J E E - R A H L

Partly correct you are in your opening. People are religious because it gives them something to believe in without exerting effort into thought, is more precise. Let's also not forget that belief, by definition, stands outside of fact. I do agree in human's inability to not seek leadership, but I would hardly call it a predisposition. In doing so connotates innate ideas and that is a completely different philosophy, so let's call it a disposition to seek civilization and unity with bureaucracy. Do not mistake my heading sentence of "the intellectually weak feed from religion", the incorrect of that would state "the intellectually weak feed from god-talk", intelligent persons have not a denomination they pay homage to because intelligent and intellectually honest persons may or may not believe in the existence of a god, thus negating said persons from making an informed decision on the number of godly tributaries that are presented to them. Simpler put, one cannot preach religion when one is unsure of which or none god(s) exist(s), hence, my heading statement. Furthermore, I would hardly call my calling out of intellectually dishonest persons to themselves extremist, but if he who holds perceptions real, then said perceptions are true, so I may be an extremist, but I may be sane. What is deviant is certainly relative, so if my extremism/sanism has offended you, perhaps you should not read, or better yet, introspect into yourself, and when you come to the conclusion that I am correct in my essays, you can call me god. After all, I am at least real in the physical sense.

Oh, there really is no other way to constructively criticize said religious persons. It seems once their head is stuck in the sand it can't be pried out by intellectual debate. BTW -do you read the news?

wow. supersizing. what fool made that idea up? as if americans weren't fat enough.

typing in those numbers in the bottom almost makes me not want to write a comment. almost.