[jocon307]

I make no point on religious teaching. I merely point out that the atheist claims atheists are a majority, a statement which is untrue. I am only seeking to debunk his credibility.

It's obvious that most religious statements must be taken on faith, they are largely unprovable. I would also like to be able to spell believe correctly, at least once in a while. : )

[Matchett-PI]

"It's obvious that most religious statements must be taken on faith, they are largely unprovable"

Two main points:

[1] There are only two religions; the man-centered one where man is sovereign, and the God-centered one, where God is sovereign.

"Atheism" is a religion. It is merely one of the many and varied philosophies in the self-focused, man-centered religion.

There is no such thing as an "atheist" because one of the definitions of god is: something or someone of supreme value -- something or someone that functions as as an ultimate concern in a person's life.

We all care about many things: love of family, the condition of one's home, taxes, war and peace, etc., etc., but for each of us, there can be only one ultimate concern, something so important and valuable that we are willing, at the moment, to sacrifice almost anything for it. (One's ultimate concern can change over time, but that doesn't change the fact that we all have one at all of our stages of life).

Our ultimate concern is the god (or God) we worship.

[2] Regarding "faith" --- do you think it's rational to hold certain presuppositions?

For instance --- do you believe that people, other than yourself, have minds? How do you *know* that other people aren't just robots? Explain, please.

Quoting from the above article: "Dennett said atheists are "the moral backbone of the nation'' and (ignoring opinion polls) its "silent majority.'' He called atheists "brights,'' implying that believers are "dims'' or "dumbs.''"

With that "moral backbone" statement, Dennett has exposed himself as a very illogical mentality. He is the one who is dim.

All who claim not to have any god (atheists), are just your average, every-day relativist. Their personal opinions about what is right and wrong -- what is good and evil -- fluctuates, and is based upon the situation aka "situation ethics".

It is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that fluctuating, situational, wishy washy personal ideas (as varied as the people that hold them) could, at the same time be called, "the BACKBONE of morality"

But it isn't anything unusual to see such illogical mentalities holding polar opposite, oxymoronic, ideas and beliefs simultaneously.

Their mental confusion has a name -- it's called, "cognitive dissonance".

The day any self-proclaimed "atheist" is able to successfully (legitimately) win a debate with a Christian like Alvin Plantinga, then his opinions might have some credibility with intellectually honest, emotionally mature people capable of critical thought. Hahahaha