1.  I think there is a contradiction going on, or at least I want to nail down which of two contradictory cases is true in your opinion.  The following assumes you go to either Heaven or Hell with no third option, so please correct me if you are now saying there's a third option. 

A.  You go to Heaven unless you make the active choice of rejecting God.  You KNOW God is real, you just hate him or can't handle the fact of his existence or whatever.*

B.  You go to Hell unless you make the active choice of taking a "leap of faith" and believing in God even though you have no sufficient worldly justification for believing God exists. 

* And by the way, I'm not saying you're guilty of this, but a lot of people go around saying that atheists know in their hearts that God is real and they can't stand it so they reject him.  Well fuck those guys, they don't know what's in my heart.  I don't think there's good reason for me to believe God is really out there instead of being something imagined by our ancestors (like the four elements) and perpetuated by culture and tradition. 

2. 
"I would argue that you can't absolve someone of deliberately setting up horrible actions just because there was someone else with free will further down the line."

"I mean, I doubt Hitler personally murdered any Jews, and if he did it wasn't many; does that mean he bears no responsibility for the Holocaust? "

Let's say Guy A sets up a situation that he knows for a fact will result in Guy B killing Guy C.  Would you say that Guy A bears responsibility for Guy C's death, or that he is blameless? 

I think you're making a massive mistake by comparing the way science self corrects itself, with what we were t5alking about. Science evolves because new discoveries are made, it's ridiculous to assume that at any given point scientists know all the secrets of the universe.

By comparison religion claims to hav absolute knowledge, so a correction would just prove the opposite of that. Also, religions are fabricated, they're not based on observation (like science) and have no connection to reality, so the "corrections" you tal kabout are made to save face, and are more often than not influenced by fields outside the religion (philosophy, science etc.), rather than from whithin (due to the fact that religions claim to have absolute knowledge, and challenging the canon is viewed as heresy, yet changes happen when the irrationality of religion is exposed, as to not lose followers).

He never brought up religion...

He's going by the philosophic study of God. Someone doesn't necessarily need to be religious to believe in God. I agree with you though that religions are fabricated, but he never brought up religion, you did.

Theologians aren't necessarily religious either.

That just makes no sense.

You keep using that word, "religious".  I do not think it means what you think it means. 

Theologians pretty much by definition study religious concepts about God.  I think it would be extremely rare to find a theologian who believed in God but wasn't religious. 

I had the impression that GameOver was interested in the omnipotence question because it was important to his conception of God.  If so, he's religious IMO. 

Well I just got back so forgive me for not reading the whole conversation I will comment on the OP.

I don't think its only here on forums, its actually every where throughout culture. Much like rascism people stereo type others religious beliefs then claim to know more about them then the people who believe them do.

For example I talk about my Christian beliefs and other users (Won't name names) then tell me that Christian's believe (Insert belief here). They then tell me I am either not Christian or that I don't believe what most Christians do.

Its so funny that people stereo type peoples religions to the point that they think they know your beliefs better then you do.

In particular Christian's, being one I get stereo typed and verbally persecuted all the time here and abroad. Uneducated people say I don't believe in Evolution, when infact I believe in Micro Evolution. Others will say I don't believe in safe sex, while I don't agree with having sex before marriage I definatly believe if you choose to have sex you should do so in a responsable fashion. The list goes on, infact I disagree with some beliefs found in other denominations of Christianity.

You can really tell someones educational level if they stereo type like that. Their are over 100 different denominations of Christianity. With all kinds of beliefs, but some people are just so, well uneducated that they make broad and usually idiotic statements.

I love it when Athiests and such tell me I should listen to the Pope because he's my leader. I have a hard time controlling myself I would love to just harp on their ignorance and lack of education.

But you see people of all religions including Athiesm have blind faith in their respective creators whether it be God, many Gods or even a big magical bang or such. The only people who truly do not think they know better then the rest of us are the few that simply admit "You know what, I don't actually know whether their is a God(s) or a magical bang or alien's planting life or what ever, I just don't know". Because people who admit they don't know don't tend to attack people that think they do.

Because honestly I have faith in my religious beliefs just as much as athiests have in theirs. Blind faith in something will always be debated.

But like I said above, the fact is people that lack education are usually the source of this problem, or people educated in other courses. You can be a Math Proffesor and still not know anything about theology. Infact you could be a science major today and still know jack about religious beliefs.

Education is a major stumbling block, and schools today don't educate students in theology. They teach them a few evolution theories and then they are off to University where they learn these few theories in greater detail, still not expanding their knowledge to alternative theology. Then you have a few states/Provinces in various countries where one or two creationist theories are taught alongside evolution. But still those students lack an understanding of other theologies.

But in the end theirs nothing we can do to combat religious prejeduce other then to stick up for each other when those who believe they are smarter then the rest of us decide to pounce and attack our beliefs!

Scoobes, at the start of my post I admitted that I am no doctor or have any kind of advanced degrees besides an associates. I am just trying to be honest with the board members that my life profession is not the study of the universe, or the beginnings of life. Many times in forums people speak as if they are the end all authority on everything and make people believe they are some kind of professional. However, this does not make me dumb nor does it make me ineligible in a debate. I understand you think I am dumb for my belief in a higher power according to your first post on this topic. In the same regard I personally consider it foolishness to believe there is absolutely no higher being or God in existence. I do not however believe you are dumb personally and I expect you do not think I am dumb other than my belief system. Just the fact that you have abstract thought and can make arguments for your beliefs proves that you are smart and take time to try and do research in your education endeavors.

