If Christianity were true (which I don't believe it is), it wouldn't matter what the consequences of believing it were. I'd have to be willing to accept the truth, wherever the available evidence would lead me.

Indeed; arguing on purely logical grounds as well, why would God select some to be assumed to heaven and leave others behind when (assuming the rapture to be physical), transporting all humankind there would serve as definitive, absolute proof of God's existence; isn't the selective nature of the rapture a kind of penalty for disbelief in the first place?

There are the widely-known phenomena of out-of-body and near-death experiences, both of which long having been shown to be biochemical in origin, thereby mitigating against the then-apparent evidentiary strength of religious experiences for theism. In other words, how will anyone claiming to be raptured know that it isn't all in their heads?

I think you mean ''amoral'' and ''neutrality'', my friend.

It's right there in the OT. In Isaiah 45:7 God says, ''I form the light, and create the darkness,

I make weal and create woe;*

I, the LORD, do all these things''.

Footnote to this verse in the New American Bible:

Create woe: God created and controls all aspects of creation (light and darkness, order and chaos).

Yes, all EXISTING religions have ethics common to each other. But it's become a kind of polite fiction to say that this is all that matters; this clearly isn't the case in the eyes of their adherents. To them, each religion's distinctive rituals, rules and gods (depending on the faith to which one subscribes) are equal in import to its' moral teachings, and in most cases, each owes its' very being to the belief that the other is wrong, whereas it and ONLY it possesses the full truth concerning reality and our place within it. It would be naive to deny this.

It wouldn't actually be an issue for me. I'd try my best to live in accordance with the facts as I'll have seen them, but not before asking myself whether this is a mass hallucination and having adequate evidence to the contrary.

Oh, that's great; except I think he means ''nonrational''.

I've noticed that responses like the above from theists always allow them never to concede the presence of flaws in their texts or doctrines, which makes me wonder whether the believer is playing an intentional game with the nontheist/skeptic, or whether their faith has brainwashed them to such an extent that they are genuinely incapable of seeing them. Either way, there's a problem.

Truer words were never spoken; love this statement from you!

Your argument completely ignores the fact that the Qur'an NEVER provides context. Any Muslim who seeks context for any given surah must look to the haditha (sayings of Muhammad) or the sira (biographies of Muhammad), as well as the vast body of commentary and exegesis in existence, which in turn confirm that Islam/Muhammad DOES enjoin physical violence, if necessary, in the name of the faith. You'd do well not to repeat platitudes and opt for good research instead.

The mere existence of an object or a phenomenon does not necessarily equate to its' validity; this poster needs to brush up on his/her critical thinking skills.

Alright, it's been fun; thank you very much for your time .

Very thought-provoking indeed. And yet, your argument still makes use of fallacious reasoning. You see, while it is never detrimental to explore, debate, study and learn from ideas, there are very rare occasions when all that is necessary for one to reject a position is to be aware of errors and inconsistencies in the arguments of the advocate, considering that the position itself is flawed and at times, is only held because the proponent him/herself is accustomed to reasoning similarly. In my view, this is one of those times.

Hello. I understand that this isn't my debate and don't mean to be rude, but I'd like to add that the argument that curses in this verse are intended literally rather than as profanity really devolves into a distinction without a difference. The Torah commands the Israelites to honor their father and mother. If I place a dark curse upon my parents, I dishonor them, and if I speak rudely to them, I dishonor them. What is the penalty for this behavior? The verse under dispute makes this clear: death. I am to die by stoning under the Mosaic law, plain and simple. It is also interesting to note that witchcraft alone carries this same penalty, making any metaphorical interpretation of this verse even more implausible.

In my opinion, what we're really seeing on the part of the Bible's defenders here is anachronistic eisegesis. They are reading modern sensibilities back into an ancient text written by a people whose worldview held no place for children's rights/humanism; there was no dignity, no abuse, no inherent equality. Rather, in this world there was only the law and what it did/didn't dictate. Close comparison, research and knowledge of ancient languages bear these facts out.

Then what makes you so confident that he planned it that way?

Also, if justice, truth and inspiration are subjective, why isn't God's existence? You apparently are using an arbitrarily different standard for theism.

When people say this, it always comes across to me as naive and even annoying. The fact that different people perceive things differently isn't under dispute and misses the point; rather, the question is/should be, does this person have good evidence in support of his or her views? One should try to keep this in mind in the future.

Then why should we not rectify its' bad aspects and make further use of its' good ones? It seems to me that your argument remains inadequate. As for debate, disagreement exists everywhere and proves absolutely nothing, in and of itself, about the correctness/incorrectness of any particular stance; it's ironic that you'd say this on a debate website.

There's a logical fallacy for that, and it's called the naturalistic fallacy. One cannot derive an ought from an is. That is, the mere occurrence in nature of a phenomenon tells us nothing of its' morality; our compassion/empathy for our fellow human being aids us in this area. Again, you have a right to your own beliefs, but I am not obligated to respect them, only that right.

And when someone says something like that, I know to disregard it. No one, repeat, NO ONE views say, serial murder as ethical to any degree unless one has serious problems oneself.

The only way anyone can reach the conclusion that any of them are right and internally consistent is by presupposing the validity of one over against the other from the outset.

May I suggest this link: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/ 03/outsider-test-for-faith.html.

I was a weak agnostic for years, having researched religion since '97 and left Christianity in '01.

To me, no one seemed to be capable of defending their religious positions without seriously flawed reasoning, and I made the decision to genuinely suspend judgment unless/until I saw sufficiently valid arguments for or against any or either of them. But then one day, I encountered this article: http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/ faux-agnosticism.html, which caused a seismic shift in the way I perceived the question of God's existence. Why did I view the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity as debatable, whereas the Norse, Greek, Roman and Egyptian ones, say, were obviously conceived in an age of ignorance and credulity? If a modern-day pagan reconstructionist walked up to me and proffered a million arguments as to why I should worship his/her gods, I'd think that this person could benefit from a stay at the local psychiatric hospital, no matter how sophisticated the apologetic.

The main reasons for my remaining agnostic were twofold:

1. I had been culturally conditioned to believe that Yahweh-Allah existed or was at least more likely to exist than other deities of this or past eras.

2. The psychological/emotional benefits offered by belief in immortality and divine justice outweighed, on some level, the detriments of atheism.

Well, that's my journey for now; any requests for further info are welcome!

We're on exactly the same page, then; good. Respect is absolutely wonderful so long as it's reciprocated.