So, lets throw out religion

[Cartman]

Long, but I would truly enjoy some critical, thoughtful and honest feedback.

Religion is an epistemology based primarily upon faith. One cannot prove that God exists, what God’s designs actually are or whether anyone interprets or promotes them properly. This is problematic, but I can accept that we all place a measure of faith in science too. Few of us have actually looked at molecules or know the precise physics involved in flight etc. There is, however, one tremendous difference between the two. Science does not pretend to “prove” anything per se, truth is rarely declared or accepted. This is because scientific reasoning is subject to scrutiny; better explanations accepted and insufficient explanations refuted as knowledge continues to accumulate. Self-criticism is built/forced into this form of knowing and if ever demonstrated to be inadequate relative to another way of thinking, it will perish.

Alternatively, religion seems to have a “take it or leave it” faith approach that even many of the devout find problematic and decide to “leave it”. For example, only 13% of Canadians claim to have no religious preference, 80% do believe in God and many desire rites of passage (marriage, burial etc), yet only 49% of self-identified religious people pray once a week or more, and only 21% of Canadians claim that religion is “very important to them”. As well, attendance at religious services has been down markedly since the 1960's for most religions in Canada. Thus, it seems to me that even the religiously inspired find something wrong with the “product” as offered by various churches. The ideas sell, but few people are buying the end product which costs relatively little. For me, this is analogous to many wanting phone services, but being very unhappy with any phone service provider even if the prices are quite low. Perhaps the providers have formed an unwanted cartel!

Nevertheless, many North American “provider(s)” demand a right to force their product on everyone (consumers); even those who do not want it, especially from the current provider or cartel member. Some church leaders proclaim a right to expand their beliefs of faith onto others in a democratic, civil society. For example, the Catholic church claims a measure of authority (protection and control) over people regardless of national boundary. After all, we are God’s children wherever we live. But, some people do not believe in God (do not want the product) and it seems fewer (even the religious) believe in church leadership (the service providers in the cartel). Yet, many church leaders believe that they should be able to dictate the terms of CIVIL marriage. This is illogical, hypocritical and oppressive in my opinion.

Lastly, it seems strange to me that some of the same folks on this forum who proclaim that government intervention into their lives is essentially oppressive (right-wingers against taxes for services), also maintain that the church has every right to dictate the terms of civil marriage (i.e. only men, women and God) for every Canadian, even those who may not want this particular service or interpretation. If you are against the government dictating terms of service to you and against taxes being levied or not based upon your marital status, then how can you accept religion influencing something to which you are opposed? Have you not made a pact with the evil you denounce? How can you reconcile this obvious and glaring contradiction? At least with government, one has some influence in decision-making even if it is only in the form of voting, lobbying etc. You do not have the same rights under most religion unless you decide to split the congregation and form your own religion. Is this not how the Church of England was formed?

[H3X0r]

I like the part about how science dosn't try to prove anything, and how it is constantly under scrutiny. Good point, though not neccesarily true. It's true that throughout history science has made claims towards what the truth is, and then later it is found that the world actually is round, that germs and bacteria do egsist, that you can fly faster than sound, etc. You think we would have figured out by now that we should never make assumptions like that, but it continues.

I just saw on a program the other day that traveling faster than the speed of light was impossible, that you couldn't do it. I also read about how somebody accelerated a particle of light really fast, and somehow proved that time paradox couldn't egsist (I don't remember the details, it was very confusing and way over my head.) Maybe I'm just being argumentive, but I have noticed alot of claims towards absolute truth in science.

[Hugo]

scientific reasoning is subject to scrutiny; better explanations accepted and insufficient explanations refuted as knowledge continues to accumulate. Self-criticism is built/forced into this form of knowing and if ever demonstrated to be inadequate relative to another way of thinking, it will perish.

This isn't true. History is full of nonsense put forward in the name of science, all of it absolute bunk and yet much of it accepted with blind, quasi-religious faith. For instance, Galileo himself was unable to come up with a theory that explained the behaviour of comets in Copernican astronomy, so he claimed that they were tricks of the eye (Galileo had seen one comet in his entire life, as a young boy). The scientific method of the Jesuit astronomers who disagreed with him was far better, and yet Galileo is remembered as the great scientist and the Jesuits as fraudulent fools despite the fact that Galileo was, demonstrably, a crank.

