Tab-- I think the question of the poll was too big for itself, think about it, ‘‘shake my faith’’ sounds like your gonna kick god in the crotch or something. If the question was ‘‘did this make me think about my faith from a psychological standpoint’’ long but would have been in the context of what you said. like you said, you weren’t out to prove or disprove gods existance.
Yeah TM, you’re right. I aim too high. The next thread I start will be a concerted effort to stop people believing that walking under ladders is bad luck.
Mas’ll probably deny the existance of Ladders though, and Xunzian will tell me I got the rung-spacing all wrong.
And almost everyone will go off in a direction that belongs on the philosophy forum. No doubt.
Yea but, Tab , Icons don’t talk and give orders. Nature does not either.
I have yet to see a religious text written by a tree.
An Icon as a center of a religion or belief is for focus and for goal. A god in religion is used for passing the buck.
The fundamental difference between the two is acceptance of being responsible.
Once you put a sentient being in charge of your beliefs and actions you no longer have to accept responsibility.
An Iconic religion does not do that. In fact they are quite the opposite. The Iconic beliefs hold with the person being the one responsible for things done, not a god’s will.
It would seem then that the issue can be resolved by simply making a decision as to which set of illusions one wishes to rest their beliefs. That of religion or science.
Apparently we need further dissection into ever tinier pieces to get to the core of belief. This is good, because we don’t have to turn inwardly, we can keep the external denial/confirmation game going a little longer.
Reality Check,
I fully accepted that my children were the payback for all my sins. I still refuse to believe I sinned that much. 
But I may be wrong. 
TertiaryMindset!,
I was being just a bit facetious with my dust in the wind comment. Even at the level of dust, there is always the who created dust? Answer: God. Who moves the dust? Answer: God. The coolest thing about religious belief is that it remains untouchable. There is always a behind, behind, behind…
Kris,
Iconic religions function like all other religions in that regardless who is held responsible in a person’s life, the ‘reward’ or ‘payback’ is in an afterlife. We may be responsible for how we live, but judgement is always ‘later’ and that icon will do the judging. In a sense, all religions are iconic. Any construct we might have of the ineffable is automatically an idol set up for human purposes. The moment there is the first thought of “God is…” the icon is created.
I don’t know about that. Don’t some religions use an icon to help get a fertile crop or rain or victory in war? And aren’t the same people on the U.S.'s political right who advocate individual responsibility over government control the ones who go to church? That isn’t to argue the reverse of your assertion is true either, but that religions tend to be a little more complicated in the morality department.
Within Christianity, you can interpret Jesus’ death & resurrection (sortof important) as either a message to endure hardship and sacrifice for the greater good or a message to bask in the glory and love of God for eternity. From one story, a person can decide either to take responsibility or put it in something else’s hands; whether the object of devotion is an idea of a limited figure or an all-inclusive presence doesn’t make or break the question.
Tab, thanks for answering: In faith, the smooth running of society isn’t the magical car; the magical car is the unity of everything and a sense of meaning about it. Unfortunately for an anti-theistic argument, explaining how we humans understand meaning, via science, is just another aspect of purpose that adds to the feeling of faith. Come to think of it, I’m not sure how one could go about undermining belief in God. It’s comparable to telling a toddler not to be frustrated or a couple not to love one another; faith is irrational. (Reminder: I believe in God)
On the other hand, you could try it the same way you transition the baby to food: gradually and subtly. Maybe faith is the milk we only think we need.
Great: “Hey everybody, balance a bible on your Mother’s nipple, then rip a page out every day.”
And thus Tabula did save the world.
You make my analogy much more interesting 
Is it not interesting that on your list of 3 you offer any 2 of them can exist simultaneously:
Gcd could have used the Big Bang to create the universe… God could have used some other process to create the universe… or the Big Bang was contingent on some other unexplained process.
Blue Chicken-- The third might not nessesarily be linked to God as the wording says ‘‘or something of the same concept as the above two’’ so unless you think that God created God and then formed the universe you are wrong.
That does bring up something interesting, though what if God willed himself into existance, would certainly explain his penchant for dishing out free will to his creations. 
If everything non-contradictory is within God’s nature then this would actually be an interesting justification. The ontological argument is not a proof of God but the creation of God.
Whoa, mind blow!
This arguement, of God willing himself into existance, was a fairly lazy explanation given by a writer of a book that I can’t care to remember. Best not let many irrational believers get their hands on this though as the questions and annoying arguements that could arise from it will be numerous to the point of looking like this: 
… 
and then having a nervous breakdown.
Not a bad Idea. a god/goddess that can change their mind. They could change as a being in personality, but only so much. Especially if they are eternal, they couldn’t change for eternity and still be a being.