No kidding! I am all for freedom of religion, but unless this is a Muslim school, this is not OK!

Lots of conspiracy nuts out there, including these guys, the "Moon landing was a fake!", "9/11 event was a CIA/Mossad plot!", etc, etc . . .

I would say the purpose of philosophy is to lead the best life you can now, and is routed in practicality- what works best. When it comes to living around other people, I say that agreement on universal individual rights for everyone works best in the long run. If you believe in an afterlife, philosophy does depend on what the 'next life" would be like. Unfortunately none of the religions I have heard about really talks about the details, and one could argue that since the next life is supposed to be forever, why bother with philosophy in this one- just do whatever feels good at the time and await the next life.

Death is a pretty imposing eventuality every philosophy or religion has to deal with, no doubt about it. What I have found is that most people's view of death also strongly correlates with their views on life. Those who believe that this life is all there is to existence are generally non-religious (I don't necessarily use the word atheist). Those who believe this life leads to another are generally religious and which religion they select is based on how they view the afterlife.

The question is this: what is the purpose of life - my life specifically? If my consciousness is only fleeting, there become zero repercussions for my actions other than how I feel at that precise moment. If my consciousness is permanent and death is not the end, it leads one to ask what the next life would be like so I can prepare for it. That to me is the crucial decision for each of us to make.

Since none can define in an intelligible way the god they believe in, and since omnipotence seems to be a part of whatever loose definition they mumble, I do not see how any can be correct. The standard procedure in thinkings is to make a proposition which is understandable, then adduce evidence to support the proposition. Religious people never succeed in defining their god.

"Even the pilgrams came from Europe not for freedom but to impose their brand of religion on all others."

Can you justify such a claim? The Puritans, Quakers, and other Protestant religions left Europe to escape the tyranny of the Catholic Church or the Church of England - both "state-sponsored" institutions of religion and the primary cause for the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.

"if even one of these is right, all the others are wrong."

Precisely. But it does make you wonder: given the sheer volume, is one of them right and how would you find it if it were there?

All the religions I have inspected all have the common ideas about their god: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. Which are internally contradictory. Wikipedia says there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations alone. As Dawkins says, if even one of these is right, all the others are wrong.

"One must never set one man’s truth against another’s." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, in Wind, Sand and Stars. Which is why the principle of no one may initiate the use of force against another is so important. Even the pilgrams came from Europe not for freedom but to impose their brand of religion on all others.

"Perhaps they support it(?)" Yes, self-destruction seems to be the goal of the left on so many levels.

One friend of mine has the theory that America won't actually suffer a rapid collapse (or slow one - my theory). But, he says that we'll just get taken over by the Muslim religion and become a society like Iran, etc. He might be one to something. When they stone to death homosexuals or women in middle-eastern countries there is zero outcry from the left here. Perhaps they support it(?)

I dont think about this whole idea of God much anymore. The more I thought about it, the crazier a notion it appeared to be. Just made no sense to me at all. I think when you die, its like unplugging a computer. It just stops. People dont have permanent flash memory or hard drives which can be revived. Hmm, maybe if you downloaded the sum of a persons memory BEFORE he died, you could reload it into another human brain (or an android brain) and live again. Anyway, its not likely to be an option for me in my lifetime.... When its over, its over. Make the best of life NOW.

Thats a good one- the earth is flat ?? I guess the pictures from satellites are just bogus. In fact the satellites which rotate around the earth arent there either.

Interesting. I thought a good tagline would be "Your church, Your way, Right now". I thought it would be a half joke, but on the other hand- if you have to believe something, you might as well believe ONLY what you want to believe and not the other baggage that comes with established churches. Bring competition to religion, with the 'beliefs" coming from the ether (hey, just as believable as from some book purportedly thousands of years old, or from some undiscovered planet.

There are numerous issues with the origin of the Koran. You can start with the Wikipedia version, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of... , which tries to present all sides of the story. The only existing copies of the Koranic writings have been dated to more than 150 years after the death of the Prophet (except, strangely enough, the few verses found inscribed on the walls of the Dome of the Rock). Complete copies containing all of the surahs in the modern Koran date from around the tenth century.

Much of modern Islam (particularly the more extreme variants) rely on the Isnas and Hadiths, which were added to the belief scripture as "previously undocumented" statements made by the Prophet. Since most of these were written well after the death of the Prophet (several centuries), and the Koran specifically admonishes anyone that additions are forbidden (like stated in the Book of Revelations in the Christian New Testament), it suggests that they were creations incorporating practices of ethnic groups or tribes to aid in conversion. One reference that cites this is here: http://livingoasis.org/wp-content/upload... .

