religion is false

You have failed to provide any reliable source to substantiate your claim & your personal analogies are childish at best. I mean for real, what does a snake under your bed have anything to do with if religion is true or false? Again, from an educational perspective your grammar is so poor on many levels Its difficult to understand, I would suggest for you to spend a small portion of your day to learn basic english and sentence structure and less time in these debate forums trying to force your worldview on people. From a competitive advantage perspective, it may look foolish of me to give my opponent advice during a debate, but in the end I want you to do better, I want you to be better. According to your profile you're 27 years old, you're suppose to be at a level in your life where little children in the 3rd and 4th grade shouldn't be writing better sentences than you. It's difficult to take anything you say seriously when you write things like (quote) there is no specifik point just tekst, (end quote). With that being said, "lets get back to the debate shall we? " You stated in your rebuttal, "religion is belief, beliefs are false or unknown. " Your logic makes no sense to me because we have overwhelming evidence that their are beliefs that are verified by science for example, "I believe the earth is real, or I believe the sun is hot. " Such beliefs have obvious tangible evidence to validate the claim. So to convince yourself that beliefs are false or unknown tells me you need to educate yourself more to consider that if I believe carpenters build homes and I have the evidence to prove it, theirs no logical reason to believe that my belief is false. You stated, (quote) only know is true, how do you know a belief is true? why believe then (end quote) again I'm not fully understanding what your saying here, I would guess what your trying to convey here is only knowledge is true and I don't want to assume your intentions but its difficult to compose a logical argument when your opponent misspelled words. You asked the question, "why believe it then? " As I stated in my last comment, why would I believe in something and willing to die for what I believe in if I'm not convinced within myself that what I believe is false? That argument and logic makes no sense to me. You stated, "i am sure christians are convinced of it, like the mother that killed her kid, standing outside looking to the clouds and smiling with her dead kids in the hands, for they went to heaven. ." Now for one, if your going to make such a claim it would be best to provide a source or an article to validate that such a story actually happen so I won't be convinced that woman smiling, standing outside looking at the clouds after killing her kid is not a figure of your imagination. Allow me to bring something to your attention that in my Christian walk I have learned to distinguish the goodness of God from insane acts that were committed in his name, as Christian apologist and Oxford Professor John Lennox stated in March 2009, in Birmingham, AL. "After all if I failed to distinguish between the genius of Einstein and the abuse of his science to create weapons of mass destruction, I might be tempted to say science is not great and technology poison everything. " I contend that what were dealing with here is your incapacity to distinguish between that which is subjective to that which is absolute. That my contention is my opponent is attempting to take that which is subjective and promote it as an absolute. According to Google search the definition of subjective is that which is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. But we understand that we live in a world were we experience diversities in subjectivity where what is important and logical to one person could be insane to someone else. What my opponent is doing here is presenting a false dichotomy, which assumes their are no other alternatives than what is subjectively important to him. In June 23, 2005. NBC News conducted a survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine. If religion is false as my opponent claims it is, if he or a love one close to him falls sick and is treated by a Christian doctor whose religious beliefs influence how he practice medicine, whatever prescription he writes to make him well again, he should rip it up and burn it because he contends religion is not real. My opponent stated, "the reason you write so much tells me immediatly that you dont actually have a demonstration that religion is true. " I would disagree because the reason why I write so much are based upon years of research, years of studying a wide-range of intellectual information not just from the Christian point-of-view but from a atheistic and evolutionary point-of-view as well, so I could come to a better understanding of the evidence. My opponent stated, "you might as well tell me Jesus was real or that santa really lives in hidden underground caves in spain" I will tell you that Jesus is real based upon the evidence of his historicity, eye-witness accounts, according to live science. com states, "most theological historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, believe that Jesus really did walk the Earth. " With such overwhelming evidence, any rational human being can conclude that religion is not false based upon the examples my opponent has given "snakes under his bed. " But that religion is true based upon the evidence presented in my argument. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal in the next round. Sources: 1. 2. . https://www.google.com... 3. . http://www.livescience.com... 4. . http://www.nbcnews.com...