Hehee, way to go Jack.

I'm going to abandon this argument as soon as I point out that empathy is not the innate care for other things or people, it is the ability to know that another creature has feelings and the ability to predict how they might react to stimulus. In other words, the ability to project ones self into another person's situation and imagine how they might feel or react. You can possess that ability and still be a douche to them.
And if you want to see the dangers of what you believe to be a harmless religion, look at the inquisition. Or the crusades. Religious thought is the same as any other type of thought except for one difference. Religious thought by definition does not have to be based on reality.

Visible applies only to visible light or bodies it reflects off of. Something does not have to be visible in order to detect it with more sophisticated instrumentation.

Humans can feel empathy for rocks when they want to. If empathy were a god-given innate behavior, not taught or learned, then humans would only be able to feel empathy for other humans, not other creatures, and in the absence of both, inanimate objects. And there wouldn't be so much variation in the world's religious beliefs. If a religion can thrive where death is celebrated and human sacrifice is the ultimate gift, then empathy for other humans and a concern for their well-being is NOT an innate quality.

Applying the same logic to our original argument, if homosexuality were innately "wrong" then every single culture, religion, and government would agree on it's detrimental quality and would universally condemn it. There would be nowhere it was considered commonplace or even tolerable. That mindset is what DROVE the inquisition. "There is good and bad, and they are always distinguishable, and anyone bad is TOTALLY bad and needs to be put to death for the betterment of out christian society! Because everything but christianity is wrong and bad!"

You missed the point quite effectively. Substitute "what we can see" with "what we can physically sense" (hear, taste, smell, touch, and see, including what any instrumentation allows any of these senses to decipher) and the argument stands the same. Don't nit-pick the sub-points; it's a poor substitution for delivering a strong argument regarding the core issue.

Empathy: 1. Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives. 2. The projection of one's own feelings or emotional state onto an object or animal.
I've addressed the first. As for the second, we're talking about a very different definition. We're *projecting OUR feelings* onto the object or animal. We don't exactly know how they feel, because we aren't one of them, so we assume they feel like us and go from there. And since we're assuming in that sense that they're one of us, the empathy we feel is derived purely from that which we feel for fellow humans. Not that this really effects my argument...

Acquired beliefs can over-write innate senses on an individual basis; why are you not allowing for this? I'm obviously not arguing that everyone feels the same way about everything; obviously someone can come to believe that something is right that is in fact wrong; I'm saying that there must exist an external moral code for right or wrong to exist in any real form. We can be taught or otherwise decide that it's right to kill; that doesn't make it right to kill. But your philosophy suggests that nothing is wrong, because morals, for you, are only significant on an individual level, and hence if a person believes that murder is right, well then it is for that person. Then what is justice? What you have there is actually a philosophy of no morals at all; you need an over-arching moral code to make sense of any issue concerning morals. We certainly each have our own personal code which may vary from that high-code, but that's only practical for dictating our own actions and not for judging them.

"If a religion can thrive where death is celebrated and human sacrifice is the ultimate gift, then empathy for other humans and a concern for their well-being is NOT an innate quality." You see the logical error here? First off, all religions don't hold the same beliefs. Religion A cannot be substituted for Religion B. Religion B can conceivably be right about something where Religion A is wrong, just as with people. Second, as I've already suggested, how does the existence of people that have abandoned/over-written their inherent sense of right and wrong prove that it was not inherent? The problem here is not necessarily that you're wrong about empathy not being inherent (though I'm suggesting you are), but rather that the argument doesn't reasonably show how you're right. And either way, I'm only suggesting that empathy points to an inherent sense of right and wrong; but my argument doesn't *hinge* on it (the argument that there must be an external moral code).

"Applying the same logic to our original argument, if homosexuality were innately "wrong" then every single culture, religion, and government would agree on it's detrimental quality and would universally condemn it." This carries that same logical error I addressed at least twice above. I quoted it to make sure it was clear to you that the application of that point works here as well.

"That mindset is what DROVE the inquisition. 'There is good and bad, and they are always distinguishable, and anyone bad is TOTALLY bad and needs to be put to death for the betterment of out Christian society! Because everything but Christianity is wrong and bad!'" Now this made me smile, I gotta say. I'm with you at first and then "anyone bad is TOTALLY bad" (Bible teaches forgiveness) "and needs to be put to death" (how is this directly derived from the argument that good and bad are always distinguishable, exactly?) "for the betterment of our Christian society" (yes, because the Bible teaches us to kill sinners, not to tell them about their access to salvation, right...) Perhaps that horrific logic you gave IS what drove the inquisition, but that logical progression is miles from what the Bible teaches. Don't believe what other people have told you about Christianity. Read the Bible (New Testament particularly) if you're actually interested in forming a legitimate opinion of Christianity. You owe it to yourself.

