Yes, why not? The problem begins when you hold that theory even when all plausible evidence completely contradicts it or when there is no real evidence to support it.

It is scientific to test that theory and find out if it holds any value. It is scientific to then look at the evidence and then decide how much merit that theory has.

Through what process? Are you saying you agree with evolution over creationism? If you do, then why didn't you say that earlier, this would have been much easier. =]

You're just being silly now. They obviously didn't think he was a fake, they probably believed he was the real deal. Again, just because some people believed in someone doesn't make them any more legitimate. I can believe in Santa as hard as I like, I could die for him, but that wouldn't make him any more real.

Tell me, would it make him real?

What I meant was I tried to use them to give answer to and explain your questions from the scientific side of the argument (as thats what you were asking). Were as you tried to use scientific theories against themselves and then point soley towards a God, instead of offering any scientific theories as an alternative or realising that we may be wrong in those theories.

I used the term looseley, as the theories were of scientific nature. There are many 'scientific' theories we cannot test or prove yet, and that is what they remain, just theories and ideas until the day comes we can find a way to test them.

There lies a problem in which you are asking a bunch of people who will give you the answer you want to hear. They're in your church, I'm sure they all believe that God has performed miracles in their lives otherwise they wouldn't be there.

It's like going to a football game and asking if the people there have ever seen a goal scored. They will all give a resounding positive to the question.

There are things in everyone's lives, even mine, that can be considered 'miricle'. I mostly consider them 'conincidence' or 'luck'. Miricles can most often be explained in other ways than the supernatural.

WOW! What a resounding miracle! The hospital heals people!

There must have been more to it?

Whoa, now dont they send people who hear voices to mental homes? What if I said to you:

"I read an old book and now I have a friend, you can't see him but I know he's there. He's everywhere I go, and he's in this room right now. I talk to him every night and he answers me. He tells me what to do and how to live my life and I follow his every divine word"

A phsychiatrists wet dream. You'd be sent to a mental home in a shot, but as soon as it's mentioned it's about God then it all becomes mysteriously ok? Please explain the difference.

Also this shows some hatred towards other religions, by saying that the Mormons are commanded by Satan. There is one thing an agnostic/atheist/whatever-you-want-to-call-it has that many religious people don't and that is tollerance. I'm not acusing you of this in particular, but it's rife within many religious communities.

This means nothing at all, how can you class this as a miricle?

Healed you say? Maybe she was incorrectly diagnosed?

Don't worry, it's pretty easy to believe that the hospital healed someone. Seriously though, I failed to see anything miraculous in those 'miracles' at all.

I think modern America is simply behind socially in that respect, as it is a relativley modern country and needs to go through all of that. Here in England religion has all but died out, I don't know anybody who is strongly religious, I can't even think of anybody in the news who is either - unless you mean those fanatical muslims with hook-hands. Are you saying we are all evil, commanded by Satan and going to hell?

->Jaythediv: They'd have to have some pretty good magic tricks back in the day to fake multiplying food, or rising from the dead after one of the most excrutiating forms of death in history, or walking through walls and appearing to 500 people simultaneously, or ascending directly into Heaven in front of a large crowd…

People like Peter and Paul were executed for their faith. John (The man who wrote Revelation) was burned alive in oil - and survived. (A Roman soldier saw this and wrote about it) Stephen was stoned to death, all the while praying for his murderers. Many (it could have been all, I don't remember) of the rest were killed in similar ways. Now, considering all they wrote and claimed they saw, does it really seem logical that they should die for it rather than abandoning what they said, unless it was true?

Cities… Noah's three sons survived the flood along with their wives and Noah and his wife. Noah then lived for some hundreds of years more, having more children. Back in the day, a 300 year lifespan was normal, and a family would normally have dozens of children. These children would have children, and before you know it there's a huge number of people!

As far as I can tell, if none of the theories regarding the creation of the universe have any evidence behind them, they should be treated by science and scientists in the same light that science treats religion. However, this is singularly not the case, as people such as OL have a tendency to support and put forward any and all theories - except the possibility of God.

