Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

Nor do I expect scientist to throw up their hands and give up. I'm thankful for the quality of life improvements science has given us. All I've tried to point out since I've been here is that the atheist notion of religion can't benefit society is just as closed minded as science explains everything natural. We all understand unchanging dogma and blind anything are detrimental, as is fanaticism, but to see no value in using a conceptual moral absolute or doctrine espousing equality and loving thy fellow man is just as ludacris to me.

religion is a wild card. even conceptual moral absolutes are relative, depending on the religion of the geographic location you are born in. if you were born elsewhere, your moral absolute (supposedly justified by your 'ancient text') would be stoning as a proper way to deal with a woman that has committed adultery. Their stoning is not fanaticism, it's just their 'moral absolutes justified by their religious doctrine'. I agree with you about espousing equality and loving thy neighbor but I don't believe that Christianity has a monopoly over these values. .

[tackattack]

And science has no variables? You're missing the point. It's the dogged pursuit of truth, the ability and desire to mercilessly introspect and question beliefs that allows futhering of a civilized society. Science has assumed absolutes that are relative, until science further disproves them and expands or better defines the perspective of the locale. We didn't always believe as a populace that the Earth was round or that the sun emitted photons No one believes the origins of aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, our perspective on science has changed through science. Some theists do use the same rationality and logical questioning to further our understanding of what may or may not lie outside of the physical realm. It's just sad that so many theists use religion for selfish aims and that atheists equate religion with many negative things because of it. Regardless of the field pursuing the truth and questioning does have value and religion is not mutually exclusive to that, was my point.

[tavarish]

Nor do I expect scientist to throw up their hands and give up. I'm thankful for the quality of life improvements science has given us. All I've tried to point out since I've been here is that the atheist notion of religion can't benefit society is just as closed minded as science explains everything natural. We all understand unchanging dogma and blind anything are detrimental, as is fanaticism, but to see no value in using a conceptual moral absolute or doctrine espousing equality and loving thy fellow man is just as ludacris to me.

First off,

Second, what would the value in a moral absolute be, if we cannot distinguish any? It's not practical in the least.

It would be great if we had a neverending sub sandwich. An absolute sub, that was infinite, and tasted great to everyone. It would solve lots of problems, but present lots of new ones, each more improbable than the next.

Third, doctrine espousing equality is already within secular society. You don't need religion for that, nor do you need divine mandates to tell you who to love. Mutual respect is a by-product of a tolerant, well-balanced society. If you attribute these things only to an absolute God, lots of atrocious thing can be done in the name of this doctrine and be completely justified.

---

And science has no variables? You're missing the point. It's the dogged pursuit of truth, the ability and desire to mercilessly introspect and question beliefs that allows futhering of a civilized society. Science has assumed absolutes that are relative, until science further disproves them and expands or better defines the perspective of the locale. We didn't always believe as a populace that the Earth was round or that the sun emitted photons No one believes the origins of aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, our perspective on science has changed through science. Some theists do use the same rationality and logical questioning to further our understanding of what may or may not lie outside of the physical realm. It's just sad that so many theists use religion for selfish aims and that atheists equate religion with many negative things because of it. Regardless of the field pursuing the truth and questioning does have value and religion is not mutually exclusive to that, was my point.

As I've posed to you in the other thread:

Name ONE thing that has increased our understanding of the world that could only be accomplished with a belief in God.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

And science has no variables? You're missing the point. It's the dogged pursuit of truth, the ability and desire to mercilessly introspect and question beliefs that allows futhering of a civilized society. Science has assumed absolutes that are relative, until science further disproves them and expands or better defines the perspective of the locale. We didn't always believe as a populace that the Earth was round or that the sun emitted photons No one believes the origins of aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, our perspective on science has changed through science. Some theists do use the same rationality and logical questioning to further our understanding of what may or may not lie outside of the physical realm. It's just sad that so many theists use religion for selfish aims and that atheists equate religion with many negative things because of it. Regardless of the field pursuing the truth and questioning does have value and religion is not mutually exclusive to that, was my point.

I do not think that because someone is religious they can't ever practice methodological naturalism:

Regardless of the field pursuing the truth and questioning does have value and religion is not mutually exclusive to that, was my point.

