Utter bollocks. I'm not falling into any such trap, on account of not personally subscribing to any religion, and being 100% in the 'science' camp (my undergraduate degree incorporated a great deal of evolutionary theory, and I never saw any particular reason to invoke gardens, apples, snakes and so forth). My point - which you have conspicuously missed - is simply that it is not my place (or yours, for that matter) to evangelise.

People do not 'have to explain' where their deity comes from, should they wish to believe in one; that's asking them to rationalise the irrational. "I don't give a shit if it makes any sense, this is what I choose to beleive, and this is how I choose to live" is a perfectly valid position: there's no rule mandating that we all have to be rational, scientific, and logical - and if someone chooses not to be, if they're happy lying to themselves to gain a little comfort - that's pretty much up to them.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 16:21, 1 reply)

You say:
"I don't give a shit if it makes any sense, this is what I choose to beleive, and this is how I choose to live" is a perfectly valid position

That's exactly what I deny. The position that you've described makes no distinction between the well-founded and the ill-founded account; it's complaisant, giving no credit to rigour, analysis, or sound argument, and - I fear - deeply undesirable for that reason.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 22:06, closed)