Thread: God

>>The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.<<

God should have retorted "cognito ergo sum"!

Sorry, I will stick to the bible then as you dislike my other quotes. You should enjoy these from the good book.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-- I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)

Ahhh how I wish I could do this.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

"Ponder this one on the tree of woe" Thusla Doom

The next day..., Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." ... In the morning..., they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter ... said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree ... has withered!"
-- Mark 11:12-14, 20-21


So why did he look for figs out of season?
So, instead of creating figs out of season he kills the tree. Sounds reasonable.

Now read Matthew 21:18-21 (written later than Mark) as he says the tree dies immediately. Was Matthew unimpressed with a Jesus who'd take an entire day to kill a fig tree?

>>Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-- I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)<<

In some traditional Jewish temples though, men and women are seated separatley during the service.This isn't practised in the Christian churches.

>>If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21<<

Remember the commandment "'You shall not murder". Some thoughts on this passage - http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment...m/ii.ii.ii.htm

>>So why did he look for figs out of season?
So, instead of creating figs out of season he kills the tree. Sounds reasonable.<<

Jesus gave his answer - Matt. 21 "Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done".

>> Jesus gave his answer - Matt. 21 "Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done".

I see your point but you seem to miss mine.
'And through faith mountans are moved'
He says through faith (without doubt) you can kill trees, handy if you are a carpenter in need of some wood.

Why did Jesus not create figs on the tree? (this would have sated his hunger)

The tree did not lack faith.
The tree was not evil.
Why kill it to prove his point?

(I was taught in church in the by the Rev Drysdale that it was "Thou shall not kill" no mention of murder. But I see times, interpretations are changing)

And why the difference in timing (between Matt and Mark) in this divinely inspired work?

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca

>>Why did Jesus not create figs on the tree? (this would have sated his hunger)<<

Well the only thing I can imagine is that he tried to get the tree to grow some figs, but it would not yield to God. So to his disciples he says that those who go against God will not stand up to his power.

>>(I was taught in church in the by the Rev Drysdale that it was "Thou shall not kill" no mention of murder. But I see times, interpretations are changing)<<

As was I, but I think either way, the point is still clear.

>>And why the difference in timing (between Matt and Mark) in this divinely inspired work?<<

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure. Anyone?

>>"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca<<

Seneca had some good one's didn't he? A personal favourite is


"Throughout the whole life one must continue to learn to live and what will amaze you even more, throughout life one must learn to die" - Seneca

"I disagree, this is needed for OUR society to exsist."

You think that our society would never have arrived without religious intervention? Why? Social laws change to fit knowledge of the time but oscillate around core values that are neccesary for society.

"I was watching a special yesterday for example on a modren tribe in africa. If a child shows a bad luck sign in this tribe they throw the child away. Literally, binding the child's limbs if it's old enough to move on it's own they take it out to the savahna and throw it away. This is a society, yet murder is accepted."

Well 'random' murder (which is more along the lines i was thinking)is still not acceptable, core principles wise, social constructs remain the same, they fit their rules in line with current knowledge in this instances a specific significance of luck.

"In ancient Sparta theivery was quite acceptable, especially among young boys, but only if they didn't get caught."

hmm thats an intersting one, acceptable IF they didn't caught? That implies that people's ethics were not judged on their actions. Which........ is weird. Plus again we are not talking any thievery we are talking a specific instance, core values remain the same, Spartan A cannot go into Spartan B's house and nick his prize object, that will not be seen as a morally righteous activity.

"Our society was built by religious men, they took their church very seriousy and read their bible before they started writing laws."

Where do you think the bible laws came from? God? Please. They came from the a variant of current social rules of the time, besides do you not notice all the morals from the bible we totally ignore? Is eating fish on Sunday punishable by draconian means anymore? Do we really think that people who pick up sticks on the Sabbath should be stroned to death?

"We've moved away from this in modren times, but we were started by religious refugees and they brought their values with them"

The values were already there, the values are the fundamental values equal to all cultures, we have dropped the deviations present in "religious ethics", just as we would have dropped the deviations present in the examples you gave, if we had descended from the tribe you spoke of, after two thousand years of 'social evolution' (i don't mean this in the Darwinian way), do you think we would still "throw children away" if they displayed signs of bad luck? If the answer is yes, then why is it we do not stick to the more dubious side of religious ethics?