I'm not an atheist solely because of all the war and suffering that religion has caused. Religion is a wild card: I realize that religion may cause someone to not steal, kill, or cause someone to donate to the poor in belief that their is a deity smiling at him or her for this behavior , not that religion is the only reason people don't commit crime or do donate to the poor (e.i. dogma isn't the only reason people are good). I'm an atheist because I have studied a natural explanation for most phenomena: from natural disasters to meteorology to the formation of stars to the origins of species and there is no room for the deity that is described by today's major religions. As you've pointed out, there are many questions WE still haven't answered by methodological naturalism, but the history of knowledge and understanding is evidence that science works because we have only continued to discover. I believe that we will find the answers to origins of life and even the origins of the proton, not by blind faith, but by having studied the consistency of methodological naturalism (or scientific method) at explaining nature throughout history.

---

Nor do I expect scientist to throw up their hands and give up. I'm thankful for the quality of life improvements science has given us. All I've tried to point out since I've been here is that the atheist notion of religion can't benefit society is just as closed minded as science explains everything natural. We all understand unchanging dogma and blind anything are detrimental, as is fanaticism, but to see no value in using a conceptual moral absolute or doctrine espousing equality and loving thy fellow man is just as ludacris to me.

First off,
Second, what would the value in a moral absolute be, if we cannot distinguish any? It's not practical in the least.

It would be great if we had a neverending sub sandwich. An absolute sub, that was infinite, and tasted great to everyone. It would solve lots of problems, but present lots of new ones, each more improbable than the next.

Third, doctrine espousing equality is already within secular society. You don't need religion for that, nor do you need divine mandates to tell you who to love. Mutual respect is a by-product of a tolerant, well-balanced society. If you attribute these things only to an absolute God, lots of atrocious thing can be done in the name of this doctrine and be completely justified.

---

And science has no variables? You're missing the point. It's the dogged pursuit of truth, the ability and desire to mercilessly introspect and question beliefs that allows futhering of a civilized society. Science has assumed absolutes that are relative, until science further disproves them and expands or better defines the perspective of the locale. We didn't always believe as a populace that the Earth was round or that the sun emitted photons No one believes the origins of aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, our perspective on science has changed through science. Some theists do use the same rationality and logical questioning to further our understanding of what may or may not lie outside of the physical realm. It's just sad that so many theists use religion for selfish aims and that atheists equate religion with many negative things because of it. Regardless of the field pursuing the truth and questioning does have value and religion is not mutually exclusive to that, was my point.

As I've posed to you in the other thread:

Name ONE thing that has increased our understanding of the world that could only be accomplished with a belief in God.

I feel like giving you a negative for making me scroll down that huge picture of luda...

[tavarish]

I feel like giving you a negative for making me scroll down that huge picture of luda...

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

[tackattack]

---

And science has no variables? You're missing the point. It's the dogged pursuit of truth, the ability and desire to mercilessly introspect and question beliefs that allows futhering of a civilized society. Science has assumed absolutes that are relative, until science further disproves them and expands or better defines the perspective of the locale. We didn't always believe as a populace that the Earth was round or that the sun emitted photons No one believes the origins of aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, our perspective on science has changed through science. Some theists do use the same rationality and logical questioning to further our understanding of what may or may not lie outside of the physical realm. It's just sad that so many theists use religion for selfish aims and that atheists equate religion with many negative things because of it. Regardless of the field pursuing the truth and questioning does have value and religion is not mutually exclusive to that, was my point.

I do not think that because someone is religious they can't ever practice methodological naturalism:

Regardless of the field pursuing the truth and questioning does have value and religion is not mutually exclusive to that, was my point.

I'm not an atheist solely because of all the war and suffering that religion has caused. Religion is a wild card: I realize that religion may cause someone to not steal, kill, or cause someone to donate to the poor in belief that their is a deity smiling at him or her for this behavior , not that religion is the only reason people don't commit crime or do donate to the poor (e.i. dogma isn't the only reason people are good). I'm an atheist because I have studied a natural explanation for most phenomena: from natural disasters to meteorology to the formation of stars to the origins of species and there is no room for the deity that is described by today's major religions. As you've pointed out, there are many questions WE still haven't answered by methodological naturalism, but the history of knowledge and understanding is evidence that science works because we have only continued to discover. I believe that we will find the answers to origins of life and even the origins of the proton, not by blind faith, but by having studied the consistency of methodological naturalism (or scientific method) at explaining nature throughout history.

