Difference between revisions of "Talk:religion"

Latest revision as of 17:18, 26 April 2012

It's funny - but is it useful?[edit]

Ummm the "oppossing views" section, whilst mildly amusing, could use a few sources, since it is claiming as fact something that has never been proven.

Also, wouldn't an article about religion and it's relationship with anarchy be more useful than the current article, which is largely just atheist propganda.

This article contains little in the way of infomation.

I didn't really want to change it without asking first, but I'm struggling to see the purpose of this article in it's current form. It looks more like an uncyclopedia piece

It's mindless bashing. Many great, intelligent people have been religious. Hell, the vast majority of people who have ever lived have been religious. It's not a mental illness, that's absurd. Zazaban 08:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

True. But they were religious for what reasons? What evidence for the existence of deities did they present? The statement that there is no God is correct because of the fact that no evidence for the existence of God has yet been provided.

RichardT