Consider medicine and all the quackery we have endured over the centuries: bleeding, leeches, humours, miasmas, and so forth. In all these cases, "science" was wrong, and yet the scientists completely failed to follow scientific method and used wholly unscientific methods to try and discredit those who thought differently. They acted more like religious fanatics than scientists as you think of them. This kind of stuff does continue in the present day. Scientists are quite attached to their pet theories, and often don't follow scientific method in trying to dismiss competitive theories. They are as proud and as fallible as the rest of us.

This is probably also due not just to pride but to the psychological phenomenon of authority figures. Countless studies have shown that people are far more likely to do something or accept a theory if it comes from an authority figure: a priest, a teacher, a scientist, a judge. In this respect, science is really no different from religion.

So, let's not fraudulently ascribe virtue to science and vice to religion. There's really not a lot between them in that regard. Science and religion both have had their fair share of great minds and genuine thinkers and their fair share of cranks and frauds.

Lastly, it seems strange to me that some of the same folks on this forum who proclaim that government intervention into their lives is essentially oppressive (right-wingers against taxes for services), also maintain that the church has every right to dictate the terms of civil marriage (i.e. only men, women and God) for every Canadian, even those who may not want this particular service or interpretation.

It seems strange to me too, and when the actual teachings of Jesus are taken into account it also seems profoundly anti-Christian.

[Cartman]

So, let's not fraudulently ascribe virtue to science and vice to religion. There's really not a lot between them in that regard. Science and religion both have had their fair share of great minds and genuine thinkers and their fair share of cranks and frauds.

I would agree with much of the above. In fact, I was thinking that science has given us the enhanced ability to kill and even destroy the earth with ease. My intent though was less to state the perfection and virtue of science, as it was to suggest that religion cannot really be questioned or changed by followers unless they threaten to leave and form a new service provider.

I felt stifled when I went to church and could not question the interpretations given by the church leader.

Something is wrong with religion though because people are not very dedicated it seems. They want leaders to marry and bury them, but do not feel obligated to attend regularly. I was really shocked to hear of the United Church asking for help from the CAW because of the way they are treated. On the other hand, at least they did not see fit to go to the Teamsters!

[The Terrible Sweal]

Maybe I'm just being argumentive, but I have noticed alot of claims towards absolute truth in science.

Science can't make claims of absolute truth. But what persons may claim as science is not the fault of science. If you encountered someone making such a claim and claiming it was scientific then that person's claim was fallacious. But this is not a flaw with science, it is a flaw of the claimant.

[Hugo]

Science can't make claims of absolute truth. But what persons may claim as science is not the fault of science.

The problem, most likely, is human nature. Scientists are about as likely to be perfectly rational and scientific as Christians are to be fully conformant with the teachings of Jesus, i.e. not very. Basically, scientists aren't generally scientific and Christians aren't generally Christian.

It isn't the case that either religion or science (as they are practiced) are purely intellectual pursuits. Theologians and scientists have much more riding on their theories, paychecks and reputation to name a couple. If a Catholic says, "I was wrong" he risks excommunication (and unemployment, if he was a priest). If a scientist says, "I was wrong" he risks his standing amongst his peers and his job at whatever research facility he works for (people don't like to employ researchers who aren't even confident of their own theories and findings).

But this is not a flaw with science, it is a flaw of the claimant.

Science as an intellectual discipline can be applied to religion and metaphysical ideas as well. The thing to remember is that religion, as a theory, is inherently unproveable either way. But this is no reason why a scientific approach cannot be taken to it, as it often has been.

I felt stifled when I went to church and could not question the interpretations given by the church leader.

This is a problem. Churches aren't supposed to have leaders. Why would you need an intermediary between you and an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being?

[Tawasakm]

I may have misunderstood your first post but I was under the impression that you asked everyone for some alternatives for a society to egsist without religion, but still persued morality and ethics in the same way thay we wish everyone did here, only defining them through rational and scientific thought. Was I right? That was how you said the hypothetical society functioned correct?

Well what I was asking for (in my mind at least) came in two stages. The first was to identify a function which religion provided that you think this society would still need. The second was to figure out a way this would be met with a rational/scientific system which relied on quantifiable evidence. I suppose my real objection to the Vulcans came from the presupposition that humans would need to conciously divorce emotion from all thought/action/being.