How about this. Roman catholics believe that Jesus WAS god, not the son of god. Roman Catholics have the same access to all of the same material, so why do they differ from other Christians? You have no evidence that he was the son of god, they have no evidence that he WAS god, so how do either of you manage to condemn anyone else? I bring this up because Roman Catholicism makes up about 1 billion of the 1.6-1.8 billion Christians. The other 6-700 million are split between 20 different denominations, none of which can agree with each other. How can anyone be a Christian when there are 20 or more kinds of christians and none of them say the same thing?

Also, it is impossible in all ways for a person to interact with something that cannot be detected in any way. It has also been proven that temporal lobe seizures can produce profound religious experiences, thus religious feeling comes from the temporal lobe, and it has been proven that those feelings can be manipulated with EM waves applied to the temporal lobe.

Again, my point is that there is no right and wrong. Right and wrong are subjective. That is why there are "good" and "bad" people. What seems right to them is wrong to someone else. That is the entire problem. Christianity pretends to know all the answers. And anyone contradicting those absolute answers is godless, a heretic, and immoral. Religions existed before Christianity, some were created afterward, and all of them have the exact same merit, no matter what they say. Your belief that killing is wrong is no more powerful than the Aztecs belief that killing was beneficial, or the Aghori's belief that wiping dead people's ashes on yourself and drinking your own urine is beneficial.

And just because "right" and "wrong" are not derived from a god does not make them less potent. Frankly, the threat of jail is more of a deterrent to me than some invisible ghost man that probably doesn't exist, if I were to think about commiting a crime. Speaking of which, why punish anyone in this lifetime when god judges everyone after they die? That seems to me to imply a lack of faith.

Sorry, but in fact all Christians believe Jesus was both God *and* the Son of God... the Trinity is one God in three roles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You don't even know what you're talking about here. But if you had managed to find a point on which Catholics differ from most other Christian denominations (and such points do exist, most being issues of tradition rather than fundamentals, with some exceptions such as the authority of the pope), that does not take away from the truth of the Bible which they are based off of. The Bible doesn't say anything about a pope; the Catholics have made that part of their belief system, but it's not in the Bible. How can Christianity function as a belief system when they don't agree? Easy, they all agree on the fundamentals (the Bible), and any denomination of "Christianity" that doesn't follow that is fundamentally not a Christian denomination, regardless of what label they use. My church is non-denominational, because any addendum to the Bible is open to criticism. There's no sense arguing what the proper order in which to light the candles in your church is, particularly when the Bible has nothing to say about it. (But the Catholics do have the core principles down, and my argument is that that's the only essential.)

"Also, it is impossible in all ways for a person to interact with something that cannot be detected in any way."
Ah, but seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching are not the only ways of interacting with something; that was my claim. It can still be detected in some way: there's the sense of *feeling*. In your opinion it doesn't happen, but people claim to have a personal relationship with God. Can they prove it? Probably not. But you can't prove they don't, and it's possible that they do, so you have no ground to stand on here. And this lovely bit about seizures really doesn't impress me. Who defined the experiences as "religious"? You could probably, with the same mindset, call altered states of mind brought on by drug-use "religious experiences". And hey, I bet I can get you to believe you're a cow if I start removing/swapping parts of your brain. Does this prove that self-awareness or thought itself is a myth? Of course thought/spiritual feelings have their ties in our biology; the spirit is attached to the body after all. Does "religious feeling" come FROM the temporal lobe, or is it received/processed there? Why not the latter?

"Again, my point is that there is no right and wrong. Right and wrong are subjective. That is why there are 'good' and 'bad' people."
I know that's your point. And I've made the better argument for why you're wrong about that. But even here you contradict yourself... if there is no right or wrong, how CAN there be good and bad people? (Was this a typo on your part?... either way.) How can you blame a murderer for his "crime" when it's subjective based on his beliefs? You can't, and hence your subjective moral code is a sham. There has to exist an external moral code, or else there is no moral code that actually condemns any behavior/act at all. Unless you can unravel that logic, give up your debate, honestly. And just in case you suggest that behavior needn't be condemned, try imagining a society run by that standard.

