are their claims to knowledge and certainty of truths, not possibilities, beyond external testing or experience.>>

That assumes that theism implies religion. Theism is a religious technique, a wonderful one in fact, especially for beginners, but it doesn't automatically renders the believer religious and it is not meant to replace science.

Science will continue to explain the world and if as Suseonline mentiones, "there are still gaps in our understanding that science can never fill", then it could just be a matter of time till it does.

The religious question, rather, is "why would I want to know about the world, why should I place any importance on it". The religious choice is to ignore the distracting temptations of the world and turn inward towards God instead.

"Dear Is Mise,

<<A good definition of religion is "A way of life".>>

So is alcoholism, but I don't think you would consider it a religion..."

Why not?

It has it's rituals, numerous followers, gods and definite 'out of life' experiences.

May May,

You said,"In a free, modern and democratic society every person has the absolute human right to follow any religion, any belief and any philosophy they choose. They have the right to proselytise, preach, educate and influence"

No one in such a society has any absolute human right to follow any religion etc., you are making a statement as fact that is demonstrably wrong.

ConservativeHippie, I am not a believer in god, simp,y because I fail to accept than if such a being exists, that they could be so cruel toward their fellow man, especially innocent children.

Having said that, I have no problem with anyone who beliefs in, or worships such a being, provided they show me the same respect they are seeking themselves. That being the freedom to actively believe, or disbelieve, without being criticized for their beliefs.

I do however strongly object to any form of god/belief that promots violence to others and, I say to anyone from that side, we are a peace loving nation and that is not welcome here.

'A better methodology is to ensure that such critiques take place within a general program of promoting reason. '

ConservativeHippie

It is not possible to present atheism and reason in the same breath. Why do you think that 'intelligent ' men and women say with a straight face that the Creation or order we see everywhere came from chaos. They may as well believe in fairies. Instead they belligerently sprout their nonsense and scoff at people speaking reason. The very people who clainm their are no absolutes always insist they are absolutely right. There is no reasoning in atheism just man made dogmas which deceive people into believeing they will never have to give account for their lives.

Imagine how indignant runner would have been if I had written what runner himself just wrote ---

"It is not possible to present Christianity and reason in the same breath. Why do you think that 'intelligent' men and women say with a straight face that the creation and order we see everywhere came from an Invisible Sky Daddy. They may as well believe in fairies. Instead they belligerently sprout their nonsense and scoff at people speaking reason. The very people who clainm (sic) their (sic) are religious absolutes always insist they are absolutely right. There is no reasoning in Christianity, just man made dogmas which deceive people into believing they will have to give account for their lives to a mythical and Invisible Sky Daddy."

Maybe runner needs to examine his morality and delve more deeply into his own hatreds and his own Christianity. Yes, if an atheist had written what runner just wrote, but from an opposite perspective to runner, runner would be the FIRST to complain and whinge.

Now onto the strange reply from Is Mise. Do you really believe a Catholic possesses no right to practice Catholicism in the free and democratic society of Australia? Seems so, according to what you just wrote "No one in such a society (free, modern and democratic) has any absolute right to follow any religion". Or are you just trying to be silly, with juvenile 'word play'?