Are atheists against religion or against Christianity?

[fluffy]

But aren't you assuming that your research is accurate and complete, something that is not very likely when dealing with matters of the spirit?

[Mr Danksworth]

\ but to assume at any point that you have all the information needed to discount any and all alternatives completely is a little conceited isn't it?

No it isn't. I don't need to respect every single unproven belief. Alternatives are considered, and either accepted or discounted. Prove it and I will believe.
Is the earth 6000 years old, nope.....but I should respect the nutters think it is? Not a chance.
What about our recent brouhaha over victory life. Should I respect them, even though they don't have the sense to warn parents about their violent play. No.
Should I respect the beliefs of muslims who think it's ok to kill women for showing their face? Nope.
Should I respect the beliefs of people who think that medicine is from he devil and only prayer works to heal? Nope, not that one either.
I could go on for days.....

At the same time, I don't beg respect for my beliefs. I don't go crying when someone challenges me, unlike some.

[Mr Danksworth]

But aren't you assuming that your research is accurate and complete, something that is not very likely when dealing with matters of the spirit?

No proof, no belief. That simple. I can entertain the notion though, and hypothesize on what 'spirit' may be.

[zzontar]

What if I take the good and throw away the trash.

That seems to be what most religious posters here do. That's why when I asked you a number of times to guess how many denominations in the valley here actually teach their congregation to have slaves and kill them and so on and so on you refused to answer... it's called taking the good and throwing away the trash... with you it's ok, but with them you call it cherry picking.

[Mr Danksworth]

That seems to be what most religious posters here do. That's why when I asked you a number of times to guess how many denominations in the valley here actually teach their congregation to have slaves and kill them and so on and so on you refused to answer...

But the slavery is condoned by the 'god' that you worship, even if you don't practice it today. Are we more moral than 'god'? Obviously. Would you stone your child to death for disobedience? No. Why not it's a part of 'THE LAW". Are you going against your 'god's' commandments? Pure silliness.

[Mr Danksworth]

it's called taking the good and throwing away the trash... with you it's ok, but with them you call it cherry picking.

there's one glaring difference here. I don't claim to 'believe'. A cherry-picker is a believer who believes in spite of the contradictions, cruelty, hate, injustice, and incest condoned by the abrahamic god. It's just another book to me, and not a very good one at that, not a single original thought in the whole thing.

[Homeownertoo]

There is some arrogance in not being open to possibilities outside ones own current beliefs.

If you have beliefs, why would be open to possibilities that contradict your beliefs, unless you doubt your beliefs. In which case, are you saying that it is arrogant to have beliefs?

[Homeownertoo]

I'm talking about people who perceive any belief set but their own as "bunkum". All anyone can do is make their decisions based on evidence gathered to date, but to assume at any point that you have all the information needed to discount any and all alternatives completely is a little conceited isn't it?

Religious beliefs are based on faith, which, by definition, discounts information that may "disprove" the belief. So are you saying that people who have faith -- Christians, for example -- who are not interested in "all the information", are conceited people? In which case, are you saying that only a conceited person would be a Christian? Just asking, as I'm sure you've thought out all the ramifications of what you've said.

[zzontar]

I think most religions started off with more or less the same book, with all being equal... what I tend to exclude are passages that favor one individual, group, or sex, as it seems obvious to me that these would have been penciled in later on. So if on one side of the globe a lazy *bleep* didn't want to work his fields so he says God says he should have slaves, and his kid lips him off so throw in some stoning... on the other side a guy wants to get laid and his wife says no so he throws in a clause about being able to rape his wife... I see great value in dropping the crap that benefits individuals instead of the whole... if that's cherry picking, then I say cherry pick away!

[Homeownertoo]

But if I have already found them to be bunkum, through experience and research, why should I? What if I take the good and throw away the trash.

What part of the Christian "faith" would you take and what part would you throw away, and how would you good faith from bad faith? BTW, I'm not talking about Christian practices.

[zzontar]

What if I take the good and throw away the trash.

Out of curiousity, I'm wondering what the good is that you found.

[Homeownertoo]

But aren't you assuming that your research is accurate and complete, something that is not very likely when dealing with matters of the spirit?

Bingo! Kind of makes questions of research immaterial, doesn't it?

[Homeownertoo]

But aren't you assuming that your research is accurate and complete, something that is not very likely when dealing with matters of the spirit?

No proof, no belief. That simple. I can entertain the notion though, and hypothesize on what 'spirit' may be.

Why would you hypothesize about something you have no proof, or even evidence, that it exists?

[zzontar]

So the Earth was a ball of magma... it cooled to a primeval soup... magically single celled creatures appeared... one said he'd like to become a crocodile, but he would have to eat, so he asked his identical neighbor to become a gazelle, who in turn asked his identical neighbour to become some shrubbery to eat, and all was good... pretty easy to poke fun at that and call it bunkum too.

[Homeownertoo]

... on the other side a guy wants to get laid and his wife says no so he throws in a clause about being able to rape his wife...

Hmm, do you have any religions in mind here? Unfortunately, sometimes theology is just this simplistic.