The Athiest thread

[Mary Hartman]

To Hell with all this B***S*** the Earth is just one big pitre dish and we're just specimens of these guys!

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

Petri dish?

Actually one of my best friends is a devout catholic. I've studied several of the major American religions as well as several from about the world. I don't dislike my best friend...I don't believe in his beliefs. But he accepts that and understands it too. I've studied with the protestants, catholics, baptists and even the Jehovah's witness's.

Why?

Information and to understand them and how they feel and think.

You should have seem my mother when someone told her I was an atheist? I just learned the other day who told her because she is a devout baptist. Her and her husband served with what can be viewed as an evangelical Christian right church for many years. He was the pastor. Sat in many many times. According to her since I'd never been baptized I would never get into heaven and she cried and cried like a baby. I told her I was baptized, and I was. I did not tell her I did it to make the church happy.

I wrapped my arms around her and comforted her, to sooth her mind and said don't worry. I will be there in heaven with you, do NOT worry.

Now in her head this is all she had to know. I will surely chew someone a new butt soon. They told her this to make her worry and be angry with me.

Control?

My family is full of control freaks.

Oddly enough they left serving their church well over a decade ago because of the controlling nature of the church.

[Anarchy2Howard]

I'm an atheist! Proud to be an atheist attending a Christian school! (hopefully not for long, I might be transferring soon)

An atheist would make a better president. Why? Because we can work on Sundays.

[Mary Hartman]

I'm an atheist! Proud to be an atheist attending a Christian school! (hopefully not for long, I might be transferring soon)

An atheist would make a better president. Why? Because we can work on Sundays.

Love the signature

[yahyoubetcha]

I submit to you that gods were invented by man to cope with the fear of death, and that we as a species have moved beyond the need for them. For every awesome religious person I know, there are 10 ignorant douchebags. One need not look past the paper, the evening news, or recorded history (constantly repeating itself) to see what happens when people farm everything out to unseen entities invented in their own image.

AMEN!!!

[Shankly]

I submit to you that gods were invented by man to cope with the fear of death, and that we as a species have moved beyond the need for them

I'd agree entirely with that bit - I don't however think that religious belief, or lack thereof, has any impact on whether someone is a good person or not. I know plenty of good people who are religious and plenty who are not. Equally, there are plenty of bad religious people. Anyone can quote relgion to justify almost any atrocity, or can blame atrocities on godless people.

People need to decide on their course through life without the influence of mythical beings. Just because you may agree with some of the teachings of Christ or Mohammed or the Spirit of the Forest doesn't mean they have supernatural powers or even existed.

If people choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence, that is their right. Personally, I would like to see some evidence. Richard Dawkins in 'The God delusion' mentions a fundamentalist preacher who said that even if all of the evidence in the world supported evolution, he would acknowledge that, but would still refuse to believe it as it went contrary to the Bible. Dawkins said that if all of the evidence in the world supported creationism, he would immediately admit he had been wrong and believe it. - it's an extreme example I know, but to me it shows the difference between the religious mindset and the scientific one.

I currently choose not to believe in God, because there is no evidence to support it. If someone can provide convincing evidence I will gladly believe.

[yahyoubetcha]

If people choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence, that is their right. Personally, I would like to see some evidence. Richard Dawkins in 'The God delusion' mentions a fundamentalist preacher who said that even if all of the evidence in the world supported evolution, he would acknowledge that, but would still refuse to believe it as it went contrary to the Bible. Dawkins said that if all of the evidence in the world supported creationism, he would immediately admit he had been wrong and believe it. - it's an extreme example I know, but to me it shows the difference between the religious mindset and the scientific one.

I currently choose not to believe in God, because there is no evidence to support it. If someone can provide convincing evidence I will gladly believe.

Well put. I can't understand why some people believe that having faith is somehow preferable to having proof.

[Nathan]

Mary, please... do me a favor... before responding, read, in depth, my post. Because it seems obvious to me that you are either not reading my posts or are not understanding them. Either way, you seem to be accusing me of a lot of thing I'm not doing or saying. So please. Read. My. Post.

>The Bible was written and accepted as factual by nearly 1/3 of the Earths population, so accepting the web site as an all knowing, all creating existence on this Earth is a far stretch for you is it?

