[gyardley]

This is simply incorrect.

My religion doesn't believe at all that your religion is wrong. Clergy in my religion will actively discourage you from converting, if they'll permit you to convert at all. We believe that it's far easier to live a righteous life when you're not a member of my religion, since there's far fewer obligations imposed upon you. No one in my religion particularly wants to convince you that my religion is right.

I don't think you understand religion all that well. You do know that they vary widely, yes?

[mikegreenberg]

Ignoring your condescending reply, I didn't say YOUR religion specifically believes that other's religion is wrong (You DO know that they vary widely, yes?). So while my statement may be incorrect for your particular case in your immediate environment, I think it's pretty short-sighted to think that isn't the case on a scale that's worldwide.

First, I see your allusions to atheism. And while I agree with your position above if, in fact, you were defending atheism. However, my statement takes the idea of atheism to the very meaning of the word (that god/religion doesn't exist). In other words, I don't consider atheism to be a religion. We agree on that point and you need not read further. (As an aside: If you weren't describing atheism above, then I think the irony that your religion and atheism shares common characteristics is interesting.)

If, however, you still disagree with the point that "The ENTIRE longevity and history of religion is propped up by its ability to influence others"; then let me slightly qualify my statement for clarity's sake. _Traditional_ religion has relied on influence to propagate itself through generations. Whether that's parent's influence over their children or the physical community's influence over its members, influence is the primary means of maintaining the ideological consensus of religion.

You have such a better understanding about religion than I. If not by influence, then please offer a counter-example that has allowed traditional religion to permeate our history for centuries.

[gyardley]

An atheist? Hardly. I belong to a synagogue, and it's hard to get more traditional than Judaism, which has been around for thousands of years.

The only reason why you think there's irony in what I said about Judaism is your ignorance of Judaism. Judaism has always stressed ritual observance, not articles of faith. It's perfectly possible to be a practicing Jew while having serious questions about the nature of God. And what I said about my religion and proselytizing above is absolutely correct. (Seriously, try to become a Jew. We probably won't take you - unless, of course, you're already ethnically Jewish.)

For that matter, since you used the word ideology, there's no ideological consensus in Judaism. There is a organized community and there are rituals. It's a thinking person's religion. We argue a lot. We're not much for dogma.

Naturally parents raise their children how they prefer, but that's parental influence, not organized religion's influence. They're quite distinct.

Our religion has traditionally had minimal to no influence in the broader society. For centuries there were very real incentives to convert away from my religion once you were free of parental influence. We've been the subject of discrimination, pogroms, and genocide. And yet here we are, having somehow 'permeated' successfully, and we're doing just fine. How does that tie into your theories about influence and the propagation of religion - since, for many centuries, our organized religion had zero influence? Perhaps there might be something more to it, hmmm?

Of course I'm being condescending to you. I get tired of listening to people who have no knowledge or experience of my religion spout off about it. You can't really talk about religion online without having some ignoramus come along and do the 'religion is dumb hurr hurr hurr' routine.

Anyhow, there's your counter-example.