In that case, plants and animals are "living things." Do you feel that it is wrong to end a flowers life, or a cat? Should killing a cat be legal? See, the difference is that humans have a soul, and plants and animals do not. It is murder to kill a being with a soul. Now, I do not believe that the fetus has a soul, and is not fully human until it takes its first breath, which is when it is given a soul. This is based on the Bible.

They have the freedom to believe however they want and run their business however they want. If people don't like it, they don't have to work there.

Also too, you have to realize that the death penalty actually saves more lives than it takes away, because the death penalty discourages future murderers. For example, if we lived in a world without the death penalty, people would have no fear of killing someone. When people see that there is a punishment that takes place if they murder someone, than they will be 90% less likely to go out and murder. The death penalty actually saves lives.

It all depends on your view of morality. Personally I believe in the concept of Justice, which is a standard that is set by God based on his morality. I don't believe that anyone should be punished for something they didn't do; however my belief is that the death penalty does justice to those who have committed murder. Just as a thief should pay back what they stole, someone who steals another person's life should pay for it with their own.

I think the ultimate conclusion of this debate will be the agreement on all sides, Atheists and Theists alike, that everyone, no matter how "intelligent" they claim to be, have faith in something or someone. Whether or not you call this faith "religion" or not, it doesn't matter. Everything that we know (or claim to know), we receive by faith in one form or another. The fact of the matter is that faith is only as good (or credible) as the object it is directed towards.

So to answer your question, Atheists claim to have no religion because they define "religion" as a belief system based upon a divine entity of one kind or another. Since they define it that way, then they can claim to be non-religious because they do not believe in a divine entity of any kind.

However, if you define "religion" as a system of beliefs held to with faith, then everyone in the world would be "religious," because everyone holds to something with faith.

Now a better way to state your argument might be "How can Atheists claim to have no religion, when they follow a set of principles and a system of belief that so closely imitate (if not exactly match) religion?"

Personally I believe in science and Theism, and I've seen that Atheists are very typical in the way that no matter how many scientific laws or principles they discard, they continue to irrationally believe fallible and non-scientific principles, very much in the same way that they claim "religious people" do, and so in this way they are in denial.

Why is God the only being or object or whatever that is timeless, spaceless, and has no matter? Couldn't it just as easily have been a thing that wasn't alive, or didn't have a soul, couldn't think, couldn't see, couldn't hear?

Great question, and one that definitely needs to be answered. The answer is simple: The precision with which the Universe came into existence. Now I know this is the subject of much criticism, but bear with me here.

We have established that the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter all have a beginning, and I believe we agree that they must have had a cause outside of those elements that is:

Timeless, because it created Time;

Spaceless, because it created Space;

and Immaterial, because it created Matter.

Now, at this point, it is logical and reasonable to question why the Cause created the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter must be Intelligent and Personal, as I believe. Why couldn't it be a non-living, non-perceiving cause? Why does it have to be an intelligent, living, thinking ...someone? Well, let me explain why.

Facts we know about the uncaused cause:

1. The Cause is Timeless.

2. The Cause is Spaceless.

3. The Cause is Immaterial.

4. The Cause created the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter.

Facts we know about the creation of The Universe, Time, Space, and Matter:

1. All four was created at the same time, in the exact same instant.

2. The instant (or explosion, if you like) that they were created was perfectly and precisely the right conditions for the universe and everything in it to happen.

3. If one thing out of the billions of things that happened during the explosion was altered, it would have been impossible for life to exist and for the Universe to exist. E.g., imagine the explosion like millions of dials, all set to a specific point. If even one out of the millions of dials were altered even an infinitesimal amount, it would render all the other dials useless and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself. The temperature, the speed of expansion etc. were just perfect.

Now, with these facts from both the Cause and the Creation, let's evaluate reasonably.

Let's talk about Intelligence. Why does the Cause have to be Intelligent? Because of the fine-tuned creation event. The fact that all the conditions were just right for life and the universe to exist shows that it was fine-tuned, or guided by the Cause. The Cause created the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter, meaning the Cause guided the process of creation from beginning to end. So in the explosion, (or creation event, whichever you prefer,) the elements were created in such a specific way so as to ensure the existence of the Universe and the Three dimensions. That is why they all four exist today, because the process was so perfectly precise, (or fine-tuned). Something (especially something as complicated as the creation event) can not be fine-tuned without a Fine-Tuner (the Cause), and for the Cause to fine-tune the creation event, the Cause must have been capable of Intelligence.

So we can add "Intelligent" to the list of things we know about the Cause. Because the creation event was fine-tuned, the Cause that fine-tuned it had to be Intelligent.

Now since the Cause is intelligent, it is capable of Thought. The Cause is also Personal. How do we know? This is explained very simply: Existence instead of Non-Existence. The Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial Cause existed before Time and before matter existed. Which means at some point there was no matter that existed, only the Cause. The fact that matter rather than non-matter exists shows that the Cause is able to Reason, to Think, to Evaluate, and has a Will, because the Cause made a decision to create rather than not to create. This shows that the Cause has an intelligent mind capable of making decisions, capable of free will, capable of evaluating options, and capable of thinking.