"As for transplants, wll ok, modren religion's no longer have that kind of power"

Praise the Lord.

"And there is a diffrence between religion and fanaticism. The no major church encouraged people to harm people who preform abortions"

Ever? Or now, that its been beaten back by education?

"Those are called extremists who've morals are out of place. Just like an atheist's morals can be out of whack"

The comparison is false, extremeists morals are "out of place" SPECIFICALLY because they are extremists - they believe with absolute certainty that its everyone elses morals who are out of place because of their religious belief, an atheists morals can be "out of whack", just as anyone elses can but it will have little to do with his atheism.

"You point out AIDS in Africa, well if I'm not mistaking those same priests were telling their populations to remain abstinate until marriage, a solution to aids that is even better than contraception"

................ a better solution.......... also completely useless advice, because the local populations will NOT take it. They won't abstain, but because of the ****ing priests they also won't use contraception. In Africa there is a tremendous battle between scientists trying to get the message across that AIDS is caused by HIV and the local superstition that its a curse. Well right now the superstition is winning, and those priests are making the situation worse.

"I agree, but this conversation is afterall in westren society. Moreover the place that I would argue that religion is most important in those societies that don't have good education"

You are wrong, you are so wrong that it actually hurts. I know, i've seen it, i know what happens in Pakistan, i have heard enough horror stories to last me a life time. Religion is most dangerous in societes without education, thats where the people get stoned to death for premarrital sex, thats where the women get butched in the name of cicumcision, thats where the children get their hands chopped off for stealing food.

"Without that education what's to teach morals?"

Grrrr...... education does not teach morals, society does, our parents teach us morals, or atleast a component, some of it is undoubtably geneticly based on empathic emotional responses. Education teaches facts/understanding.

"First let me point out that you used "muslim laws," laws dictated by the religion"

Yes, i don't see the problem.

"Now as to your point: Absolutely not. That was not Islam, those were fanatics. Moreover, they weren't upset about christianity, they were jealous, and upset about US culture. US culture != christianity. Do you think a priest would approve of Brittany Spears?"

US culture might not equal christianty never the less the point remains IF the US were governed by muslim laws, Sept 11th would never have happened. You can claim "that was not Islam", it's irrelevant it WOULD NOT have happened if there had not been an "Islam", there would be no religious fanatics without religion.

"Why? If they're not hurting anyone who cares?"

Because they are hurting people, would Bin Laden have been anything but a patriotic soldier if his mother had not raised him to be a muslim?

"I beg to differ, it's called natural law, natural secection"

What? Yes........ natural law (with regards to society) == ethics.

"You seem to be basing your fanatical anti-religious beliefs around the assumption that all religion is based in soley illogical beliefs and is absolute"

Religion is based on illogical beliefs, and they are absolute. Because they cannot be debated.

"This is not true of most modren western religion"

Really? So Christianity is not based on illogical beliefs then? Not based on the existence of a supreme all powerfull God? Or the magical ressurection of his son? Riiiiiight.

And you can debate these points can you? -Have you seen the thread? Logic and reason makes no impact on the certainty expressed by religious people.

Now it may not be 100% absolute, there may be hypothetical ways in which you can get through but to all extenses and purposes they are absolute beliefs. Look at Israel, have you heard the interviews with parties on both sides? Tell me again that their beliefs are not absolute.

"Most westren religions promote questioning and self involvement. They encourage teh debate over morals. They have their beliefs yes, but they are thought our and discussed. "

Hmm questioning denies faith. Faith is what is held above all else. Oh there may well be some "enlightened" churches out there (maybe more than i had htought), who encourage questioning presumeably without realising the paradox. And why do they exist? Why IS religion in the West how it is? Because its been pushed back. Do you think the church volenteerly gave up its power? And diluted its beliefs? I think not. Education has pushed religion back, yes its not half as bad as it was but its still has enough power to cripple public scientific education in a fair potion of the US.

"Religion is not that black and white, and in many ways today it is as much a look at values as it is a look at the bible."

Indeed, Orthodox -> Reform -> Liberal -> More liberal -> Religious only in name -> agnostic -> atheist.

Go education go!

"For example, I'll give my "religion." I am a reform jew"

Ah Reform, well you seem more on the reform/liberal boundary to me.

"Since the beginning of time jeudism has valued education over all else, and since around 80 AD (or CE) it has valued questioning and debate just as highly."

