Re: In fact...
 

[ QUOTE ]
"As an aside: The only argument I have seen against Religion that has an iota of validity (although I think it, too, falls short) is David S’s. He maintains that it can distracts from other things that perhaps are more important"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think that the fact that it is bad if people use bad reasoning to believe in incorrect ideas isn't an even better valid argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, if the goal is for example to find a cure for cancer or how to make a new type of bomb. One certainly needs to follow logic and base things on what is already known - or discover something new. But, I was talking about Religion, per se as a distraction. A distraction to what?

As far as religion your point here about using bad logic certainly is true, too. Who wants to follow what can be shown to be a false Religion? I am all for dissecting my (or any other ) Religion. I think your methodology might be flawed is all - or at least not capable of discerning a (dis) proof or even a somewhat virtually incontestable theory about (at least my) Religion.

I have a reply ready for you latest “New Biggest Miracle” post. Since you asked for no tangents, I will wait to reply to it tomorrow or post a new thread. I think it further addresses your question here. We’ll see.

Re: In fact...
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">What ever gave you the idea that I thought my religious beliefs are better than anyone’s else? </font>

I assume you feel that your religious beliefs are a little better grounded and above those who's religious beliefs allow them to to fly planes into skyscrapers filled with innocent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know little of the Koran. But, from what I have heard from some scholars regarding the Koran, the book simply does not teach such things.

Charles Manson used the Beatles' "Helter Skelter" to have his idiot followers kill Sharon Tate, et al. Should we ban music and even freedom of the press?

Again it is simply doesn't follow that any Religion (that I am aware of) actually teaches such nonsense. It is Man's misuse of Religion that is the problem. Argue that all you want - I'll agree.

As far as if I think Christianity is "better" than Islam? I just think it is the right one is all. I can very easily be wrong. I am not saying it or I am better than Islam/Muslims.

Re: In fact...
 

But you could use your arguments for astrology as well. That's OK?

Keep in mind that I was not saying religion is wrong in the other post. I was saying that IF it is wrong, that is good enough reason not to believe in it, whether you go on to cure cancer or not.

Re: In fact...
 

[ QUOTE ]
But you could use your arguments for astrology as well. That's OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure which argument you are referring to, but basically, yes. That’s OK. If someone wants to believe in astrology, what do I care? (Of course, as a Christian I care and would /should perhaps try to show them what I believe to be “The Way”. Again, free will - mine to try to convert or not and theirs to believe or not. But, as far as the theoretical discussions we are having - no, it doesn’t bother me.)

In fact, this is what perplexes me. Not so much you (as I view as someone who merely wishes to “enlighten” us believers) but some of the atheist on board who have such hostility. Why? Of course, there are issues like Lestat’s point about the fanatics (to that reference my response as not a real argument against Religion, per se.) If I, a believer, don’t care (theoretically speaking) whether atheists believe or not, it is simply ironic that some atheists have such passion against Religion.

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that I was not saying religion is wrong in the other post. I was saying that If it is wrong, that is good enough reason not to believe in it, whether you go on to cure cancer or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Let’s see if we can show that Christianity is wrong.

(The cancer thing was referencing a post from a while ago. And here my point is that if no God, I think the lap dances are just as important as curing cancer is all I am saying. Why should prolonging life be of such importance? And even prolonging mankind - why waste time worrying about the ozone? I don‘t get it - if we are merely another species of animal. )

Re: In fact...
 

So, in the common usage, it's a matter of degree. By the definition you cite, I am an atheist. I prefer "non-theist", since I'm not so hard-headed as to say that I "know" there is no god. I merely have alot of confidence in my opinion that there is no god, as described by the various religions of the world.

There is no need to get so worked up about the usage of a word, guys. It's only a label.

Re: The spread of Christianity
 

This question just seems silly personally as some kind of proof that this is a good reason to believe in Christianity. Why did the Muslims continue to practice thier faith whenever possible when the Crusader's entered their land and effectively praticed genocide, why have jewish people keep their faith in parts of the world where it is clearly not welcome and they would find life much easier if they quietly switched over? Nearly all religeons have members who were horribly oppressed and still kept their faith. So they all must be corect, no?

Re: In fact...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You do make a valid point about Paul though versus Peter. Paul plays a big roll. It is just that semantically Peter is referred to as the first head of the Church (not counting Jesus of course - who didn‘t actually “found“ Christianity, per se.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You're Catholic, so that makes sense that you'd say that. Protestants don't think that way, though. And, historically, the church we know of today was really started by Paul's preaching &amp; writing. It's thought that Peter's sect of "Christian Jews" was scattered &amp; died out. But, of course, similar teachings did come back, and Christianity morphs over time, so that I think "Christian Jews", Catholics, and more liberal Protestant denominations more closely resemble what Peter's "church" might have looked like -- as opposed to what Paul's did.

Re: In fact...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's just a matter of time before some religious fanatic gets hold of a WMD and dooms mankind in the name of his religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I share your sentiments... but might add that it need not be "religion" per se that people are fanatic about. America is fanatic about "freedom" and "democracy"... the the point that we might very well cause our own destruction by forcing other countries to share our "religion".

(I'm not saying our religion isn't good... I think freedom &amp; democracy are great. But, it's become almost fanatical... and our battle cry when going to war. We can't force others to share our views.)

/rant [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: In fact...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only argument I have seen against Religion that has an iota of validity (although I think it, too, falls short) is David S’s. He maintains that it can distracts from other things that perhaps are more important.

I think he is wrong that it distracts. And even if he is right, to use his own words “So what”? I say to the atheist, so what. I’ll “waste” my life how I want.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with you. I have no right to tell others not to do with their life what they want -- even if I think they are "wasting" it. I replied to DS on this, too.

BUT -- I actually have a MUCH bigger problem with religion. And that is, when people start to think that their religious beliefs justify them in telling other people what to do with their lives. It's not a real problem (just a nuisance), until the majority of your country follows a certain religion - led by a few religious leaders. Then, that mass of people can start to trample the rights of minorities because of their religious views.

As a great scholar once said: "Keep your Jesus off my penis, I'll keep my penis off of you."