Is Atheism viable?



Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position.

In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there were a proof of Gods non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying Gods existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheisms truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.

"Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible."Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for Gods existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.

There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.

At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for Gods existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of Gods existence.

This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning Gods existence which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves. (end)

You can not be serious. I don't see it as anything negative in any way. I guess it all depends on your point of view. I see it as the most positive step forward out of the bondage of religious dogma and fear.
As for proving there is no god that's irrelevent. If you believe in it, it's real if you don't it's not real. People see what they choose to see and believe what they choose to believe.
You obviously can't see beyond your xianity so you don't have any other point of view. I and others here have been on many sides of belief and we have a broader perspective on what it all means. We are wondering if religion is viable or fesable. I don't think that most people here bash or attack xians but what I do see are xians that are not to secure in their beliefs over defending their position.
Darlin', the book you follow is so full of holes that you could strain spaghetti with it.

Lol she is Athiest

I prefer to be known as a "Spiritual Non-Theist"

Isn't agnosticism the only truly logical standpoint one can take?

One can take any stand one feels appropriate for themselves. It's a personal thing.

I agree. There is no argument that proves or disproves god for (by and large) the reasons pointed out in the first post. I think the biggest difference between the agnostic-who-is-a-functioning-atheist and theist is that the AWIAFA is no position to /describe/ the god he/she can't prove exits. Most religions spend most of their time describing and anthropomorphizing their deity in ways that seem fatuous to me. Anything that could function as god would be indescribable and utterly unknowable to our puny brains. When you take away our attempts to know a deity you're left with a contradictory mass of opinions on the subject on our side and no real input from god's/s'.

And it seems to me an underlying assumption in that article that atheists have some lack of moral values or moral understanding and their attacks on Christianity comes from vampiric, revengeful spite, and once the Holy Light of Christianity "pokes holes' in that vacuum, the atheist will crumple up and die.

--Jaylemurph

That article is nothing more than a form of propoganda. It was written for people that already believe what the author is saying. As you can see it is full of holes and opinionated, uninformed dribble that only sparks inspiration falling on ears of those whose eyes are already shut as a result of blindness of faith.
It is simply telling selective readers what they want to hear.

It forces one to ask a very serious question in regards to these beliefs. If the article is any representation of what it takes to keep people adhered to that specific faith, what does that say about the whole of the religion?

If someone was brought up in this religion, and all they ever hear or read is dribble like that article then it is easy to see why certain truths or crontradictions of opinion spark emotional reactions in adherents of such faiths.

Gw interesting article, I too see Athiesm as a huge leap towards, hope and tolerance, getting out of hatred and bigotry, GW its seems to me the only ones who have issue with Athiesm is christianity...A fear construct fears everything and in this fear seeks to eliminate the competition.....For many its a new dawn, the most dysfunctional ideas are in christianity, its observable, we can see the effects of the beleifs and values, humanity is a mess.....

So how do you foist atheism on everybody without eliminating the competition? And how do you reconcile preaching tolerance while trashing the beliefs of Christianity?

What of belief in belief?

This is really where a growth in understanding and acceptance lies.

Atheism really comes down to not making things more complicated than need be. It is not about proving the non-existance of "gods", but recognizing there is no evidence to suggest these "gods" are more than human constucts. At the bare minimum, should a creator entity of some form exist, it is in the thoughts/beliefs of the individual that such thing be considered a god. We could easily say that that the base forces of the universe are the creator forces, or even to stretch it "entities", yet who worships them as gods? Some do! In that we see we can believe in belief.

At the risk of sounding horrifyingly cynical......'meet the new boss, same as the old boss!'

Sheri is right you know. The only people that seem to have a problem with atheists around here are the xians. I have yet to see anyone trash your beliefs. Show me where and I'll eat my words.

There is no need to "foist" Aetheism on anyone. I don't think I have ever met an Aethiest who cared if you believed one thing or another.

Many wish the Theists were more accepting of thier lack of faith but thats about it really.