Interesting, so what place is left for faith? Is it obsolete in Judaism?

"I consider it a culture just as much as a religion"

And aspects of Judaism ARE very cultural, and as religion gets pushed back the cultural bits become more and more significan and the religious bits become less and less significant.

"It doesn't teach the bible as absolute truth, instead uses it as a way to messure our actions and deturmine ethics and morals."

I have no problem whatsoever with religious texts being used as guides for morality, i have issue with the reinforcement of irrational beliefs by teaching that they are true, it stifles the ability to reason when that is done. You have presumeably read some of this thread have you seen some of the responses i've gotten? I have no doubt that my opponents are reasonably intelligent people but because of the way they have been indocrinated they lack fundmamental skills in reasoning, in realising HOW to think.

"It is not irrational at all, it is well thought our beliefs based on generations of expirence and writings and deep personal beliefs morals and ethics"

As i said i have no problem with the moral teachings involved I have problems with the boring of "how it is" into people's minds. If you keep the ethical/moral guidance without the irrational beliefs about the way things are, you end up with humanism.

"I do not believe in total irrational beliefs"

Do you believe in God? Heaven? Hell, etc. etc?

"but if education is not, or cannot be present I would rather the irrational than a lack of ethics,"

Again the assumption that the two are related, tell me do you think the social rules that govern animals are enforced by education? Then why do you suppose that the social rules that govern us are?

"and religion also often gives people inner stregth and something to believe in."

I'm sure in some instances religion is very comforting (in a white-lie kind of way, but still). But I fail to see how that measures up against the harm it does.

"I'm not going to research and quote studies right now, but if you were to you would easily find the studies that say how spychologically important this is."

I will look for studies, maybe your right, but i'm not convinced untill i see data. If i find any i'll post it.

Go education go!

Do I need to point out that education in america is the direct result of religon. They wanted to teach people how to read so they would be able to read the bible.

How long is a piece of string?

Ok, first thank you mithrandir for your explination

second I'm not going to make serious comment on the passages from the new testament because I am less than versed in it.

In some traditional Jewish temples though, men and women are seated separatley during the service.This isn't practised in the Christian churches.

Part of this is me defending my culture/religion, but I beg to differ. In some christian societies, shaker, omish etc, which are just as extrenely orthodox as most the jewish sects that do this. MOST jewish synagogue's in the US do not practice this anymore, just as churches don't. However, I do question (this is not meant as an attack, just a question), why the catholic church refuses to let women be priests, I'm totally uneducated in the arguement of this, but I question it.


As for killing....

I think there is a big diffrence between "Thou shall not kill" and "Thou shall not murder." Especially where things like self defense, and capital punishment come into play. Those of you that have read enough of my rants no that I do not believe in capital punishment at all, which I'm actually glad to see the pope has spoken out against. However, before I'm utterly jumped, I do believe in defensive warfare and/or self-defense. In the case of nations this does not just mean an attack directly on a country, but when nessicary an attack to defend their intrest. With minimal civilian casualties being a primary goal.

I respect your views very much mithrandir thank you for sharing them.


Cyde -

Well 'random' murder (which is more along the lines i was thinking)is still not acceptable, core principles wise, social constructs remain the same, they fit their rules in line with current knowledge in this instances a specific significance of luck.

This is not a "random" murder to them, there are layed out things that they use, it is part of their culture, thier society.

Sparta -

Yes i realize it was "wierd." But that's how it was. Theivery was valued because it promoted survival skills and "sneakery".

Where do you think the bible laws came from? God? Please....

Personally I agree with you. However they thought it was from God. That's the point I think you're not seeing. It doesn't matter where people learn values from, a religious institution or parents (like I did). The important thing is that they learn it.

Africa -

I agree this isn't a good thing. However, it isn't always bad things. For example, a friend of mine goes to to Latin America every summer to build schools. It isn't all bad.

You wrong, you are so wrong that it actually hurts. I know, i've seen it, i know what happens in Pakistan, i have heard enough horror stories to last em a life time. Religion is most dangerous in societes without education, thats where the people get stoned to death for premarrital sex, thats where the women get butched in the name of cicumcision.

You're right, I'm wrong. Education is best. But religion CAN co-exsist with education. I'll get back to this...

