While religion attacks science, science must defend itself. We saw life without learning in the middle ages. Bad, weren't they? Therefore, trying to hide fact because a book, supposedly written by a god that has not been proven, is an attack on learning and science. Why should we go simply with what the bible says? That is why people bring science and religion into comparison, because as one disproves parts of the other, the other sticks to its dogma and tries to ban science. That is wrong.

That is attempting to answer a the question of the chicken or the egg in disguise. You have a good point, but it does not prove a god exists.

I must argue here, although, to comfort you believers, I do sometimes doubt my atheist views. How can you prove god to be all loving and forgiving, yet claim he eternally punishes people in hell? What if God lied; what if Lucifer was good and God bad, yet God won so he got tell the story. You cannot prove God, just as much as I cannot completely disprove God. This argument will lead no where. My point is, if you argue for God's existence based on the bible alone, then you have a flawed argument. The bible was written by men, so it is flawed itself and not reliable. One more thing, here is an interesting correlation. As science has improved and knowledge increased, religion and god become less and less fact. Interesting, yes?

Exultation. Read my other arguments for the explanation. Genesis talks about the casting of Lucifer, Adam, and Eve from heaven. Thats a clear contradiction.

Were you around when the bible was written? No, you weren't. So how can you claim a religous text fact, especially when the god it talks of rarely, and not publically, reveals himself? No proof makes a ground support for skepticism. Maybe its not a fairy tale, but the point is that the stories of the bibles are theory, not proven fact.

But sir, that would be long and most people would not read the arguments, they would skip to the end. I am not debating for reward points. I am debating for the sake of proving a point, and if someone proves me wrong, I would downvote myself. Who gives a crap about the points? I care only for the sake of the argument.

Well said. But (jokingly), this is a good way to pass the time.

I mean that overall, living conditions are better. Yes, I have heard the income argument. Yes, it is valid. However, on average, people live better in modern times than in the past. Capital gains? Those have been the motivations since ancient times, so I really do not see a change there. Frankly, each generation just covers up the bad, each has the same or some variant of the same problems.

In medieval times, most people would marry in their teens and die by their late twenties. Everything you have said has been going on for ages, each generation just ignores it. Parents tell there kids what not to do, because they did the same thing and screwed up themselves. Actually, respect has increased. Yes, some don't know what respect truly is, but for the most part people still have respect for one another.

Traditional human values? Values differ across cultures, states, countries, even neighbors can have different sets of values. And to downgrade his argument is not valid. If we had not evolved past the cavemen mentality, we would have no thoughts, no ability to even question our existence. So his argument is valid, though somewhat awkwardly said. You obviously sound like an intollerant, hardcore Christian. Nay I say to you; if you won't read evidence or look at an argument with more than one perspective you should go back to your dogma.