"But what about those who HAVE known the sacred? I have experienced religious nirvana only a few times in my life, but it felt just as REAL as anything else I've expereinced. So isn't it therefor rationale to be devoted to the sacred. It was mysterious, but still quite real."

Certainly, if you feel with absolute certainty you have been touched by the hand of God, you would be nuts to ignore such a feeling.

This is not meant to sound insulting, but I would suggest that perhaps there is an explanation for what you felt that does not depend on the veracity of any of the world's religions or the existence of a supreme being.

For example, epileptics often report feelings of religious ecstascy connected with their fits. It's widely know that various drugs can cause hallucinations which are indecernable from reality.

Schitzophenics sometimes hear nonexistent voices with absolute certainty.

There is certainly lots about the human mind and body that is not understood very well, and perhaps never will be no matter how much we try.

Again I'm not trying to be insulting; if I ever experienced what you're talking about, I'd have a hard time not believing it too, but perhaps there is some other explanation for what happened to you?

Just to politely clarify my position, I'm not annoyed that salon would run a story about religion. I just don't think religion should have any influence over a secular society.

For example, and I think I used this example here earlier, when someone says that same sex marriage should be illegal because it's in the bible, that's bullshit. The bible isn't the foundation for laws in a secular society and should not be taken into consideration when crafting legislation. This is not a theocracy. Our lawmakers are not held to upholding what is in the bible. They are given the task, among other things, of upholding what is written in our constitution.

Just wanted to clarify, thanks.

Oh, and one last thing. I also take huge issue with Bush saying some of the crazy, nonsense things he does, like how god talks to him, or how god wanted him to be president. Really? Because correct me if I'm wrong but that sounds like divine power, which is what a monarchy is, not a fucking democracy. So excuse me for getting a little testy here but I've really had enough of the god parading by corrupt leaders.

glad to know the dictionary is among your sacred texts. But nothing in the dictionary definition of atheism is incompatible with my personal definition. It is certainly possible to be completely indifferent to something and disbelieve it at the same time.

And I apologize if I mischaracterized your rambling discussion of "theism" as "theology." But as I've explained, such matters are of little consequence to me except insofar as religious precepts and trends encroach on our secular rights. I don't know much about astrology or scientology either, so if you'd like to take me to task for those glaring gaps in my knowledge, feel free.

Finally, as you seem to be fond of "what if" speculation: what if atheism is innate in humans, and religion only a reaction to the "horrible" knowledge that dwells deep within us that life is without meaning or purpose? I guess "believing" that makes me something of a nihilist, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Why don't you do the honors...

Just to politely clarify my position, I'm not annoyed that salon would run a story about religion. I just don't think religion should have any influence over a secular society.

Excuse me jg, I thought again about your question after I replied last. Other posters seemed annoyed that Salon would address religion at all, but on thinking again, I thought: "perhaps when asking, 'why must religious people talk about their religion,' jg wasn't referring to this column, but to people talking to strangers, in really moronic ways, about their religion." I think there is great value in discussing religion intelligently, and a great necessity to do so. But there is absolutely no excuse, for instance, for mindlessly parroting the name of Jesus to strangers, in the mistaken belief that it will win any thinking person to believing as well. That _is_ delusional, and I think it actually damages Christianity.

I also do not believe we should select our laws based on scripture (which scripture, then? Don't forget there are millions of Jews, Muslims and Hindus, not to mention Buddhists, some Shintoists, and Confucians, in the United States; also, why start at gays, but stop at banning easter ham, or sleeping with your wife when she's on her period, as I believe the Old Testament bans?).

Finally, George W. Bush seems simply to be pandering to a Christian part of his base, just as Hitler did in the speeches cited earlier.

(Oops--the first paragraph of my last post should be in italics, as a quote from jg)

Ben: well we do need skeptics. There is a reason for the skeptical urge. I do not suggest that you subscribe to anything at all without evidence. I still think that atheism implies certainty that God does not exist, which requires proof, but the discussion of semantic quiddities can continue forever. But if atheists have anything to bring to the table, surely it's the rational, empirical testing of beliefs. Many atheists here have argued that "god, NO! We mustn't pay any attention at all to questions of religion! If we ignore belief in God, it'll simply die out on its own!" Talk about believing something irrational, unproven and untested, with no basis in observable fact, and seemingly as delusional as Santa Claus. But let those atheists form their own sect of atheism. I'm looking forward to hearing from the "bring it out in the open and test things" sect of atheism.

My view that all the Abrahamic religions imply belief in some form of extrasensory telepathy, which could probably eventually be measured and thus proved or disproved, has been challenged, but I'd still be interested to hear what the scientific community says about it.

What hasn't been challenged or rebutted in what I've said (unless I missed it) is this:

1) that the scientific community is suffering, especially for funding being withheld, because of religion. This, I think, makes it invalid to argue that "such research to disprove religion can be done on someone else's dime, if one cares to;" unless someone has a rebuttal for this point, the _lack_ of such research is costing the atheistic scientists quite a bit.

2) Ben seemed to admonish 19th century man against devoting any energy to considering wireless email transmission, because since he's never seen it, it should be thought of as delusional, though we know it's possible today. Ben, please rethink this, or show me what nuance I missed. This crushing of inquiry in its crib seems very unscientific to me. If Alexander Graham Bell had listened to this, surely he would have given up? If anything undemonstrated is to be regarded as implausible, and hence unfit for scientific experimentation, then there will be no scientific experimentation. Let Ben be skeptical (skeptics, I say again, have great value). But let the visionary be visionary.

I also believe that if the atheists are being frustrated because of the persistence of religion, then considering that their numbers aren't large enough to successfully browbeat all the religious into submission, and that the more thoughtful among them would prefer to lead with ideas than browbeating anyway, then why not develop your thought to its utmost? Would any atheist here deny the good feeling of level-headed grounding in reality that the studies of evolution have brought to their discussions? Why, then, should we not cheerfully study religious phenomena just as closely? There is an agnostic scientist, whose name also starts with a D (anyone?), who recently proposed doing just that. Psychology is mysterious, but it ain't that mysterious. Don't be afraid of it. It seems to me to be just a matter of studying brain function.