Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[Thorne]

In the case of a God, or Gods in the manner in which they are commonly held to exist by many different countless people before the advent of athiesm...that suposition is not possible in so far as a simple statement of dis-belief would be conserned, (at least not for anyone having knowledge of the possibility) for the idea it'self is in opposition too an allready known factor...however hypothetical it may be in your opinion.

Sorry, but atheism has existed since the first shaman invented gods. There have ALWAYS been non-believers, and there always WILL BE non-believers.

So what you're saying here, if I understand correctly, is that it is possible to NOT believe something that nobody has ever thought of, but when a lot of people already believe in something, you can't NOT believe in it? That doesn't sound right to me, but that's what I'm getting from this statement. Please elaborate?

I am glad your finally coming to the understanding that its not any given belief system itself thats at fualt so much as the evil acts of individuals who distorte such systems for their own gain over others or misinterpet their meaing to poorly consieved ends or to fuffil a less than inclusive agenda.

It's not only those who distort the systems, but those who INVENT the systems to begin with! We have seen this happen. Joseph Smith invented Mormonism. (He translated golden tablets which only he could see, right? Yeah, I'll believe that one!) L. Ron Hubbard invented Scientology, as a spoof of religions! Jim Jones, David Koresh, all manner of glib, fast-talking frauds who take advantage of vulnerable people. The apostles and Mohammed weren't any different, either. Just because they've lasted as long as they have doesn't make them any less of a cult.

Like Goreans or Headonists or Communists, or Capitalists or Enviromentalists or Scientists or Buddists or adherents of the "actual tenents" any of the majior faiths or philosophies that promote good virtures over bad ones for instance.

Goreans? Are you actually going to claim that as a faith, or the foundation of a philosophy? A rather badly written series of psycho-sexual science fiction? That's almost as bad as Scientology!

I would postulate then conserning "respect" that the atheists if they wish to earn any then must not fall into becoming exactly like that which they claim to oppose...for if as has been shown in the past with state sponsered atheism turns out to become a situation thats overall no different than state sponsered theism...we again have no reason to abandon the one for the other.

Why do you keep harping on the evils of "state-sponsored atheism?" No one is advocating that! All we want is for the government to adhere to the separation of church and state. Keep religion out of government, out of the public schools and off of public property. That is NOT an atheist state!

[denuseri]

Sorry, but atheism has existed since the first shaman invented gods. There have ALWAYS been non-believers, and there always WILL BE non-believers.

You dont actually know that...you were not there...there is no written evidence to support any such claim, its pure speculation on your part.

So what you're saying here, if I understand correctly, is that it is possible to NOT believe something that nobody has ever thought of, but when a lot of people already believe in something, you can't NOT believe in it? That doesn't sound right to me, but that's what I'm getting from this statement. Please elaborate?

In the case of a pre-established idea, or belief or what ever you wish to call it, where you the thinker allready have a preconcieved knowledge thereof in common standing with the other individual...your stating a counter belief when you make a statement of dis-belief. The counter belief may be "I just dont believe that" or it may containt all sorts of stipulations like: "I dont believe that becuase of this and that and this other thing" etc; but, it is still a statement of "counter belief".


It's not only those who distort the systems, but those who INVENT the systems to begin with!

So you have a beef with anyone coming with an idea for any system of religion or philosophy of anykind?

We have seen this happen. Joseph Smith invented Mormonism. (He translated golden tablets which only he could see, right? Yeah, I'll believe that one!)

No one said you had too...last time I checked the Mormons were not running around doing evil things in the name of their faith eaither.

L. Ron Hubbard invented Scientology, as a spoof of religions! Jim Jones, David Koresh, all manner of glib, fast-talking frauds who take advantage of vulnerable people. The apostles and Mohammed weren't any different, either. Just because they've lasted as long as they have doesn't make them any less of a cult.

So once again, you have zero respect for the beliefs of others? Just becuase you disagee with the premise upon which they are founded?


