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

Here, let me highlight the hypocrisy. Can't be proven by facts, yet you take beliefs as facts and then lecture people about how wrong their beliefs are.

Exactly Macro Evolution is a religious belief as is Abiogenesis and the Big Bang. Infact their are darwinian churches. So by law and seperation of church and state the religion of Athiesm should not be allowed in our schools.

Darwinism is a faith based religion. Infact any belief in a creator is a religion "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" Now sure religions up until the 20th century always revolved around supernatural beings but the lack of such beings doesn't mean it is not a religion.

The belief of cause or nature of the Universe make all forms of Athiesm religious beliefs.

A common thing I get told by Athiests is, "We believe in Science what we can see and touch, facts" well you can't see or touch or observe or repeate or falsify the creation of the earth. No matter which way you slice it you need to have faith in an unseen power to explain how life or even the Universe came into existance.

The only people who really aren't religious are agnostics. Every single belief in a creator of the Universe is following or creating a religion.

If you are going into an argument at least be curteous enough to do some basic fact checking instead of pulling misinformation out of your ass, please. "We didn't kill the Aztects, but converted them?" Are you joking or do you really believe that load of shit? Since you don't know something something that simple let me reduce it to just a very single point. Is human sacrifice moral in christianity? It is moral to the aztecs and they think of it as "good" and anyone who disagrees as an idiot.

Why dont YOU do the same thing you just told me to do, huh? I said it like 10 times by now, there are tons of religious practices that christianity and its morals DISGAREE WITH. But there is a difference between religious worshiping practices and the morals of each religion, and I believe that all the good ones would agree with Jesus christ's morals. I really dont know how to put this any easier for you to understand. As for converting, the remaining Aztecs did convert to our religion, that is an undeniable fact, maybe you ust hate anythig goign christian, so you try to deny that?I mean, do you even know what religion Mexico is?

As to why Mary is not a virgin here are 3 undeniable facts: Back in those days adulterers, especially women, would be severely punished. It takes a man and a woman to conceive a baby. People want to live and survive, as well as their children. This is undeniable, reproducible, and observed evidence. I think you know where this is going, Mary slept with someone other than her husband, went "oh fuck imma die," and to save her ass she lied as to who the child belinged to. There you go, insurmountable evidence mary wasn't a virgin.

HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA, oh dear God in Heavens, what the hell did I just read?I've seen some crazy shit in this we site but this one EASLY takes the biscuit.Would you beleive me if I told you I was laughing non-stop for about  whole minute when I read this? Now, before I respond to this, you gotta let me know if you're actually serious about saying that or is this one of your theories you just made up to insult on Christianity? Out of respect for your intelegance, im really gonna go with the latter, but I gotta hear it from you first.

I also liek how you are laughing when you didn't understand anything, yet again. Let me outline it with smaller sentences and words for you. Christ is god's son. This can only be true if god, the specific way you think he exists, exists. Christ isn't the son of god if god isn't what you think it is. Therefore, Christ's validity rests on god existing in the first place. Did you understand that now? Furthermore, correct me if i am wrong, but there wasn't much talk about Jesus until he was 30-ish, except that one incident at the market. Gee, I wonder what an adolescent boy does between the ages of 12 and 30. Let me give you a hint, lots of drinking and fucking up (usuallyliteral fucking too). Just like with Mary, saying Jesus is sinnless is laughable given the overwhelming evidence against it.Ok, you are really starting to piss me off with all your disrespectfull shit coming out of your mouth. First of, Jesus Christ existed on Earth. This is a historical undeniable fact. Isnt that the proof enough of his vaildaty? Second,both historical and biblical evidence points out that Christ was described as a sinless person or like a ''man like no other'', and the only way you can be sinnles is to be son of God and the only way to be son of God is if there is a God.Third, I BEGyou to show me evidence where Jesus has sinned ONCE in his whole life. Either biblical or historical evidence.Or is this one of you anti christian disrespectufll hatred bashin with absouletly no evidence whatsoever?

Also, you obviously don't know of any fairy tales that have basis in real life events and people. Robin Hood and King Arthur are the ones you would be most familiar with. Yet, it hasnt been historiclly confirmed that they exist, unlike Jesus Christ, which DID existed. Also, what Robin Hood did wasnt very moral, he still robbed people.There were some more in other cultures, but given your astounding lack of knowledge in the areas of the Aztecs, I won't even bother.Oh please, test me. Also, why are you not a muslimBecause I was born in a christian country and raised by Christian people? Mohammed was just as real as Jesus, and he didn't have all that many gaps in his life as Jesus. Sure he went to some cave, ate some mushrooms, and probably saw the archangel, but why are his teachings not good enough for you?Who said they arent? I acknowledge Muhammed and most of his moral teachings. (the thing with more wives was merely a culture and the sing of friendship with other important families for spreading of Islam thing)

As for alien life, do you know what obeservable evidence even means? To quote myself: "We have evidence of how life comes about, what is necessary for life like ours to prosper, and many other such things." That IS observable evidence.But did anyone actully ever saw an alien life in space? Hell no, because havent found the evidence yet. There are lots of theistic philosophers that ''know how God works and his laws of existance'' but there arent any actual observable evidence of God And ''lifes like ours''  is the exact opposite of the definition of an alien life. The number of planets in the universe? Also observableYet,  no evidence for alien life, only high chance there may be in some of those planets. Again, I am surprised at your astounding ability in not knowing much about a whole lot of things. For another instance of this, you still don't seem to realize that the Big Bang was proposed AFTER there was evidence of its existance, and it doesn't matter what Einstein believed, just his results matter.

Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a priest from the Catholic University of Louvain, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts — an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The actual standing evidence was found after the theory was proposed by a catholic priest.

  Given that evidence, the priest came up with the theory.What evidence? Do you even know how science works? It goes theroy -----> evidence supporting theory, not evidence for supporting theory----->thoery.  WHich, by the way, has a hell of a lot more evidence than a "soul."You, dont understand the concept of soul. Soul cant be proven by science, because its the only non biological part of your body. But if you dont beleive in it, fine. I dont have to justify my beleif to everyone. Tell me, how is a soul not different than a unicorn? Can you disprove to me the existances of unicrons and faries and leprechauns? If they existed, we would have been able to see them on this planet, the simplest argument comes to my mind.

I am also surprised that only 5 billion people have blind faith, because I am sure there is 6.5 billion idiots out there. Just because the majority thinks something is right, doesn't make it so. I did say atheism is also wrong.What the hell? You cant say both theism and atheism are wrong, one of them has to be correct, stop acting stupid. There is either a God/Gods or there arent any. However you show even more lack of understanding. Yes, there may be 100 different theories about god right now, most probably more. I actually find it utterly laughable that you think that the only possible cosmic beings are the ones that humans can imagine and pull out of their ass. Let me tell you, there are FAR FAR more possibilities where there is a sentient force which caused the creation than you could ever wrap your head around. The thing is though, there is an even bigger subset of possibilities which have nothing to do with a sentiennt being at all. Ok, than please go and name a few.The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion. The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.The hypothesis of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligent cause.  Its leading proponents believe the intelligent designer to be the God of Christianity .The thing is, a person who believes in the existance of a non-specific being that created the universe, is FAR FAR more right than you.I believe that deity with characteristics such as omnipotence,omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence, deisgned or created the universe. its not very specific, but for now most of the arguments show it that way. You are just simply wrong because you are one spec in the middle of infinity. At least the person who believes there is some form of god doesn't specify what it actually is. Christians are extremely specific, and they doomed themselves to just being wrong. As for atheists, they have a far greater than probability of being right than you, or any muslim, or hindu, or Aztec,etc. Solely because all the possibilities that allow for creation without a sentient force are so many, and religious beliefs are so specific.I thought you were talking this mathematically speaking. Mathematically speaking, thesim (beleif in a superior being, because only a superior being could have created something as complex and impressive as universe) is more likely to be correct than atheism, be that superior being God, or a deity of some other concept.

My words were "an atheist person is a lot less wwrong than a religious person" which ties up with the above.You still said atheist people are a lot less liely to end up in ''Hell'' than atheist person.

P.S. Please, for whatever you believe in, go do some fact checking before you write a reply. You pull a lot of shit out of your ass, and it is really tiring having to correct you all the time.Funny, I was about to say the same thing.

Let me list the highlight of everything stupid you just said, I am sure I will miss some:

You defended your belief saying that "all the good ones" agree without realizing "good" is some imaginary concept you have in your own, apaprently not intelligent, head.

No, its just that you seem to be (and im not trying to be offensive, thats just what I see) a really sad, angry,disrespectful, hatefull  and extremly ignorant person of everything you dont support

You managed to discard 3 pieces of concrete evidence by shouting. Kudos to you, even my brother wouldn't argue like that since he was 6.

Evidence for what? That Jesus Christ wasa sinncer and his mother a whore? Sounds a lot like some random insults you imagend just to insult people and be disrespectuf as always, with NO EVIDENCE whatsoever, just your dumb assumption based on hatred of Christianity?

Using lack of evidence to defend your imaginary buddy, and then saying that lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, in this case Jesus' sins. Unless you know what he did between 12-30, and let me remind you what people usually do betwen those ages.

My evidence was and is just as useful as your evidence aganst my ''imaginary'' buddy. And i think every personw who's at least gonna try arguing about Christianity know who Jesus Christ is. You dont see to havr that kind of intelect.

You claimed that theory precedes evidence.... That is just... Wow. No words. Such ignorance is beyond hilarious, and I am actually sad that you believe something like that.

Once we have evidence for soemthing and we know its true, that is no longer theory, but a fact.A thoery is something that hasnt been proven yet for the lack of good evidence.

You liked to talk about first cause and stuff, but when it comes to god, for some reason you don't question "where the hell did HE come from?" Typical religious hypocrisy and double standard.

God didnt came from nowhere. He is omnipresent and infinite (timeless), meaneing he was always in the existance.

You claim there are some valid arguments about an omniscient, omnipotenrt,etc. being. This ties in with the previous point as well.

You  didnt atually bother to debund thos ''unvaild'' arguments to call  them unvaild, did you?

This isn't exactly stupid, but just a lack of imagination. There are things that we don't even begin to comprehend, an innumerable amount, yet you say that "there is a being" is more likely than literally a set which has no bounds that any human, given 100 lifetimes, would be able to even comprehend.

Thats a pretty dumb argument. You said just becauswe we cant even imagine or theorize something doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Univers could have only created in 2 way: By a supreme ultimate being (that being God) or by itself by some laws of physics or science yet unknown to us. There is no 3rd way, all other possibilites fit into first or 2nd describtion.