While environment plays a role in what religion people start with, that does not make a scrap of difference in which is right - any more than believing that two and two make seven makes it true. I believe that Christianity is correct; I have experienced things that leave no doubt in my mind of this truth (although as OL has done, no one will listen to One of Them, oh, no… he's a Christian, he's got to be lying!)

->TheMan: Again, you treat all religions as equal. There are many religions (the Greek and Roman religions, for instance) which are undeniably false (Zeus had a habit of using lighting on unbelievers frequently - and where are all the Centaurs?) - but not all religions are this way.

->OL:

"Yes, why not? The problem begins when you hold that theory even when all plausible evidence completely contradicts it or when there is no real evidence to support it."

You obviously don't believe what you posted in that picture a while back. What you have done is to substitute an untested, impossible theory for valid scientific law and then based your entire worldview off of it. If you're being scientific, then you shouldn't hold any theory such as the simulation theory, as there is absolutely no evidence to support that theory, while there is evidence against it. If you want to hold a belief outside the realm of science itself, fine - but call it by what it is: Religion.

"Through what process? Are you saying you agree with evolution over creationism? If you do, then why didn't you say that earlier, this would have been much easier. =]"

- Not a chance, buddy. Taking two of every animal type and putting them together, in 4000 years you'll have all the animals on Earth today through normal reproduction. The prey species such as rabbits should be obvious - a pair of rabbits our family owned tripled in number in just one year. Things like lions would multiply more slowly - just as they aren't as numerous as rabbits are today. But it would all work out in the end.

"You're just being silly now. They obviously didn't think he was a fake, they probably believed he was the real deal. Again, just because some people believed in someone doesn't make them any more legitimate. I can believe in Santa as hard as I like, I could die for him, but that wouldn't make him any more real.

Tell me, would it make him real?"

- So you're saying that they saw him perform all the miracles they wrote about and died because they wrote? They saw him walk through walls - all 500 at once? Walk on water? Rise from the dead? Ascend into Heaven? I'm not silly - I'm serious. They believed that He did all these things - can you explain how, besides by seeing them?

"or realising that we may be wrong in those theories."

- And there's the main problem. People like you are willing to cast out all the science of the last 2+ hundred years, in order not to admit there's a God. The choice is this: either one of your theories is true and we need to rework everything we know, or there's a God and the last 2+ hundred years hasn't been wasted. It makes much more sense to go with the one that the evidence supports, doesn't it?

"just theories and ideas until the day comes we can find a way to test them."

- And in the meantime, it doesn't do to call it science, does it? Wipe them from the textbooks, then. Teach fact and leave speculation to other fields. …but you only do this when dealing with religion, don't you?

"WOW! What a resounding miracle! The hospital heals people!

There must have been more to it?"

- indeed. This person was charged by a heavyset guy, fell to the ground, internal injuries as revealed by a hospital scan - he was in pain, lying on a gurney, … and then he gets up, healed. Another scan shows no evidence of the previous effects… except for a residual effect from being hit so hard.

"A phsychiatrists wet dream. You'd be sent to a mental home in a shot, but as soon as it's mentioned it's about God then it all becomes mysteriously ok? Please explain the difference.

Also this shows some hatred towards other religions, by saying that the Mormons are commanded by Satan. There is one thing an agnostic/atheist/whatever-you-want-to-call-it has that many religious people don't and that is tollerance. I'm not acusing you of this in particular, but it's rife within many religious communities."

- Mrs. White is a perfectly sane lady, I assure you. Again, you assume that Christianity is not correct, and anything and everything that points awry from your beliefs is false. It's difficult to debate with someone who discouts what you know as madness. And the fact is, other religions are not of God, and are machinations of Satan. We don't hate other people for what they believe, but rather want to help them. I'd like to know what you consider tolerance - frankly, I don't understand what you think here."