Goreans? Are you actually going to claim that as a faith, or the foundation of a philosophy?

Why yes I do claim it as a philosophy of virtue ethics, if you havent noticed by now honey I am a real life practiconer of Gorean Philosophy. I dont call myself a kajira for roleplaying purposes or shits and giggles hon. I guess you forgot I was a Gorean? You did participate in the thread I linked bellow wher I pretty clearly stated my beliefs on Gor if I recall.


A rather badly written series of psycho-sexual science fiction? That's almost as bad as Scientology!

Oh and nice way to be directly insulting of my favored lifestyle philosophy btw. (Im also a practicing tantric and zen buddist as well as an adherent of several different other philosophies, not to mention my religious adhereance to the Bahai faith...if your wishing to insult those directly nows the time to get it out of your system.

If you really wanna discuss Gorean Philosophy however and the OLD school Master /Slave interactions and philosophies that influenced much of Dr Langes work that he chose to imbed into a fictional medium though I have a whole other thread for that in which you are more than welcome to participate. Here is a link for it..its in the very same section of the forums as this one too.

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...n-Philosophies


Why do you keep harping on the evils of "state-sponsored atheism?" No one is advocating that! All we want is for the government to adhere to the separation of church and state. Keep religion out of government, out of the public schools and off of public property. That is NOT an atheist state!

Oh dear have I perhaps struck a nerve...Im so sorry if thats the case..I was simply pointing out that religions in and of themselves are not whats wrong with the world 'As evidenced by the behavior" of those who abolished said religions from their own countires.

So why not let them and the people who "choose" to believe in them be as they wish so long as they arent hurting you. A secular state , where we ALL have the freedom to practice our given beliefs without fear of reprisal or interfereance or disrespect ffrom people of differeing beliefs is far more desierable imho.

[Thorne]

You dont actually know that...you were not there...there is no written evidence to support any such claim, its pure speculation on your part.

Really? That's the extent of your argument? Okay, then. For as far back as records go, there have been non-believers. Usually they were the more educated, or the priests themselves. But they have always been there. And when discovered they were usually persecuted.

Try applying the "you were not there" argument to your religious beliefs. That knife cuts both ways.

In the case of a pre-established idea, or belief or what ever you wish to call it, where you the thinker allready have a preconcieved knowledge thereof in common standing with the other individual...your stating a counter belief when you make a statement of dis-belief. The counter belief may be "I just dont believe that" or it may containt all sorts of stipulations like: "I dont believe that becuase of this and that and this other thing" etc; but, it is still a statement of "counter belief".

Sorry, I must be dense. I just can't wrap my head around the concept that NOT believing in something is just a different way of believing in something.

So you have a beef with anyone coming with an idea for any system of religion or philosophy of anykind?

Nope. Not at all. I only have a problem when they try to tell me that their idea is absolutely true when they have no evidence for it whatsoever.

No one said you had too...last time I checked the Mormons were not running around doing evil things in the name of their faith eaither.

LOL! No? Look up the story of gay marriage, especially in California. The Mormon church pumped millions of dollars into the campaign to fight that. Since when did denying people basic rights NOT become evil?

So once again, you have zero respect for the beliefs of others? Just becuase you disagee with the premise upon which they are founded?

No. I have zero respect for those who BLINDLY follow a charlatan because it makes them feel good, or because that's who their parents worshiped. If someone has studied, and researched, and come to a belief despite the lack of evidence, I don't have a problem. I can respect them for their honesty. I don't have to respect their beliefs.

Why yes I do claim it as a philosophy of virtue ethics, if you havent noticed by now honey I am a real life practiconer of Gorean Philosophy. I dont call myself a kajira for roleplaying purposes or shits and giggles hon. I guess you forgot I was a Gorean? You did participate in the thread I linked bellow wher I pretty clearly stated my beliefs on Gor if I recall.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I have no problem with that. But this is a perfect example of the kinds of things I'm talking about. You are, I'm sure, aware that this "philosophy" is based on a series of stories. Fictional stories. Very recent ones. Now, project this philosophy into the future, say 2000 years, when the very beginnings of it are hidden or lost. Can't you see how this could become a religion? And doesn't that give you at least some insight into how other religions can be formed based on absolute fiction?