You also said this:

Clifford A. Beckover wrote in his book "The Egsistence of God and the Science of Omnisciene," that atheism was defined as a skeptic attitude toward the possible egsistence of God. An Atheist might tell you he dosn't believe in God because you can't prove he egsists. But by mirroring that same logic, by putting faith in the same school of skepticism but looking at it in a different way, one could say that as much as you can't prove that he's real you can't prove that he isn't real. Both points have no evidence, you can't support one side more than the other.

While I accede to the internal logic of this argument I have, personally, always objected to it. If there is no quantifiable evidence for the existence of a thing (especially after thousands of years) then it seems more rational to not believe in it. If I told you there was a completely invisible (undetectable in every way save by faith in its existence) unicorn living in the sky above my house it would be more rational for you to disbelieve its existence. I think the same argument holds true for the existence of God. If I cannot see, touch, hear, taste or smell God then it must be more rational not to believe in its existence then it is to believe in it. If you can produce to me real quantifiable evidence in Gods existence then I will believe - that is only rational. The same must hold true for the hypothetical society. To do otherwise would be to believe in every flight of fantasy possible.

Hugo,

This isn't true. History is full of nonsense put forward in the name of science, all of it absolute bunk and yet much of it accepted with blind, quasi-religious faith. For instance, Galileo himself was unable to come up with a theory that explained the behaviour of comets in Copernican astronomy, so he claimed that they were tricks of the eye (Galileo had seen one comet in his entire life, as a young boy). The scientific method of the Jesuit astronomers who disagreed with him was far better, and yet Galileo is remembered as the great scientist and the Jesuits as fraudulent fools despite the fact that Galileo was, demonstrably, a crank.

All true. For this society I am advocating the methodology of science rather then advocating the entire history of science. I think you are raising a good point here because it is one of the central problems this society would face. How to ensure that the methodology is actually adhered to by fallible humans. However science is self-renewing - it monitors itself by publishing reports (thereby allowing others to critique), and constantly seeking new information and updating. Sooner or later incorrect information will be corrected.

I'd like to return to the hypothetical and ask anyone if there is something religion is providing that will leave this society lacking when it is removed. I haven't yet seen anyone come up with anything that is substantive.

I will return to this in more detail later. If I really could design a society it would be one in which I had more time (moan moan moan).

PS. Perhaps I am being needlessly picky but I'm pretty sure that the only way to spell "egsist" correctly is as "exist".

[Tawasakm]

It seems that nobody is putting up any arguments that religion provides necessary functions in society that cannot be met in other ways. If there are no arguments then I declare my hypothetical society a complete success.

On the basis of that success I will draw the following conclusion: religion is completely unnecessary in society.

Comments?

[willy]

For a second, don't think about functional theory. Realize that one person is bounded by their own rationality. God is not. If this place was created. Then we need religion because God made us.

If God did not make us, then you are right religion is futile and any common goal that organizes people can replace it.

If God does exist one best check out his word, his order and listen for his call. The best gift of God is the hope that he bring regardless of circumstance. Think of the terminally ill, with out God it is over. Think about the drug addicted, exploited, abused people, without God their is no hope. Hope of everlasting life and a caring God that would sacrifice for us. But if you don't believe this the world is a darker place. Good luck with that.

[Tawasakm]

For a second, don't think about functional theory. Realize that one person is bounded by their own rationality. God is not. If this place was created. Then we need religion because God made us.

Well I was referring to religion in general not christianity in particular. That 'if' is a big if Willy since there is absolutely no quantitative evidence to support the notion. If I am wrong then please provide the evidence.

Think of the terminally ill, with out God it is over. Think about the drug addicted, exploited, abused people, without God their is no hope.

I did try to raise these points. If you can provide a good argument that non-religious means cannot provide for these situations then you are providing what I've been asking for - something religion provides, thats society needs, that cannot be provided outside of religion. By all means try to prove the point.

But if you don't believe this the world is a darker place. Good luck with that

Not necessarily: belief in God has produced much violence to counter-balance the more positive outcomes

[willy]

Well I was referring to religion in general not Christianity in particular.

Religion is not a universal entity that meets a function. It has a name, be it Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, ect.

there is absolutely no quantitative evidence to support the notion.

Changed lives are great evidence. Mine can be used as example. The birth, death and resurrection of Christ would also be evidence. The answers that are received from prayer. A tree is also an example, I know I can’t make one.

