Is atheism a religion?

Remove all ads!

No, they are not, Nataraja. That's not even a good try though (I use that one on my kids). Dreams are much more complicated than that. I'm surprised that you are trying to brush us off with such a simple explaination. I would suggest you pick up any good book on the subject by Jung, Freud or even Lacan. Much like others on this thread, who have supported the notion atheisim, you use very sophisticated language and logic to explain atheism. Yet, when you try to exlpain Christian beliefs, dreams, mythology or depth or analytical psychology, you expalin them in the most simplistic and elementary logic. What's the deal?

 

I was under the impression that psychotherapy and its creators was thoroughly discredited nowadays in the scientific community? Very very much out of fashion and more or less relegated to the same status as witchdoctors, not an expert though just my pieced together impression from my time working in psychatric care.

 

That figures. But given the poor state of things, that would not surprise me.

 

Nataraja, I slipped into thinking you were an atheist because you brought up some of its points so much. That may have been my mistake.

However don't be so willing to believe that atheism itself is devoid of manipulation. It is totally capable of using authority figure and group think based manipulations & thought patterns. It is also capable of being used in a dogma. So I don't see any haven from manipulation in it.

It could be interesting to ask how and why religious thought came to be. It is possible it was brought by some higher being (or perhaps beings in your POV), developed as we as a species asked more questions/dealt with more things, or a combination of the two.

While the speaker makes some interesting points about psychology I would wonder if his bias and seeming willingness to leave somethings unmentioned (if they don't support his points) could hinder what you could find out from him. Say if he left perfectly reasonable theories unmentioned if he didn't care for them.

He may seem like a smart guy but ask if Nazi understandings of human biology were accurate (especially the whole master race bit) in spite of the fact they were used by people who were perfectly intelligent. Would you put much credibility in a lecture on the sociology of people if it was given by a KKK member-especially if much of it focused on black people?

About psychology, I think modern psychology may thank Freud for getting interest going but tends to look at his work as laughably obsolete and in many ways perhaps misguided. I think modern psychology/psychotherapy can be useful in helping determine if people have emotional problems and how to help deal with them. On the other hand I can think of times when it is a high priced waste of time-or at least something that fails to fix a problem. If there is a bully or manipulative and lying problem maker at your workplace you can try to deal with the emotions/stress they generate on one hand. On the other hand talking to a guy in a room with big soft chair somewhere probably isn't going to kick the bully out of your workplace. Thus psychology can really be helpful (and has probably helped some people deal with part of their lives), but it doesn't do or fix everything.

 

Freud has always been a controversial force. And most of his theoretical stuff is no longer considered valuable in the study of psychology. Nevertheless, his work on dreams and the interpretaion dreams is still used to some extent by most every analyst. In fact, new discoveries in the way the brain works have proved some of Freud's assertions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

Nevertheless, I'm NOT a Freudian, but a Jungian. Jung broke with Freud, in favor of his own very controversial theories. The only reason I made a reference to Freud was because of his interpertation of dreams.

 

Nataraja, as I said, ultimately, personal experience is the basis of everything. You can question other people's personal expereiences, but don't expect them to give up on those experiences just because you don't think it's creadible. And you certainly shouldn't call them stupid or foolish or idiotic for believing their personal experiences (when there is no evidence to contradict those experiences) rather than trust you're lack of similar experiences.

As to dreams and dream interpretation, there are many types of dreams, with varying levels of symbology. The three dreams I was talking about were very low on symbology. They were the, "I dreamed that I came into work and my boss got fired and they wanted me to replace him/her" type, rather than the, "I dreamed I was floating on Mars and then a cat ate my house (why was my house on Mars?) and then the cat WAS my house and it was in a pretty little garden with a river of lava off to the side (still pretty, though)...". Also, they weren't vaguely similar, as I believe you said earlier, they were almost identical in concceptual content (one dreamed about seeing it happen, one dreamed about hearing about it from a friend, one dreamed about trying to explain it and handle the fallout). Just to clear some things up.

 

Chandos, even so Freud, Jung and those laid the foundation and started the entire field. The ancient greeks might have been wrong about most of the stuff they studied but they are still held in high regard for getting things started. I was a bit rough in my previous post, the early people and psychoanalysis as a whole is more held in that regard as important pioneers that broke new ground even if they came to faulty conclusions.

