I shouldn't need to point out the obvious, but "religious" describes a category of belief. It is therefore absurd to categorize anything as "religious" that is, by definition, not a belief. It is a logical fallacy to categorize something that is non-existence i.e. a lack of belief. To illustrate: it is perfectly logical to say my car is red, if I own a red car, or even hypothesize that the car is red if I have a car and you don't know the color. But it is non-sensical to describe my car as red or hypothesize about its color if I don't even own a car.
Incidentally, when you use "God" as you do in your posts, you are essentially "begging the question", which basically means the construction of your logic is not sufficiently grounded to be considered a useful argument.
All of which says nothing about my personal beliefs. I'd just like to point out that it reflects badly on everyone when people try to carry points with overt logical fallacies, particular if they continue to do so after it has been pointed out. I will frequently argue against my personal beliefs if the other person is coming to a conclusion I agree with using invalid reasoning. Sloppy thinking helps no one. (Unfortunately, most people take having the flaws in their arguments exposed personally. So much for the human race...)
I shouldn't need to point out the obvious, but "religious" describes a category of belief. It is therefore absurd to categorize anything as "religious" that is, by definition, not a belief.Members of the Atheistic Church of Darwin have a belief. It is that God does not exist. It is a religious belief because it is in reference to a Supreme Being, which is a religious notion. For some mysterious reason the ACD members are afflicted with a compulsion to convice everyone their religious beliefs are science, and are not religous at all.
tortoise