I need not prove all religions. I believe in Christianity and it is exclusive. The only way to God is through Christ.

If Jews, Muslims or Buddhists on this board would like to offer there view great I am interested to hear and learn.

If you can provide a good argument that non-religious means cannot provide for these situations then you are providing what I've been asking for

God changes the hart of the issue. Hope comes from a personal relationship with God and not a cure to earthly suffering. Only God could offer such hope. People can only offer short term solutions. Cure cancer and die of old age.

Not necessarily: belief in God has produced much violence to counter-balance the more positive outcomes

Following Christ does not produce violence. People, power, politics, evil all produce violence and yes some of these people claimed to be Christians. The shame is that they sure did not resemble the Christian God hopes us to be in the gospels.

[Tawasakm]

The birth, death and resurrection of Christ would also be evidence.

There is quantitative evidence that he was resurrected?

Religion is not a universal entity that meets a function. It has a name, be it Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, ect

What you say is true. I'm not going to ask you to represent any religion but your own. I was making sure that nobody thought this debate was restricted to christian religions.

God changes the hart of the issue. Hope comes from a personal relationship with God and not a cure to earthly suffering. Only God could offer such hope. People can only offer short term solutions. Cure cancer and die of old age.

I know thats what you believe but can you prove that the people in my secular society need religion for real hope. You need something more then the assertion you are currently making. I'm certain that you can provide it. When you do we can start going back and forth with it.

Following Christ does not produce violence.

Following religion often does since churches have often advocated violence.

Before answering, though, stop and consider the nature of this society. They accept that which is quantifiable. There is a body of historical evidence to support the exist of Jesus. So the people of this society are free to examine this mans life and test it for 'truth' even if christian religion has been disbanded. So perhaps this rational society would still end up accepting part of the teachings of christ even without the organised religion. This hadn't occurred to me before and I need to think it through more. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this?

[willy]

There is a body of historical evidence to support the exist of Jesus. So the people of this society are free to examine this mans life and test it for 'truth' even if christian religion has been disbanded.

If Jesus is who he said he was, Christianity can not be disbanded. The bible for Christians has the authority of the word of God. Jesus teaching and words are also captured in the bible. From these teaching and experience a person is called to God and the growth is not just one of logic but of hart transformation.

Christianity is growing now world wide.

Canada is somewhat unique in the decline in association with organized religion. Why this is the case would also be an interesting discussion in the light that it is unique in the world.

The bible tells me that we are made for relationships and community. The church represents the body of believers which is unified through Christ. This serves many functions, from group worship, prayer, encouragement, sheepherding and service. A private religion is not what the bible calls Christians to do. It calls us to first follow Christ and then to share our faith.

As to the quantitative nature of the resurrection.

Jesus was witnessed by many people in public places after the crucifixion. As with Jesus birth this was also prophesized long before he was born. The resurrection is very important to Christians; it changes Christ from a man and proves he is God. Of course this is consistent with the metaphysic that Christianity presents but we don’t have video so by faith based on reason and record Jesus assented to the right hand of God.

I am not a theologian but just a regular Sunday service Christian so I hope that in my brief description of my faith I captured some useful thoughts. You may still say that I have not addressed you question but this is the best I have for now. I explored Christianity because I did not make a very good God and that really is why we need the authority of the bible, the church and really through prayer the authority of God. We just don’t do a very good job of it.

[Tawasakm]

Thankyou for your reply Willy. Now,

As to the quantitative nature of the resurrection.

Jesus was witnessed by many people in public places after the crucifixion.

I am curious (hope you have an answer) as to wether this is recorded anywhere outside of the bible? Did anyone who was not a christian (although followers of christ weren't yet called that were they?) record anything?

If Jesus is who he said he was, Christianity can not be disbanded.

Well thats the million dollar 'if'. While there is alot of evidence that Jesus existed I would contend that the integrity of all his claims is very much open to question.

I have thought that the hypothetical people may be able to accept that some of the things he claimed, like how humans should interact, are true (because they are verifiable elsewhere) while still discarding other claims on the basis of lack of evidence. By its nature this society is not likely to make a 'leap of faith'. Actually it seems to me that they probably wouldn't focus much on him for that simple fact. The fields of psychology and psychiatry have produced large bodies of research into human nature/relationships/interactions and these would serve them as a far more reliable guide since they are predicated on quantitative evidence. The philosophies of 'love thy neighbour' and of peace can be arrived at without reference to the teachings of christ.

