Actually, that's completely untrue. If you're looking for just regular evidence that anything in any holy text came to pass, you'll find a mountain. Just take the time and look it up. For example, the man Jesus did exist, as proven by several documents written in the time period and found in non-religious texts. The man Mohammed actually existed to, as evidenced through much of the same methods. So there's your argument killed right there. All I need to prove is one instance where something in a holy text actually happened, and you're wrong.

The question is not whether or not God actually exists, it's simply whether people should believe in Him, which could be re-worded as "Would it be beneficial for human society if human beings believed in a higher power?". I definitely believe so. Disregarding the fact that I DO personally believe in God, the simple idea is beneficial in the way that it promotes charitable and humane actions in believers that are inspired by the literary works associated with the religion. This has been seen countless times on the individual level. The problem is when that very message is twisted and perverted by influential men seeking their own personal advancement (the Crusades, Holocaust, KKK, etc). So to sum up, believing in God is a perfectly sound practice. Just be on guard for those who seek to manipulate that belief.

Putting aside the fact that this obviously isn't the most serious debate in the world for a moment, let's discuss the issue in a little bit of depth. I would normally side with the True argument for this debate, but the problem is that the rancher analogy simply doesn't fit. If a rancher isn't doing his job satisfactorily, it's not as if the cows can just kick him off his high tractor. Okay, well, maybe they could... But they certainly couldn't elect the NEW rancher(s).

But I do agree that the government has a certain responsibility to its constituents to supply some basic needs when the constituents are unable to supply themselves. That's what government's for: to help the tax payer when they need it.

For the large part, I agree with Bohemian in most of his arguments. The fact is that Osama bin Laden was an active member of Al Qaeda at the point of his death and he was key to several terrorist plots, many of which ended in massive casualties. 9/11 would be the obvious example. This is reason enough for execution, and reason enough for celebration at justice being dealt and many more innocent lives being saved.

Also, just in response to a snippet I read, Osama bin Laden could not have been tactically extracted by Seal Team Six. They were already basically invading a sovereign country without planning to take a hostile prisoner back over to the States for trial. It was an unnecessary risk of American lives.

Let me just say that there is a major difference between critiquing/discussing, and bashing. Bashing has a directly negative connotation that implies debasing and humiliating the religion and all its participants for... what reason? To fulfill some personal vendetta? That's not how conversations on religion should go.

If you want to make a civil debate out of Christianity and discuss what fallacies you might see in its doctrine, then by all means, have at it.

I must agree. Or at least, I agree that this point system is not the perfect one by any means. Whenever any informal group attempts to be "democratic", then the old mob mentality often comes into play. What the mob wants, the mob gets. And if the mob consists of several childish, vindictive individuals that downvote you just because you're a meany-butt, then that's hardly an accurate representation of your argument.