---

Nor was aything directed at anyone in particular, I was just showing some examples o ideas I've come across in conversations here. If religion is the only reason someone's being nice or not killing then they're majorly messed up. We can agree to disagree on whether there's room for God, but I think we can both enjoy the discoveries of science.

---

Nor do I expect scientist to throw up their hands and give up. I'm thankful for the quality of life improvements science has given us. All I've tried to point out since I've been here is that the atheist notion of religion can't benefit society is just as closed minded as science explains everything natural. We all understand unchanging dogma and blind anything are detrimental, as is fanaticism, but to see no value in using a conceptual moral absolute or doctrine espousing equality and loving thy fellow man is just as ludacris to me.

First off,

Second, what would the value in a moral absolute be, if we cannot distinguish any? It's not practical in the least.

It would be great if we had a neverending sub sandwich. An absolute sub, that was infinite, and tasted great to everyone. It would solve lots of problems, but present lots of new ones, each more improbable than the next.

Third, doctrine espousing equality is already within secular society. You don't need religion for that, nor do you need divine mandates to tell you who to love. Mutual respect is a by-product of a tolerant, well-balanced society. If you attribute these things only to an absolute God, lots of atrocious thing can be done in the name of this doctrine and be completely justified.

---

And science has no variables? You're missing the point. It's the dogged pursuit of truth, the ability and desire to mercilessly introspect and question beliefs that allows futhering of a civilized society. Science has assumed absolutes that are relative, until science further disproves them and expands or better defines the perspective of the locale. We didn't always believe as a populace that the Earth was round or that the sun emitted photons No one believes the origins of aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, our perspective on science has changed through science. Some theists do use the same rationality and logical questioning to further our understanding of what may or may not lie outside of the physical realm. It's just sad that so many theists use religion for selfish aims and that atheists equate religion with many negative things because of it. Regardless of the field pursuing the truth and questioning does have value and religion is not mutually exclusive to that, was my point.

As I've posed to you in the other thread:

Name ONE thing that has increased our understanding of the world that could only be accomplished with a belief in God.

---

Firstly, OK ludicrous.. ok I was rolling on that one, thanks
Secondly, Christianity and many other religions have distinguished a moral absolute, tey simply can't prove it's existence to scientific standards, it's called god/gods
Third, I agree being good should not be based off of any stalwart and unchanging dogma, nor should morality. I think religion is a tool to help hone theese things that exist in society. Society has proven agai and again it's avarice, greed, and propensity to harm others, and frankly I think it needs some reeworking.
To answer your question nothing. Just as belief in science alone has accomplished nothing. Science has provided many wonderful niceties and weapons. God provided nature and the cycle of life. Belief in something doesn't do anything.

[tavarish]

Firstly, OK ludicrous.. ok I was rolling on that one, thanks

Anytime.

Secondly, Christianity and many other religions have distinguished a moral absolute, tey simply can't prove it's existence to scientific standards, it's called god/gods

You don't have to conform to necessarily scientific standards, name one absolute given by God as moral code that hasn't been contradicted by God himself in some context. Christianity in particular.

Third, I agree being good should not be based off of any stalwart and unchanging dogma, nor should morality. I think religion is a tool to help hone theese things that exist in society. Society has proven agai and again it's avarice, greed, and propensity to harm others, and frankly I think it needs some reeworking.

And how much of that has come about as a result of fear mongering religious types? Religion is a means of control, not of promoting some sort of universal set of ideals. It is self serving and parasitic. It feeds off of people's innate fears and insecurities and instills in them a false sense of security with their own psyche. They convince people that not only are they undeniably unclean from birth, but that the church is the only means of ridding them of this sin.

It is my firm belief that the world would benefit greatly without invasive and bigoted religion, such as those of the Abrahamic variety.

To answer your question nothing. Just as belief in science alone has accomplished nothing. Science has provided many wonderful niceties and weapons. God provided nature and the cycle of life. Belief in something doesn't do anything.

The phrase "God provided nature" isn't even on the same field as the phrase "Science has provided ...".

