Just one thing, though. Your last question assumes that if there is a god, it’s your god. But what if we’re both wrong? What if we all die and end up in front of Ba’al? I’m not a member of a group that did anything to his followers. And it seems about as likely to me that we’ll end up facing Ba’al’s judgment as any other god’s.

You should be aware that just about everyone here is perfectly familiar with Christianity. You haven’t stumbled upon a tribe of South American “savages” in need of missionaries. Many of us have, at one point or another in our lives, actually been Christians.

I am not a Christian for two separate reasons. First, I see absolutely no empirical evidence that anything in Christian dogma is accurate. None of it. And I find the likelihood of a married virgin giving birth to be at least as absurd as the likelihood of a goddess springing forth from Zeus’s forehead. Minerva, I think that was. Your god doesn’t even pass his own test for being a god. You know, the one Elijah used to test Ba’al? Ba’al didn’t answer prayers on command to prove his existence, but your god supposedly did. So… why isn’t he still doing it? This is why I don’t believe. Now if anyone ever comes up with some empirical, repeatable evidence, I’m quite willing to listen. And I’m quite willing to revise my opinion, if any Christian mythology is proven true.

However (big however), I still will not worship your god(s), because of the second reason I am not a Christian. You see, I pass my own, personal judgment on things, and frankly, your god doesn’t meet my standard of morality. Because if your religion is assumed to be true, then you’re actually asking me to WORSHIP a being who killed all of first born children in Egypt to punish their parents. What?! You don’t think that’s horrific? I could come up with many, many more examples of your god not meeting my standard of morality, but there you go. Re-read the Old Testament as if it wasn’t your religion. Maybe you’ll understand my position. Jepthah’s daughter? Elisha and the 42 children who were eaten by bears??!! This is all ok with you?

Now, if you’re still with me, I want to address your “miracles.” My parents were Seventh Day Adventists. I prayed as a child. And when I prayed for things, the outcome was no different than when I didn’t pray for things. Sometimes things happened the way I wanted. Sometimes they didn’t. No miracles.

But now you’re telling me that your god answers your prayers. This is the same god who sat by and did nothing when those kids in Columbine high school said they believed in him were subsequently shot to death? The same god who apparently doesn’t have a problem with earthquakes in Haiti and tsunamis in Japan or hurricanes and oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico? You’re saying the very same god who doesn’t do anything about hunger, AIDS, war and the like just felt like going apartment shopping with you so you could pay low rent? And he made sure your kid could go to private school? Do you have any idea how ARROGANT that sounds?? Because damn. I bet he helps you look for your car keys, too, right? And he helps your team win the Superbowl? And you don’t see the absurdity in this line of thought?

Anyway, that is my speech of the week. If you have any actual questions, then I’ll be perfectly willing to answer them. But don’t expect me to respond to any more of your chain letter for Jesus stuff, ok? I don’t like your mythology, and I still wouldn’t be interested in joining the club if it was All Really True.

tl;dr vesion: No thank you. I’m all set.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus and no one can take that away from me.

So, like he comes over for coffee? Babysits the kids when you get stuck working late? Drops you off at the airport so you don’t have to leave your car there? That kind of thing? That’s a “personal” relationship. Or do you mean you think in his direction and assume that he exists, and can read your thoughts? Because that’s more like an Easter Bunny relationship.

Btw as long as I’m here…. looks like Troll Guy hasn’t read those Pullman books after all. Vatican is still solid gold. Earth still orbiting local star.

In other unrelated news, how’s that mountain of gold in Vatican City doing? Helping any poor people? Does your pastor drive a Mercedes or a BMW? Does your church pay the taxes that fund their local police and fire departments? Was Jerry Falwell hurting for money? Did Jim Bakker go to jail? Oh.

Phillip Pullman states the following about his “fictional” books for children, “I don’t think I’m writing fantasy. I think I’m writing realism. My books are psychologically real.” But what does he really write about? As he has admitted, “My books are about killing God” and “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”

More evidence here:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/11/deceptive-manipulative-propagandist.html

Yet again, atheists are collecting “amazing sums” during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be—while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance—need any more be said?

Of course, they are atheists in the exact same way that Golden Retrievers are atheists. The difference between a baby and a Golden Retriever is that the baby is eventually going to have the mental capacity to comprehend the idea of deities. More likely than not, the baby will grow up in a culture permeated by theistic belief. I would suspect that most children in American society are only default atheists until they are two or three years old.

And, yes, babies also do not believe in evolution. However, they don’t deny evolution; they simply don’t have knowledge of it. It’s not a concept that is in their brains. If atheism meant overt rejection of gods or the god-concept, then I would agree that it would be improper to call babies default atheists. But I take a broader view of the term. I think one actually has to have the god-idea inserted into one’s brain before one can properly be called a theist. Before that time, “default atheist” seems (to me) to be a useful and correct term.