"Healed you say? Maybe she was incorrectly diagnosed?" - Sure, these top-of-the-line modern machines and techniques are prone to fail - especially, it seems, when the person in question is Christian. Anti-Christian hospital bias - I should sue. (Joking here, in case you can't tell)

"I think modern America is simply behind socially in that respect, as it is a relativley modern country and needs to go through all of that. Here in England religion has all but died out, I don't know anybody who is strongly religious, I can't even think of anybody in the news who is either - unless you mean those fanatical muslims with hook-hands. Are you saying we are all evil, commanded by Satan and going to hell?"

Part 1: It is not "behind socially" to be religious, any more than it is "ahead socially" to be a completely rational thinker. A society without religion is a society doomed to evil - look at all the Communist dictatorships of the past which outlawed religion. Look at the different legislations being put into effect today in America - abortion, which murders millions; "homosexual rights," which corrupts morality… I assure you, religion is not behind those movements. Truth is, the "behind socially" America, founded on Christian principles, is still the greatest society on Earth, while such "ahead socially" societies as the USSR and Red China are dead or dying.

Part 2: In three words, yes, no, and yes.

Everyone on Earth is sinful - all you need to do to prove this is think back to the last time you lied. I routinely sin - it's human to do so. Asking for forgiveness, however, is what separates us.

Now, on to the second allegation. You aren't commanded by Satan - he's not the Big Red Guy with horns and a fiery throne, but a spirit of evil who is destined to be tormented in Hell for all eternity. If anything, you are ruled by sin, which comes from him.

Finally, everyone who does not believe is going to Hell eventually. Think of it as the recycle bin - any program which does not produce good results will be picked up and dragged to the trash. We are His creations, and when we fail, He has every right to do with us as He sees fit. It is simply that He has extended to us the opportunity to be changed - to be modified and corrected to produce good results, rather than being deleted.

The thing is, that's 1 man's word. We are now thousands of years and several translations since the Bible was first written, how can you be so sure that this man speaks the complete truth and that the whole thing is meant to be taken as fact and you should live your life by it?

Personally, I don't think you would go to Hell if you don't follow Christianity. The idea that "I'll send my son down to Earth, he can tell people The Truth for a few years, then forever more if anyone does not follow his teachings, they can burn in Hell" does not seem to me to be giving mankind a fair chance at all.

If I were born in, say, a remote part of Mongolia, I may never even hear of the idea of Christianity, though I may lead a good life, I am doomed to spend eternity in Hell?

About the cities - I'm not really clued up, but when I was reading that i thought to myself - "Went to a city?! Where has this city come from?!" It names all the sons of noah, and their sons, etc for quite a while, I may have my facts wrong, but it didn't seem to add up.

I don't think many scientists call any of the theories for the beginning of the Universe fact, and I know that I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of it being created by a God or similar. To me that is just one of many possibilities, that i'm sure we'll never find out for certain (Unless Religion is right, in which case we'll all find out one day ;).).

This is really not a very good argument for religion - look at all those religious societies - the Aztecs, for whom human sacrifice was the norm - the Romans who invaded and overtook most of europe and the middle-east - The crusades where the west invaded the east, etc. I think it's part of human nature for some people to incite hatred and violence, religion or not.

This is a very short-sighted and harsh, even offensive view, especially about the "homosexual rights". You've seriously gone down in my view after that comment.

There is an argument against abortion in that where do you define consciousness and a life? At what point are you taking a life? Although they have placed a cap on the time since conception that they will abort the pregnancy (I believe) before a time which the foetus shows any response to stimuli.

In some circumstances, having a baby can destroy a life (/several lives), surely it's better to abort the pregnancy before the foetsus develops into a baby. I'm sure you'll say that from the moment a sperm and egg combine, that's a life, but what kind of a life? Surely it's closer to the kind of life of a plant - it has no consciousness of itself or the world around it, and there's no dilemma over killing plants.

And your view on gays is despicable. What right do you have to call someone evil/wrong/against God because of the way they are?

Homosexual behaviour can be observed throughout the animal kingdom - does this mean these aimals are evil? No. Sort it out mate. If anything, you deserve to go to Hell for this undeserved hatred against your fellow man, rather than those that live their lives in a good and kind way, but without following Christianity.