It's not an unknown process we're referring to. Scientific discovery has, and continues to unlock the secrets of the universe, and this could only happen with an understanding of how science works. Belief in science and its principles has manifested in all of technology, medicine, quality of life, universal origins, and countless more applications. Everything brought to you by science was the result of thousands of individuals spending lifetimes devoted to a particular subject, so mankind as a whole would increase its knowledge, and pass that on to the next generation.

What do we get when we assume God provided for us? What understanding do we gain about the world only when we assume that God did it?

[tackattack]

1- Love thy neighbor as thyself, thou shalt have no other God before me, remember the sabbath and keep it holy, thou shall not steal, commit adultry, lie, kill (I know you were specifically waiting for that last one)

2-From my personal experience religion is not serving and parasitic. It hasn't feed off/bred of people's innate fears and insecurities and instills in them a false sense of security with their own psyche. The world convinced me long before religion that people are not only undeniably flawed from birth. I'm sorry for any experiences you've had opposed to that. I don't deny they happen all the time to people. You're condemning an entire group based off some of it's fanatical radical elements. I agree that the world would be better without invasive and bigoted religion, small/closed mindedness, and hate. Can't you see you're spewing as much bigoted venom as some of the people you profess to be wrong?

3-It also brought weapons, stronger diseases, waste, pollution, overpopulation, etc. You're only looking at the good of science and none of the bad. You're also only looking at the bad of religion and not the good...I thought you were more openminded than that.
To answer your 2 questions
a-God provides for us
b-Once again you're assuming religion excludes science. While the inverse is true, Religion doesn't profess to have an answer for all knowledge of the world, just it's origins and ways to better it.

[tavarish]

1- Love thy neighbor as thyself, thou shalt have no other God before me, remember the sabbath and keep it holy, thou shall not steal, commit adultry, lie, kill (I know you were specifically waiting for that last one)

Love thy neighbor as thyself - unless God orders you to do otherwise, like kill him and take his land because he's a non-believer.

Thou shalt have no other God before me - but respect the trinity. 3 Gods or one? You decide. The bible also mentions more than one God. How would that be considered absolute?

Remember the sabbath and keep it holy - punishable by death. You would have to have at least a 7-day calendar system to necessarily make it work. How is that absolute?

Thou shalt not steal - unless God tells you to, such as taking women as your own and Jesus instructing to take goods and livestock.

Thou shalt not commit adultery - divorce is considered a form of adultery, btw, by biblical standards. It's a sin unless God sees evil in your house and takes your wife and passes her around the neighborhood. Then it's perfectly fine.

Thou shalt not bear false witness - unless it's God doing the enticing, like he did with Ahab. It's fine for God to do it, but it's hardly absolute if the one making the rules doesn't have to follow them.

Thou shalt not kill - unless there's a woman that isn't a virgin, a blasphemer, a non-believer, a false-believer, an enemy from a different region, or any combination of anyone with a different ideology. Then it's gloves off.

Yes, very absolute.

The 10 Commandments are the most inconsistent set of rules made by anyone, ever. You didn't even list all of them, but I understand where you're coming from. You'd think that an omnipotent God would make a few more regulations that not only were self evident, but useful and detailed. There's not one thing about rape in there, child molestation, or anything else of extreme importance or relevance in a modern society.

Yes, I agree stealing and killing is bad. Is it bad just because God said so? No. It's because we as a society wouldn't have gotten anywhere if we killed everyone and stole each other's shit.

2-From my personal experience religion is not serving and parasitic. It hasn't feed off/bred of people's innate fears and insecurities and instills in them a false sense of security with their own psyche. The world convinced me long before religion that people are not only undeniably flawed from birth. I'm sorry for any experiences you've had opposed to that. I don't deny they happen all the time to people. You're condemning an entire group based off some of it's fanatical radical elements. I agree that the world would be better without invasive and bigoted religion, small/closed mindedness, and hate. Can't you see you're spewing as much bigoted venom as some of the people you profess to be wrong?

I think you may have misunderstood. We are imperfect beings, a product of millions of years of development, and it's still not completely right. My gripe is that perfectly normal and healthy people are coerced by religion to believe that they have an artificial filth that they must rid themselves of in order to attain immortality and bliss.

This plays on the most basic of psychological functions and doesn't hide it very well. Modern religion can not survive on its own devices, and needs the masses of willingly conforming individuals to assimilate into their mode of social control. It often piggybacks off of scientific discovery and makes the point that no matter what, there is always a intangible, undetectable God value in every equation. It's dishonest.

