Misuse of a teaching does not mean the teaching is the problem. Using the same logic, I could say that in spite of claims that a kitchen knife is designed to cut food, that's certainly not the only thing people use it for', it's not a logical argument against religion, only against some who mis-represent their faith. That means the individuals who are mis-representing those teachings are the problem, and I have a huge problem with that as well. In my view, TRUE Christianity follows the teachings of Jesus, which would be in part what I outlined above, as well as not judging anybody, period. The way I view it, if God has forgiven me for all of my faults, then who am I to judge others, or even say that God is going to judge somebody else... it's just not my place. That being said, where do the societal norms on generosity, love (not the emotion, but the action of caring for somebody without expecting anything back), etc. come from? Your sense of right and wrong most likely has a lot to do with your upbringing and culture, which no doubt can trace it's roots back to some kind of religious teaching.

How is it a misuse of teaching?  If you're going to be 100% devout and follow the book to th eletter, it's an offense punishable by death to have anal sex, or to eat crab, or to wear clothes of fabric hewn of more than one type of fabric.  Just becuase YOU chose to only follow the good stuff doesn't mean that's all there is, and as much as I'd prefer if all religious people were like you, that's just not the case and honestly you're being just as bad at 'misuse' as they are, even though your misuse is in the right direction.  

I'm not saying that my position is true because there are holes in some of your theories as would be necessary for that to be a 'burden of proof' fallacy. I had other posts where I presented arguments for my views, just because you don't accept them doesn't mean I didn't present them. I have also said multiple times that a supernatural being cannot be definitively proven or disproven by natural means, so your attempt to bring belief in God into an area where there is clearly no way to definitively prove or disprove His existence could be considered a 'burden of proof' fallacy. I've never set out to prove God's existence to you in concrete and provable way, as I've said multiple times this can't be done. I've been trying to point out that...

1) claims that one has to be stupid, illogical, ignore facts, etc. to have faith are over the top

2) the straw man presented in the OP is not an accurate representation of religion, especially not of those who really folow Jesus' teachings

3) even Science does not have a difinitive, provable explaination as to where we came from, even though it does have theories you find compelling

4) We can still have respect for another's viewpoint, even if it differs from ours (referring to the hostility and derogatory debtate style used at times, mainly of the OP, who admitted to having 'hatred' for religion)

You fail to realize that the teachings of Jesus were to remove bondage to the letter of the law and introduce forgiveness and mercy into the equation. Following the teachings of Jesus actually means the 'letter of the law' no longer applies. The shift was from following a law because you are compelled, to doing what's right because your motives and heart are changed. Note that I am referring to following Jesus' teachings, not the Levitical law which his teachings were designed to replace.

No, instead you used anecdotal evidence to substantiate your claim, which is another fallacy.

1) No one suggested this.

2) I certainly didn't dispute this.

3) It based its findings upon evidence, thus supporting its claim.

4) Not when your viewpoint has no scientific or logical basis.

You attempted to substantiate ID through suppositions and burden of proof, my position cannot be one of burden of proof as I have substantiated my side, THEN asked you to substantiate yours. Which you still have yet to do.

1) All of those things have either been stated or strongly insinuated at least by some. Based on his hostility, it's very clear that at least the OP has this view.

2) We agree on something! :D

3) We've already debated evidence, I still see much of the evidence on those specifics we discussed as weak. This is my view, not designed to prove God.

4) Scientific and logical are two different things. Logic can be applied to abstract or non-scientific ideas. Science studies the natural world, while the idea of God is supernatural, these things are not mutually exclusive (for example, I could take my wife to the doctor, but still pray for her to get well), but one cannot be used to prove or disprove the other. I have stated logical arguments already, we will never reach agreement on this.

I disagree that I failed to present an argument, you disagree with it but it was presented nontheless. What I've said over and over (and will say only one more time) is that we cannot prove or disprove God or faith through scientific process. We probably agree on this. I'm not attempting to do this and have said it's not possible, so why do you keep asking for me to do it? My goal is not to do what you are asking me to do. I joined this discussion mainly because the OP was so over the top, and continues to be. I don't feel threatened by Science as the OP seems to feel somehow threatened by religion, nor to I have any hostility towards your views as the OP has expressed 'hatred' for views like mine.

I wanted to present some logical (not necessarily all scientific) arguments for my views, show some things that I view as holes in the naturalist view of how life came to be, and attempt to show a different face of religion then what was presented by those who have no real experience with it (aside from the unfortunate few, vocal individuals who tarnish the image of Christianity). I will agree to disagree with you on this, but I at least hope I've done something to break through some of the straw men that are so commonly used to attack people like me.

I find it hilarious that we now as people are being told to close our minds because science clues us in otherwise... uhh... even scientists and science would not stop until every last brick of evidence and information is turned over that points us to some truth! Ever heard of the 'God particle'? Yes, some whack job schitzophrenic scientist is trying to figure that one out. What created us!? Come on, you people have google and wikipedia, surely you can inform me exactly how and why I came to exist! Most stuff that scientists have come to accept are still theories. I'm not disputing anything in particular, but do you raelize the difference between theory and proof?? Can you go before the big bang? Can you see describe and explain the meaning of life? Can you give me a complete total picture here?! Of course not!! That's why scientists are working so hard to explore and explain this stuff! They will not rest! Even science has yet to explain everything!

But instead of using science and reason to encourage more discussion, we're now instead using that same 'logic and reason' to suppress an open mind. All while also holding onto our own incredible biases and hypocricy. You tell me, without an ounce of an open mind, what purpose you serve in discussion then. There are more ways to view and interpret the world than just the one that you personally hold, but if you don't care to discuss any one of them, then all of you just should get out of my religious/spirituality thread if you're not actually going to try discussing them! LOL! ...what arrogance!

My point is: Even when others have tried to meet you halfway on your own viewpoints, you beat them over the head and tell them to get out of your thread. Hypocricy. Nothing else to discuss here since this thread is now a non-discussion. It's fruitless so I won't continue it any further, but it is sure is uncanny that we're now on the other side of the spectrum of discussion opposite religious zealots.

1) Some have had harsh criticisms, probably as a result of having dealt with many uneducated theists. You aren't uneducated at all.

2) =D

3) We have debated evidence for abiogensis, but not ID. ID hasn't even really been discussed, other than lumping it in with a way to rebrand religion as science.

4) Science requires logic. Not all theories can be described through science. That's why I ask for logic. 

Show me where you provided evidence for ID or God that wasn't anecdotal or burden of proof.

Hey, I noticed you ignored my previous post to you. Here, I'll copy it so you can adaquately respond to the criticisms.

I didn't ignore your post, I lumped you in with my other post because it not worth my time with all the replies (sorry!). All I have is my personal experiences, but I would argue you would have to be in my shoes to under the significace of that "evidence". However, it's enough to meet my interest and be worth continuing my exploration. Hence, there is no discussion here that we can have that will solve everything for everyone and certainly none that would satisfy anyone here because we can't prove or disprove God. To me it's always up for debate, hence the on-going science. I think I've already said this, so why do I need to re-clarify? It's all opinion now. So there was no point to replying personally to you because we share a difference of opinion. As I've said before, it's not an issue of what someone does or doesn't believe. I could care less if someone thinks differently than I do... but I was under the impression this thread was created because the OP disliked debating it and I thought perhaps he had run into some unreasonable religious fanatic... My bad!