[Hospitals are literally monuments to the ineffectiveness of prayer]

BAM! Oh, so true. I just hadn't quite thought of it exactly like that, but damn, that's so accurate.

Bakersdozen, with all due respect, the only "building" these faiths did is build their coffers from the sweat off the backs of their congregation. The rest was done by people who used mathematics and physics for the final product, not miracles and supernatural hocus-pocus. It *is* irony. There are hospitals that are not religious that stand just as tall and care for just as many as Lutheran or Methodist or Catholic hospitals. The pope doesn't build hospitals--it would ruin his white robes.

Furthermore, Christians are commanded to help the suffering--until you tell them you don't believe as they do. I know for a FACT that if a homeless person goes to a Christian shelter in Chicago, that person is bomarded with the word of god and if that homeless person doesn't repent, he's out of a warm bed and full stomach. That would be reason enough for me to repent, whether I believed or not. Christianity doesn't understand what compassion is or it wouldn't have persecuted in the past or continue persecuting those who believe differently or not at all, presently. All faiths may purport to corner the market on whatever it is for which they wish to be number one, such as hospital-building, but the bottom line is that faith and religion don't build hospitals, human beings do. Not all human beings are Christian or any other faith. I would be willing to bet there were a few non-believers weighing in on the building of these religious-oriented hospitals.

I have two problems. The first is that you say "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." This just isn't true. How can you distinguish between something happening for which we have no evidence and something not happening at all? You cannot until you have evidence, which entirely begs the question. If your statement is correct, then those happenings for which we have no evidence are evidenced to not have happened. That's an odd conclusion, and even stranger if you add the caveat "at least until we find evidence." Of course our conclusions are tentative, but your statement is not. The aim is understandable, but your statement throws the baby out with the bathwater. It is an untenable position since I am sure you are intelligent enough to conceive of those instances (and singular non-repeatable events) for which evidence will lack. You would need to sustain the argument that "everything that happens has evidence we can observe" to make the claim you did. Can you make that argument?

Secondly, you compare "truth and error" where Christians (or FSM) are the truth and every other religion is in error. This is a straw man because even science can propose alternative hypotheses that are incompatible but which are both scientifically valuable. The problem may be your conception of truth or the aim of hypotheses. You are assuming truth is exclusive and that the aim of knowledge is that truth. Therefore, you claim the Christian is using God as the appeal to this exclusive truth. It comes as obvious that they must exclude everyone else. You cite the Pew Forum report, but even their reports have shown that the majority of believers do not accept this exclusive perception of their beliefs. You have imposed it on them, and that is unjustified. I started this second topic by indicating science does not impose an exclusive perception either, and for good reason. Your straw man of religion can equally apply to science, but science does not fall into the same problem. Therefore, your conception of knowledge (epistemology) and the subsequent values seem to be in error. How do you think this is not a straw man contrary to the Pew evidence or the fact the consequences equally apply to science but are not exemplified by them? If you maintain your position in the face of evidence and double standards, I really don't see how your argument can be right.

I loved your talk.  Sorry to hear about your medical problems, and I hope you get well soon!

I get your bent now, it is different in person, you cloak it in humor. Where did the self replicating molecule come from? Or were you just explaining life on Earth...

What is rational? You still haven't accounted for the difference in induction and deduction. Deduction requires explanation, you point to various points of induction to do so and draw conclusions, these conclusions can confirm or deny the existence of a God. Kierkegaard would have called it a leap of faith but it is more than that, it is the fundamental component to logic and the ultimate wildcard.

Christians feel their beliefs matter, that is the rub and they still view themselves human so they are going to rescue people out of buildings. I mean religion explains the unexplainable and there will always be the unexplainable, you call it lazy, but that is because you are on a crusade. Seriously, I felt like I was watching a preacher. Impressive.