I am still extremely interested in exactly what shape your faith has Chandos, it seems to be somewhat chimaeric and I just can't pin it down. You seem to be someone who has spent quite a lot of time and effort on thinking on these issues and you seem to be reasonably intelligent and aware so I am still very interested in how you reconcile your reason with your faith. NOG does it by having what he perceives to be real visitations by god, what is it that convinces you?

 

Oh, Joacqin, don't discount my analysis of the evidence as well. Despite the common perception of religious folk as anti-science, I'm interested in just about any science I can get my hands on (which explains a little about how I know a little about just about everything). That study has heavily influenced both my perception of the nature and character of God and of my religion.

 

Iku-Turso - What do you mean by a bogus link? The link to Freud works fine for me. Sorry if it is a broken link. I'll try recopying it again, since it upset you so much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

 

@Chandos: Hm, did I say a bogus link? I meant that there's bogus content on that wikipage. My bad. Didn't want to put it here since it'd derail the conversation. Apologies. Also, I could (should have ) put that in a PM, but there you go. (Don't worry, you'll get positive rep sooner or later from me to compensate for that, I'm sure )

Well, it is kind of fitting that psychoanalysis should be brought up in a conversation about religion. Although there's not much fanaticism in it, there seems to be this all-encompassing way to see the world. A worn-out critique, I know...but it's a similar thing. An either-or, black or white, binary way of seeing things. Quite similarily, any religion or almost any western way of thinking goes in these Hegelian lines (just had to put that in here ). One thing that I find amusing is the way of completely disparaging the perceived opposing view, not by trying to find or bringing out the faults in that said point of view has per se, but by dubbing it and those who have that said point of view as insane.

Well, it might be efficient rhetorics, but are we trying to persuade each other, ourselves, some random person reading this or are we just passing time in here. Are we trying to find a better understanding on other people's point of view, are we trying to prove we're better than some other person, are we practicing for some epic endeavour in RL in which the acquired conversation skills in here are required. I don't need a good answer for this. I'm here because you're all very interesting and smart people towards I have more respect than I have for most people I've met in my life. It's all well and good, but do find some better links to prove your point. (You see the problem in there was that there wasn't good enough basis for putting Ramachandran, Damasio and Sacks so tightly with those other people...)

 

That's the same reason that I post here as well. If all of us believed the same thing, than this would not be nearly as interesting a place to hang out. There are very diverse views on this board and that's a large part of the attraction. If all of us agreed it would be much too dull.

To be honest, I don't know very much about brain research. I posted the link because Freud is always an interesting topic, and he seems to generate controversy whenever he enters the conversation. But Jung, I do know a lot about. So, I've read some of Jung's own accounts of working closely with Freud. But it would not surprise me that there was bogus content on Wiki. I know they try to keep it accurate as they can, but it must be a massive undertaking.

That's really funny (seriously, I wish I had thought of that one).

 

Well, Id say it is because I think Christian beliefs et al is, to be perfectly blunt, are a lot of nonsensical jibberish. Christianity starts with a false premise and draws all its conclusions from that first false premise. Genesis 1:1...false premise. All conclusions are drawn from this first false premise and every other false premise that follows. Sure it might seem logically consistent within itself, but from an outsider looking in it is just a mess. The whole of Christianity and all of its competing theologies are for the most part absurd, full of assumptions that are below being baseless, they are just down-right lies, hodge-podge guesses and ingrained ignorance. When the theologies arent absurd they are so backward that it hurts my brain to think about them. I really cannot understand how people who live in the 21st century can believe what the bible says, considering we have been to the moon, sent things to mars and even past the orbits of pluto, considering all the knowledge we have about the universe and how it works naturally...and Christians, especially in the USA it seems, put their fingers in their ears, their hands over their eyes and refuse to move on into the age of intelligence. This is why I explain away Christian 'whatevers' with simple logic, because anything more complex is just a waste of energy. Occams Razor...

