> I reject religion simply because of its base "everyone else is wrong" idea.

Okay, but that's the way science works, too. When Galileo Galilei came along and said that Copernicus' heliocentric model of the solar system was the right one, everyone understood the implication: "he's saying all of us are wrong!" Lacking the flexibility to consider the merits of his claim, the institutions of the day forced him to recant. But as it happened, this fellow turned out to be right when the majority were in the wrong.

Someone might object that in science, we have an objective standard by which to judge between a few people who claim to be right and the rest of the world whom they allege to be wrong, while in religious matters there are no such objective criteria -- it's all a matter of personal preference. For some religious people, that may be the case. For me, I'd say that the truth-claims made by orthodox Christianity and many other religions are fairly objective and admit investigation into their merits. They stand on more solid grounds than "it pleases me to believe thusly, and because I think everyone should be like me, they ought to believe it too."

> I have a lot more to say about this. However, as religion causes a base difference in people's thought patterns, I feel it's an unfitting subject for discussion here in the RinkForum.

A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Are you kidding???! Woo-hoo, that's a good one. Whew!

Iss "'Ello; I'd like to have an argument, please" achar