Yet the main points seem to get missed for one reason or another either drowned out by semantics (was Buddha a God or wasn’t he? – this is hardly the point) or a simple lack of knowledge.

The original point is quite humorous, it is a humorous way of pointing out to religious people (it can be applied to all religions not just Christianity) who fervently believe in THEIR god and no other, and to give them a way of seeing how their belief (blind faith) appears to a non-believer as they too are non-believers in those other gods.

Obviously there IS a world of difference between believing in one or any god and no gods at all, one is theistic and the other atheistic, no one is suggesting that a religious person has 99% in common with a religious person (well i don’t think so any way).

Another big misconception is to try and level science and rationality with a faith belief system / religion. Science is not a faith system and ‘believing’ in once scientific theory over another cannot be compared to faith in a religion.

For those of religious faith who talk of evolution like it was some vague imaginary concept with little to support it – go read up on the evidence – it is massive, an edifice, fossils are a negligible part of it, comparative studies of genetics and other branches of molecular biology, physiology and biochemistry form a huge portion of the evidence as does embryology morphology statistics and mathematical modeling, the growing fossil record is the icing on the cake.

Just because science has not explained everything yet does not mean it can be compared to a faith system which has NO evidence and does not even attempt to make progress towards the truth year on year, century after century because by definition it believes it has reached the truth through it’s faith.

Science may never find all the answers but it will not stop in it’s endeavour until it does, and nowhere along the road of scientific discovery has anything been found to corroborate religious beliefs of a deity, or god induced ‘creation’. In fact a good chunk of what is claimed in the bible and other religeous texts has been debunked by science completely.

Many modern religious people now say that the bible shouldn’t be taken literally – in order accommodate these discoveries. Hmmm… where will this process end? Not taking the bible as the word of god perhaps?

Anyone who has been interested enough to read so far, thank you and you might find this blog interesting too: -

http://blog.case.edu/singham/

P.S. I understand that Christianity is supposed to be monotheistic. So was the God of the old testament the same as god the father in the new testament and who is the holy ghost? and who was Jesus? was he a god? or the same god incarnate and why the personality change? I mean Gentle Jesus meek and mild vs. the blood thirsty tyrant of the OT?

and you have entered some gods twice — the Greek and their Roman counterparts (e.g. Jupiter and Zeus are one and the same thing).

*YAWEH*, above, should read YAHWEH.

And by Meanshile is meant Meanwhile, geddit?

By the way, the list forgot to name Nanabozho…

A theory in science is not a guess. Gravity is also purely theoretical, and so is the idea that the earth moves around the sun.

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life or the existence of god. It is not the “opposite” of religion.

Evolution, both “macro” and “micro”, including speciation, has been directly observed.

Every other scientific advancement, theory or discipline that has come after it and has had the potential to falsify evolution, for example genetics, has instead reinforced it.

Scientists accept evolution because of the overwhelming evidence. They don’t need “faith” or leaps in logic to accept it.

Hi. Evidence. Hi.

This doesn’t require an extensive point-by-point essay explicating every erroneous comment posted here. Just go read the wikipedia article or something and then come back.