If I may say, only someone with a strong Shi'ite background makes comments like yours. You place very high emphasis on the Prophet's family who, according to Shi'ite doctrine, are the true successors to the caliphate. And yes, A'isha was the daughter of Abu Bakr, good friend of the Prophet and first of the "political caliphs". I can only assume that one of her "attempts to destroy" Islam occurred during the Battle of the Camel where Ali ibn Abu Talib, the first Shi'ite imam and cousin of Muhammad, took victory and spared A'isha's life.

Yes, I'm showing off a little, but it makes your inherent bias more apparent. Who's to say that your facts aren't just as distorted as those of the Sunni? No one can really say, but both sides hold the above facts as true, seeing as that they are historical and actually occurred and all. It's all a matter of spin after that.

But I digress again. Having sex with a nine-year-old girl constitutes pedophilia in the modern sense of the word.

Firstly, regarding your statements on the amount of time in a day. A day could last a few hours or a few years depending on what planet I'm on - but it doesn't matter. If you are convinced that the amount of time in the day of a deity is absolutely essential to faith, please tell me what kind of moral message I am supposed to obtain from that.

Secondly, with the multitude of religions and worldviews scattered across this Earth, what honestly gives this faith the right to call itself the one and only "true" faith? I have no problems with atheism, Islam, Buddhism - all of these viewpoints have their strong points and focus of morality. I cannot say that Christianity is THE path; I can only say it has a strong ideal message. By putting Christianity on a pedestal and excluding other lines of thought from entering the fold, you effectively exclude others from reaching higher mental and moral grounds, Christians included. Should that exclusion turn to prejudice, can you really hold true to the core - love all men as you would love yourself?

Thirdly - and this is only on a technical note - please put spaces between the period and the beginning of the next sentence. Granted, no one is perfect, but it would be much appreciated.

But again, enough of that. Damned hooks...

13th century Islamic philosophers, while still religious, determined that morality could be obtained and recognized through logic and reason - those who didn't believe in Allah still possessed some degree of moral responsibility, even if it wasn't necessarily perfect according to Islamic standards. This brilliant summation of atheist morality applies to all settings - one does not need religion to be moral - one can logically determined what is right and what is wrong. Religion can help and often accelerates moral understanding, but it is not necessary.

I cited my source, but I'll cite it again - Matthew 22:36-40 - yes, there are two extra verses than my initial citation, but those verses are relevant. Whether or not I hold the commandments to be true is irrelevant. Jesus - core figure of the faith - cites those commandments as the greatest. By that respect, all Christians should fundamentally hold those beliefs closest. Anything deviating from that constitutes a failure to recognize the greatest teaching of the faith - missing the mark.

You still have not convinced me that the core beliefs of Christianity rest in torturous punishment in hell - you have referred to a more ancient version of God's covenant that, though Jesus endorsed, is archaic to the faith itself. While many Christians still hold them dear, that sad fact is the result of generations of misunderstanding and a mindset devoted to clinging to tradition.

Your understanding of Christianity rests in fundamentalism, a trend both atheists and the lay share - only someone who takes the Bible word for word could come up with that argument. By refusing to think about the faith in itself, denying multiple interpretations of the text, and fundamentally accepting everything in the Bible to be absolute, you've demeaned yourself to nothing more than a Godbot, though in the reverse sense - someone who relies solely on the fundamental text as a means of discrediting the faith - an anagodbot or antigodbot or some other convolution of words.

Of course, we must agree to disagree. You see Christianity as solely bent on control and exclusion; I see it as an ideal message corrupted by control and exclusion. Whatever your vendetta is, I don't know or care - personal problems, mine or yours, have no place here. Yes, the Catholic Church and auxiliary Christian teachings have been corrupted and abused over centuries - I don't deny that; that constitutes as missing the mark of the core teaching. And yes, I don't agree with some of Christ's "teachings" - over time and translation, text becomes corrupted - I don't deny that either. But, working with what is available, Jesus' core commandment holds true.

See, the trick here is to argue against me with the fact that I'm using the Bible in a fundamental sense or that the text of the core belief itself is potentially corrupted through translation. That's fine by me - it's highly possible. But, for the sake of this argument, we rest on the premise that Matthew 22:37-40 is the core of Christian morality, as stated by Christ himself. Until then, your "message [on] the tallest mast" amounts to nothing more than the corrupted abuses and/or intentional mistranslations of men using religion as a control device which, while still wicked, has nothing to do with the core moral message of Christianity.

"nails its message to the tallest mast"

That statement could have had more force - "nailed its message right to the cross" would evoke much more pathos, though I don't mean to criticize.

If we accept your premise as true - that modern Christianity preaches segregation and intolerance - then it clearly missed its core belief, didn't it? If that's the case, then why do you believe that Christianity's core teaching is one of hate and bigotry? If you do not, then why is your argument on the wrong side of this board?

Any shock-value atheist can tell me that faith is ignorant or that prayer is useless, so unless you have meaningful material to contribute to this argument and are willing to explain why you think Christianity's main message is one of segregation and intolerance, do so.

The method of attack should not focus on the Bible - it's very easy to discredit pieces of literature and, as shown by the American atheist movement, it is highly overdone. It should focus on the doctrines of the faith itself - predestination, heaven and hell, sin, the miracle of Jesus - everything. Deconstructing the notion of God should encompass the major aspects of God; focusing on the scrawls of ancients instead of the beliefs themselves amounts to child's play. For people who think the Bible nothing more than rubbish, they certainly hang on to it as much as the believers do. If someone could deconstruct the Catechism, THEN I'd be impressed.

I suppose I should change the title to "Does creationist Christianity miss the mark?" though I'm trying to make the connection between how Christian "science" completely ignores the basic ideal of Christ's message. I already know why creationism is completely and utterly ridiculous, so I try to avoid listening to the same litanies from either side of that particular debate over and over again.

Aside from that, well put, sir.

Now, suppose there was no Bible. Could you still find some way to downplay the potential existence of a deity? Or is the "contradictory useless old book" too critical, too precious to your argument?

In a few hours time, the bacteria will have evolved into some new strain that your body has to re-fight in order to make you well again. Evolution at its finest.

If it is fact that Christianity is built on a legend (no questions here, it's highly likely), then why not provide the evidence to start with? Anyone can say that Christianity is simply a fraud - look at the American atheist movement - being able to back that up sets people apart. I would've had more respect for this reply had you opened with it instead of that ever-repeated litany you started with.

But I digress. Enough of that.

So, based on your statement, there is some fractional amount of historical primary source material stating that Jesus Christ, in fact, existed.

If there is historical source material pertaining to the existence of Jesus Christ, then how can you even begin to argue that he was some figment of thought?

Either there is no evidence and he does not exist or there is evidence and he does exist. "almost no... material" implies some material, intrinsically discrediting your stance that Christ is a myth.

Sadly, many people attribute faith with ignorance because many ignorant people are faithful. The blatant refusal to accept something other than God is ignorance, yes. But many people who believe there is a God and still seek scientific answers are not ignorant - they're just looking for an answer other/better than God; they don't know and would like to find out.

I'm sure she'll die within my lifetime. It's just a matter of how.

--Matthew 6:5