All this applies also to Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Bahai, as well as any other religion or faith that is 'revealed' by any higher power. Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism, Buddhism) is different, it was never revealed, it has always existed, it is the Way, just like the Tao, or the native Maori religious beliefs that existed before the Europeans came to New Zealand, or like the pre-European Australian Aboriginal beliefs. Any religion that raises humans up above the other animal species, which fills their believers with the false idea that they are not an animal species and that they are apart from nature, is nonsense and anti-science. I also dislike any sort of clergy which has power over people. It is the main reason why I reject 'orthodox' beliefs that have been tainted by the brahmin solely for their material gain. Devotion to your personal god is your personal thing and your own personal path towards understanding the Oneness of the universe. Anyone that tells you how to believe, what to believe, what not to believe, how to act and even that you have to worship, is lying to you and imposing something that is not your own on you.

 

... Wow, Nataraja, you have gone more into your religous extreme than I think anyone else here has. You now claim, not only that your beliefs are the only right ones, but that they are the only sensible ones, accusing all others of being 'nonsense' and 'anti-science'? "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth..." What about that is anti-science? When you call something a 'false premise', you have to provide supporting evidence. There is none. The claim that a singular being designed and created the universe is neither disproven, nor is it illogical (i.e. nonsense). It isn't a valid scientific theory, as it isn't really testable, but that's the only complaint you can really make about it.

So you believe humanity is just another animal? You believe that there is no significant difference between humans and other animals? Of course, significant is a completely relative term, but I think everyone here can agree that, at the least, humanity has crossed a threshold that no other species has. Whether that's rising to something more than animal, though not not animal (we are still animals, but not just animals), or simply animals being able to express themselves in a new and more powerful function is not only a matter of belief, but also of opinion.

This whole paragraph implies somehow that you have proof the Bible (and other religions) is wrong. Yet you have never presented anything like this. This is even worse than my claims of personal proof, simply because you aren't actually even claiming proof, just implying that it must be there somewhere. Yet, somehow, you seem to be not only absolutely sure of it yourself, but also sure that anyone who doesn't agree with you simply isn't thinking. Congratulations, your faith is far more extreme than mine.

Do you include Chandos and I in that? Do you include the practicing biologists, psychologists, theoretical physicists, aerodynamicists, and chemical engineers that are Christians in this? Your opinion seems to be to be based on a stereotype that was more valid 50 years ago (and reflects more of the culture than of the religion) than it is today.

 

To be fair NOG, I do not think that Nataraja was saying ALL religions besides the one he follows are wrong. I think he is saying that all religions that have a god-head make no sense to him (in fact, he specifically excludes Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism - which combined have BILLIONS of followers). If you reject the concept of a god-head, then naturally he is also going to reject the statement that God creatured the universe. Perhaps using terms such as "jibberish" and "nonsense" seem a bit harsh, but that's what it is to him. There's a chance you may feel similarly about some aspects of Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism.

EDIT: It also just occurred to me that if you reject a god-head concept, then it also logically follows that there was no special creation of man. That we evolved just like everything else, so I can also see why Nataraja would say we are just animals.

Whatever world view or religion you follow has to be at least logically self-consistent. If you believe God created the world in 6 days, then you probably also believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, and all the rest of the stuff in Genesis. It's logically self-consistent. I'd also say Nataraja's views are self-consistent for similar reasons.

 

Actually, I said that any non-revealed religion is better than any privately revealed religion. Any religion, practice or faith that has its basis in observing nature as it runs its course and deduces its beliefs about the universe from said observations. An example I mentioned is the Maori religion. When Maori first settled here in New Zealand they were a small population of maybe 50 women and 100 men. Compared to the islands they had come from the North Island was infinitely large and infinitely rich with food, primarily protein in the form of birds. For a long time the Maori peoples lived a life of excess, burning down the lowland forests to drive the moa out, and they hunted the seals to almost extinction. After this time of wasteful hunting practices they suffered from starvation and malnutrition because of the loss of their main food, and also because very little of what crops they brought with them couldnt grow in temperate regions. It was during this period that the Maori religion was formed, and it set up strict tapu on what you could and couldnt hunt, where you could hunt, what fish you could catch and how you could catch them, and also who was allowed to hunt what or fish for what. They developed a religion that was in harmony with nature, so that they no longer abused the environment. Their mythological creator god was Tane, god of the forest, and he supposedly made the Maori from a union with the earth woman, and Tane in turn made the other creatures by union with other 'women'. The Maori were not apart from nature, they were intimately connected with nature, they were not superior in anyway and neither did they raise themselves up and think of themselves as anything different from the other animals, the plants, the rocks, all of nature. This is not indifferent with what evolutionary theory says about humans. Also I mentioned Australian Aboriginal mythology. I dont remember too much about it from when I was a child in Australia, but I do remember that humans were not raised above the rest of nature, and that there was immense respect for nature because they were intimately part of nature. I also mentioned the Tao, which also has very similar views. I could have mentioned many more religions who have the same basic characteristics.