Many religious groups support abortion and Homosexual Rights. Religion is by no means against those movements, some perhaps, but definitely not religion as a whole.

Jason.

->OL: I DO NOT HATE YOU. Why, why, why do you not understand? I don't hate you; we don't hate you. I believe that you are wrong, yes - but I will not and don't want to go blow you up for it. I want you to be saved! That's the difference between hate and love - both are willing to address faults in others - but one does so with kindness, while the other does so with violence. I am firmly in the "love" category, as Christ was. That doesn't mean I have to go say you're right - I don't believe you are, or that any other religion is correct. But that is not hate, and the sooner you understand this, the sooner we can continue with rational discussion.

->Jaythediv:

1. This Roman soldier's word was not recorded in the Bible, but in the Roman books of that age. This (probably biased against Christianity), neutral party wrote down an account of what happened that is at least as accurate as any of the ancient historians who are still held in great regard as to the accuracy of their work today.

2. If God was being just, we'd all be headed to Hell. He created us, we disobeyed Him. End of story. Except, it isn't. He prophesied His method of forgiveness for a thousand years and more while offering the Israelites a method of salvation by works, then brought His Son to Earth and offered everyone the chance to be saved and reformed as He intended. Something I heard once goes like this: We only have the right to be ungrateful if He owes us something. Since it's the other way around, I don't see how anyone can complain about such a simple, easy offer.

3. It names SOME of Noah's progeny and their sons and daughters. One of the most common phrases of that section is "and had other sons and daughters." It only names certain descendents - not all of them.

4. When religion is right, and you find out you were wrong, then I have failed you.

5a. I see I misstated something again. What I should have said was this: "A society without Christianity is a society doomed to evil."

5b. Another common misconception about the Crusades. Everyone mentions how the catholics went into the Middle East, but no one bothers to mention how the Muslims were going up into Europe. They conquered most of Spain and all of the Byzantine Empire, and committed at least as many atrocities as the other side.

6. A life is taken the instant that baby dies. A life is created the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg. If the people responsible weren't being responsible, they should at least assume responsibility for their actions when those actions have consequences. And as for deaths due to childbirth - there are at least as many mothers who die due to abortion as mothers who die due to giving birth, so that's not a plausible argument. As for the form of life, every infant, no matter the stage of development, has a soul. That's the kind of life they are killing - a human life, destined to do great things if they were to let it live.

7. "nd your view on gays is despicable. What right do you have to call someone evil/wrong/against God because of the way they are?

Homosexual behaviour can be observed throughout the animal kingdom - does this mean these aimals are evil? No. Sort it out mate. If anything, you deserve to go to Hell for this undeserved hatred against your fellow man, rather than those that live their lives in a good and kind way, but without following Christianity.

Many religious groups support abortion and Homosexual Rights. Religion is by no means against those movements, some perhaps, but definitely not religion as a whole."

But it isn't the way they are. It's a conscious choice, malleable, impermanent. Do you know of a (previously) homosexual magazine called Venus Magazine? Its author has since ceased to "be a homosexual" and become a Christian. If homosexuality is an attribute as you claim, rather than a conscious decision, how on earth do you explain that?

Again, you call this hatred - and I suppose I do hate the sin itself - but not the people. That's where you've gotten off track. The dictionary defines hatred as "Intense animosity or hostility." Now, if I felt intense animosity or hostility towards homosexuals, believing as I do, the logical thing would be to ignore them completely - then they'd be headed to Hell. BUT I DON'T! I'm out here, debating, trying to SAVE those you claim I hate! Why can't you see? WHY?

I say to you, no one on earth lives a good life. Sin is in every act we do - even this one, my writing here, as I have experienced both pride in what I am doing and anger at the way you and OL insult me by calling what I say hatred. There is NO ONE on Earth who deserves heaven - not me, not you, not the best, most morally upright person alive. It's not about what we deserve, but about what He gives us.