It's not just my experiences, but the millions of others who are slowly coming to the realization that smoke and mirrors do not a true claim make. Just because you believe it to be true does not mean it is true. Fanaticism thrives where it is allowed to thrive. In this case, it's religious moderation that allows these practices to go unquestioned out of fear of offending those holding the belief.

There is no reason that the beliefs of a religion shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny as the rest of the world. You think your church experiences miracles? Pray for something actually improbable to happen. I'm not talking about going to the supermarket and coming back with food. Your synchronicity can be attributed to simple confirmation bias that you assign to various coincidences, which happen much more often than you think they do - coincidences are in fact very common. The only difference with yours is that you assign a special value to them and then give that value a name, then posit that not only were the coincidences not products of random chance, they were necessarily evidence that God exists and he wants to take care of old women allergic to kiwis.

3-It also brought weapons, stronger diseases, waste, pollution, overpopulation, etc. You're only looking at the good of science and none of the bad. You're also only looking at the bad of religion and not the good...I thought you were more openminded than that.

How did science bring overpopulation? I'm pretty sure we as a species aren't overpopulated, and I'm willing to bet that fucking did most of that, not science. I digress.

I understand that science has had detractors from its record, but it in no way evens it out when compared to religion.

Has religion necessarily increased our understanding of the world at all? Has science?

Is there anything useful in religion that man couldn't do by otherwise secular means? Not something self-serving either, like praying to God. I'm talking about the notion and action of charity and the like.

To answer your 2 questions
a-God provides for us
b-Once again you're assuming religion excludes science. While the inverse is true, Religion doesn't profess to have an answer for all knowledge of the world, just it's origins and ways to better it.

WHAT? Religion absolutely boasts an authority in social situations, political situations and moral situations. Religion is an authority to all because it answers to an ultimate authority.

Even the origins of the world, that religion provides, are far detached from anything posited by actual scholars in the field of cosmology and universal origin. Entrusting knowledge of the world to religion is intellectual stagnation. It's suicide for your brain cells, as "God did it" is a good enough answer for everything we can't readily explain.

[tackattack]

---

1- Love thy neighbor as thyself, thou shalt have no other God before me, remember the sabbath and keep it holy, thou shall not steal, commit adultry, lie, kill (I know you were specifically waiting for that last one)

Love thy neighbor as thyself - unless God orders you to do otherwise, like kill him and take his land because he's a non-believer.

Thou shalt have no other God before me - but respect the trinity. 3 Gods or one? You decide. The bible also mentions more than one God. How would that be considered absolute?

Remember the sabbath and keep it holy - punishable by death. You would have to have at least a 7-day calendar system to necessarily make it work. How is that absolute?

Thou shalt not steal - unless God tells you to, such as taking women as your own and Jesus instructing to take goods and livestock.

Thou shalt not commit adultery - divorce is considered a form of adultery, btw, by biblical standards. It's a sin unless God sees evil in your house and takes your wife and passes her around the neighborhood. Then it's perfectly fine.

Thou shalt not bear false witness - unless it's God doing the enticing, like he did with Ahab. It's fine for God to do it, but it's hardly absolute if the one making the rules doesn't have to follow them.

Thou shalt not kill - unless there's a woman that isn't a virgin, a blasphemer, a non-believer, a false-believer, an enemy from a different region, or any combination of anyone with a different ideology. Then it's gloves off.

Yes, very absolute.

The 10 Commandments are the most inconsistent set of rules made by anyone, ever. You didn't even list all of them, but I understand where you're coming from. You'd think that an omnipotent God would make a few more regulations that not only were self evident, but useful and detailed. There's not one thing about rape in there, child molestation, or anything else of extreme importance or relevance in a modern society.

Yes, I agree stealing and killing is bad. Is it bad just because God said so? No. It's because we as a society wouldn't have gotten anywhere if we killed everyone and stole each other's shit.

2-From my personal experience religion is not serving and parasitic. It hasn't feed off/bred of people's innate fears and insecurities and instills in them a false sense of security with their own psyche. The world convinced me long before religion that people are not only undeniably flawed from birth. I'm sorry for any experiences you've had opposed to that. I don't deny they happen all the time to people. You're condemning an entire group based off some of it's fanatical radical elements. I agree that the world would be better without invasive and bigoted religion, small/closed mindedness, and hate. Can't you see you're spewing as much bigoted venom as some of the people you profess to be wrong?

