Great article, and well-written. Thanks also for the examples.

A serious problem, being overlooked for no good reason.

What name is affixed to what day may be considered arbitrary; however, since the Jewish calendar has remained unchanged throughout their history, the seventh day of the week is still the seventh day. THAT has not changed. Call it the Sabbath, Shabbat, Saturday or Day of Twinkies; it's still the seventh day of the week.

You know what's funny? I would actually agree with the exact wording of your statement. Everything CAN be explained without a god.

But I just find the explanations don't match with logic and good science, is all. I can explain the rain by saying it's...oh, I don't know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster that Dawkins like to reference, peeing on us all. Doesn't mean it's a GOOD explanation, but it is an explanation.

Same thing with attempting to explain the universe without God.

I will grant that they might seem to be extreme examples, but then, according to the Bible, so are the ones you gave.

JW's hold many un-Biblical viewpoints, which either cannot be confirmed by Scripture, or directly contradict Scripture. This is information easily gleaned from a multitude of websites.

The Amish in general (I don't know a lot about them, so I am referencing only what I know), are devout, but they stray as well from the path laid out in the Bible. Worship on Sunday, celebrating christmas and easter, and other un-Biblical practices detract from the otherwise devout position they proclaim.

Catholics? Don't even get me started. They are so far from being Christian even an atheist such as yourself must laugh at their claims to Biblical devotion.

Protestants? They say they "protest" catholicism, yet follow in their footsteps a bit too close to honestly claim any status too far removed from the catholic church.

And as to your question, "...what makes your opinion better than the others?", the answer is simple. I have no opinion. I read and study the Bible, and simply compare the actions of those claiming to be Christian (including myself, yes) to what is written therein. Opinions are a dangerous thing, especially on something as important as religion. It means you are operating in the absence of information, and are now judging religious matters on your own, not basing them on the tenets of your faith. While thinking for yourself is generally a good thing, and thinking outside the box is commendable in the right circumstances, I am sure even you would agree that if you are claiming to follow a book, you either follow it (as best you can), or you're a liar. I don't see a middle ground.

That would be the reason for my statement, yes.

That was my question to you, if you will recall. It was your position that an organism with NO resistance would "acquire" the resistance. I proposed two alternatives, the only two as I see it. They either already had the resistance, or they altered their own genetic structure on the fly. You were the one asserting that the resistance was "acquired", not me.

I seriously doubt that any protestant or catholic can pass one of the most simple tests of adherence to the Bible. Ask them what day they worship. 99% of so-called "Christians" out there observe Sunday, with no Biblical basis whatsoever. Pretty easy to show they're NOT sticking to the Bible to the best of their knowledge on that basis, then.

I've read a couple of pages. Very interesting.

Not to say I agree with anything there, but it IS interesting, and should facilitate conversations on the subject. As Voltaire said, "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

Did I say anything to the contrary?

And now you're perfect, eh?