Argument made by religious people that just isn't valid

[JaggedEdge]

So then what about us agnostics? I don't know if any form of god exists or not. I don't deny the existence of one, either. I find it quite silly that the Christian 'God' would expect everyone to just believe in him without one shred of proof. If he really wanted people to believe and be saved, he'd give them a damn good reason to. I think the Christian religion is simply an outdated tool that was used to herd the sheeple of the past. I suppose it still works, though. Look at America for example. 'God Bless America!'
Or Europe, 'God Save The Queen!'

People in power associate God with themselves to make them seem 'right' and in tune with what God wants.

Sorry, but that sort of thing doesn't sound right to me. :jointsmile:

Just because you don't declare is no god doesn't mean you won't be burned at the stake right beside me. Haha, my exact classification is an agnostic atheist. Take that bro, I'm the worst of both worlds. :jointsmile:

JaggedEdge Reviewed by JaggedEdge on 09-13-2007. Argument made by religious people that just isn't valid A lot of people justify their belief in a certain religion by claiming that there is basically no difference between believing in religious texts and believing in commonly accepted historical texts. They'll say something like, "What's the difference between believing in the Bible and believing all the written accounts of the Civil War, for example? You choose to believe those accounts, even though you weren't actually there, just like I choose to believe in the Bible even though I wasn't Rating: 5