US culture might not equal christianty never the less the point remains IF the US were governed by muslim laws, Sept 11th would never have happened. You can claim "that was not Islam", it's irrelevant it WOULD NOT have happened if there had not been an "Islam", there would be no religious fanatics without religion

Going with your own arguement there would be. You point out that it's not religion it's culture that dictates these laws. Well either way their culture would be there's, they would think it's bad, some would think that it's bad fanatically and....

Religion is based on illogical beliefs, and they are absolute. Because they cannot be debated.

No that's my entire point. I do not promote a religion that encourages people to gollow blindly. That is bad. That leads to tyranny and wars. I agree on that. However, many westren religions that are modernizing. Yes I realize that often means becoming more libral. But in many, not all, but many, modern religious places I have seen discussion and personal inturppertation are encouraged.

I went through 11 years of religious school and I couldn't quote more than the ten commandments. Moreover, I could probably count the times I remember using the Torah on one hand. We didn't discuss those things. We talked about morals and ethics. And we talked about jewish specific things suchs as the holocaust. I actually taught on the holocaust for 2 years, I remember one day I wanted a certain antectdote out of the Torah, I had to go to 3 classrooms to find a copy.

Do you believe in God? Heaven? Hell, etc. etc?

God - I am open to the conncept, but no I do not believe in God in the traditional since of a all powerful being up on a thrown somewhwere, or any bing for that matter.

Hevan - I'd like to. Hell - no. Granted these are based on what I'd like to believe, and I have no "evidence" to back it up. But I know this and oh well.

I promise those psyc studies are out there, I've seen them while flipping through psyc journals.

And finally I'll not that one of the most religious people I know is also one of the smartests. It is possible for the two to co-exsist.

Kermi3

"And Clyde your proof that the world is better off without religion because you have converted people and they thanked you? I"

Not at all, but it is a small pointer. The reason i believe the world would be better off without religion is primarily due to the problems i see it causing around the globe.

"I have been a member of over 5 different churches in my past, and on a WEEKLY basis encountered MANY MANY people who's lives changed dramatically because they recently found the church. The church gave them meaning in their lives that they found nowhere else - especially not from science or society - and now they are the happiest they have ever been."

Hmm, well that may well be true, but there are many nice aspects to church that are not directly do to the religious element, the social aspect can be significant. Many people use religion as a focal point for solving their problems: Does the drug addict who quits do it because he found God, or deso the drug addict who wants to quit go to Church because its seen as one of the ways out.

However I certainly cannot rule out some people getting a little more joy into their lives, but then that can be achieved without the religious side and hence the negative impact religion has. If you take buddism instead of Christianity you see that whilst there are still bogus aspects, the focus is much more on the how to live your life, it offers people some of the benefits of the Western religions without as many of the drawbacks.

You think people find comfort in religions blanket, well, what if those same people were given a copy of "Unweaving the RAinbow" by Richard Dawkins to read instead, where the wonder of the universe is stressed, you commonly portray human existence to be a pitfull waste of time according science, well I don't think that is true, its a just a way of looking at things that is not particularly helpfull.

"So by your logic, its good for atheists to become religious. "

Except that the world suffers.

"What examples do you have to make a claim such that we are better off without religion?"

Life in strongly religious countries, the effect it has had on education, science and medicine now and throughout history. The missuse of all the manpower and money that could be used for much better things. Did I mention life in strongly religious countries? Oh yes i did.

"What examples do you have of society being bad religion is taken away, and then society being good?"

None whatsoever, because clearly life doesnt work like that.

But the fact that you don't seem to realise what religion is doing in huge parts of the world amazes me. Do you know how awfull life in fantical religious states is? Especially for women. Take a look at your history, look at what religion has there too. Yes in its watered down state in Western life it is not as big a threat but it still screws over education, and it still ceements cultural differences, which enhances xenophobia. Thats a bad thing, peoples vs. peoples is a bad thing. It isolates and divides humanity, more of the "us vs. them" attitude that causes every group conflict that has ever existed.

"You are making assumptions as well that because religion was to blame for something, it wouldn't have happened if religion is nonexistant"

..... ok, if someone does X because it says to do X in the *insert holy text*, it seems reasonable to conclude that they wouldn't have done X if there had been no holy text.

"Do you think without religion, society would have embraced evolution or heliocentric solar system? "

Err well, yes. Society listens to people wh oknow what they are talking about untill religion gets involved. People don't doubt Einstein, but they do doubt Darwin. One has a religious aspect one dose not.