WHY?

Because it is the incorrect Bible. The Christian Old Testament is wrong, okay? It is the wrong interpretation of a book written in a language known as Hebrew which is a language that belongs to the Jews.

Am I saying the Jewish Old Testament is correct? Yes. But not literally. I believe that Bible is meant as a collection of fictional tales based on actual events (there are Egyptians writings that have been discovered that show that the Egyptians did enslave a people for 400 years... that doesn't mean Moses existed, though) meant to teach lessons. It is supposed to be interpreted as metaphorical, not literal.

>IOW your God?

Gotcha

Now I'm just confused. What do mean?

>I never said that. I am under the inclination to feel I do not accept ALL history as factual either.

And why not? Myself, I feel pretty secure in the knowledge that what I'm taught about history is correct so far as what we've discovered these day.

BTW, I'm not talking about Biblical history, but actual history. You know, those Social Studies classes you took back in (secular) school?

>That idea is truly REMARKABLE. In other words all of them are mutually exclusive?

Yes! There's a fundamental difference between the two. Monotheists believe in one God, polytheists believe in many Gods. There are 2-3 billion monotheists in this world. But before you call the rest Atheist, consider how many are pagans or wiccans.

>What makes you think you were ever going to divert me into believing in the SUPERNATURAL anyhow? You should watch more magicians.

What makes you think I'm trying to convert you? Seems to me you're the one who is trying to convert me. I'm just defending myself.

I have no bad feelings for you though. BTW evolution is factual, it is not my issue you cannot trust it.

You are NOT reading my posts and this proves it. For the millionth time: I believe in and trust Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. I just believe they are God's tools.

>Facts are not fanatical. But belief in voodoo and such is.

No. Fanatical is someone like you: close-minded and stubborn in their belief without willing to see the point of view of other people. That, dear Mary, is fanatical.

Sounds wishy washy to me. You can rearrange another persons words all you wish to. But if you feel that makes what you say factual you are far from wrong. Saying that all the first lesser evolved on earth can do nothing more than wipe their arse is like saying they were stupid? That's downright preposterous. Now your apologizing?

For what?

1. This part of my post had nothing to do with you, as it was directed to Suz.

2. I was apologizing for making it seem like I thought Atheists do not find the beauty in life. It had nothing to do with the rest of my post.

You really aren't reading my posts, are you?

1. I never claimed anyone is "stupid." Many may be idiotic, and your fast proving this is the case. But I was staking a claim that persons who do not think things through instead of following the majority are not free thinkers. I have many faults, and am far from perfect and fortunately I am willing to accept it. If you come up with proof of your "God" get back to me ASAP. He just doesn't exist like all the proceeding ones.

At least I'm reading your posts answering your posts instead of making erroneous judgments on what I think the post said and answering those.

I'm proving the "idiotic case?" I was trying to be level-headed, and you responded by ignoring my posts, assuming I posted things I never did, and answering those assumptions (I don' t trust Evolution... how many times do I have to say that I think Darwin was right?).

If I do manage to prove that God exists I won't be able to get back to you because I'll be dead. Besides... I'm no scientist. I don't have the brains, or the want, to undertake such a task. When a scientist decides to start looking for God instead of discounting the idea simply because it's religious, then I'll get back to you.

>In other words man created god? Don't feel insulted though. At least I have that straight in my head at this point about how you feel. Believe it or not I used to think just about like you. Threatening me with you or your family has me a bit confused and insulted though, I do admit. I am doing my very best to be civil and courteous. I respect your dad and family Nathan. I am just entering how I feel. And what I believe.

I never said man created God. I never even intimated that. Please show me where you got this idea. And I never threatened you with my family. I was just saying that you seem to be showing a habit of insulting people I look up to (my Rabbi, for instance), and I was just telling you not to insult my Dad.

I am doing my best to be civil and courteous, too, Mary, but it's hard when you aren't even reading everything I post. I understand it's how you feel, but this conversation would go on a lot better if you actually read my posts.

[Mary Hartman]

Mary, please... do me a favor... before responding, read, in depth, my post. Because it seems obvious to me that you are either not reading my posts or are not understanding them. Either way, you seem to be accusing me of a lot of thing I'm not doing or saying. So please. Read. My. Post.

