I don't buy your argument. Why? Because a cause does not necessarily lead to a designer. You are setting up a false dichonomy. There are many different opinions about what happened before big bang, such as the big bounce or the big crunch. I personally follow the big bounce theory. To say that there must be a designer because there must be a cause is illogical and unreasonable because you rule out all other just as optional alternatives. None of those options are more right or wrong than the others. One could just as easily say that you are so blinded by your faith that you look for easy answers in a designer, instead of facing the face value that the chances of a designer existing are very slim at best, and is contrary to all evidence we have so far discovered about the universe. This just further shows the desperate cries for help from christians and other believers alike, because they are unable to face their own logical fallacies. Do you see where I am heading?

I think there very well are too many similarities between many deities from that time to shrug them off. I think many of those ideas may have crystallized themselves into Jesus, and I don't really see anything wrong with that belief or make you necessarily follow the ideas presented in Zeitgeist. The point with Zeitgeist was to do one thing: make you start asking questions, which it very well managed to do.

Well, I think you contradicted my own conclusion pretty much, but I am not going to go into that now, only the part about dogs. Dogs don't starve naturally, in fact, any dog owner will know that dogs will tend to eat basically anything which can be considered edible and then some. If the food is tasty enough, they will eat until they throw up, then eat some more and their puke, and if they cannot absolutely manage to eat more, they will try to hide it somewhere by digging it into the ground to save it when they become hungry again. The only reason why a dog may refuse to eat is because the food isn't tasty enough, which is the case with humans too. But they will eat, just like we will, once they become hungry enough. I think your reasoning around dogs is contradictional to what we know about dogs and evolution in general. Before dogs became domestic animals, it was natural to starve because food wasn't as abundant before. But this didn't mean that starvation as a behavior got carried over once they became tame, in fact, it's quite the opposite. It's the idea to eat as much as possible because you don't know when you might starve again that was, and this is true for humans too, and this is the reason why we see a wave of obesity spreading in the Western world.

Just start referring to them as christians in lower case and it will be all fine and dandy! In fact, in Sweden we don't capitalize any religious nouns, it's all lower case, so kristen (Christian), kristendomen (Christianity), islam (Islam), muslim (Muslim) and hedning (Pagan). I don't refer to god in upper case either, and there are people who actually are put off by this it seems. I do find it silly that in Sweden we refer the Christian god with a capital G, but the other gods not. I think the context very well states which gods we are referring to either way, and lower and upper case letters don't exist in verbal language.

I honestly think you misunderstood what I said. It hasn't to do so much with the church but with personal beliefs. If I read the newspaper about 9/11 and then go read the Bible and finds something which MIGHT seem like the two are connected, then I will make that assumption even though there was no connection at all, hence, seeing things which aren't there. Also, the Catholic Church didn't just stand by the side and watch during World War II, they actually supported Hitler.

Oh yes, total confusion!

People can see anything they want to see, if they want it just strong enough. Can suggest you to watch The Number 16 with Jim Carrey to show you what I mean; he basically ends up seeing the number everywhere and get paranoid because he cannot understand its supposedly hidden meaning where there really is none. So the true fault is the human psyche if anything, and our will to see things which just aren't there.

So do I, but I try to organize my thoughts before I put them down.

As a non-American I do find the Constitution a big failure, so you didn't really counter anything with that argument. Also, it's LeaT, no h, or even better, just stick with Lea like everyone else is doing. Also, the part about political documents is to word them as clearly as possible so NO ONE can interpret them differently. This is not the sake with a religious document. If people disagree over a political document and its meanings, it should and must be rewritten so the meaning will become more clear.

Well, I sorely disagree over your choice of learning your son to pray, because I believe that your son should have his own right to decide whether he wants to believe in god or not and whether he believes in praying or not, which you didn't give him. Also, my point wasn't at all to point out that raising a child according to religious doctirne is immoral, I will disagree with it, but I said that you can very well do so without instilling beliefs that are outright hurtful to society.

I also disagree with your part about that any parent can raise their child how they want. We talk about human beings with lives here, do you want to be responsible for your son to become a criminal because of you being a bad parent? I think it's one of those things which is easy to say when you're not the one with a bad childhood.

What if I consider it right to hate homosexuals or black people? What if I consider it wrong for these people to exist, and that their existence morally depraves society? Do I sitll have the right to instill these values into my children? What if I forced my children to watch a local mob torturting a black man to death (happened during the KKK era), and then later profess of how proud I am over them when they do not turn away? What if I refuse to teach that there are other religions with other values and ideas other than those found in the Bible? What if I cherrypick parts of the Bible that fit into my worldview, such as women should not speak in church? A child is very easy to impress and a child will and copy the parents' behavior, and might continue displaying such behavior even after the parents' death. I have no issues teaching a child about religion, but it should be done openly and it should not deny other forms of doctrines or any other kind of interpretations than those that you yourself ascribe to. If the words of the Bible were so clear-cut, how come Christians still today from various denominations disagree over its meanings...?