So, if a virgin woman is raped by a man, then that man has permission from God to marry her for the rest of his life. Let me repeat that...the man that raped the woman is not punished. No...he is ordered to marry the woman...forever.  

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.

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. 

atheism is not a belief. it's the opposite.

Against societal norms? 

I disagree. ANY view or perspective (be it belief or disbelief) on the mater is irrational if not supported by reason, knowledge or proof. To hold any absolute view on anything without reason, knowledge or evidence IS irrational. To say with complete confidence that there is no higher power in or outside the universe IS irrational because

1) there's absolutely no reason for us to believe so

2) our knowledge on the matter is still highly limited to conclude anything based on KNOWLEDGE (not belief or disbelief)

3) we can't prove anything because ^^

Exact same thing goes for the opposite side. The only rational view on this mater is the agnostic one.

Uhm, yeah? I'm not sure what you'd take an issue with here. This specific part isn't even condescending, just a description. I mean atheism is against religion and most of society is religious, right?

I'm calling it now, this guy isn't serious. Can't be.

On a side note:

I agree with most of what you're saying but really, how is that not punishment?