Because it is the incorrect Bible. The Christian Old Testament is wrong, okay? It is the wrong interpretation of a book written in a language known as Hebrew which is a language that belongs to the Jews.

Am I saying the Jewish Old Testament is correct? Yes. But not literally. I believe that Bible is meant as a collection of fictional tales based on actual events (there are Egyptians writings that have been discovered that show that the Egyptians did enslave a people for 400 years... that doesn't mean Moses existed, though) meant to teach lessons. It is supposed to be interpreted as metaphorical, not literal.

Now I'm just confused. What do mean?

And why not? Myself, I feel pretty secure in the knowledge that what I'm taught about history is correct so far as what we've discovered these day.

BTW, I'm not talking about Biblical history, but actual history. You know, those Social Studies classes you took back in (secular) school?

Yes! There's a fundamental difference between the two. Monotheists believe in one God, polytheists believe in many Gods. There are 2-3 billion monotheists in this world. But before you call the rest Atheist, consider how many are pagans or wiccans.

What makes you think I'm trying to convert you? Seems to me you're the one who is trying to convert me. I'm just defending myself.

You are NOT reading my posts and this proves it. For the millionth time: I believe in and trust Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. I just believe they are God's tools.

No. Fanatical is someone like you: close-minded and stubborn in their belief without willing to see the point of view of other people. That, dear Mary, is fanatical.

1. This part of my post had nothing to do with you, as it was directed to Suz.

2. I was apologizing for making it seem like I thought Atheists do not find the beauty in life. It had nothing to do with the rest of my post.

You really aren't reading my posts, are you?

At least I'm reading your posts answering your posts instead of making erroneous judgments on what I think the post said and answering those.

I'm proving the "idiotic case?" I was trying to be level-headed, and you responded by ignoring my posts, assuming I posted things I never did, and answering those assumptions (I don' t trust Evolution... how many times do I have to say that I think Darwin was right?).

If I do manage to prove that God exists I won't be able to get back to you because I'll be dead. Besides... I'm no scientist. I don't have the brains, or the want, to undertake such a task. When a scientist decides to start looking for God instead of discounting the idea simply because it's religious, then I'll get back to you.

I never said man created God. I never even intimated that. Please show me where you got this idea. And I never threatened you with my family. I was just saying that you seem to be showing a habit of insulting people I look up to (my Rabbi, for instance), and I was just telling you not to insult my Dad.

I am doing my best to be civil and courteous, too, Mary, but it's hard when you aren't even reading everything I post. I understand it's how you feel, but this conversation would go on a lot better if you actually read my posts.

Your image that says thread killer is enough lol. I wont wait for you to be dead to prove god to me either. Utterly presposterous to think you can ever move your lips after you get creamated or buried

What you gonna do communicate with me through the supernatural afterlife? Good luck pal.

A friend said your a nice little jewish boy. Now go eat your oats and read what YOU WRITE.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Highly unlikely?

The only reason the first humans didn't believe in God or in any gods is because they were too stupid to do anything beyond eating, sleeping, pooping, and screwing. They were apes, remember? Our ancestor's were apes (I'm NOT being sarcastic, BTW... I DO believe in Evolution, as I've said hundreds of times already). Once we started developing intelligence, one of the first things we did was to question why and how. That was the birth of religion. "

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Still respect you though.

[59LesPaul]

That's pretty mean. Ok...what did you call her?

Damn....my mind just went completely blank.

I'll have to get back to you...

What I really wanna know is why Keith Richards needs defending!

Time will tell....

The next time there's a great Keith quote-and there will be a next time-that's when the bullshit comes out.

...back to your regularly scheduled thread....

[Mary Hartman]

1. When was the first religion established? No body knows. Homo Sap goes back over 100,000 years and there were early varieties before that. As a practical matter early hominids probably tried to explain the unexplainable by imagining invisible oogly booglies (or ascribing special powers to visible objects) and attempted to placate them with rituals and sacrifices. Archaeological digs indicate rituals (like burials) by Neanderthals that may have had a religious component. Evidence of ritual behavior in Africa has been found as far back as 70,000 years. Cave paintings that go back 20 to 50 thousand years look very much like some sort of attempt to manipulate supernatural forces.