The only religions I said were nonsensical and anti-science are the ones with fixed dogma that was purported to have been revealed by the 'god of the universe' or the 'god of whatever'. These are books written by men, ignorant men, men who didnt know about how the universe works. The bible assumes a flat disc shaped earth with a dome above it, surrounded by water. This is inline with the predominant, and perhaps the only, view of the world in ancient mesopotamia. The Koran says that the world is the centre of the universe and the sun goes around it. The bible makes such claims too. Also, the bible says that pi is 3. 3...of all things...not even a fraction!?! Surely your god must have known it wasnt 3. Or, could it be that the people who wrote the book were ignorant and that it isnt actually the revealed word of any gods? Genesis 1:1...what is a 'heaven'? You mean, the optical illusion of the sky being a dome? A dome that was 'stretched out'? The whole of the creation myth, the first premise of Christianity, which without it the whole point of Jesus coming to be killed is nullified, is completely absurd. Light was made before the sun? Are you serious? Plants were made before the sun was made? How would they have photosynthesized? The list of absurdities goes on and on from there.

Example, 1st Chronicles 29:11 says "And gave for the service of the house of God of gold five thousand talents and ten thousand drams, and of silver ten thousand talents, and of brass eighteen thousand talents, and one hundred thousand talents of iron.", which is concerning King David (high probability of not even being a real person) gathering things for the temple of his god in Jerusalem. A dram is another word for a daric, the coin that was made by King Darius of Persia, whom we know beyond a doubt existed...like 500 years after King David was supposed to have lived. So...did David have a time machine? Also, secondly, 100,000 talents of iron is about 34 million kilograms of iron. Amazing. The truthfulness is overwhelming...

Never have I ever said that a singular being did not make the universe. I never said that it was illogical or nonsense. I said that Christianity was nonsensical and absurd. How you got the idea that a singular being did not design and create the universe, I dont know. You should know by now that I believe in many gods, Shiva being my most favourite and the one I feel the most connection to.

No arguments with you there. I would never complain about how I cannot scientifically test the existence of Shiva. I wouldnt really want to. Im quite sure that he doesnt actually exist, like as an actual being, but rather he exists as an anthropomorphization of certain fundamental aspects of the universe. The gods and goddesses are more of a comfort thing for me these days than anything else. Its nice to put a friendly face (pun intended) on the universe by anthropomorphizing the universe with Shiva.

Silly question, you already know the answer.

Not at all. Humans are as unique as any other organism on the planet. To say that our achievements are not significant is to say that the cheetah doesnt actually run really fast or that the halophiles dont actually tolerate high concentrations of salts. All animals have an 'edge' over others, ours just happens to be our brain and our bipedal posture and our precision grip...and that is pretty much it.

Well duh. We are still an animal species however intelligent we are or whatever our achievements be. Whales have crossed a threshold that no other species has. Can you dive like a whale can...unaided? Birds have crossed a threshold that no other species has...can you wave your front legs and fly? All animals cross thresholds that other animals may have never crossed before. It is what gives a species its edge over others.

We are still mammals, but not just mammals? We are chordates, but not just chordates? Come on, we are animals...just animals...we are 98% chimpanzee. We arent some sort of super-animal or anything like that...yet. I do however see a point in time when we will efficiently become a super-organism akin to bees or ants...or borg...

Indeed I do, and Im not the only one who has proof. The proof that the Bible is wrong is written on its own pages. But if you really must know, have a look at Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

If you reject evolutionary theory, then yes.

The USA is pretty much the only place on earth where a good portion of the scientific community is Christian. Any of them who place their a priori beliefs above empirical evidence are no better than the red states or Sarah Palin...or George W Bush...or any other person who thinks talking to themselves = proof they are talking to not-their-imaginary-friend.

