But I don't believe God brought disease into existance.

Aside from that, you seem to have entirely missed the point of what I said about God (not) being malevolent. 

My take on "religion" is this: The Amoeba Theory. An amoeba can "perceive" (at some very rudimentary level) our actions. We shine a light into its petry dish, it moves toward it. We change the pH, or dessicate it, it reacts. We could probably even "send it signals," and produce some change in its behavior which would fundamentally represent a rudimentary level of "awareness" of us. But because an amoeba does not have  central nervous sytem, let along a notochord, but is only a single cell, equipped with the perceptual and psychological apparatus of a single cell, it is absurd to propose that an amoeba has anything akin to "understanding" or cognizance of us. If we can induce a conditioned reflex in a community of amoebas living in some pond somewhere that depends on signals we send to it, then we could say that we have induced in amoebas something analagous to "faith" among humans in a supernatural higher power.

But observe. Despite the rudimentary, and perhaps even highly garbled "perceptions" and "faith" which an amoeba may have of us---a creature which is by relative scale, a supreme being compared to an amoeba---we are in fact NOT supernatural. We are bound by the same physical, chemical, biological, and natural historical PRINCIPLES as are amoeba, and here we begin to verge over into the realm of physics, cosmology, and astronomy, so I'll leave that point there.

In sum, if there are "supreme beings," our ability to understand them, must be relative in scale to an amoeba's ability to undertand us. Therefore, as a scientist and a skeptic, my synthetic view is that we do not know, and it is presumptuous of any of us to impose our view on anyone else, unless it is to urge greater tolerance, or basic social justice on the view or actions of others.

Roadkill, to the extent that you criticize religion for being a bastion for injustice, I will argue in support of your agenda tirelessly, and faithfully. But when you state that having faith that there IS a supernatural is more stupid than (as Basser has pointed out) the faith that there IS NOT a supernatural, well, at that point I must part ways with your argument

In this sense, one might argue that it is not the SPIRIT of religion which is the culprit in the injustices which religions have committed, but the social elaborations of religion. At the root of those social elaborations I believe is FEAR, and this fear is no less present among the learned, the atheistic, the agnostic, and the progressive intelligentsia. Academics at liberal, if not left-wing bastion universities are among the most dogmatic, and ideologically fundamentalist people I've ever met. It is just that their dogma has to do with an ideology (liberalism) that has historically existed in opposition to established power (conservatism).

So, I would actually agree with you that fundamentalism, or extremism, or too much self-assurance, too much opinionation, or being partisan, or polarized, and also showing an intolerance for other, and an irrational lack of crtical self-examination are major issues, which many religious adherents succumb to. But also many atheistic, liberal, intellectuals succumb to the very same mental traps.

But I don't believe God brought disease into existance.

-What? What? What?

You heard me.  Must I say this YET AGAIN?  God is not sitting on a throne dictating how things turn out.  He simply got it STARTED.  There were no diseases when unicellular life began, and so he did not create it.  Come on Rk, stop replying to what you THINK I'm saying, and start ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDING what I really am saying. Please.  This is getting repetitive.

First point: see above.

Second point: no, I'm simply creating my own religion the same way all the others were originally created: I look around me, I see the way things are, and I try to make sense of it.  Inevitably, the outcome will be a god that I like.  It's not silly, it's logical.  I do not decide what God is like, I merely decide what I BELIEVE god it like.  big difference. 

Again, stop replying to what you think I'm saying.  I always get the distinct impression with you that you're putting words or implications in my mouth.  You certainly imply things that I did not say (or at least, did not mean to say, and cannot see why you would think I did say them).  I would prefer to argue more about why what I believe might be false than about why my god is malevolent based on assumptions that I have never made.

My religion, teaches that we are the most correct but that others have varying degrees of correctness.  All I'm saying is that not every religion fits the model that they say everyone else is completely wrong.  Most christian churches believe that other christian churches are correct enough as long as they adhere to certain points of doctrine.  Much of judaism believes that there are other paths to God and that their doctrine applies to the "chosen people". 

Ah, that was not the point of my statement.  Your remarks just don't seem to reflect a realistic view of religious people.  If you know plenty, fine.  I wasn't trying to say I knew more religious people.  Anyway, this direction is pointless.

I'm a Mormon.  We believe ourselves to be christians though most of christianity does not.  And I believe fully in my religion.  I don't get why you think otherwise.  And about the "seemingly negative" aspects, you do not even know what I am refering to.  That was just to show that I am informed on the background of my religion.  My religion holds few absolutes when it comes to the "how" aspects of creation.  It does not hold an absolute position on evolution and science matters other than that God is the creator.  How he created, is for science to discover.  It's main focus is on how the members should live their lives. 

I see what you mean and who said Jesus was peaceful?  Well, I'm no expert on the pre-nicean church but it's my understanding that the major differences between the Christian sects were based on the nature of God, and creation, etc. not points which dealt with how to treat one's neighbor, 10 commandments, etc.  That said, I'm sure not everyone followed those either.  Once again, I'm not the one making the absolute statement here.  I agree that many religions have been bad, just not all. 

Ah, I was not clear.  I did not mean that I did not believe your statistic about Norway, I was looking for other demographics like religious giving for the tsunami.  I also looked more into the religious giving in general and it appears that even religious giving has declined over the past few decades.  All I can find are people quoting statistics but no actual statistics that would be credible.  As far as Bill Gates is concerned, isn't he worth like 26 Billion?  I don't want to lessen his contributions (I think he donates the most), just pointing out that he can afford to.  Look you may be right about no difference in religious giving v. non religious giving.  If I ever find a good stat, I'll post it, regardless of the breakdown. 

I can accept your reasoning here but I respectfully disagree.  Most religious people don't behave morally only to appease a supreme being.  When I donate my tything or go fill sand bags when the river is overflowing, it's not because I'm trying to get points in heaven.  I genuinely want to help.  A couple of years ago, this did happen and most of the neighborhood joined in filling sandbags.  Only a small few were in danger but I was actually sad to see that only the religious folks came out with a few exceptions.  Those who didn't show, weren't necessarilly aethiest but they weren't the religious types either.  In fairness, not all the religious people showed up either.  I don't judge either group but it was telling, at least in my neighborhood.  From childhood my parents and religious upbringing ingrained in me what the right thing to do would be.  I do not say that without the religious background others cannot instill similar values, but to say that religion did not have a part of that upbringing for me and millions of others would just be wrong. 

The problem with that is that if you give a child such a decision so early in life, they will be confused.  Children need security and a parent who can make decisions for them.  I believe it's common knowlege that children want their parents to make rules, even if they test them.  They will want you to decide if they go to church.  When they begin to be teenagers, they need some kind of stability as they try and gain their independence.  Many churches (including my own) provide youth organizations and if I have to decide between that and hanging out with a bunch of other teenagers on the streets, guess what I'm going to choose.  You cannot trust a child to make all the decisions about their life.  If they reject my beliefs as an adult, I may be sad but I will not reject them in the least. 

Well, I think you are missing out but that's not the point of this discussion.  You are saying all religion is bad.  I cannot accept that idea as it is so simplistic.  Anyway, I don't see what else there is to say.  Neither of us is going to change our minds.  I'm not going to argue the belief in God bits since it's off topic and I don't have time.