Now i suppose you could argue that people would have been unreluctant to give up their view that they were centre to the universe............. but then why did they have that view in the first place............ ching ching........ religion. Atleast thats why it was taken as a given, even after the discovery of other stars.

"It doesn't take religion for somebody to become passionately against the idea of coming from apes or that we aren't the center of the universe"

Really? Know many atheists who don't believe in evolution? Was it atheists who shut Galileo up? Why would they be passionate about the idea we didn't come from apes if they didn't beleive in God? That makes no sense.

I'm sure there would be some kind of residual grumbling about our lack of place in the cosmos but it would have been nothing like the scale it was, if religion had not been present.

"especially when brought up your whole life thinking otherwise"

With any major new revolution about the nature of reality there is a corresponding lag time before its accepted, BUT as i said that is nothing like the scale of what occured in the past due to religion.

"What the problem here is that I agree with you on many points about religion, from it being a crutch, to being illogical, to being unnecessary from an evolutionary standpoint"

Ok.

"But I also strongly believe that I could be wrong"

I don't.

"What science believes now will not be what science believes 500 years from now"

This is a false argument. I have come accross it many times, it is based uppon your specific lack of detail on teh findings of science.

What I mean is you think theory X might one day be overturned BUT since you lack detail on theory X you do not have an accurate way of gauging how likely it being overturned is. For example, you understand the concept of cells, you grasp the evidence supporting their existence so you consider the probability that we've got it wrong and that life isnt made up of cells to be supremely small. On the other hand you don't on the other hand you don't have the same level of understanding for other parts of science so you consider them to be much more up in the air.

Science points starkly away from God. Infact PURE reasoning points starkly away from God via the arguments about evidence and logic that I have already gone into great detail on in this thread.

"Science is not 100% perfect, nor is there proof that god does not exist,"

errrr kangaroo........

"The idea of forcing people to view science as the answer WHEN WE AREN'T 100% SURE THAT IT IS is just wrong to me"

You don't seem to understand that there IS NO ALTERNATIVE. Either you deduce the universe around you using logic or you don't, there is no halfway house. If you logically deduce the nature of reality around you, you have science. Science IS the only answer, and we are 100% sure it is. Thats right we are 100% sure that science is the answer, thats science as in the scientific method, NOT as in the FINDINGS of science.

We can never be "absolutely" certain of what we find, but we can be certain that the method we use is the ONLY one that will get us anywhere near the truth.

Anyway no-one cares about "absolute truths" in real life, do you actually consider the possiblity that you are in a make believe world right now? That my invisible kangroo might be real, that the guy in the nut house might actually be Napolean? If someone asked you "Are you certain you posess two hands" would you reply 'no'? Presumeably not( assuming you do actually have 2 hands that is), most people wouldn't, and yet when it comes to God out pops the "absolute truth" argument.

"If one were to show that religion is completely absolutely no doubt wrong, then I'd maybe go with you. But we aren't sure!"

I know you are not sure, and i suspect if i were in your position I wouldnt be sure either, but i'm not in your position i'm in mine. I can argue with certainty that religion is false, i am less certain that religion is bad, less certain but still pretty sure, because of all the things i've seen and heard that shows its negative impact on the world.

"This is not a "random" murder to them, there are layed out things that they use, it is part of their culture, thier society."

You misunderstood me, that was what i meant, your example is not 'random' murder to them, 'random' murder is still unethical, its still one of the core social values.

"Personally I agree with you. However they thought it was from God. That's the point I think you're not seeing. It doesn't matter where people learn values from, a religious institution or parents (like I did). The important thing is that they learn it."

My point is that they would have "learnt it" anyway, ethics do not exist because of religion they exist because society needs them to exist and society benefits the individual.

"I agree this isn't a good thing. However, it isn't always bad things. For example, a friend of mine goes to to Latin America every summer to build schools. It isn't all bad."

Ok I agree its not all bad, but much of the good done in the name of religion is because of good people, who were good before religion, not all neccesarily but i think a fair portion.

"You're right, I'm wrong. Education is best. But religion CAN co-exsist with education. I'll get back to this..."

Hmmmm coexist you say.......

"Going with your own arguement there would be. You point out that it's not religion it's culture that dictates these laws. Well either way their culture would be there's, they would think it's bad, some would think that it's bad fanatically and...."

