Fair enough. It might be as you say, in the end I can't really know.
The problem with this, as I see it, is that there are so many others who would claim the same thing. That their philosophy is alive, they have living
knowledge of their teachings. Yet I have found many of them deluded, some members or even leaders of genuine mind control cults. There is also the
problem that some of their "truths" seem contradictory. Though I am not implying this for your expressed views, as I have no reason to assume this.
Though always open to being wrong, I have found some truth in the saying "love is religion, religion is love". IMO, this is the only part of our
existence that hints a greater reality (in any spiritual sense). It seems to be the source of all virtue and therefore, it is it's own reward. It
doesn't need god. Whether a simple product of evolution, or something else, don't necessarily take in a deep understanding of what it might be. It has
never needed any books, philosophies, arguments or beliefs about who might have existed, or deities. Yet it does seem to exist.
One of the reasons I value science, is that it usually begins with what "is" and attempts to find explanations for it . Yet religion usually begins
with the implied ultimate explanation and then attempts to reconcile it with what "is". Do you mind if I ask, were you raised as a Christian (if I
can assume you are)? Or did you come to it as an adult, after having been able to discount so many other possibilities from many years of genuinely
seeking answers. How you can know that other beliefs are not true, if you have not "lived" them?
There is little doubt IMO the "holy" book that so many cling to, appears fraught with innacuracies, exaggerations, outright lies and superstition.
There have been many claims to a deeper understanding being the thing that overcomes this view. I sincerely doubt every one of them.
I can see where a naturalist explanation for existence might one day end all notions of god that anyone can take seriously (not necessarily removing
the possibility of a more "spiritual" component to existence). Though it doesn't hurt to reserve some element of doubt. To hold open the possibility
that no matter how fervently we believe something true, we could be wrong. Particularly where the less tangible is concerned and particularly of
personal experiences and whatever meaning could be derived from them. No one is above being wrong. The thing I am most sure of, beyond all else, is of
my own ignorance. This attitude of humility is more important than any belief IMO and can be quite noticeably absent in religion.
It is a problem for society when people make decisions that affect others, swayed by what could be belief in myths and story books. Common sense and
basic decency seem far more important considerations. It is also a problem when myth that cannot be genuinely substantiated is forced on young minds,
as truth. This is a form of cult indoctrination. It seems far more important to encourage the search for knowledge, rather than curtail it with
notions of god IMO. All indications are that religious observance doesn't add to societel health, as much as detract from it.
Though if I am not mistaken, you seem to imply that religion itself might not be the problem, as much as the attitudes and actions of people who claim
to be religious. In this much, I don't necessarily disagree. Religious fundamentalism (along with staunch patriotism - nationalism) are two of the
worst forms of insanity to have so far afflicted mankind IMO.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.