Oh dear have I perhaps struck a nerve...Im so sorry if thats the case..I was simply pointing out that religions in and of themselves are not whats wrong with the world 'As evidenced by the behavior" of those who abolished said religions from their own countires.

Yeah, you struck a nerve. Just like someone repeating the same phrase, over and over. "Evil atheist state", "not believing is believing". "Religion isn't evil, it's the people who abuse it who are evil." The same things over and over. Like chalk screeching on a blackboard.

So why not let them and the people who "choose" to believe in them be as they wish so long as they arent hurting you. A secular state , where we ALL have the freedom to practice our given beliefs without fear of reprisal or interfereance or disrespect ffrom people of differeing beliefs is far more desierable imho.

That's what I've been saying all along! The problem is that the religious don't really WANT a secular state, they want a theocratic one. Freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything blasphemous about THEIR religion. Freedom of expression, as long as you don't express discontent with THEIR religion. Freedom of worship, as long as you only worship THEIR religion. THAT is what I see happening in this country! THAT is what I'm fighting against!

Think I'm wrong? Try walking into a school board meeting, or a town council meeting, where they open each session with a prayer. Try asking them to open that session with a Bahai prayer, or an Islamic prayer, or a Jewish prayer. See just how "tolerant" they are. I would especially recommend trying this in the deep south or the midwest. I think you'd get a real eye-opening experience.

[denuseri]

Really? That's the extent of your argument? Okay, then. For as far back as records go, there have been non-believers. Usually they were the more educated, or the priests themselves. But they have always been there. And when discovered they were usually persecuted.

Really? Where is your "evidence" of such? Of all these ancient atheists that is?


Sorry, I must be dense. I just can't wrap my head around the concept that NOT believing in something is just a different way of believing in something.

Well if thats what you wish to leave it at thats fine by me. lol


Nope. Not at all. I only have a problem when they try to tell me that their idea is absolutely true when they have no evidence for it whatsoever.

How ironic...thats just what the atheists are doing with their own ideas.

LOL! No? Look up the story of gay marriage, especially in California. The Mormon church pumped millions of dollars into the campaign to fight that. Since when did denying people basic rights NOT become evil?

Since when did preserving the traditional rites of marriage become evil? Your really grasping at straws here you know.


No. I have zero respect for those who BLINDLY follow a charlatan because it makes them feel good, or because that's who their parents worshiped. If someone has studied, and researched, and come to a belief despite the lack of evidence, I don't have a problem. I can respect them for their honesty. I don't have to respect their beliefs.

You do realize that sounds like your automatically assuming as a defualt setting that everyone is having the wool pulled over their eyes until proven otherwise in your personal estimation.

Which sounds like your being exactly like all those zealous people of different faiths who think that any non-believers in their paticular belief system must need their help to be brought into the light.


Yes, I'm aware of that.

Realy seems like you forgot altogether your own participation in said thread on the topic.

I have no problem with that.

Then why be so insulting when you attacked it?

But this is a perfect example of the kinds of things I'm talking about. You are, I'm sure, aware that this "philosophy" is based on a series of stories. Fictional stories. Very recent ones.

You apparently are not aware of any of the facts surrounding the authorship of the books or that the fictional stories were used dileberately by the author as the only way of expressing and shareing his philosophy with others, which was a direct result of his philosophical ideas being shoved out of academia by the pro-feminist zealots who had taken over his field at the time and refused to allow any agenda but theirs to prevail in the area. A classic example of how scientists act just like sophistic theocrats when it suits them.