The true religion, Christianity, is against homosexuality. Notice I say "the true religion." I do not, and will not, hold that all religions are equally true, valid, or otherwise. Only one is. Just as OL debates from his position of belief that no religion is correct, so do I debate from mine that Christianity and no other is correct. This, again, is not hatred. If you think it is, look up the word in the nearest dictionary.

I know what you are saying, I don't think you are a hateful person. I don't think many Christians are hateful people either. I just do not like the way you talk about mankind, as if we are somehow in debt to a creator.

We are not in debt to anybody at all, whether we were created or not. That is simply wrong in my view and it made me angry. I don't want to debate about this any more as it's pointless, sorry.

We Failed.

For that, We Deserve Death.

He Forgave Us, and then gave us Heaven in addition.

How can anyone not owe a debt after such a gift?

Wow, now thats some insane shit. Not only is this discussion about whether religion exists, but also whether it is of any worth in a societies fabric given what we have learnt from our past and must inturn apply to the future.

I think you've just inadverdently argued for us. Not only do you believe in a highly interpretive based book word for word based on highly questionable selective evidence, but you also insist on saving the rest of humanity from the "evil" of other religions or non-religions….

Hence, you serve only to divide the world into the good and the evil without even giving the possibility that shades exist (or things that simply cannot be categorised in the first place). This is why, while you may not practice hatred yourself, you will instead cause it in others. You practise something worse than hatred, religious intolerance.

I believe there is an argument (although not my own view) for moderate religious stances (as happytrash pointed out), you have instead explemified how religion can go astray when it ignores its own past and the unfortunate human component.

Omicron1: I see you make some good points, but unlike the other arguments here, you are certain that you are correct. I respect this strong faith, but I don't think you should take every word in the Bible literally, as gospel. It seems as if you're stating facts rather than what you believe to be facts.

We have not disobeyed Him, it was (apparently) our ancestors. In what way is it just for every new-born child to be instantly accountable for their ancestors' mistakes? If God personally makes each child in His own image (am I right in thinking this is the Christian view?), surely then a new life is pure and unsullied until they themselves sin?

It's like holding German babies today acountable for world war 2 - crazy.

Sorry, by "destroying a life" I didn't mean actually killing the mother, but messing up her life, and perhaps that of her family around her. She may be outcast from her family - lose all hope of a career - be unable to support the baby etc. I don't necessarily think abortion is completely right, but I try to see both sides, as in all arguments. But an abortion is not done in cold blood - it is a traumatic experience, especially for the mother.

What are your views on euthenasia? I think if the person is suffering and wants to die, it is a perfectly just practice.

Maybe he was wrong about his sexuality? Perhaps his environment, his peers caused him to lean that way? If someone finds themselves attracted to the same sex and not to the opposite sex, who are we to say they're wrong, so long as they are both consenting?

It isn't the way they are? What sort of draconian view is that? We aren't born with clothes, yet we wear them. Those born unable to walk are not born with a wheelchair, but we provide them with this means of giving them a bit of liberty. People dye their hair - we are all always doing things that aren't "the way we were made".

Fair enough - thank you for filling me in on that :)

But the argument still stands - the Muslims are still religious.

I don't really aggree with that statement, I think many Christians accept homosexuality, it seems mainly fundamentalist Christians that have a problem with it - they won't accept that some areas of the Bible should be debatable.

For example, here in England, Christianity is still the predominant religion, but there are very few people who would openly admit to thinking gay people are wrong. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury (the big cheese basically for Christianity over here) is all for homosexuality.

We are given the powers of free thinking - why should we not use it, see if we can improve on some of the Bible's ideals?

Again, this is a very cock-sure and blinkered view. Even the Pope recognises other religions as plausible, does he not? And he definitely does not think of them as evil. How would you feel if i said with such conviction that Christians are evil?

What about the Jews? Jesus himself was a Jew, he never became a Christian as such, just a good Jew. The Jews were all around during Jesus' time, yet they don't believe in him as the son of God. Surely if he was so miraculous and so blatantly the 'real deal' that 12 disciples died for him, then why did so many people still refuse to believe just a few years after his death, yet people can be so sure of him thousands of years later?