And yes, take an intro to Politics course :D it’s fun!
/geekery

I have no plan to read this book as I’m not a big non-fiction fan.

And I know–it’s that stupid romance formula. Seriously, somebody needs to change that…

On “we’re all the same”, I disagree, hence I differentiated the two types of atheists: those that don’t believe in a God, and those that believe in no God. It’s very suttle, but it is a difference.

That is true (that a false premise doesn’t necessitate a false conclusion), and I stated that in my first paragraph of the original post. As for “Does that mean that all TRUE and good conclusions should be abandoned just because they started out with a false premise?”, and I assume you’ve taken PHIL 120 due to your reference, when designing an argument, you can assume something to be true, but as soon as it leads to a contradiction, everything that follows that assumption must be assumed to not be true. In other words, you cannot structure an argument if you start with something that is false–the “true” conclusion was a function of something other than the false premise (possibly faulty reasoning, or pure coincidence). That being said, I don’t know what “TRUE and good conclusions” are being presented here… And I could argue bottom up, but I decided it would be more efficient to argue top down. I did this because of the reasoning that conclusions derived from a false premise are drawn out of nothingness, and whereas the conclusions created by religion are highly subjective and debatable, most of the reasons and observations I presented above are much more concrete and less based on a viewpoint (ie. it’s difficult to view the fragmentation of religion as anything than fragmentation…).

“The difference between blind religious people and blind atheists is that blind religious people are believing something without reason whereas blind atheists are, without reason, not believing something; this is a topic I mentioned in the first paragraph–belief without reason.”
I think this is a problem with wording.
-Blind atheists are, without reason, not believing something –sure, they don’t believe in religions.
HOWEVER, Blind atheists are, without reason [harsh, more like, without proof], believing in the non-existence of a God.
Also, blind religious people, without reason, are not believing something (the non-existence of God).
In the end, we’re all the same lol

And finally, did I miss something in PHIL 120???? A false premise DOES NOT necessarily mean that the conclusion is FALSE. (ex: All dogs are birds, and all birds are canines, therefore all dogs are canines) Does that mean that all TRUE and good conclusions should be abandoned just because they started out with a false premise? Aren’t religions just the practices and teachings BASED on the fact that there is a God? What you have to argue is that the teachings are useless.

Cheerio!