Now, project this philosophy into the future, say 2000 years, when the very beginnings of it are hidden or lost. Can't you see how this could become a religion?

You mean all those philosophies invented by the ancient greeks over 2400 years ago are now majically religious?

And doesn't that give you at least some insight into how other religions can be formed based on absolute fiction?

Your again working under the assumption that all religion is derived by an individual hood winking a group of people with nothing more that baseless assumption. When not only the recorded history of such things but all contemporary scientific schools of thought on the study of physcology, theocracy and anthropology (the only evidence we have of said origens conserning any given faiths beginings) in fact directly countridicts your assumption.

Yeah, you struck a nerve. Just like someone repeating the same phrase, over and over. "Evil atheist state", "not believing is believing". "Religion isn't evil, it's the people who abuse it who are evil." The same things over and over. Like chalk screeching on a blackboard. << another example of what Im talking about...things like that dont do you any credit in your arguments.

I only kept repeating the primary idea becuase you kept trying to use sophistry to ignore it.

That idea being: " its people..not "ideas" that do harm"

That trying to blame "religion" for all the worlds ills...is a silly as blaming "science" or "Santa Cluas" or in a more mechanical sence...blaming the gun or the bullet as opposed to who pulls the trigger.


The problem is that the religious don't really WANT a secular state, they want a theocratic one.

Really? So I must then want a non-secular state huh? I mean I am a religious follower after all.?

The reality is however: just becuse one has a religion that they wish to follow it does not automatically mean their agenda is world domination or even anything remotely like it.



I will however grant you that there are some people out there who may have had dreams of making their own religion or philosophy or governmental or economic ideals the only one's practiced in the world. (atheist are in that little group too, more than once)

But I also think that those people's dreams have very little actual chance of reaching futition.


Those individuals and those who share their ideas have failed so far every time they attempted such a thing (both the theists and atheist variety -though the theists ussually had more success in such endeavors until modern times ...I atribute that to being better educated and in general more organized, but actual history will show you it was the theists that were inclussive of other peoples faiths who had the highest level of success overall ) at least in taking over the world or a paticular area of it and holding dominion over it...and I dont see them making much headway in the modern world on even a local level.

The only logical conclussion then must be secularism for all.

Freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything blasphemous about THEIR religion. Freedom of expression, as long as you don't express discontent with THEIR religion. Freedom of worship, as long as you only worship THEIR religion. THAT is what I see happening in this country! THAT is what I'm fighting against!

By insulting anyone who doesnt believe as you do? By using the same things you accuse them off yourself?

Think I'm wrong? Try walking into a school board meeting, or a town council meeting, where they open each session with a prayer. Try asking them to open that session with a Bahai prayer, or an Islamic prayer, or a Jewish prayer. See just how "tolerant" they are. I would especially recommend trying this in the deep south or the midwest. I think you'd get a real eye-opening experience.

Actually...unless as in the case of my niece who attended a private lutheran school, when any local town meetings or school related things conviened where I have been in attendence...I havent seen too many people wanting a prayer to begin with...secondly..when they do its allmost allways a silent moment where each is allowed to pray in their heads to whoever they wish.

Which shouldnt bother the atheists since they shouldnt care eaither way if their being logical about things and truely accepting that other people are indeed entitled to hold their own beliefs.

And truth be told as a Bahai...or as a member of any of the other religious faiths I held before it, even during the period where I was breifly atheist myself...it still didnt bother me...even when it was one faiths prayer and out loud. Why should I care if the people in a paticular gathering decide they all wish to have a prayer or some such ritual preformed. Its not hurting me or anyone else.

In those cases of when Ive been in areas where one faith predominated over the others (such as when I was in living in the middle east, or in my local community here -which for your information is in the deepest of the deep southern usa bible belt) I would adapt as nessesary to the cultural requirments of the people in the paticular area I was staying in. They live the way they wish..its not my place to try and force them to do otherwise. "When in Rome" as the old saying goes I have found to be excellent advice to live by.