Foist beleifs, never, basically grow in understanding beyond the survival of the fittest mentality and all things fall into place, or simply make an effort to see all things as one or part of the whole..... Thats basically what athiesm does, buddhism, diesm paganism etc...the doctrine claiming they are the way , have the exclusive on god life is a misunderstanding and the epitome of arrogance at the least... sort of like once we thought the earth was flat, or we thought pluto was a planet, or ciggarettes wouldn't harm you, you know more and you let go of waht you thought you knew based onthe new information, relion is the only system that doens't grow, it has stayed the same regardless of what data has been produced they simply dismiss anything that doens't fit wht the bible. says....... Religion simply has to be willing to say we don't know and what we don't know may change everything ...there is no need to do anything else..its a natural outgrowth( tolerance and understanding) once one is willing to say I jsut don't know...its thinking that one knows all there is to know that creates the issue....Its not rocket science IMO......

Richard Dawkins, "Rational" Response Squad, several atheistic authors, as well as loads of secular societies.


The same can be said about atheists.

There is no need for an atheist to prove anything, one should not think of a God at all if one believes there is no 'God'. If you are a proclaimed atheist, and are continuously trying to prove there is no God, then I think that you have some issues to deal with.

I've still yet to hear any evidence supporting the nonexistence of God.... lol

And I have not seen the proof that Zeus is not real.... yet today he is a part of greek "mythology", which is an example of how it is not whether or not something exists, but whether or not people BELIEVE it exists.

Excellent point Arty, generally one doens't 'foist ' beleifs on others unless they are uncertain of them themselves.....IMO...There comes a place where one wants to allow others to be who they are and takes geat delight in that, enjoys the diversity of different persepctives.....

Right here:



The post appears to be painting Christians with a broad brush as intolerant, hateful,bigoted, and relying on fear. Now I won't dispute that there are some Christian wackos out there say and do stupid things. But they are a minority. If the 2 Billion+ Christians in the world were all like that, then everybody else would've been wiped out long ago. Personally I've never burned witches, started or participed in 'Religious Wars', have no problem reconciling scientific knowledge with my faith. We're taught Christianity is about love, especially towards the least of our brothers.

Now I have no problem if people have different religious beliefs than I do. I don't think any religion has a monopoly on truth. But I do have a problem if you trash my beliefs, especially and ironically in a post proclaiming tolerance and ending bigotry.



I've met many. Just look around this board, there's posts talking about how much better the world would be if we just moved past religion.

Unless of course you deem those different perspectives to be hateful, bigotted, intolerant, then they become things that need to be moved beyond. Yet that is somehow different than 'foisting'.

If you take the satnd point that science is everything and nothing that science has not observed is myth then what are you left with? Survival of the fittest. According to the theory of evolution that is all it comes down to about us animals.
That is what religion does, whether its Christian, Muslim, etc., it makes us see we are all children of God, that we all have a part to play for the benefit of others.

Religion is open to anyone that wants to believe, nobody claims it is exclusive.
The belief that people believed the earth was flat is a myth, their are records going back to the middle ages that show that by and large most people never thought it was. The myth only started when somebody said Columbus set sail trying to prove it was flat. He set sail thinking the earth was a 1/4 the size it was thought. (incidently he thought it was more of an egg shape). We didn't think Pluto was a planet, we knew it was a planet. Only now the classification of what a planet is has changed it cannot be called a major planet (it is called the prototype minor planet). This wasn't done because we messed up our calculations, it was done so we didn't end up with 50 planets within the next 10 years.
No new information has been given that has contradicted the Bible (I see this got onto attacking Xianity instead of religion as a whole). The only things that people use are their negatively biased thoughts about parts of the Bible taken out of context or events that happened centuries ago by people claiming to be doing the will of God. I am sure that any Muslim would state the same about the Koran. Why should religion change if it is found to be fine as it is by those that believe in it?