Hold on, i don't think culture dictates all laws, i think culture dicates socially inevitable laws. And i don't believe Sept 11th would have occured without reliigon. Do you think it is a coincidence then that Alqueida is a fundamentalist Muslim movement? That it might just as well have been a non-religious organisation? I find that very hard to believe.

Bin Laden went nuts when US forces used Saudi Arabia as a a miltary base, why did he go nuts? Because its the "holy land". Suicide bombers are lot easier to come by if people believe that the instant you die you will get beamed up to heaven with your 72 virgin brides await you.

"No that's my entire point. I do not promote a religion that encourages people to gollow blindly. That is bad"

Ok we agree there then.

"However, many westren religions that are modernizing. Yes I realize that often means becoming more libral. But in many, not all, but many, modern religious places I have seen discussion and personal inturppertation are encouraged."

I see this as education pushing back religion. I see religious views as incompatible with education so, inorder to stay around religion has to make its beliefs much more vague encourage different interpretations etc. BUT there is always cut off point, for example take man's origins the hardline view is that man turned up 6000 years ago in the form of Adam and Eve, well that is just getting hammered by education, so what now? Well first the interpretation was bent to fit "guided" evolution, and even that is pushing it, the Catholic church's official position is that evolution occured and that when we got to man God came in and inserted a soul. Well that also incompatiable and will eventually get pushed back. So what happens education pushes as far as it can? Well i see no room for religion, i think you disagree with me here, i will have to read on and see

"I went through 11 years of religious school and I couldn't quote more than the ten commandments"

I find that a positive sign, although that may be more to do with you personally and your experiences with religion, or a particular resistance to indocrination.

"Moreover, I could probably count the times I remember using the Torah on one hand. We didn't discuss those things. We talked about morals and ethics."

That sounds good to me, but it seems to be religion only in name, not in anything else. My best friend in Jewish, he is also a Reform, and at his synagogue they seemed to talk about everything in reference to God i had to sit through TWO 8 million hour long barmitzvahs. (and they make you stand too!)

"And we talked about jewish specific things suchs as the holocaust. I actually taught on the holocaust for 2 years, I remember one day I wanted a certain antectdote out of the Torah, I had to go to 3 classrooms to find a copy"

See thats what i think will happen, just as in your example, the cultural aspects, the history, ethics, become more and more prominant, the God side becomes less and less, so what are we left with? Social and historical studies within a community, thats it, you cease to have a religion at all, you have kepty the good parts and removed the bad. Thats fine, thats great, i want that to happen. I am not fighting ethical teaching or historical teaching of key events in a people's history, i'm fighting the formation of irrational beliefs about the world and how it works.

"And finally I'll not that one of the most religious people I know is also one of the smartests. It is possible for the two to co-exsist."

Oh they can certainly exist, BUT that is because of how people's minds work, people can section things off, and live with paradoxes. I have seen it so many times, intelligent people, who say "yes i believe in evolution", "yes i believe in Adam and Eve", and i'm like "eh!?", and they palm something off that really does make sense and run away from the conversation. The reason intelligent people can believe in irrational concepts is because they have sectioned off that part of their mind.

Furthermore intelligence, is a very broad term, someone can be truly gifted at mathematics but not be a great logical thinker, likewise great programmers can be fiendinshly illogical. Its because they have learnt how to apply rules in a given situation and they can do that very well, but outside that situation they can be lost.

The vast majority of intelligent religious people, have been brought up with religion, its part of their life, and its stays with them, separated from apparent contradictions.

I went to a talk by a biochemistry proffessor at my local church, he was arguing for christianity, but his arguments were SO unbelieveably weak, i was shocked. And yet he is clearly an intelligent person, a scientist in fact, but just like our illogical mathematician he is only applying his scientific principles in one place, whether it is because he has sectioned off religion or because has never realised what science means beyond his specific discipline, he applies the principles of science to his biochemistry and not to anything else.

Actually it always amazes me how many people on science courses many of whom go on into real science never make the leap that what they are studying and the real world are one and the same, oh they may know it somewhere in the back of their heads but never seems to impact their way thinking.

The number of people in the National Academy of Sciences, who believe in God is down to 7%. Now how many of that 7 are converts who reasoned out their belief and how many are great minds who have been brought up with religion and sectioned it off?

Education and religion might not be incompatible in a given persons head, but on the long term over many generations they are, and education will win the day.