[Thorne]

Really? Where is your "evidence" of such? Of all these ancient atheists that is?

From Wikipedia:
"In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods"."
And:
"The spontaneous proposition that there may be no gods after all is logically as old as theism itself (and the proposition that there may be no God as old as the beginnings of monotheism or henotheism)."

Since when did preserving the traditional rites of marriage become evil? Your really grasping at straws here you know.

When did the tradition of keeping slaves become evil? When did the idea of polytheism become evil? When did polygamy become evil? Even the "rite" of marriage is very different throughout the world, and has changed drastically throughout history. The only reasons not to allow gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, whether you want to call it marriage or not, are religious.

You do realize that sounds like your automatically assuming as a defualt setting that everyone is having the wool pulled over their eyes until proven otherwise in your personal estimation.

Well, when people are willing to accept a supernatural being as their overlord, are willing to drop to their knees in terror of offending this being, in hopes of a promised reward which no one has ever seen, then yeah, in my estimation they are being duped.

You mean all those philosophies invented by the ancient greeks over 2400 years ago are now majically religious?

More or less. Most of the religious dogma which exist today are based on very early myths from all over the Middle East, including the virgin birth, the flood, the resurrection, and many more. Those myths, previously told as stories of other ancient gods, were incorporated into Judaism and from there into Christianity and Islam.

Which shouldnt bother the atheists since they shouldnt care eaither way if their being logical about things and truely accepting that other people are indeed entitled to hold their own beliefs.

What bothers me is when the theists don't reciprocate that idea. Read up on the atheist bus campaign, and see how much resistance has been shown not only by religious groups but by businesses and governments as well.

Why should I care if the people in a paticular gathering decide they all wish to have a prayer or some such ritual preformed. Its not hurting me or anyone else.

Sorry, but I have to believe it hurts everyone who doesn't hold the same faith as the praying group. Especially children, who will emulate their parents and grow up believing just what the parent want them to believe, without learning to think about such things for themselves.

Want to see how "tolerant" religious people are? Suggest that instead of sending their kids to Sunday School they send them to study comparative religions and religious history. I doubt you'd get many takers.

"When in Rome" as the old saying goes I have found to be excellent advice to live by.

I find that it only encourages people to believe that they must be right. Sometimes you need to show them another way.

Obviously you have done a lot of searching to establish your particular philosophy. I admire you for that. I still think you're wrong, but that's your right. My arguments aren't aimed so much at you as at those who may be on the fence about religion, leaning one way or the other, not believing but not sure what to do about it. Sometimes just knowing there is someone out there who thinks along the same lines as yourself can be a big help. Religion is so endemic to our society that it is very unusual for someone to grow up without being immersed in some form of religious ideology from birth. That's changing, though. Hopefully it will keep changing.

[denuseri]

From Wikipedia:
"The spontaneous proposition that there may be no gods after all is logically as old as theism itself (and the proposition that there may be no God as old as the beginnings of monotheism or henotheism)."

I guess you forgot the part about when the term Atheist took on its current meaning; from the same article in Wiki...."The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.

The term wasnt used in the same context back in 500bc...other than to refer to impiety.

The theists had been around for 4000 years before that according to written history...with zero evidence of any Atheists.

When did the tradition of keeping slaves become evil?

For the most part historically speaking the idea that slavery was somehow evil didnt develope until the abolistionist movment (a highly religiously driven movement I might add) came to become socially acceptable amongst the populace in the 1700's.

When did the idea of polytheism become evil?

Become evil to whom? Different societies viewed it as unnessesary or wrong at differing times in history and some have since reversed their positions on the topic.

When did polygamy become evil?

Im not so sure polygamy has ever been viewed as "evil" per say at least not outside of some small minded groups in general.

Even the "rite" of marriage is very different throughout the world, lol...seriously? Its actually one of those things thats allmost a commonality between allmost all people on the planet outside of a few small and isolated cultures.

and has changed drastically throughout history.

