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. 

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. 

As I said, morals are the exact same as beliefs. The simple fact you gave me 2 relgions that have the same morals does not prove that claim. It just shows that 2 religions have a very similar belief. Furthermore, I don't see how you can judge those pagan religions, and call people who disagree with them "good," you have as much evidence for YOUR morals as they do.The ONLY reason why you call people who have christian morals and not aztec morals "good" is because christians killed off the aztecs, not the other way around. I guanratee you, 100%, you would think that human sacrifice is very moral had the aztecs taken over Europe.Actually, that compression proves my point very good I'd say, I have showen a a difference between a religous beleif and morality.Do you care to say how my comprassion is bad? And where did I judge those pagan religions? And like I said, im pretty sure that Aztecs would agree with Jesus's morals, only thing on which would they might disagre with is is the practice of worshiping. And we didnt kill off Aztecs, they converted to our religion. That only further proves my point that they didnt disagree with Jesus's morals, otherwise they wouldnt convert to our religion :) And dont say that they were forced to, because the convertion to christianity happend after all the wars and conquests in Aerica were over.

Furthermore, Christ is supposed to be the son of a virgin ( to be honest, she was probably a whore trying to not get killed by her husband if he found outI dont think she was a whore. Do you have any evidence for this or do you just wanna unsult Christianity? Im pretty sure she wasa virgin.) and god. The same god that had existed very much before he was born, and that is outlined in the Olt Testament. The validity of Christ rests solely on that god,LMAO, hell no. You seriously have no clue about christianity, do you? and that god's validity rests solely on fairy tales, something like 40ish books depending on the church. Define ''the vaildity of Christ''? What kind of vaildity do you mean He was a historicly proven person, is he not? He was also the only sinnles person ever to walk on Earth, something not possible of you are a normal human and not a son of God. Did he have to be the son of God to teach the righteous morals to the people?  Those fairy tales are what make the difference between Christ being a son of god and a virgin, and Christ being an amazing con artist and a son of a whoreAnd yet, I already explained the difference between the fairy tales and the New Testament. New testament follows the life events that actually happend of the person that actually existed.Fairy tales are exactly oppsite. Let's face it, the latter is infinitely more believeable than the shit from the Old Testament, again due to the lack of any information that the bullshit in it could ever happen.

Also I know everythign there is to christianity that pertains to their evidence, and none of it is reproducible and observable.Christianity never aimed to prove the existance of God, I already explained why would God never give any observable evidence to the living people. You can't even observe such a basic foundation as the "soul," much less reproduce it.Of course, you couldnt, why the hell could you? I mean do you even know what a soul is? Its the one thing non-biological in your bady, the only part of you that lasts forever. Its your conscience, as in wheather you feel bad or good when you did something good or wrong.I also don't see how a catholic priest proposing the idea of the Big Bang is somehow self-ownage, considering he proposed it given evidence from Einstein. In fact, it proves my point further. The people didn't know jack shit until such evidence was brought up.Actually,Einstein refused the idea of spreading universe. The catholic priest was the first one to intorduce that idea.  And it is a self pwnage because you talked about how Christians provide no evidence for existance of God, and yet Big Bang was originally mean to thoerize the Gods creation of Universe.

Your ability to not understand is astounding me. How do we not have evidence of alien life? We have evidence of how life comes about, what is necessary for life like ours to prosper, and many other such things. We can estimate the size of the universe and the fact there are many millions of galaxies, with billions of stars, each of which may have many planets. Statistically, there is a very high chance of there being life.Yes, there is a chnace and I am 100% sure there is an alien life, but there is no real observable evidence on the existance of it, so going by your amazing logic, it would be wrong to consider that alien life exists until we get information and evidence on it.Our knowledge of outside of our solar system and the universe is extremly limited Furthermore, faith is not information and evidence.Never said it was. Faith is a bullshit feeling/emotion that humans exhibit because they are too dumb and try to make themselves seem more important than they are.More than 5 billion people disagree with you. Apparently most people have problems realizing that they are utterly insignificant in the grand scheme of things.They dont. I think everyone knows that we are alost nothing in the universe. I also like how with your brilliant understanding you came to my conclusion, but somehow tried to pass it off as your argument. No belief has any evidence, and is therefore wrong.So atheism is also wrong? Faith doesn't make a belief right. I would also LOVE to hear how mathematically, there is a greater probability that there is a being associated with creation, because there are far more combinations of possibilities where there is no being than when there is. Being associated with creation? In order for theism to be right, out of 100 of Gods out there only one of them has to exist, for atheism to be right every single one of these Gods must be non existant.

Lastly, you REALLY need to work on your reading skills because I never said that an atheist is less likely to go to hell. In fact, I never mentioned hell in any of my arguments until you brought it up because you failed to read. Do you really want me to go 4-5 pages back and show you where you said ''atheist person is a lot less in Hell than the theist person.'' ?

P.S. My original point is that everyone with a belief is as right as fairy tales. In other words, everyone knows absolutely jack shit about our existance, and the creation of such existance. If any set of religious beliefs are correct, then so are fairy tales by the exact same damn arguments. If fairy tales are wrong, then so are all religious beliefs, by the same exact arguments. To use some technical language. The problem of the validity of religion can be reduced to to the problem of the validity of fairy tales.Events and characters in New testament existed and happend (thou it is true that some things other pagan religious characters had were described to Jesus by the church). Events and characters in fiary tales never happend and never existed. PERIOD

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).

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.

I think you might be missing my point. First, religion does not claim to have absolute knowledge. God has absolute knowledge, but religion does not. It doesn't take a very complex example to recognize this point (just think about how science has been much more successful at providing information about the natural world than religion- its quite clear that religion did not have absolute knowledge in this area).

In the same way you could argue that it is ridiculous to assume that scientists know all the secrets of the universe, I can argue that it is ridiculous to assume that a philosopher or theologian will know all the truths and implications of some logical system. As they learn more about the system and continue to recognize the implications of such a system, it is natural that they will gain a better understanding of their domain of study. This then leads to a revision of definitions and ideas.

My point wasn't that science and religion share a direct comparison and have similar modes of explanation. My point was that definitions and ideas change all the time when it becomes apparent that the definitions are inaccurate. This is true for science as well as religion. It does not make a difference whether science is empirical and religion is foundational. I honestly don't need science to prove the point. I just thought it would be a good example given the discussion at hand. You can just look at such words as liberty, freedom, natural, human nature, substance (philosophically speaking), and innocent (noun). If you look at these words, you will recognize that they have changed over time, and they are still used differently depending on the context. The important thing is to recognize how the word is intended to be used and take this into account when you encounter it.

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".

Religion does make claims regarding the natural world (false claims of course), and religion does make claims regarding a reality (that's in no way real). But unlike science, religion isn't based on any observations, or any proof at all. It's all made up nonsense.

Religion is defined as a "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe". So no, not all people are religious.

Look at the word etymologically and it doesn't mean that, at all.