1) No... it actually does argue whether they existed or not... as that was EXACTLY the burden of proof required by it's now dead followers.  Now, if you killed every follower of Ashur, you in fact WOULD have disproven Ashur as a god because his own followers believed that such a thing would be impossible.  If you killed every Hindu alive, or every Christian alive it would prove nothing, because such a think isn't considered impossible.  It's always important to know what the burden of proof is in an arguement your making.

The burden of proof always lies with the person making the assertive declaration.  If you declare "All religions are bogus."  You have assumed the burden of proof about religion and must prove all religions are bogus.  To do so, you generally need to know how to do that.

2) Hinduism, have you been reading this thread or did you pick one religion in general?  Did you not notice I brought up hinduism earlier?

Hinduism is irrelevent because it had zero to no impact on western religions and Pagan religions.

Hinduism is in fact another religion you can't disprove.  As well as Chinese Ancestor Worship.  Largely irrelevent when considering the burden of proof required to prove or disporve paganism... and just further adding to the point that trying to convince others that all religions are lies is a silly thing to do.

Espeically considering there are documented proofs of various religions.  People and things that we first learned about in religious texts that many took as fable, and later found to be reality.

Heck, there are so many historical events that are true in the Bible and the Talmud, Biblical Archaelogy is it's own field.

The problem with what you are saying, is that the only proof of any god would be to actually find a god or gods, until that point, you're still arguing just the history of believers, not god, since again, you haven't proven whether god actually exists.

Saying that all religions are lies, is merely pointing out that no one has proven god exists, and the burden of proof still ies with any believer, If I say purple elephants with green polka dots exist, I would have to find one, the thing is no religion has found their or any other god, or gods, hence the reason many argue religion is a lie.

Some things about the bible history may be true, but plenty is false, you have things like flat earth, hints of god creating the world in 7 days, creating man from dirt, and a woman from his rib and all the animals at the same time, a story of a global flood, etc. things which are false.

No.  If you tried to prove to someone else that purple elphants with green polka dots exist.  You would have to prove it.  If you believe purple elphants with green polka dots exist, you don't have to prove anything.   If you were going to say they don't exist.  You likewise would have to prove that.  Which, you could prove they don't exist on earth fairly conclusivly, but that there isn't a creature like that somewhere in the universe?  That'd be a foolish claim to make for sure.

As for the "false" things you mentioned.  Again... you are trying to take non-literal things as literal to make a point.

The "Flat earth" Bible quotation for example comes from the saying "Searched the four corners of the earth."

Whenever you read or hear that phrase today, do you think people think the world is flat?  This is largely irrelevent.

I think the only people who should be allowed take justice into their own hands in this case is the family of the child and no one else.  Even though I say this, I strongly believe that no one should be allowed take justice into their own hands.  No system is perfect and that includes the justice system.  If we decide that we are the ones to deliver justice to those who are guilty then this society will be overrun by chaos in the long run.  We will become no better than the murderers who are out there right now.  Of course this is just my opinion.

Religon tries to prove itself constantly, hence my point

Many christians view the bible as infalliable and take it at literal truth, so I don't see why I am wrong in doing the same and showing falsehood

Most people today don't think the earth is immovable or that the heavens are a dome, or have a tree at the CENTER of the earth that is visible everywhere

You do realize your obvious hostility has just disproven your own point here.

You are suggesting that Christians believe that there is a tree that is visible everywhere in the world.

And past christians believed this, even though it's clearly obvious that chirstians pretty much have always traveled.

That's the whole "many parts aren't literal."

The fully literal interpretation of a bible was a later construct, nor is it particularly popular as of today to where it holds any relevence towards the burden of proof in disbeliveing it.

 And again.  I'm not argueing anything.  So to prove to me, or most people that that religion or for that matter "all religions" are false... the burden of proof is shifted soley on to you.

Just as it's on them to prove to me that god does exist.

And that you've both have largely impossible burdens of proof.

No actually it proves my point about the falsehoods in the bible, see the whole reason is, that there are many who view bible as literally true  (according to gallup 31%of Americans http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx)

So your argument that  it disproves my point is false, if people believe that the bible is literally true then that proves that many don't view it as purely non literal, and therefore me arguing its falsehoods based on a literal interpretation is valid.

31% is rather popular, its not the largest, granted, but large enough to argue the point, and your comment that it is a recent construct, is probably lacking as well, since you have nothing to vailidate that argument that the average peasants in the past didn;t think it was literally true as well.

As for your argument that the burden of proof has fallen on me is wrong, since as I've shown, I can point out falsehoods in their own holy books, and they cannot prove the existence of their god, so that does indicat that their beliefs are false, since the falsehoods have been proven, and many take it as literal, hence saying that religions are false has been already proven, its up to you to prove god exists.

I am literally faceplaming here... People who take the bible literally doesn't mean they literally think the bible is completely without things like parables and allegories.  Biblical Literalism isn't what you think it is.

The only thing you are really proving is your general ignorance on the subjects of religion and philosophical burden of proof... and a fair amount of immaturity honestly.

I mean, you think you've proven religion is false, by saying something is false, that the vast majority of people (which you admit is, 69%, even though it's actually higher then that since you don't know what biblical literalism is) think is a metaphor or a parable.

You do realize that's basically the definition of a strawman arguement... right.

The OP is raising two, very different questions.

1) Do you support civilians meting out justice

2) Do you think the point of jail should be rehabilitation, prevention (scaring people away from committing crimes) or revenge/justice depending on your perspective.

 1) In cases that are not really serious enough to warrant police consideration, it can be a good idea. A shop owner may get better results talking to a young thief's parents rather than calling the police. But for serious cases of violence? The sorts of people who are liking to do what you are suggesting will be looking for revenge.

2) Rehabilitation, every time. Prevention is stupid - the majority of crimes are committed because the person either needs money to support themselves and their family, or because they do not think about the consequences of their actions. Rehab is obviously the best because it reduces the amount of crime in the long term. What you describe as justice, shows that your morality is so radically different to mine that I doubt we'll be able to have any meaningful conversation, in all likelihood. Murder is not a suitable response to murder. If the government makes the claim that Person A murdering person b is fine because person b murdered person c, you have a preposterous legal system that cannot rationally be defended

1. I was talking about religions in general. I doubt pizzahut knows much abotu pagan religions. Seems like you just want to disagree with me at all costs.

2. Judaism is tied strongly to Jewish ethnical identity and history (as you yourself said). This makes it different than most religions, and is a reason why i hasn't died out, yet it has also never been very popular (because it isn't inclusive).

As for Paul, did he ever meet Jesus? Wasn't he just a self appointed disciple?And what does he have to do with Judaism? He started hiw own religion after all.

As for Christianity, the fact that Roman emperors converted to Christianity when it was unpopular (and really not much more popular than Scientology) is highly unimpressive, as they could do mostly whatever they wanted. The fact that people converted to Christianity to get in the good graces of the emperor is hardly a compliment for Christianity (as it makes it look like a fad). Plus, Christianity did become mandatory eventually, didn't it? Violence was also used in certain parts (like Scandinavia) and of course against pagans, and the so called heretics, the genocide of Native Americans etc. And there's the religious wars bewtween the different Christian sects, you know, violence to assure that a certain type of Christianity will rule over all.

As for that Kakure Kirishitan thing, well Native Americans went underground like that when they were forced to convert. Constant persecution eventually made their religions die out anyway. Not everyone is as violent and consistent at converting others as Christians are.