I've purposely left out even more skeptical Koranic histories compiled by Christian Pentecostals, as they suggest the Koran was an act of Satan. Because of that perspective, one has to question even what may be correct information they present.

One thing that makes the Koran unique is that the order of the surahs (chapters) is not chronological in the order they were revealed to the Prophet, but in the order they were assembled by its writers. Originally the believers felt that oral recitation was the way that the Prophet's words should be passed, as that was the way he spread the Word, but after the deaths of many of the original followers in battle, the fear that the faith might be lost if not documented is why a holy scripture of Islam exists at all.

Jan's question.
On the death of M none of the Koran was written. It was held in the memories of the followers. Now today people cannot remember a line, we see well known presidents make frequent use of teleprompters. But then, using memory was common. At that time there were three major schools on the teaching of M. The words were written only some decades later. The opinion of those who are fluent in Arabic is that the versions agreed very closely. This is some evidence that the cruelty and violence are authentic.

Uh, you're going to have a hard time with that, as the differences are prime and fundamental. Judaism claims that a Messiah will come to free the people from bondage - both physical and spiritual. Christianity claims that Jesus Christ was that Messiah and that the Jews are waiting for an event which already happened. Islam claims that Christ was just a prophet and a subordinate one to Mohammed. Islam claims that the Abrahamic authority passed through Ishmael, while Judaism (and Christianity) both claim that authority passed through Isaac.

Then you get into the various schisms of the religions themselves. You have Orthodox Jews who wear the finery, etc. and non-traditional Jews. You have at least five sects of Islam (Sunni, Shia, Wahab, Baath, etc.) who all disagree over who took responsibility for leading Islam after Mohammed died. There are hundreds of Christian denominations who all differ on authority (and frequently on tenet).

The main caution I would make is in trying to lump any of these together with some kind of homogeneous appellation. Talking about "religion" is like talking about the clouds as they pass over - they all match a very general description, but to any meteorologist they will shake their head when you suggest they are even remotely similar. Only principles are solid, tangible items.

Superciliousness is the antidote to obstreperous self-righteousness.
or
It is curious that as a strict atheist I find myself in frequent agreement with AJA.

The nature of God actually is usually THE pre-eminent difference between ANY two religions. And why is that? Because religion is all about emulation: what set of standards of behavior are going to lead to what results after this life. God is the embodiment of those aggregate standards. That's why there exist so many religions at all: there are hundreds of different interpretations of these matters.

The second major part that comes into play is line of authority. That's the main difference between all the various Christian faiths and is even the cause of the schism between the sects of Islam.

Have a minister/pastor/rabbi/imam/etc. answer those two questions and it will tell you about 80%+ about their religion.

Actually, there is at least one such web site (I'll try to look it up) where you can apply for and be granted a certification for a religion of any belief system you want. Once granted, the certificate allows you to establish an organization that's just as much tax free as, say, the Methodist Church. While this is laughable on its face, it makes the point of how organized religion can be a ripoff.

I once worked with a brilliant computer scientist who was a member of the Flat Earth Society (yes, there really is such an organization). I thought, for some time, that he joined just for a laugh, but when I suggested that, I was subject to an hour of irate declaration of the "proof" that the Earth was flat. Afterward, I limited my side of the discussion of organizations like this to a positive head shake, and "non-comments" (like "Oh" or "interesting").

Absolutely not. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of indoctrination going on in public schools that has nothing to do with religion/faith. The average student today is programmed to be a "happy camper" and to do well on standardized tests. Any nail that dares to stand up is generally knocked down, often by medication.

That is most definitely NOT how one produces an educated populace. It is, however, precisely what a looter's government would want to create and maintain.

Shouldn't be government indoctrination centers anyway

Maybe it's time to set up a website where people can start religions, set up suitable beliefs and seek subjects to join the religion. Let's get some competition. The beliefs can be drawn from the "ether" to give them more meaning. There can be priests and bishops and adonation system. The "god" resides in the ether and can send down forgiveness. I could go on...

Nancy pelvis is the true goddess

Hence the need for an agreed on constitution that is based on individual rights. After that, people can believe what they want so long as they don't act to violate another's rights the problem with any "belief" is that there is no way to change beliefs that don't accept the facts of reality. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese regardless of any evidence

So these people are forcibly educations our kids? How do they know ANY one of hundreds of "gods" is the "true" God?? Maybe none of them.