Sorry that almost confused me. Anyways:

log·ic/ˈläjik/ 

You said "Don't expect logic from religion, that's kind of the point." Well looking at the definition of logic above religion is a type of logic, because:

1. it is reasoning (physical and spiritualy) conducted according to strict (Godly) principles of validity (as accepted throught generations): AKA LOGIC!

2. (Christianity) is a particular system or codification (collected in the Bible) of the principles of proof (eye witness accounts and history etc) and inference (fairy tales): AKA LOGIC!  

Your turn writer - Prove that there is no logic in religion as you appear to claim.

He wouldn't love me if he knew what I did last Halloween...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism 
http://atheists.org/content/about-atheism 
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_why_do_atheists_state_they_disbelieve.3F 
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html 

The atheism you're referring to is a specific category of atheist. The broadest definition of atheism encompasses all people who don't believe in God. There is a group within that group which asserts that there is no God; this what you're referring to. These people are called strong atheists or hard atheists.

Agnosticism has nothing to with belief. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge. If you're an agnostic, then you assert that you don't know if God exists. If you're a gnostic, then you assert do know if god exists. It has nothing to do with belief. Atheism and theism deals with belief. There's a difference between knowledge and belief.

If you're a theist, then you believe that God exists. If you're an atheist, then you don't beleive God exist. Agnostism and Atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Nor are agnostism and theism. As an atheist, you can be either agnostic or gnostic. Similarly, as a theist, you can be either agnostic or gnostic. You can be one of four categories:

Gnostic Theist: You believe in God, and you know that there's a God.
Agnostic Theist: You believe in God, but you don't know if there's a God.
Agnostic Atheist:  You don't believe in God, but you don't know if there's a God. 
Gnostic Atheist: You don't believe in God, and you know that there is no God.

Since you don't seem to know what  a fact is, I'll quote a fictional character for shits and giggles: Dr House "Everybody lies".  Sorry dude, but you're taking the word of a people that thought the best cure was mercury becuase it was SHINY and therefore had medicinal properties other than heavy metal poisoning.  Again, just becuase someone says it doesn't mean it's true.  The only 'fact' is that there's a book that CLAIMS these people said these things that claimed magic happened.  There is absolutely no proof Moses split the sea or that jesus was able to turn water into wine, and even if those events did happen, it doesn't mean there's a god.  I once watched a guy saw his wife in half, then put her back together! Jsut becuase I saw something didn't mean it happened as it seemed.  And even if it did, there would be a perfectly good scientific explanation, even if I didn't understand it. 

You have to make SO many leaps of faith just to link "it's written in a book" to "There is a god", and  yet you people wonder why rational thinkers casually disregard your pseudoscience in leiu of actual science.  

Sorry I did miss that post, too many to respond to really, I'm a busy man On this top, as you can see

Anyways:

1)    1) First off the source or writer is God – but to discern that you’re going to have to use a bit more than your brain. Now, many people contributed to the bible yes, but that is a good thing, because Jesus got more than one person to back up his claims and say yes, we saw him perform miracles. If Jesus himself ‘wrote’ about himself, how believable would that be? You can trust the Bible, just like you might trust any account that there was a man called Alexander the Great – or you don’t believe he lived either?

2)    2) Harry Potter as famous as he is, would never do what Jesus did, i.e. start a mass revolution of believers in one God, which has lasted generations - he even got you here debating him. That my friend IS a miracle if you ever need one. Tell Harry Potter do that (or do you believe HP is real).

See one thing is true, that if Jesus wasn’t real, he would have already been disproven many generations ago. But he is real, so you’re stuck with him.

3)     3)  Good, but he did more than just preach a good message.

Never heard of Russel's teapot, but I disagree with his statement as you posted it. Anyways, don’t try to disprove Christianity, you’ll go mad, cause it’s impossible to disprove Christinity. Christianity doesn’t necessarily want to get into an argument of proof with anyone. It simply presents the existance of God and you either accept it or not. The problem comes sometimes when people claim, like many are doing in here, that Christianity as it presents itself, is a fairytale. Well, if it is, then prove it.

Well, I can't blame you for the underlined

1) Still, the people writing it could be lying, just like how there are people messing with wikipedia articles. History can be re-written and/or fabricated, but present can't. Thus, when it comes to the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, there scientifically is no reason to believe that he actually did perform these miracles. No one can perform miracles nowadays, so why would anyone have been able to do it thousands of years ago? It is physically impossible now, and physics were most likely the very same back then as they are now. For that reason, the Bible, as a source, cannot be trusted. The logic in this source is missing. And claims of a supernatural being cannot be compared to claims of a ruler (Alexander the great). Several discoveries indicates that he indeed did exist and conquered several countries, just like how several discoveries indicates that Jesus indeed did exist. No discoveries other than a book made by unknown authors indicate that Jesus could perform miracles though.

2. "See one thing is true, that if Jesus wasn’t real, he would have already been disproven many generations ago. But he is real, so you’re stuck with him."

See one thing is true, that if Santa Claus wasn't real, he would have already been disproven many generations ago. But he is real, so you're stuck with him.

^(I used that sentence in order to empathize the obvious flaw in your reasoning.)

3. You can't disprove ghosts either. Nor can you disprove that in a parallell universe there is a being who created God. This is not about the lack of evidence against Jesus as a miracle-performing man, but the lack of evidence supporting those miracles.

Are we talking baby Jesus or adult Jesus?

I've always preferred baby Jesus, adult Jesus was a bit too socialist for my taste.