You never expanded on the role of religion in bereavement and drug dependency etc. Do you think you could provide an argument that religion provides unique, necessary and irreplaceable roles in these areas?

[The Terrible Sweal]

If this place was created. Then we need religion because God made us.

I would not agree. If indeed God exists, in my opinion s/he/it is disqualified from deserving 'worship'.

[Tawasakm]

I would not agree. If indeed God exists, in my opinion s/he/it is disqualified from deserving 'worship'.

I have heard the argument that it was not bad work cosidering it was 'unskilled labour'. I can almost remember a line like that from Terry Pratchett.

In any event Christian theory of creation has yet to be proven quantifiably. And is exactly the point that these debates often centre around and I was hoping to avoid. As I said in my first post:

I would like to look at this from the point of view that the abolition of religion has been proposed. I believe that this would enable debate to centre around more functional and practical realities and steer a little away from the more common theoretical and ancient historical debates that always seem the core.

Mostly because I know that the question of creation etc has already received a fair amount of coverage on this forum. From memory this thread has a good debate on such aspects. We could take that up again there if we wished to.

I'm begging on my knees for people of faith (in whatever religion) to come up with plausible reasons that this society would be lacking without religon.

[willy]

The philosophies of 'love thy neighbour' and of peace can be arrived at without reference to the teachings of christ.

The question is not about the teaching but how can an individual do this if they are inherently sinful. To reiterate by using a parable of a dieter who always fails because they just like fat food and the comfort from eating. What if they took a pill that made them sick whenever they ate the fat food? Staying away from fat food is no longer about will power which always seems to fail but by an intervention that changes the person.

It is first love God, and then love thy neighbor. By loving God it changes you so you can love your neighbor.

I will make an attempt at other of your questions latter, no time now. As for Terible Sweal do you need a hug.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The philosophies of 'love thy neighbour' and of peace can be arrived at without reference to the teachings of christ.

The question is not about the teaching but how can an individual do this if they are inherently sinful.

But that begs the question. Is mankind inherently sinful at all? If mankind is sinful, obviously we need religion to get rid of the sin: what else would work? You are pre-supposing a religious-type of problem to which you can posit only a religious answer. Apart from the fallacy, it also breaks the rules for the hypothetical, I think.

[lowly_caterpillar]

I completely agree with Tawasakm, faith is only necessary in ones mind if we believe that we are somehow less without it.

Just to clarify it would be the practise of religion that is thrown out and not the teachings? If this is so I think that a society could definitely exist like this, the way i see religion (as tainted by history) Is an opressive church threatening its people with the looming idea of hell, I also however see great wisdom in the bibles teachings of brotherhood of man and such.

On a lighter side note:

Quote:As to the quantitative nature of the resurrection.

Jesus was witnessed by many people in public places after the crucifixion. -willy

Elvis was also "witnessed" after his death.

[lowly_caterpillar]

This is a question to Willy,

I was just watching south park and I was wondering what happens to handicapped folks who cant confess their "sins" do they automatically get a "go to hell, do not pass go, do NOT collect 200 dollars" card?

[willy]

I was contemplating if it was worth answering your disingenuous question lowly caterpillar.

Lowly caterpillar I get the feeling that because you don't hold a world view that the only reason that someone else might hold those belief is because they are daft. I may be daft but I do have good company.

I studied sociology in my first degree and have worked on many human behavior models both qualitatively and quantitatively since I finished university. My academic search went through the science of psychology and sociology only to find many incomplete theories and partial explanations for why people do what they do. I have taken my personal search back to the roots of these sciences which are primarily western philosophy. The premise of humanistic thought mostly centers on theories derived from utilitarianism. This is not a strong premise and no real metaphysic has been fully developed using this line of thought but yet it is used as a foundation of reason to explain many human interactions. This lack of substance brought me into theology and specifically Christian theology. I will admit that I have done little to look into other religions but the consistency and holistic approach that Christian theology provides is IMO the most logical explanation for why we are the way we are and continue to be this way.

Before wondering one of those seems like an obvious holes in Christianity lowly caterpillar at least assume that Augustin, Dostoevesky, CS Lewis, etc and the 1.2 billion Christians in the world today must have examined there faith with some more thought than an episode of South Park.