"Christianity pretends to know all the answers." If they in fact have the answers, then that they pretend is merely your opinion. "And anyone contradicting those absolute answers is godless, a heretic, and immoral." They're Godless only if they don't have God; heretic is rather archaic; immoral... well, that you may have right, but Christians are instructed only to hate the sin and love the sinner. You're still operating under your own assumptions and bias against Christianity here, and I imagine you'll continue to do so.
"Religions existed before Christianity, some were created afterward, and all of them have the exact same merit, no matter what they say." You can't say that they have the exact same merit, unless you believe that they *all* have no merit. Religions have conflicting fundamental beliefs; they can't possibly all be right. Either one is, or none are. You're free to pick.
"Your belief that killing is wrong is no more powerful than the Aztecs belief that killing was beneficial," You're not really giving anything to back this up. Most of your post consists of undefended opinion, which you must imagine form an argument. No more powerful in what sense? Either one *could* be right? If we adhere to your beliefs that morals are subjective, sure. But then you're all but suggesting that murder is okay, and even you don't believe that. Even better, try this on. What do you imagine would happen if someone killed the priest overseeing the Aztec sacrifice? Wait, all of a sudden murder is a problem? Gulp. I suggest that the Aztecs DID think murder was wrong, except that they also had a belief, on top of that, that the sacrifice to their gods is an acceptable form of murder or is not even murder at all. This seems to be an example of inherent sense of wrong being over-written by other beliefs.

"And just because "right" and "wrong" are not derived from a god does not make them less potent." This is the best of all, because you contradict yourself to the very core. You just got done saying right and wrong don't exist, and now you're making claims of their potency outside of a God. How can something have any level of potency if it *does not exist*? No you're right though, when "right" and "wrong" are not derived from an external moral code (God), they aren't less potent; they, in fact, don't exist at all.

"Frankly, the threat of jail is more of a deterrent to me than some invisible ghost man that probably doesn't exist, if I were to think about commiting a crime." The fear of jail is more of a deterrent for you, who does not believe in God, than God? Obviously, because you don't believe in Him. But if you did believe in Him, or more to the point, if He does exist, then you have much more to be concerned about than jail. I'm lucky enough to make my moral decisions by Aristotle's own method: "I have gained this from philosophy; that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
"Speaking of which, why punish anyone in this lifetime when god judges everyone after they die? That seems to me to imply a lack of faith." You're darn right; it does imply a lack of faith... you lack faith. Many people lack faith. Not everyone believes they will be punished when they die, and so they will potentially harm others and do whatever they want as long as they're allowed. It's to prevent utter chaos that we must have laws on earth. It's that issue of justice... you know, the concept that cannot reasonably co-exist with your philosophy of subjectivism.
A ghost man, huh? At least if you're going to disagree with me on this, sound educated; know what you're arguing against. Find a Bible. What if you've been lied to your whole life and haven't bothered to challenge it directly? I know both sides of the argument deeply, and I made my choice. You should probably give the issue the same attention. After all, as C.S. Lewis points out: “Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.”

I don't suppose you've heard of non-trinitarians? Jehovah's witnesses, for example? They adhere only the the original teachings of christianity, and believe that god is ONE entity, not three. They are still christians, but seeing as god could not be god and Christ at the same time, Christ was not god. Christ was CREATED by god. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them wrong. I am simply saying that, seeing as there are thousands of different religions, even if one of them is right, that means the rest are wrong, but there is also at least that much of a chance that they are ALL wrong. No one has any proof. Show me or any scientist some proof of god and you'll get the Nobel Peace Prize.

Gah...I keep clicking this thread when it hits the frontpage, thinking I'll see some funny JT quips...instead I just find quarreling...

If the question is whether or not non-trinitarians go to heaven, my answer is "I believe so", because according to the Bible if you acknowledge that Jesus was the son of God and accept Him as your savior, you're good to go. A Jehovah's witness will tell you that only X number of people are going to heaven (X actually being a constant in this case, but I haven't memorized the number and don't care to look it up). Yet this isn't in the Bible. As I've said, the Bible is the proving grounds for the issue of uniformity between denominations.
And you've got it right, they're either all wrong, or one is right. So you're willing to write them all off? Even in the face of the possibility that one is right? You do realize the price you pay for that decision right. Look at it this way: if I'm right I get infinite joy after death, and if I'm wrong, I get the same as what you get after death if you're *right*, except that I lived by higher standards of which I can be proud... then again if you're wrong, well. Right or wrong, the outcome for me is brighter.
Oh I can't prove which one is right, that I admit quite willingly; belief in God requires faith. But I can tell you which religion has bothered atheists the most, which one just can't seem to be proven faulty in any aspect, in any part or regard. All religions outside of (Bible-based) Christianity reveal contradictions and flaws. That might not be proof, but it's certainly evidence. And frankly, atheism is just about the poorest alternative you can imagine. I mean based purely on the negative effect atheism has on this world I would refuse to believe in it. It's a belief system that suggests that nothing matters in life because it all just formed randomly, by chance (talk about a belief that requires faith...) Well if nothing matters, then how can you make any argument against killing yourself? We're all just gonna die and fade into the void of nothingness anyway, no? No wonder we see so much suicide, so much depression. Atheism will take nations to the brink of chaos and over if unchecked, rest assured.

Edit - Haha, sorry Ben. Just one of those debates that carry a great deal of significance. Hey look at it this way, we've keep the thread alive for quite a while... off-topic though it was.