Shifting gears

Thus far we have focused not so much upon debunking dogma itself, but rather the confidence with which we adhere to our particular creed. This is because the first step in our transitions from believers to realists was taken when we realized that there was no reason to believe in one dogma over another. Our earlier posts should have made it very clear that believers believe in one system over another simply because it is the system in which they were raised; had their life circumstances been different, so too would their beliefs.
This sociological perspective can be applied to all belief systems, including science. For example, had one been born prior to the time of Galileo, he would believe the Earth to be the center of the solar system. Believing such would not be his fault, nor would it be foolish or stubborn given scientific understanding of that age. However, he would indeed be mistaken, and if he wished to consider himself a reasonable and intelligent person, he would have to be willing to change his mind once verifiable evidence to the contrary arose. Appealing to the fact that his original line of thinking is most familiar and comfortable does not make those beliefs correct, and reveals him to be a stubborn fool.
What we have said thus far should be enough to demonstrate two basic ideas: one must admit that her religious beliefs were determined by factors outside of her control. If she was fortunate enough to have been born to parents who got things right, wonderful. Yet, can she be so naive as to not explore things a bit further in the event they were wrong; we are talking about eternity here. The second concept is the fact that the "live and let live" policy does not apply to religion. All three major monotheisms instruct their followers to murder nonbelievers, and the simplest interpretation of these instructions is the literal one. Therefor, if a peaceful worshipper of one faith is to be tolerant of all others, he must be prepared to be slain in the name of another's god.
At this point it is time to engage in the true debunking. We will endeavor to demonstrate the evidence and logic which points in the opposite direction from the shared major tenets of most religions from the soul to the benevolent creator. It should be pointed out that, were one to think they had found a flaw in our upcoming arguments, this would not justify their particular dogma.
For example, demonstrating the fact that there is an intelligent creator does not say anything about that creators name, or intentions for us. The Bible does not describe an intelligent designer who created the strong nuclear force that holds all atoms together. It describes a deity that made the Earth in seven days, put two people on it, and then rested. The god of the intelligent design theory is not the god described by that text, and human beings have can not be so arrogant as to update the text without his (and yes, according to the books, it's his not her or its) permission; we'll just have to wait until the creator graciously decides to pay us another visit and explain things in updated language.
It should also be mentioned that, were god to come down from heaven and reveal himself to all mankind, call himself Zeus and demand a goat sacrifice at the foot of Mt. Olympus, the writers of this blog would recognize the indisputable evidence and be the first on a plane to Greece with a goat in tow. Would you be with us, or in your respective place of worship praying to your god to say it ain't so?