All followers of religion do say that. 'I don't know' is a major part of having faith in something. What we don't know will never change anything, only things we discover which make an impact on the things we know can change something. As I said nobody has shown me anything that proves the Bible is flawed.
Tolerence and understanding are only found by asking questions and listening with an open mind at the answers, without trying to make them feel stupid every time they take a breath. Would I as a Xian say that a Muslim or a Jew are wrong.? No, they have faith in what they believe. Would I as a Xian say that someone brought up in a religion and never given the opportunity to ask questions about that or other religions is wrong? Absolutely, any person of any faith has a duty to question their faith (and let others do likewise).
Would I as a follower of a religion think that someone has the right to mis-represent any religion by taking things out of context, using centuries old acts as evidence that religion is bad, bully those that struggle to find the right answers, abuse others that do find the right answer, and still continue to ask the same questions over and over again? NO. I will defend my religion and anybody elses from such attacks. If you demand people have tollerence then you need to show that same tollerence yourself.

***Not aimed at anyone, or group, in paticular just can't find a way to make it more neutrally accusative. ***

EDIT: Sorry GW forgot to answer your OP question: Yes Atheism is viable if it is a personal viewpoint that has been gathered through neutral study of the alternatives and the results thought about in a constructive manner. Some atheists (like some christians) though only call themseleves that without finding their own thoughts just so they can attack others beliefs, for me personally that is not a viable form of atheism.

mickle as in your quote here "Religion is open to anyone that wants to believe, nobody claims it is exclusive." the very wording of this is advocating exclusive, it is open to any one that wants to beleive.....This in and of itself is claiming this as "the truth", 'the way'.....


Reliogn is continguent on beleiving as they do, a one size fits all... There are no such conditons in buddhism or diesm or paganism, no two people practice them the same let alone have conditons on beleiving, also other than a comment here and there within context few other than christains are preaching beleifs, its not imporant to most , ... Buddhism actually never asks you to give up anything just to be who your truth is....Christianity doesn't do this it has a doctrine with a bunch of rules and directions......to be beleived....

mickle i would say you are a most open minded christain and we have a few on here but we also have alot of christans that are exclusivists and support ideas that aren't a benefit to the whole......

Mickle no new ideas have been added to the bible since its first writtings, science has grown, medicine, technology etc.... religion has stagnated it is using primitive understnadings to navigate modern dayto great peril to humankind.... and its causing alot of problems.... alot depends on what you are here for , if you are seeking to be peaceful and a benefit to the whole , religon would be a determent to this.....


the idea of survival of the fittest comes from the idea that diety has preferences and needs that can't be met ...survival of the fittest is a reliogus concept , i don't define evolution in this vein, it is simply at the profound deepest understanding saying that life changes, of course evolution can go in both directions.... it in the genes to naturally adapt to its conditiions this is observable, jsut as gravity is etc.... Science trys to make sense of the universe and its laws it is not claiming to be the only way jsut another way.... it also is a construct jsut like everything else...Good sceince is very benefical to mankind......

The Bible hasn't changed but Church teachings and understanding certainly have.



The concept of "Survival of the Fittest" came around in the 19th century, it is a description of the Darwinian concept of Natural Selection, and is fundamental to the process of evolution. (species ill-fitted to the environment die off, and species well-adapted multiply and pass on their genes)

.....certainly, the above is the general understanding of survival of the fittest, i was getting in to it deeper....It has its roots in the garden of eden mythology.... constructs are interconnected and outgrowths of each other, such as Religous beleifs permeate most of the systems we have whether one is religious or not one is affected by its understandings...

the bible is ocnsidered infallable , the very understanding of infallable leaves no room for 'new ideas'.... The bible has not had one new idea since its inception, that is what I'm referring to few would challenge the word of 'god' LOL...let alone change anything.. or come up with new ideas....that is what I was alluding too.....

Really? You must not visit the Spirituality vs. Skepticism forum much.