Not really all that much at all...not until modern times that is.

The only reasons not to allow gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, whether you want to call it marriage or not, are religious.

What a narrow minded opinion to hold. I can see all sorts of reasons why a society wouldnt want to promote this kind of thing that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with cultural preservation (though its my personal opinion that it should be allowed here in the USA...I even started a thread on it outlining my personal position in detail if youd like the link)

All I was saying is that it wasnt "evil" in and of itself for people to wish to have an opinion about it and or express that opinion in our democracy.

Well, when people are willing to accept a supernatural being as their overlord, are willing to drop to their knees in terror of offending this being, in hopes of a promised reward which no one has ever seen, then yeah, in my estimation they are being duped.

No more duped than they are when they accept the word of some other guy with equally lacking evidence that there is no god for them to do all this kneeling too?

More or less. Most of the religious dogma which exist today are based on very early myths from all over the Middle East, including the virgin birth, the flood, the resurrection, and many more. Those myths, previously told as stories of other ancient gods, were incorporated into Judaism and from there into Christianity and Islam.

You may wish to read up on some of this in greater detail. Or perhaps your confusing the works of the philosophers with the works of much earlier theologians idk:

The Philosophers didnt even exist until 2400 years ago (roughly 500bce) give or take a couple hundred years...they were mainly Greek...their philosophies btw are today still just that...philosophies...and never turned for even a moment into any religion that I am aware of.

As for the religious mythologies of different cultures in the mesopotamian region...thats a whole different ball of religious wax...not philosophical. It was steeped in religion from its advent to its fall in some cases and to its evolution into further theological thoughts some of which do have trappings held over to modern times...but never lost its theist conotation.


What bothers me is when the theists don't reciprocate that idea.

Really...Im a theist...I brought up secularism and toleration and aceptance in this thread and others where weve discussed this , (long before you I might add) even pleaded with you to at least consider it...and every time until the past couple posts here youve sidesteped or refused to acknowledge or simply tried to re-brand your position and kept on insulting people of faith etc. In fact...90% of the people I know who are religious adherents also believe secularism is preferable to strife over religious ideals and if you look at 99% of the secular movments in the world you will see them being lead by groups of theists from different faiths as well.


Sorry, but I have to believe it hurts everyone who doesn't hold the same faith as the praying group. Especially children, who will emulate their parents and grow up believing just what the parent want them to believe, without learning to think about such things for themselves.

So now you would have children not be raised by their parents? Who then shall raise them...the state? Gee that sounds awfully familiar for some reason...hummm...ohh thats right the "communists in south east asia promoted that ideal".

Want to see how "tolerant" religious people are? Suggest that instead of sending their kids to Sunday School they send them to study comparative religions and religious history. I doubt you'd get many takers.

Actually growing up as a Lutheran...we studdied all sorts of religions other than our own and were activly encouraged to study religious history.

I find that it only encourages people to believe that they must be right. Sometimes you need to show them another way.

So basically you wish to replace everyone elses beliefs...with your own?

Obviously you have done a lot of searching to establish your particular philosophy. I admire you for that. I still think you're wrong, but that's your right. My arguments aren't aimed so much at you as at those who may be on the fence about religion, leaning one way or the other, not believing but not sure what to do about it. Sometimes just knowing there is someone out there who thinks along the same lines as yourself can be a big help. Religion is so endemic to our society that it is very unusual for someone to grow up without being immersed in some form of religious ideology from birth. That's changing, though. Hopefully it will keep changing.

I see no reason that any kind of evolutionary movement away from God should be looked upon as a good thing...though from everything Ive seen on this subject..people having faith in something other than atheism doesnt change so much as adherence to organzed religious efforts declines in cerrtian urbanized conditions of prosperity where individualism is promoted over obligation to the group.

As for respect...well I would certiantly respect you more if, you practiced what you preached...