I am not an authority but here is how I would answer your question if it is truly ingenious.

My understanding of Gods justice, he would punish those that are not righteous and the mentally handicapped would probably be innocent in Gods eyes. Most of the New Testament deals with grace and what Christ means to achieving righteousness with God. Even for me who does not deserve it receives Gods grace. The innocent need not worry about justice that is reserved for the unjust.

[Tawasakm]

I've only got time to make one post so I'll make it here.

lowly_caterpillar,

Just to clarify it would be the practise of religion that is thrown out and not the teachings?

In an earlier part of this thread these were accepted this as what would happen (courtesy of Terrible Sweal):

-remove and deny legal/tax/corporate status for organizations with religious purposes;

-eliminate the civil status of clergy (e.g. wedding and funeral certification)

-disaccredit academic programs provided by religious- affiliated institutions

-fund and pursue a policy of specifically challenging and disproving religious doctrines

-prohibit association for religious purposes

-prohibit religious expression

-prohibit religious belief.

I also said this:

Ideology, reality, morality etc are to be defined only by that which is quantifiable and tested to be true.

So anything from the bible that stands up to that kind of scrutiny would be accepted after being tested. Nothing else would be.

I also however see great wisdom in the bibles teachings of brotherhood of man and such.

I won't disagree. However I don't see the path to such understanding lying only within the bible and christianity. There are many paths to such understanding and I've seen nothing to indicate that a non-religious path can't lead there.

The question is not about the teaching but how can an individual do this if they are inherently sinful.

The point was raised that this may break the rules of the hypothetical. Its certainly true that the people in the hypothetical would not look at it that way. Since they are basing their beliefs and ideologies only on that which can be proven using the scientific method and quantifiable observation they would not accept that premise - that people are inherently sinful.

I can't say that it breaks the rules of the hypothetical though. I was asking for things that religion alone can provide that they need. If what you posit is true then that is a telling blow. However I find it hard to accept as truth when the view is the result of religious dogma which is faith based. I don't wish to insult your faith (I don't find you unreasoning - never believe that) but I just can't find it rational to place faith in that which in based on the unquantifiable - God. The entire foundation is God and since I cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell it/he/she or use any device to observe it/he/she then I think there is ultimately a flaw in any argument using its alleged work.

I was contemplating if it was worth answering your disingenuous question lowly caterpillar.

Lowly caterpillar I get the feeling that because you don't hold a world view that the only reason that someone else might hold those belief is because they are daft. I may be daft but I do have good company.

willy I think that lowly-caterpillar is trying to learn and to reason. Why not accept him into the discussion on these grounds. I hope s/he's not insulted when I say s/he seems quite young. Applying theories and knowledge into the wider world can be a rough process. Lets be flattered that this is one of the places h/she is choosing to expand their knowledge.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Before wondering one of those seems like an obvious holes in Christianity lowly caterpillar at least assume that Augustin, Dostoevesky, CS Lewis, etc and the 1.2 billion Christians in the world today must have examined there faith with some more thought than an episode of South Park.

Fallacies: Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity.

[willy]

willy I think that lowly-caterpillar is trying to learn and to reason. Why not accept him into the discussion on these grounds. I

Agreed.

Fallacies: Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity.

Terrible Sweal, I use authorities to understand many things. I can not possible know everything so I think we all make judgment calls on information based on where it comes from. In business I default to people like Drucker and Covey. In sport I look at great coaches and players. In philosophy and theology I look to great thinkers. This is not blind faith but an examination of what they say and then applying those thought to the other things I know. We are all bounded by our own experience so I would argue to some degree we all do this.

So as the scientific approach to life is applied, what methodology of measurement is acceptable and on what authority do you accept it?

[lowly_caterpillar]

Thankyou for defending my right to participate in this discussion, I am still in high school and don't have any flashy degrees under my belt.

Im not quite sure what you meant when you said that I didn't have a "world view", I have several close friends who are VERY christian so I am not completely new to the idea of christianity and religion (I dont know them all but i'm not completely misguided).

The fact that you seem to be puting yourself (willy) on a pedestal with your university education (nice spelling in your posts by the way) and your world view, is a little bit offputting, but then again I suppose that my citing of south park was equally offputting to you so I apologize for using such an immature example.

How would you prohibit religious belief by the way, wouldn't we need thought police for that?