The Bible is only considered infallible in certain Christian denominations. I had a class in Biblical exegesis at a Roman Catholic university and was taught basically that much of the Bible is not necessarily 100% factually true, the Book of Revelations is probably not a prophetic work, but instead a coded-correspondence for 1st century Christians (with Nero being 'the Beast'). There are other Gospels of Jesus not in the New Testament because they weren't considered as reliable to the people who put the Cannon together. Now, this course was taught by a priest at a Catholic University, so I think it's safe to say that it is a sanctioned school of thought within the Church.

But if you have decided that a religion is right for you then you have decided it is "the truth", "the way". The religion is the banner you sail under only after you have made that choice yourself.

A Christian does not follow denomionational beliefs, they follow there own personal beliefs, sometimes they find a denomination thats tenets of faith are closely matched to theirs and they are happy with that. Other times they don't find one that matches so choose fellowship at one cos its the closest church to where they live. Most of these will still keep their own beliefs and ideas. Thats why we have Bible study nights, not to tell people what to believe but to see things from other Christians perspective. Christianity only asks you to give up anything that you personally see as immoral or bad. I have mentioned before about a church minister deciding that smoking was evil and a load of members left because they didn't see it that way (unhealthy maybe, but not evil) they found other places to worship which were more tollerant of smoking.


The same could be said for any religious or non religious group on here. It is up to each person to decide how they see themselves. Sometimes it is just people not getting the right words for what they meant. We also have people from different nations with the same word having different meanings. Maybe they don't even realise that it comes over naughty. We all know that people read things into what we type that was not meant (even with smileys, is it a sarcastic smiley, stick one finger up and chew on that smiley, or a just kidding smiley).


No new ideas are required to the Bible for people to live a loving life for the benefit of others. What problems are being created by 'religion'? It is true that some groups RCC, JW's, etc are not ideal beliefs for all people and many Christians would stand side by side with non religious people to condemn some of the practices... but ... who are we to decide that they are wrong and evil. They have chosen that faith, I realise that some inflict their beliefs on other innocent little people, but the parents have still chosen that faith. I personally don't agree with RCC hospitals being run as they are, or the JW's refusing blood transfusions, the science should take precedence over the faith (since I believe that God gives us the science to help us).
Although good science is beneficial we have bad science as well. People hungry for power and money faking results, medicine companies charging a fortune for new 'super' drugs while half the world dies in poverty, Smart alecs answering problems with more questions and feeling clever cos they thought of them first.
Only when people realise that as a group (whatever belief or non belief) can we benefit mankind as an whole, not by believeing the same things but by using our collective beliefs and knowledge sensibly and coming to a respectful understanding between us. That can not happen though while people continue to mis-represent what others believe.
Is there one right way? We all have to decide which one is ours and respect others that feel they are on the right path even if it is wrong (from our POV).

mickle this is well stated ..


'.Only when people realise that as a group (whatever belief or non belief) can we benefit mankind as an whole, not by believeing the same things but by using our collective beliefs and knowledge sensibly and coming to a respectful understanding between us. That can not happen though while people continue to mis-represent what others believe.
Is there one right way?

we have a mutual vision, each doing our part....their are amazing people that are christian , but they aren't following the bible blindly either, they are setting a higher standard of behavior, asking the really tough questions and coming up with their own ideas on things..... that is how relgion is gonna grow by those such as your self that inspire and emulate tolerant all inclusive behavior and it is then that relgion will be what it was inteneded for a way to unnte and share in each others journey...a bridge instead of a wall....

micklmas


I don't mean this as a personal attack by anymeans. But as a Nontheist myself I can't help but wonder what problems the idea that "God gives us the science to help us" causes. To hold this as a personal belief is one thing but to expand it to where this idea may be taught and spread to children or laypeople, may cause more harm than good.

Mankind has had to fight against religosity in order to advance in science. Science in essence is an achievement of Man. Are we not selling our abilities short by attributing them to God. In all actuality by this rationale all actions and acheivements can be attributed to God. This idea in itself can be very debilitating to the advancement of mankind.

At times being religious appears to be a very convienient place to live. If all achievements, negative or positive are bestowed from some great being, this takes the onus off the individual.