2. When was the first religion recorded? That's somewhat easier as recorded history only goes back 6,000 years or so. The earliest civilizations in Mesopotamia, and the Indus and Nile valleys all had formal worship of some sort of supernatural critters as integral parts of their cultures. These, no doubt, had much earlier roots in pre-historical cultures. I would imagine that religion and culture probably grew up together, one reinforcing the other: religion getting financial and political support from the organized society and the society using religion to control and motivate the population. In Colonial America towns grew up around churches. Something very like that probably happened by in pre-historical times as groups with common beliefs banded together for mutual support and created the first communities and cities.

Source:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=offeri...to-a-stone-snak

Offerings to a Stone Snake Provide the Earliest Evidence of Religion

70,000-year-old African ritual practices linked to mythology of modern Botswanans

By JR Minkel

PBS: Evolution http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/

Please notice tools.

[Mary Hartman]

Damn....my mind just went completely blank.

I'll have to get back to you...

Time will tell....

The next time there's a great Keith quote-and there will be a next time-that's when the bullshit comes out.

...back to your regularly scheduled thread....

Hey, I like Keith Richards. Somebody wake him up and feed him.

>>>

“I've never had a problem with drugs. I've had problems with the police.” Keith Richards.

[wanna be drummer]

Mary, I csn't help but notice your new to this whole posting in political threads thing.

You didn't read Nathan's post at once did you?

It's ok, I forgive you. We have a great Random Thread you might be interested in.

[Dzldoc]

Your image that says thread killer is enough lol. I wont wait for you to be dead to prove god to me either. Utterly presposterous to think you can ever move your lips after you get creamated or buried

What you gonna do communicate with me through the supernatural afterlife? Good luck pal.

A friend said your a nice little jewish boy. Now go eat your oats and read what YOU WRITE.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Highly unlikely?

The only reason the first humans didn't believe in God or in any gods is because they were too stupid to do anything beyond eating, sleeping, pooping, and screwing. They were apes, remember? Our ancestor's were apes (I'm NOT being sarcastic, BTW... I DO believe in Evolution, as I've said hundreds of times already). Once we started developing intelligence, one of the first things we did was to question why and how. That was the birth of religion. "

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Still respect you though.

Just one question that befuddles me though, if this is so why are there still apes?

[BIGDAN]

Just one question that befuddles me though, if this is so why are there still apes?

Hi 'Dzldoc',

Because both humans and apes decended from the same speices, that "Missing link" is what the archaeologists are still looking for.

And Mary is wrong, the archaeologists/scientists still dont know who we are decended from, both us and the apes are like cousins, we have the same ancestors, but we dont come from apes.

Regards, Danny

[Mary Hartman]

Mary, I csn't help but notice your new to this whole posting in political threads thing.

You didn't read Nathan's post at once did you?

It's ok, I forgive you. We have a great Random Thread you might be interested in.

I didn't know this was a political thread? I did read it all at once. The idea I was on about was the mutually exclusive one.

Just one question that befuddles me though, if this is so why are there still apes?

There's several species of apes, even though they look similar,,,,,,,,they are not the same.

Look at how diverse birds are, how diverse fish are. Only us smart ass godlike humans figure hey we are so big and bad and above all the other animals. Who knows, a plague could wipe humans out entirely. Then what would happen. Planet Of The Apes maybe?

[wanna be drummer]

I didn't know this was a political thread? I did read it all at once. The idea I was on about was the mutually exclusive one.

You obviously didn't read and remember much. You misinterpreted or flat-out missed what he said altogether multiple times.

[Mary Hartman]

You obviously didn't read and remember much. You misinterpreted or flat-out missed what he said altogether multiple times.

A good athiest cannot be swayed. I puppet on a string however is another subject all together.

[wanna be drummer]

A good athiest cannot be swayed. I puppet on a string however is another subject all together.

It had nothing to do with swaying. That's your first mistake.

