No, because it's not a factual statement.

"The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible."

I love that rule, but I am just too tired to meet the requirement.

Have you ever considered that faith in any god is a product of temporal and geographical circumstance?

My philosophical problem is that, in spite of all efforts made by Christians to follow Jesus’ directive to spread the word (Matthew 28:16-20), there will always have been people who have been not exposed to the knowledge of Jesus.

For example, one could have been born in Meso-America or China in the year 500 and not had exposure to the information about Jesus. And those people will not have been “saved”, thus not allowed entry into heaven after their deaths. Am I correct in stating this? And this is what I mean by temporal and geographical circumstance.

How do you reconcile the idea that people who were never given the opportunity to accept or reject what you believe to be the only way to salvation being destined to an eternity in hell? I can’t.

I cannot say that, because I was “lucky” enough to be born in Christian America and accepted that belief system, I am entitled to heaven, which seems to be a fortunate accident for me and an incredible misfortune for those not.

The classical debate in political science is Freedom vs. Order. To what degree must freedom be relinquished to establish an orderly society?

In his classic work Leviathan, Hobbes argued that without a strong government to establish order, men would be animals.

A more contemporary argument is drug use. Should we as individuals give up the freedom to use whatever harmful drugs we choose, in order to maintain an orderly society?