Where as the opposite: Where all things positive or negative are bestowed as a result of one's own actions and you and you alone are the source of your glory or weary, forces mankind to take a specific responsibility of one's personal life.

Maybe by accepting this responsibility on a mass scale will allow mankind to advance free from the divisions that exist in the world at the moment. Maybe by accepting this responsibility we can advance as a whole, as Homo Sapien Sapiens, the species that flourishes on this planet.

I was taught from the age of eleven onwards, all the way through religious studies at the Catholic school I attended that we should not take the bible literally, rather to veiw it as a mix of myth, history and folklore which helped illustrate the relationship between God and man, the choices open to us in that relationship and our place in the greater scheme of things.

Maybe I was lucky in that they were very enlightened at that school, still I know very, very few Christians who follow the bible literally.

We are all responsible for our own actions, nothing is taken for granted by us religious people. The fact God allows things to be discovered by no means makes things easy for mankind. It still takes men of vision to ask the right questions to find those breakthroughs. Those people should be given the respect that they deserve. To be perfectly honest I think the problem is not whether God or man should be attributed but how mankind as an whole uses that information.

Do they take anything with mildew to the preist still?

I find it funny when Athiests say "God Doesnt Exist- I am my own God!". Sorry Sweetheart. You just said God doesnt exist. You cant be a "God" no matter how hard you try. According to your own beliefs of course. Some Athiests tend to see themselves as God..."Wannabe" i say

Peace N Love.

The word context might be something you wish to look up.

Mildew????? What's that all about then?

Folks, please remember that the Catholic Church, it's teachings, and philosophies are not the end all be all of Christianity, there are many of us who certainly do not subscribe to it or to any other man-organized denominations. So just because the Catholic Church says this or does that, in no ways means that all of Christianity adheres to it.

Wasnt it Nietzsche that said, "God is d... wait a second I dont believe in God, nevermind"?

Leviticus 14: 35-57

its about the treatment of mildew and mould.

OP your avatar says it all "I want to believe". Wanting something doesn't make it true.


The lack of proof for the existance of God is more than enough evidence that there isn't one, or two, or three or more.

More of a Jilly Cooper fan myself, never did read huge tracts from the good book.

No nor did I, mainly becasue it is not in a form that makes easy reading. I just remember someone I knew doing a religous history course point it out to me.

Sorry mate on that one I can't help you other than to say it sounds weird and despite all the high camp ceremony of mass I don't remember anything to do with priests and mildew. apart from some of them were quite old.

I disagree with this Atheism is definatly not negative.... Personally I would rather put my faith in humanity being able to accomplish greatness as opposed to beleiving an omnipotent being in the sky. While I personally beleive God is a creation of our own imaginations I can't prove it. That being said no one can prove a God exists either. I could say I beleive the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and you could not prove me wrong.

How do you prove God exists in the universe, the atheist viewpoint is not a negative we just choose to put our faith in things we know exist like ourselves i.e. humanity.



If your arguement is that we have no proof God doesn't exist the same arguement can be used regarding existence of such a creature.

The atheist position is not based on faith, as faith is basically to blindly beleive in something w/o any evidence to support it. There is no evidence to even suggest a God exists outside of faith. Atheists simply do not beleive something that has no evidence to support it more specifically God. The arguement used above is flawed as it clearly shows a lack of understanding regarding atheist/humanist views.


Bottom line is that no evidence for God has ever existed while there is no proof that God doesn't exist where is the evidence for existence outside of faith?
The above says atheists are on the offensive yet this is clearly an attack on atheist views, it all seems a little hypocritical on the part of the spiritual. Everyday more and more people simply stop beleiving God this is merely an attempt to keep numbers up in church imo.




Using this arguement again I could say religion and faith in God is not viable then either...
Simply claiming a God exists does not make it so. The beleivers in God have to come up with more then I beleive a God to make it viable.


