Religions are corruptions of man's interpretation of that which he does not understand...

I don't understand how you intend to debate a topic and not address it. You are debating the existence of God, when I have not denied it. You are debating the superiority faith over science, when I have stated that when science proves things believed through faith you no longer believe- rather you know. So can you really formulate a rebuttal without addressing the original argument? I will entertain you nonetheless... "Now, when I refer to the term religion...I will use the word "God" because all religion is based on some form of spiritual deity." -I have not denied the existence of a deity, rather I argued that Religion- a codified and structured belief system with a deity or deities at the center of these beliefs- is structured by man and therefore corrupt. I argued that logic can prove many aspects of every religion, but that logic also disproves obvious falsehoods within these same religions due to corruption by man. If religion were a belief system transferred by God directly to individual, then we would all be perfect saints with all the knowledge of the universe and no need for debate. "All things have a creator." -This is not an affirmative statement that can be proved or disproved, nor is it a point in this topic. "how can you prove science over religion?" -Every religion dictates some kind of science- whether right or wrong. Science and religion are at odds now because more people have more access to more knowledge. When most religions were established, it was the clerics who were in possession of most of the world's knowledge, and in monopolizing this knowledge they manipulated theology, doctrine, and interpretations according to their own limitations. This left no room for revaluation of beliefs based on modern knowledge, and with this much of the logic behind religions has aged and as common knowledge becomes more intelligent, what was once largely believed to be fact is now attributed to faith. The founders of every religion assert that they are privy to true knowledge of science. "Believing in a God does not corrupt any faction of life." -You are implying through your arguments that I made statements against what you are affirming. I hope people are smart enough to see you are arguing against points I never made and ignoring those I did. "If you believe that life is nothing more than science, then your saying and agreeing that your thoughts are not your own." -This is again an argument against a point I never made. "With science, thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions. Therefore, how can you trust anything you think?" -The process by which thoughts interact with our physical being has nothing to do with my points or the topic. Science does not describe thoughts as chemical reactions, and neither have I. "Religion is spiritual and takes on different forms in the inner workings of each individual." -Religion is an institution. Institutions cannot be "spiritual", but they can be political. People can be spiritual. The manner in which religion affects your life has nothing to do with my argument. Something having a positive affect doesn't by proxy make it right. An example of this case would be a religion other than Christianity- in your case. Christianity teaches that all other religions are "doctrines of devils", etc. yet even you admit that "religion is spiritual and takes on different forms in the inner workings of each individual". If Christianity lacks logical flaws- as you would imply by taking on this challenge- then every other religion does... yet other religions can have as positive an affect on your life as Christianity. "I also believe that we do not choose to follow God, He chooses us. Whether we listen to His call is our own undoing." -Do I need to point out how these are contradictory statements??? "I would rather put my faith in a greater being with religion rather than put my faith in the science of another human being." -Unless you disregard the bible, you are putting your "faith in the science of another human being". Solomon wrote of how science and knowledge were the basis of the fear of God... I don't know when the most revered scholar in Religion became so insignificant that modern science does not apply as knowledge of God- even if it can eventually prove his existence.