 

So atheists are right when they talk about other religions than yours but yours (and those closest in type to it) are right....

NOG is correct in his comments about you going more extreme than any of the rest of us. I'll suspect that each of us with religious beliefs may have a sense that his/her beliefs are correct or at least close to the truth, but I think you took the cake when it comes to looking down on others' thoughts/beliefs.

And about US Christianity, not only are a great many scientists Christian, but some of the early Puritan settlers (viewed as more-perhaps extremely-religious when compared to other settlers) viewed studying nature (including natural laws) as trying to better understand God's works. It is true that some US Christians stick their head in the sand when it comes to science. But you're ignoring the large number of US Christians open to (and being an active researchers for) science both now and in the past.

Considering it is/was Darwin's (no I'm not claiming he is from the US) birthday recently you may want to read his writings. Note that he was a Christian.

 

Yup, 200th birthday of Darwin, and 150th B'day of the Origin of Species. Also the 25th B'day of a friend of mine, and he's having a theme party tomorrow.

Darwin was a christian and a racist, but you must understand that he was just a product of his time. The fact that he came up with the theorem of evolution doesn't immediately mean you can expect him to be more socio-culturally advanced than others in his time. It's like blaming Marx for being sexist, and not coming up with equal rights for women.

 

No, what I was saying is that religions that have their doctrine written down, ie revealed by a god or written by said gods personal messenger, are absurd because they presume many things about the universe based on the false assumptions in their holy books that were written by ignorant men in the past and that could never have actually been revealed by any god unless it was the god of drunken mistakes.

Oh really? I dont have a sense that my beliefs are correct or close to the truth. They are just completely compatible with science. My 'beliefs' are for the most part a hybrid of hinduism and science. Any belief system that does not raise humans above nature, that doesnt imply that humans are apart from nature, or any other sort of pompous claim, is accurate. The Abrahamic traditions view humans in a false light. We are not what they claim we are. We are not fallen sinful beings that were created in perfection. We are just a species of animals. This is the fact of the matter.

Thats nothing to brag about...its 2009, not 1820, or 1750, or 1667...times have changed. I quite like how it was Linnaeus who first recognized humans as being primates, Mendel who gave us gene theory. Christians who were scientists in the past would not be Christians today knowing what we know about biology.

Only some? Not like 60something% or more like the polling suggests? 60% of approximately 500 million is a lot of deluded people.

I would never have thought you would have claimed he was from the US, I am a university educated person who is studying Evolutionary Biology if you didnt know. Im fully aware he was a Christian as well. Just like Linnaeus who first recognized humans as being primates (ie animals).

 

So Hinduism has nothing written.... I would be surprised by that but if it is a totally oral religion I guess it wouldn't be the first. However I wouldn't be shocked if there is such a thing as a Hindu fundamentalist somewhere. Would you be?

About humans as a species of animals.... well.... err that isn't a shock at all and I'm pretty sure the system of biology (I think this was mentioned in my Bio001 class years ago) that labeled us as such was not devoid of Christian scientists during its formation.... you have even noted that it isn't. I really doubt the scientists making such classifications/discoveries felt they contradicted their religious beliefs and never said so. I think you are trying to make something out of little or nothing in terms of your argument here.

Also I'm guessing you aren't about to say your beliefs are deeply wrong in some way. Especially as you pointed out that you feel (I'm adding the word "feel" as you may honestly "feel" that way but you didn't describe it as such) that your beliefs don't contradict any facts out there.

Now you are putting your words in their mouths. I'm pretty sure they were capable of writing down somewhere that they didn't believe in Christianity if they felt that way-and they didn't. I would guess that if they were alive today they would probably still be Christian and scientists (though perhaps interested in all the discoveries made since they wrote).

And if you're arguing their religion was simply a part of the limited scientific knowledge we had then when compared to now I'll point out that most of the scientists today who are Christian and have access to modern scientific understandings don't seem to be dropping their religion. So the idea that most of the notable Christians who were scientists in the past would still be both Christians and scientists if physically alive and with us today is not only possible, but likely.