I think it's time to stop when in order to 'defend' your god you have to say slavery was A'OK...


let's just all be happy that as time goes by these kind of people are becoming more and more fringe :)

we're really turning the page for society and that makes me a happy camper.

1. The problem with Islam unlike The bIble is that it has things that directly go against  historal truths on certain events. For example, in islam it says Jesus didn't die on cross. This is historial proven to not be true by scholars and historians. A man of name Jesus Christ of Nazareth was in fact killed on cross from reports. we even know who was the person that killed him on the cross EXACTLY.

2. The problems is that Islam Scholars themselves will admit that they haven't done any real research into the origins of the Islam. PLUS it known that Islam leader Muhammad got his information on Jesus YEARS LATER from actual events. Muhammad also got his source from third hand person basically hear-say. 

3.What have you stuided? Name them books or people?

4. History and strict research with constant questions to people who disagree and agree. See how your arguments stand up against others. 

Your argument could be replace with how do we know anything is true?

1."History can be re-written and/or fabricated, but present can't. Thus, when it comes to the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, there scientifically is no reason to believe that he actually did perform these miracles. No one can perform miracles nowadays, so why would anyone have been able to do it thousands of years ago? It is physically impossible now, and physics were most likely the very same back then as they are now. For that reason, the Bible, as a source, cannot be trusted. The logic in this source is missing. And claims of a supernatural being cannot be compared to claims of a ruler (Alexander the great). Several discoveries indicates that he indeed did exist and conquered several countries, just like how several discoveries indicates that Jesus indeed did exist. No discoveries other than a book made by unknown authors indicate that Jesus could perform miracles though."

"History can be re-written and/or fabricated, but present can't"

Very invailded argument because we have historians that can tell the difference between someone adding in something and not. There people who take college for 5 years to do this stuff. Your argument is based on ignorance COMPETELY. Do you even know how these people do research? Tell me. Then I will tell you how you have no clue what your talking about because I know how they do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP15Pc2Lljc

"Thus, when it comes to the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, there scientifically is no reason to believe that he actually did perform these miracles."

This is circular argument. If you're supernatural and you do something beyond science then you are likey false? This is incoherent . If your supernatural you are EXPECTED to do supernatural things. If Jesus didn't do supernatural things than he would just be a human thus how would he taken seriously? I

"No one can perform miracles nowadays, so why would anyone have been able to do it thousands of years ago? "

I'm not going to lie I lol'd at this comment. Because how dumb that came out. Jesus is suppose to be the last in the line so OF COURSE you wouldn't expect other supernatural people walking around. Even during the OT days you didn't see anyone having the supernatural powers only those that were in direct contact with God (Broker).  But again if people were walking around doing supernatural things that would discredit Christianity.

"It is physically impossible now, and physics were most likely the very same back then as they are now. "

Aren't you assuming naturalism against the supernatural? Natural laws ONLY apply you natural things. You can't put natural laws against a supernatural being because by very defintion they are beyond the natural world. This is like you living in a 2d world and saying that there can't be shape in 3d because this world is only in 2d and all laws apply to everything here being in 2d. It's a question-begging assumption that goes against the very foundation of what you are arguing against.

"For that reason, the Bible, as a source, cannot be trusted. "

Nope. Just lot's of question begging.

"The logic in this source is missing."

The thing missing here is yours D:.

"And claims of a supernatural being cannot be compared to claims of a ruler (Alexander the great)."

Has less sources and than Jesus/Bible and even has supernatural stuff in it like witchcraft.

You clearly are haven't done any research it's being obvious.

"Several discoveries indicates that he indeed did exist and conquered several countries, just like how several discoveries indicates that Jesus indeed did exist."

Why don't you tell me about all these sources? Name and tell how old are these documents in comaparision to the date of the events? I'm going to enjoy this because I know the answer.

" No discoveries other than a book made by unknown authors indicate that Jesus could perform miracles though.""

Man you got me there it's not like there are secular sources.....~cough~ Josephus  ~cough~.

For anyone questioning Jesus existence and want to know of other selcular sources on Jesus/miracles.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

2."See one thing is true, that if Santa Claus wasn't real, he would have already been disproven many generations ago. But he is real, so you're stuck with him."

Oh man ... you got him. Man we have historians/scholars Christians/Atheist they all agree that Jesus existed and it's not even arguable about it. But man Santa Claus that disproves everything because everyone has historial evidence/ Historial proof from Scholars/Historians. 

Darn you really should how intelligent you really are. Santa Claus WOW didn't exact a 24 grown man to make comeback like that which is fully support by everyone. Here I thought it was 100 percent confirmed with anyone over 14 that Santa didn't exist but apparently no one has discovered this! WOW!  You destroyed his argument and didn't just give a very anti-intelligence response! Hundreds of documents and Secular sources have nothing on that! Darn got a 100 on history didn't you?

3."You can't disprove ghosts either. Nor can you disprove that in a parallell universe there is a being who created God. This is not about the lack of evidence against Jesus as a miracle-performing man, but the lack of evidence supporting these miracles."

First sentence: Yes, you can. Is there only personal experiences? Check. Any documents people having a conversation or interaction with this Ghost with more than 5? Is there constant history of these "ghost". Are these TRUE interactions with this Ghost? Like not some blur or something. Is there historial evidence? 

Second sentence: What the heck does Parallell universe have to do with God? Your just saying something over the top to amke something else seem over the top. No one is claiming something that is  that extreme for God or Jesus. Theis is an obvious red-herring 

Third Sentence: Really seems like the the lack of logic and research on your part.