YOU are the one who is clearly attempting to sway, which is what Nathan said multiple times. He also mentions that he believes in evolution and you indicated and flat out said he did not...so he had to repeat himself. Things like that continue in your posts with him. I'm surprised he's still calm. By now, your blindness to what he was saying is honestly a joke. I'd be furious.

But for now, I must eat.

[Patrycja]

A good athiest cannot be swayed. I puppet on a string however is another subject all together.

Well now that's an interesting Freudian slip, MH! Just pulling your string for a laugh...P

[Mary Hartman]

It had nothing to do with swaying. That's your first mistake.

YOU are the one who is clearly attempting to sway, which is what Nathan said multiple times. He also mentions that he believes in evolution and you indicated and flat out said he did not...so he had to repeat himself. Things like that continue in your posts with him. I'm surprised he's still calm. By now, your blindness to what he was saying is honestly a joke. I'd be furious.

But for now, I must eat.

I have no issues with Nathan any longer. We talked last week. Buuut then I guess you read his IM's right? I mean you obviously are a friend of his. I have a good feeling Nathan will peek back in and say something for himself. Or do you not allow him to talk any longer?

Well now that's an interesting Freudian slip, MH! Just pulling your string for a laugh...P

I sure nuff let me old superego slip a tad. I caught it but I have little time at times, many technical issues as of late. I do like Nathan though. I had someone else tell me he was a nice kid too. Now should I dumb down or say what's proven as FACTUAL?

All of our ancestors are still existing,

Missing Link ?

Man you need to steer clear of that starting fluid

[Nathan]

[horrible British accent]

Guess it's time for me to step in and clear the air, right?

[/horrible British accent]

Mary and I have spoken over PMs and are now friends.

We have spoken and are both open to what the other believes and, honestly, I don't blame her for preferring facts to faith. Believe me when I say that I understand that completely.

And Dzldoc, you want to know why there are still apes? This is just a theory, mind you, but maybe it's because the apes we descended from are no more. The apes I'm talking about are not the apes that exist today. Today's apes are, like us, descended form the same ancestor.

Even if you don't believe it, how can you deny the fact that our DNA is almost disturbingly similar to ape DNA? That has to be more then just a coincidence.

[wanna be drummer]

I have no issues with Nathan any longer. We talked last week. Buuut then I guess you read his IM's right? I mean you obviously are a friend of his. I have a good feeling Nathan will peek back in and say something for himself. Or do you not allow him to talk any longer?

Way to dodge what I said.

[guitarmy]

I submit to you that gods were invented by man to cope with the fear of death, and that we as a species have moved beyond the need for them. For every awesome religious person I know, there are 10 ignorant douchebags. One need not look past the paper, the evening news, or recorded history (constantly repeating itself) to see what happens when people farm everything out to unseen entities invented in their own image.

I hope I'm not too late to join this conversation.

I don't argue with my girlfriend anymore so I figure I gotta argue with you guys.

Lucky you!

I've read the first few pages, and still have some catching up to do, so bear with me.

...

One thing I'd like to try to correct is Hitler's motivations post World War 1. Hitler in fact was religious in a completely different way. You have to look at what Hitler did to religion within Germany (as a whole, not just the Jews). Hitler turned Germany's religion into one of the state, or nation, drawing from the history and heritage of German people. That's why he was doing ethnic cleansing. He wanted to get back to Germany's roots, because he thought that Jews and other non-German outsiders were tainting Germany. Germany's roots became the new religion. He had an infatuation with pagan and Greco-Roman tradition/rituals and he incorporated that into Germany's new traditions.

So basically Hitler was reacting against the major modern religions (Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Buddhism/Hinduism).

His intentions were indeed religious, but enacted in an way the world had not seen before.

...

I think that the best religions are the ones that can coexist with others. The convert-or-die religions have to go.

---Especially because they promote revenge, which never ends if you think about it.

I don't mind religions that say you are going to hell if you don't believe. That's fine, and that's a given for all the major religions. I mind the ones that bring violence and death into the equation. If you can't win over your people with words, and have to rely on fear of physical harm in this life, then that's a really cheap way of getting your people to follow you.

...

Has anyone talked about the major differences between religion X, let's say 500-1000 years ago and the how religion X is today?

You can talk about the negative aspects of religious history all you want, but the bottom line for me is how these religions are operating today.