I will first begin by replying to your argument on chaos within the human body including the issue of the appendix. you said:

Chemistry and physics also explain much of the complexity in the universe and will constantly strive to make the information more accurate. You say things work in unison, and they will.... for a while. For instance, what's the appendix for? (other than to randomly kill you). Science explains it as an artifact of our evolution and had a use at some point. Things work in unison, until they don't. You're placing order in the chaos of the human body.

For so long many medical professionals and doctors alike have been asking the question of what the appendix is even for. As we know many times this organ can become infected due to stuck bacteria and causes the need for it to be removed. Many people have been able to live happy lives without their appendix. This is true. You also gave arguments that we will know more as we learn more and use new instruments to find those new truths. Well, through studies universities and research facilities have been finding out there is evidence to support that the appendix indeed helps support the immune system. It is full of lymphoids and killer cells that support your digestive system in getting rid of bad bacteria and the like. So indeed it does have a purpose. And doctors do not always just take it out anymore but may try to administer antibiotics to save the appendix. Also remember that the body has the ability to compensate for loss of certain organs. For instance we can have a kidney taken out and the body will naturally compensate to the other kidney. That is signs for order and design in and of itself. Also the gull bladder can be removed and our amazing body will compensate for the its bile creation. But, we must not forget that all of these organs do have a purpose and are there for a reason. You may ask, "then if we can live without them, why have them?", because they help make our quality of life better. Our bodies are better off without having to compensate for these organs. If the appendix is removed the body has plenty of other sources of lymphoids and killer cells. I agree the appendix is much less important but it does assist the body's function as a whole.

You will probably think this is one of the dumbest things you have heard based on what you have already stated, but here goes: I think that science actually proves a higher being (creator) and disproves there not being a higher being. Indeed to have science you must have processed thought, logic, and evidence. You can give me all sorts of models and calculations the scientists have made but there is by no means to prove the beginning of space, time, and matter. It is impossible to prove with complete conclusion the first building block and how it was set in motion to begin the universe. So I admit no one can affirmatively prove there isnt a higher being, and no one can affirmatively prove there is a higher being. We use science and logic to make guesses about the beginning, but no one officially observed and documented it. There are more holes in the belief of atheism than theism. I have questions for you:

Where did the space for the universe come from? Where did matter come from? where did the laws of the universe come from? Where did energy come from? How is it that matter was given the properties to automatically organize itself? How did life learn to reproduce itself?

No scientist can give you a definite answer on any of these even using their models and calculations. Can you have the pieces to a pencil sharpener in a can, shake up the can, throw it into the air and then it automatically establish order and become a pencil sharpener? no. No matter where you see chaos present in our universe there is also order to keep it all together. There is in fact laws in place. Can dead matter create the laws of the universe? For that matter what made the dead matter? the huge holes are an endless cycle. I argue a higher being is in the realm of science, because the order of the universe and everywhere proves it. What was it that established the law of gravitational pull so that our planet would be able to revolve around our star? For all planets to orbit their home star?

I conclude that you cannot view the universe and not see some form of established order in place. Tell me how you could explain this.

They just have the same validity, in the sense that they are expressed in the same way, and as i said before, the day will come where one will "see" the truth.

I know what you mean, don`t worry. But it`s the same as the above comment,as they are connected.

As before, one day we will "see" the truth.

1. There is not a 3rd option to heaven or hell. There is - and i didn`t think of this before - place or places where there is purification/acceptance to enter heaven, like purgatory for instance.
Still, this doesn`t change the fact that you will go to heaven or hell, it`s just that there isn`t a common ground for all humanity to be judge in the same circunstances.
For example, those who existed before Christ and those who existed after.

honestly, those cases can`t have a linear or straight answer.
In the case where you know who God is - and i mean know that He is the path for salvation - then, as i said before, you either open your heart or you don`t. But even those who believe aren`t free from going to hell, you know? Opening your hearts is a way of loving. Leap of faith isn`t about the amount of proof, is opening your heart. And that means letting Him in.
And your marked words, although a bit subjective do make a big difference.

Thing is A deals with knowing for a fact and not accepting, B leads with the fact that you know aswell, but you, in another context, still didn`t open up your heart. You start from different places but in one way or another you still decided to open your heart, even if you have different reasons to do so.

2. Even if Hitler didn´t personally kill a single person, the fact is that he initiated a movement of hate, oppression and murder. He was wrong, but so were those who followed him.

No, you make no sense. By the strict definition EVERYONE is religious, because to be religious "re - ligare" in latin, means to try to find about one's origins. Every human does this, even if you are atheist you want to know how everything came to be, there's a urge in everyone to find out about the beginning and then again about the end.

Then you brought up religion as the sole cause why changing definitions was wrong, but YOUR definition of religion is flawed, since everone is religious. You seem to believe that in order to be religious you need to believe in God. No, every human is religious by nature.

But in the sense that you mean "religious", which is to follow a strict set of rules given by a certain God and his canon, then no, someone can still believe in God and not be "religious".