Nothing in the bible can be verified...On that note if you don't stone dissobedient children, kill fornicators and non-beleivers then your not a true christian as thats what the bible says christians are supposed to do.

There is no evidence for God's existence...prove me wrong...
I tell you what, the day God is proven to be real I will beleive but I won't hold my breath. There is simply not good reason why I should beleive a God...

Every arguement used here can be turned around on the beleiver....This is nothing more then a christian attack on atheists and quite sad really, He who has not sinned cast the first stone comes to mind here.



I don't attack christianity specifically no real atheist does. We simply do not beleive in a God whether you are hindu. christian, muslim etc.
As for people placing themselves above others though christians are far from innocent in this regard.

Again this is nothing more then a christian attack propaganda peice coming from a narrow viewpoint which does not understand what atheists are about. We never claim to be gods we claim to be human we simply beleive that humanity is alone on it's journey and there has never been anything to suggest otherwise.

I agree whole heartedly that we are responsible for our own actions. My original query was in regards to things that believers deem bestowed from a higher power, for example: a promotion at work, the health of you and yours, people in your life and food on your table. These type things are regularily given thanks for by believers, to God.

Is it not the onus that lies on the individuals head that these things come to fruition? Through hard work, good living, and respect for others these things come about as a result of the manner in which one leads their life. I believe that to accept this onus, to carry this responsibility may in fact force mankind to become more accountable of his position on this planet and hold us more culpable towards the affect our presence has on our own environment and the dynamics of such.

The fact that God allows things to be discovered implies the opposite that God doesn't allow certain things to be discovered. This is where my confusion lies. This is where I feel that religion sells mankind short, it is with this idea that a higher power exists that doles out information based on that deity's grand plan. We know that once we have specific variables of an equation that 2+2=4, yet by the idea that "God allows things to be discovered" implies that if God wanted 2+2 could equal 5.

It is solely man that ventures forth into the natural environment to learn more as a result of our own curiosity and as a result of our motivation to advance further our understanding.

I may need an example of what God has allowed to be discovered in order to understand this ideal more clearly.



I agree that the problem lies with how mankind uses said information. Yet again I feel that there are dangers to attributing said information to a higher power.

For if mankind as a whole had a little more self esteem in regards to his existence may force us to be alot more responsible and/or percipient of our place here on this planet, and the food on our tables.

I realize though that as a Nontheist I'm viewing this in the context of the fact that God does not exist, where as a believer would view this as abandoning a God that does exist, which to a believer is the worst thing you can do.

Son , curiousity has been on thes boards a very very lonjg time and knows them well..lol...You jsut haven't been around long enough to know her and she is a most resepected member.......LOL

The church and the bible are the same son, i know you like to do the we are 'different' but its all the same thing. i get such a chuckle out of this i follow the bible but don't beleive in relgion oy vey...... .......... Your funny you are a preacher saying you don't do organized relgion....*giggles*

As a 'believer' I can't see a problem with it, yet at the same time I understand where you are coming from, sadly it is something we will have agree to disagree on.
One other thing I thought I better point out , I would not go around teaching children that this is how it is (as you stated in the first response). It is what you said 'my personal viewpoint', some other Christians share it, some don't.

One last thing: Disbelieving in God is not the worst thing you could do, there are a few more things worse than that.

Sorry SS they are not the same.
The Bible is (Christians believe) a collection of divinely inspired scriptures.
A Christian is a person that freely decides to allow Jesus into their life. (Little bit basic I know but saves having to type out lots of junk for you to skip over )
The Church is the term for a group of Christians worshipping and fellowshipping together.
Denomonations are a collection of these Christian groups who hold the same viewpoint on non-essential (for salvation) beleifs.
Roman Catholic and Baptists are a long long way from the same. Baptists & Methodists are similar but not the same. Strict and Paticular Baptists (or Striped and Perculiar as we General Baptists tease them) & General Baptists (or free-for-all as S&P like to tease us) are extremeley close but still not the same.

For anybody that is interested in the difference here you are. (If not skip on by )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_Baptist