...instead of acting with the same self rightious attitude of the very people you wish to declaim for their faith in their own ways of thought as being automatically wrong, deluded, or in need of repair or not as valid as your own for them ...especially since you have zero evidence to point to something different as an alternative.

If you really believe in secularism...than practice it... instead of preaching atheism over all others.

[Thorne]

I guess you forgot the part about when the term Atheist took on its current meaning; from the same article in Wiki...."The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. The term wasnt used in the same context back in 500bc...other than to refer to impiety.

Oh come on! I don't care what you call it: atheism, non-theism, religiously challenged. The point is that there have been non-believers for as long as their have been believers. The problem is that you keep insisting that atheism is just another belief system, rather than a simple statement of fact.

For the most part historically speaking the idea that slavery was somehow evil didnt develope until the abolistionist movment

Which makes my point. Culture's views on things change over time. Something which was acceptable, even commendable, only a few hundred years ago is now considered abominable, at least by "civilized" society. The same is true for homosexuality. There have been times when it has been acceptable, even admired in some cultures. It's only recently that it has come to be tolerated in this culture. Yet the "tolerant" Christians, Jews, Muslims and others are fighting tenaciously against equal rights for homosexuals. And their only reasons for that are based on their religious teachings.

What a narrow minded opinion to hold. I can see all sorts of reasons why a society wouldnt want to promote this kind of thing that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with cultural preservation

And you could say the same thing about slavery. Or interracial marriages. Or interfaith marriages. There are some parts of culture that aren't worth preserving. But please, I'd love to hear some cultural arguments, which aren't ultimately based in religion, against giving everyone the same rights.

All I was saying is that it wasnt "evil" in and of itself for people to wish to have an opinion about it and or express that opinion in our democracy.

I agree, everyone has the right to their own opinion. But they do not have the right to deny others that same right. And denying any group of people the rights which you already have, by law, just because you don't like those people, or because a book of shepherds tales from thousands of years ago doesn't like them, is IMO evil.

So now you would have children not be raised by their parents?

That's not what I said, and you know it! I just think it's bad enough that parents stuff their kids heads full of mythology, we don't need to have the schools doing it too. Just teach kids to think critically. Teach them not to believe everything someone tells them. Regardless of who it is.

Actually growing up as a Lutheran...we studdied all sorts of religions other than our own and were activly encouraged to study religious history.

Which probably explains why you have changed religions so much. A good thing in my view. As I've said, I can respect your search, because you are obviously thinking deeply about it. My only criticism, in your case, is that it seems to me you are always searching based on the premise that a god, or gods, exists. I don't know what you are searching for, but perhaps you might try searching from the premise that gods probably do NOT exist. See where that search leads you.

So basically you wish to replace everyone elses beliefs...with your own?

Again, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. Since I have no religious beliefs there's nothing to replace other's beliefs with.

I see no reason that any kind of evolutionary movement away from God should be looked upon as a good thing

Don't think of it as a movement away from gods, but as a movement away from superstition. Humans once had multiple gods, for everything. Eventually they whittled that down to just one god (for the most part) although everyone has different opinions about what that one god is and what he wants. Perhaps now it is time to put aside that security blanket and accept that WE are responsible for what we do and only WE can make it right. Gods, Santa Clause, fairies and leprechauns have no place in our lives except as sometimes amusing stories for children.

especially since you have zero evidence to point to something different as an alternative.

Maybe this is where the real disagreement arises, and why religious people cling so hard to their gods. I am not offering anyone an alternative. I don't have anything that replaces religion or gods or faith. That would be like teaching you can lose weight by switching from Angel Food cake to Devil's Food cake. (Yeah, I did that on purpose! So sue me!) It isn't going to help. I'm saying eliminate the cake completely.

Eliminate the superstitions completely. You don't need gods to do the right thing. You don't need gods to love other people. You don't need preachers to tell you to help your neighbor. Do it because it's the right thing to do, because it's the human thing to do.