Christianity is the one true religion

Defining religion: The definition used by the Pro is very narrow when it comes to defining the term Religion, this is why I included all 3 definitions, which I pointed out as being strange in my last post. Religion is more than just beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Just because you have like minded people does not mean you have a religion. The question is begged, if we are to assume or believe anything, why should it automatically be a god or a creator, we have to assume there is a creator as much as we can assume other possibilities such as the big bang and the universe from nothing idea. Again the Pros job is not to disprove atheism, but to prove that Christianity is the one true religion. The PRO has not been asked to defeat all the other beliefs and religions of the world, just to prove the affirmative declaration of Christianity. Examining the proof of the PROS affirmative in regards to Christianity being the one true religion: PRO: "Well I've said it's most peaceful, caring, forgiving, and reasonable compared to others, but that's up for debate." My response: With all do respect this proves nothing. This can account for just about all the religions of the world. The PRO then says :" I look to the bible and see if anything it says is true" My response: We have already agreed that there some truths in the bible, just as there are truths in most historical writings. This also proves nothing. In regards to the resurrection the PRO says: "That part is the only thing reason can't solve." My response: Now I understand that we cannot just throw out the possibility that the resurrection happened, but it claims are great as I have stated already, and if you must take the issue on merely faith, you could be wrong and be believing in something that never happened. Now if it were mere believing and truly peaceful, then I would have no problems with it, yet as we all know that is not the case. Religion has done good, yet does the bad out weigh the good, many think it so, but reality tells us no! The PRO then says that "Its all up for interpretation" I say if that is the case then god has done us a great injustice of ever knowing truly what is truth and what is just otherwise words of men. In regards to the bible verse, I will agree that Paul speaks of spiritual things, yet he is declaring the great feat of Jesus raising from the dead, without this actually happening, spirituality towards Jesus would be in vain, if you cant prove it then it is not logical to believe it to the point of blindly interpreting what men thought 200 years ago and how it applies to us today. We have evolved beyond the morals of the Old and New Testament. Even the PRO acknowledges that the Christian Religion is dogmatic and if you do not fall in line with anyone's particular views you are shunned, cast out, dis-fellowship-ed, and or removed from said denomination(s). Answering the Pros questions: 1: Before we can answer this question we need to see some statistics at least for the claim of many. I looked for info or stats on this claim and I cannot find any, perhaps you could enlighten us with info. 2: Yes I can consider Newton and Galileo believing in something false, there is a term for this kind of argument, but I am not sure what it is called, but just because smart people or inventive or even scientific people believe something does not qualify the beliefs as more valid, that would be like me naming smart, scientific atheist that do not believe in said beliefs of these two gentleman who lived in a time when knowledge was flourishing. It is ironic that first of all Newton believed in the practice of alchemy and " In spite of his deep religious conviction, Newton was unorthodox when it comes to his belief of the devil, spirits and ghosts. He also assailed people who claimed to be tempted by personal demons as deluded by their own imaginations. This might seem like a reasonable position for a man of science, but in that era, the reverse was actually true: most learned men believed in the existence of Satan, and considered Newton's view as blasphemous." (Source: Snobelen, Stephen D. (2002) Lust, Pride and Ambition: Isaac Newton and the Devil. Link) Newton also wrote a thesis arguing against the Council of Nicaea [wiki] and the Church's doctrine on the Holy Trinity. Realizing that his position would not be accepted by the public, Newton never published this thesis in his lifetime. Indeed, it was released 27 years after his death. (Source: Isaac Newton's Religious Views [wiki]) http://www.neatorama.com... Galileo was not a big fan of the church when it came to progress, and in the end it was the Catholic church that made is life miserable he was subjected to house arrest for the rest of his known life, why Galileo would believe in the things that these people who condemned him to a life of imprisonment for his scientific beliefs is beyond me, perhaps he was not as smart as history tells us. 3: What is truth? It sounds clich"' but really, Jesus said he was the truth, what truth specifically, all truth, and how does that prove Christianity as the one true religion? Conclusion: The PRO seems to be hinting at possibilities as truths without ample evidence, to which he has already admitted that there is a lack of. The evidence for Christianity being the one true religion is still in need of presentation by the PRO. We have received no more evidence for Christianity than we would have for any religion. So by this supposed claims for belief given so far, we could apply them to any religion and feel just justified, so why then Christianity, and doesn't that kind of make Islam just as plausible then Christianity? If not, then please explain why. I am also still eager to hear what the PRO has to say about the issues of the bible that make it harder to believe, I will not list the discrepancies here because I listed prior. If god authored the bible it should be perfect, unless you believe in an imperfect god, then I guess it does not matter then what is truth.