[guitarmy]

And Dzldoc, you want to know why there are still apes? This is just a theory, mind you, but maybe it's because the apes we descended from are no more. The apes I'm talking about are not the apes that exist today. Today's apes are, like us, descended form the same ancestor.

Even if you don't believe it, how can you deny the fact that our DNA is almost disturbingly similar to ape DNA? That has to be more then just a coincidence.

I'm not sure if this discussion has taken place, but it's definitely possible to believe that God created humans, and that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor.

There was actually a time when there were a various species of humans living at the same time. Thousands of years ago. I'm talking about Homo-erectus, Homo-habilis, and Homo Neandertalensis, and Homo-sapiens. They didn't all overlap at the same time. We are the only species to have survived.

Believing that humans and other apes shared similar genes (ie a common ancestor) is not an atheist viewpoint.

[guitarmy]

MEGAPOST GO!

I choose not to believe in something for which there is no evidence, so I am an athiest, which I consider to be the 'default' position. I'm happy to change my mind if anyone can provide proper evidence (but I'm not going to hold my breath)

I've seen the arguments about Hitler many times before on various forums - he was certainly brought up a Catholic and at various times has been quoted as having religious beliefs and as being an atheist. The same is true of people like Einstein - his quotes are used by both theists and atheists alike to further their views - but it doesn't matter what Hitler or Einstein believed. It doesn't alter the truth and it doesn't add one iota of evidence to the existence of God or otherwise. The beliefs of one person, however influential, are not important. What is important is evidence. Solid, reliable, provable evidence and to my mind, no one has ever provided this for the existence of God.

I think you've missed the point about religion. If someone were to prove that a religion was truth, then there'd be no reason to follow it.

The whole reason why people believe in a God is faith, not proof. You'll never change your mind, because if there is ever proof, it'll be too late to change your mind.

Warning: OT post ahead.

I would like to point out that this is not technically true. Judaism is actually a culture.

From the Miriam Webster Dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture%5B1%5D

5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group ; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture> c: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization <a corporate culture focused on the bottom line> d: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic <studying the effect of computers on print culture> <changing the culture of materialism will take time — Peggy O'Mara>

Judaism has it's own language, it's own food laws, it's own country, it's own dress, it's own tradition, it's own people, it's own views, it's own genre of music (klezmer and cantorial [chazanim... pronounce with the hard "ch"]), it's own lineage, etc, etc, etc. Therefore, it is a culture.

And us Jews consider ourselves as part of a culture, not a religion. This is why if you are Atheist but have Judaism in your family (for some sects, on your Mother's side), then you are still considered "Jewish." The religion is simply one part- if the beginning- of the culture.

The reason you cannot include Christianity in this (that does NOT include Catholicism) is because Christianity does not have all of these things. It has no one language, no one people, no one view, no one lineage... it does have it's one genre of music (gospel), but that's it.

Other religions that are actually, by definition, cultures, include Islam, Catholicism, and Paganism. There are more, but I can't think of any more off the top of my head.

HAHA, no matter how you put it, EVERYTHING is culture. Which is actually truth for everyone out there wishing for such truths. Culture is involved in everything related to human activity.

When you say that each culture has it's own language, that's not true! To prove my point---Canadian culture has a couple major languages that I can think of, French and English. American culture has English, but Spanish is becoming very prevalent. While language makes up a big part of culture, it does not restrict it.

So yes, Christianity is a culture. Either you, Peggy, or Webster got it wrong. You could say that each Christian religion is it's own culture, but you can't restrict it to language, for I have showed you that you can't.

Judaism is a culture, but it is also a religion.

Your theory about language also doesn't apply to Catholicism, for Catholicism has no official language. Catholics beleive in "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church"

It means:

One - unified

Holy - God's

Catholic - universal

Apostolic - started by apostles and carried down the years from them.

I want to underline the "Catholic" part:

Catholic means:

1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.

2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.

3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

It's called the Catholic Church, because it seeks to include all langua-cultures in a universal, "everyone included" manner. That's why today in the Catholic church, the mass is said in the people's language, and not latin, which is what most uninformed folks think is the official religion of the Catholic Church. It's not---the official religion is yours.