So now, things we know about the uncaused Cause:

1. The Cause is Timeless.

2. The Cause is Spaceless.

3. The Cause is Immaterial.

4. The Cause created the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter.

5. The Cause has an Intelligent Mind

6. The Cause is capable of Thinking;

7. Reasoning;

8. Evaluating Options;

9. Making Decisions;

10. Free Will to decide on an option and to make a choice.

11. The Cause is Personal, because an impersonal force cannot make decisions.

Now based on these things, I believe that we have a clear scientific view of the First Cause, and I hope that this answers your first questions.

If there were a God, why does there exist logic? Why did God spend so much nontime creating logic? It doesn't make sense to me. If there really is a God behind it all, there wouldn't be anything called logic.

Again, great question and a logical one (pardon the pun).

God is the standard for logic. If God exists, it only makes sense that he would make himself known, and he would make himself known in a way that we can understand/comprehend. Therefore he created the Universe based on a set of operating rules, called the Rules of Physics, and gave us the ability to discern these rules based on something that all human minds are capable of: Logic. He created us with Logic so that we could know his existence by applying logic to nature and the universe and everything else. Logic is our system of understanding, and it's what we base science off of. We understand and recognize that there is a basic set of rules and regulations that the Universe and everything in it follows and operate by. By using the tool of Logic, we are able to build a system called "Science" and study using this system that is based off of a set of constants (physics laws) and figure out God's existence through that study.

I hope that I have helped answer you understandably... Thanks for the clearly stated questions that you presented to me.

It all depends on what you define as a "Christian." If you define Christian as simply anyone who follows (or claims to follow) Jesus Christ, then from that point of view the Mormons are Christians because they believe/follow Christ. However, the definition of Christian is not just someone who claims to be, it is whether or not they have received Christ as Savior. You can go to church, be a "good" person (although this is actually impossible according to the Bible) claim the name of Christ, live according to his rules, tell people about him, and do the best you can for your entire life, but you are not Christian and are not saved if you have not received Christ as savior. The reason that so many hate "Christians" is because there are so many who claim to be Christian but are hypocritical. I mean, I am Christian (by that I mean I have received Christ as Savior) and I can't stand hypocritical people who claim Christianity Those people have distorted the name "Christian" to where most hate when the term is even brought up, because they picture a moronic self-righteous hypocritical jerk with zero amount of reason and that believe without intellect in their mind. Whether or not you call yourself "Mormon" or "Christian" is irrelevant. What matters is if you believe that 1) everyone person ever born is sinful in the eyes of God because of Adam's sin, 2) We can do absolutely nothing to make up for our sin (including church, morality, being a good person, not sinning, etc.,) 3) Jesus Christ was a part of God's essence that was born into a person, 4) that Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life, and therefore was a just substitute for us when he died on the cross, 5) that Jesus took our punishment and was substituted for every sin that the human race had and ever would commit, 6) and because of this there is nothing we can do to receive forgiveness from God for our sin except by believe and accepting Christ sacrifice and Christ's sacrifice alone, and 7) that there is nothing we could ever do to lose our salvation, because Jesus died for every sin we would ever commit. If you believe essentially in only these things, then you are saved and by definition "Christian." However, if you believe you must do something in addition to Christ's sacrifice to be saved, you are not Christian, because Jesus did all the work for you, and from my experience from Mormons, Mormonism generally believes that you must do good works in addition to believing in Christ.

Let me paraphrase my post. The Law of Causality states that if there is an effect with a beginning, there is a cause outside the restrictions of that effect. For example, if there is a ripple in a pool of water, according to the Law of Causality there must be something that moved the water to start that ripple. If you consider Time, Matter, and Space, since all three are observable and are proven to have a beginning, they are subject to this Law. Therefore applying the scientific Law of Causality, since Time, Space and Matter had a beginning, they must have a Cause that is not subject to Time, Space or Matter (that would be called Time-less, Space-less, and Immaterial). This Cause that is Timeless, Spaceless, and immaterial is what I mean when I refer to God. If God is Timeless (in other words, eternal), by definition He doesn't have a beginning, and if he doesn't have a beginning He is not subject to the Law of Causality. Because of this, God is not an effect, He is a cause, and because he is eternal, he is un-caused, (deemed by Aristotle the "Uncaused Causer.")

My source is the tested Law of Causality and the proven beginnings of the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter.

Now if you equate the "Uncaused Causer" with the God of the Bible, that is a different story and debate altogether. I believe in the Bible (the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts, not the faulty, limited English translations that most read from) because it accurately stated many advanced scientific concepts before they were discovered, and because of it's lack of error and the fact that the people who wrote it over a span of 1600 years never once contradicted each other in the writings and theme, but again that is a completely different debate, and that is not what we are here to debate about. We are here to debate whether or not there is an Uncaused Causer that exists outside of Space, Time and Matter that is Intelligent, and to me, according to the Law of Causality, that seems pretty much scientific fact.

I mean, if you can prove that Time, Space, Matter, and the Universe did not have a beginning, then it would be pointless and unscientific for me to believe this. But since it has been proven that these things had a beginning, and considering myself a man of science, it would be unscientific and pointless for me to argue that there is not a Cause outside of Time, Space, and Matter.

While I might agree with the belief that God created all things, and yes, we do have the right to believe whatever we choose, but the purpose of this debate is to discover if the existence of God is scientific or necessary. We are using science to debate the existence of God Personally I believe that the existence of God is scientific, and therefore when you put "God" and "Science" on two different opposing sides, you are doing nothing to contribute to the debate. As I said before, I don't disagree with you, but that is not the purpose of the debate.

I agree, and based on that statement I made a mistake as well.