I think you may have misunderstood. We are imperfect beings, a product of millions of years of development, and it's still not completely right. My gripe is that perfectly normal and healthy people are coerced by religion to believe that they have an artificial filth that they must rid themselves of in order to attain immortality and bliss.

This plays on the most basic of psychological functions and doesn't hide it very well. Modern religion can not survive on its own devices, and needs the masses of willingly conforming individuals to assimilate into their mode of social control. It often piggybacks off of scientific discovery and makes the point that no matter what, there is always a intangible, undetectable God value in every equation. It's dishonest.

It's not just my experiences, but the millions of others who are slowly coming to the realization that smoke and mirrors do not a true claim make. Just because you believe it to be true does not mean it is true. Fanaticism thrives where it is allowed to thrive. In this case, it's religious moderation that allows these practices to go unquestioned out of fear of offending those holding the belief.

There is no reason that the beliefs of a religion shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny as the rest of the world. You think your church experiences miracles? Pray for something actually improbable to happen. I'm not talking about going to the supermarket and coming back with food. Your synchronicity can be attributed to simple confirmation bias that you assign to various coincidences, which happen much more often than you think they do - coincidences are in fact very common. The only difference with yours is that you assign a special value to them and then give that value a name, then posit that not only were the coincidences not products of random chance, they were necessarily evidence that God exists and he wants to take care of old women allergic to kiwis.

3-It also brought weapons, stronger diseases, waste, pollution, overpopulation, etc. You're only looking at the good of science and none of the bad. You're also only looking at the bad of religion and not the good...I thought you were more openminded than that.

How did science bring overpopulation? I'm pretty sure we as a species aren't overpopulated, and I'm willing to bet that fucking did most of that, not science. I digress.

I understand that science has had detractors from its record, but it in no way evens it out when compared to religion.

Has religion necessarily increased our understanding of the world at all? Has science?

Is there anything useful in religion that man couldn't do by otherwise secular means? Not something self-serving either, like praying to God. I'm talking about the notion and action of charity and the like.

To answer your 2 questions
a-God provides for us
b-Once again you're assuming religion excludes science. While the inverse is true, Religion doesn't profess to have an answer for all knowledge of the world, just it's origins and ways to better it.

WHAT? Religion absolutely boasts an authority in social situations, political situations and moral situations. Religion is an authority to all because it answers to an ultimate authority.

Even the origins of the world, that religion provides, are far detached from anything posited by actual scholars in the field of cosmology and universal origin. Entrusting knowledge of the world to religion is intellectual stagnation. It's suicide for your brain cells, as "God did it" is a good enough answer for everything we can't readily explain.

---

You stated to give one absolute given by God as moral code that hasn't been contradicted by God himself.
-Love they neighbor- God loves and has no need for land, obviously man vs man
-no other God- God puts no God above himself. The trinity is one and three. The other God's mentioned in the Bible aren't placed above God
-God kept the sabbath, as did Jesus
-steal-If you're talking about the wheat, check the mossianic laws. Jesus was in his right and no theft. If you're talking about the donkey, the owners were aware but did not attempt to stop, thus condoning the act, and not thievery. rabbis of the time commonly procured transportation by loan. If you're referencing something else please state it
-Jesus nor God commited adultry
- Are you talking about elijah and ahab? jezebel was the enticer and What God told elijah happened, so how did he lie?
-Men kill men, they blame all types of things to avoid accountability. Besides if God wanted us dead and he exists outside time, why wouldn't he just kill us in the begining?

God didn't make the rules and regulations, we did. The one time he did come down and give us rules, we destroyed them in a tantrum.
I think that's about all I'm going to respond to from that last post. You obviously are entrenched so deep you can't see for forest for the trees. If you want to continue to blame the whole of religion for amoral acts then go ahead. You probably find it easy to blame marilyn manson for kids shooting up high schools as well. You're missing the entire point I'm trying to make. Religion doesn't make any claim to knowledge of the world. You transposed the words knowledge and authority nad it's clear to me you can't see reason. I'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.