A good chunk feel that way but 60% strikes me as a bit high of a number. Are you overestimating in any way (to make it easier for you to blame Christianity as a whole rather than subgroups of it?). Over 50% of US citizens (according) to a gallup poll think evolution explains us and biology. There is an interesting group of people that say yes to both as likely and that is about the only way you could have reached anywhere close to 60%

I pointed that out for clarity's sake as I had mostly talked about Christians in the US/N. America as part of that post. And I have a college degree, what is your point about you going to school. I hope you are not assuming you are somehow the only one of us who has, you've seemed to avoid going at least that far out even in the posts where you called other people's religions delusions.





And coineineagh, I have some doubts about if you are correct about Darwin being a racist. It is my understanding that some of Darwin's comments are along the lines of an abolitionist who felt humans are equals. I know that Nazis and others can and have perhaps misused/abused Darwin's theories in an attempt to justify claims of a "master race" but I think that tends to disagree with his abolitionist tendencies.

 

I take it you have never heard of the Vedas, the Puranas, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads...etc? Hinduism was a literate religion long before Judaism even consolidated as a barely unified system of beliefs, let alone before Christianity was even a sparkle in Judaisms eye.

There are plenty of them. They are the kind that blow up mosques and think that fake holy men really do the miracles they claim to do. They are also the kind that would kill me if they ever saw the blasphemies I write on here. What they dont do however is proselytize, with the exception of the Hare Krishna movement, so I respect them. Being a missionary and actively converting people, or trying to, is fundamentally wrong. Everyone has the right to make up their own mind in regards to the path they choose to take. All I worry about is how conscious a person is of the universe and their place in it. Giving people false images of themselves doesnt help.

Actually, all I did was answer a question honestly. This came up as a side note. It is pretty much identical to what came up eventually in the Evolution vs Creation thread. I was honest when I said that Christianity to me is incredibly ridiculous and it makes no sense to me. That should have been the end of it. It should have been 'fair enough, you dislike Christianity because it makes no sense to you, which is why Christian religious experience means nothing to you'. Aldeth pretty much summed up what I was getting at.

Actually, I was arguing that most of the Christian scientists from the past were Christian because it was ingrained into the culture of the time. They were products of their society. If they had said 'Yes we are atheists and we do not believe in Christian theology' they would have caused a complete uproar and would have condemned themselves to death at the hands of the uneducated superstitious masses. Also Christian scientists in general these days are a mostly US anomaly which does not accurately reflect science outside of the most fundamentalist and superstitious western country.

As someone who is not American and who can look at the culture from the outside, it comes across as being very, um...backwards. The presidential inauguration comes to mind when Fox News was suggesting that Obama wasnt really the president because he didnt take his second oath on a bible...like that really matters? They may have been saying it tongue in cheek, but still, that just comes across to people outside the US as being very 19th century. Even when Rick Warren got up and talked to himself for a while it was enough to make me think that there must be some sort of mental gymnastics going on there, on the one hand a man is talking to himself asking a non-existent personal deity to do his magic, and on the other hand you have secret service and security...why both? Surely Rick Warren talking to himself or his imaginary friend would have been enough to protect Obama from any sort of plot. Unless the Christian god doesnt actually work miracles, or has no powers...or, perhaps, does not exist? If the Christian god exists then Obama wouldnt even need the secret service. All he would have to do is mumble to himself every morning and his god will protect him just like he protect all the heroes of the bible...unless those stories are make-believe. Surely though, if the god can protect the people in the bible like the bible claims he can, why do Christians even bother locking their front doors when they leave their houses?

Does anyone see where Im going with this? Its like I was saying before, if the theory of evolution is true and we share a common ancestor with the other great apes, then the biblical creation story couldnt have happened, they are diametrically opposed to each other. However, the eating the apple or whatever is the foundation for the reason that the Christian god had to have an avatar (?) come to earth to be killed. None of this makes any sense to me. Maybe I just cannot do the mental gymnastics American Christians can do. It just seems to me that there is no rational reason why anyone should be a Christian. The bible is an obvious man-made book, it is full of mistakes about the nature of the universe that no omnipotent god would make. All I can think of is that it is nothing more than a comfort in a lonely and inhospitable universe, much the same as why I still cling to my gods and goddesses despite having no rational reason to believe that they really exist outside of my head.

Anyway...

You didnt need to point it out for clarity, that was my point. I am an educated person. And I am well aware that other people are too. Why would I assume anything? Im not a Christian you know...