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

RMK I hope you realize you have yet to say anything of relevance to the topic... "your whole "Round 1" focuses on the idea that logic goes further than faith." -If you don't understand an argument, you say so- you don't invent your own interpretation of it. The correlation I made between faith and logic was that faith is an excuse for flawed logic. Religion teaches things that are true on top of things that aren't true. The things we are taught that are not true can for the most part be assigned a perpetrator and a motive- THIS is the premise of my argument. If you learn the perpetrator and the motive and LEARN the TRUTH behind the faith, then faith is unnecessary as it is an affirmation of truth when there is no proof. If there is proof of truth then faith is obsolete- at least with that one belief. For example- it was once a matter of faith that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that it was flat. This was taught by the Catholic church, and Galileo was excommunicated for arguing against this matter of FAITH. Do I need to explained what has happend in the hundreds of years since this incident? Since you might misconstrue my point- it was only 360 years later, in 1992, that the Church saw fit to change its official view of Galileo. The Church no longer considers this a matter of faith, rather a matter of science. "To me, fighting for logic is trying to disprove a God/religion." -That is tantamount to saying it is illogical to believe in God. Again- you are pairing God with Religion which is ridiculous because you can't tell me every religion believes in the same God and in the same way. "Your main point, like it or not, is basically saying that religion/God is bunk because of scientific/proven logic. Is it not?" -How are you taking it upon yourself to define my main point when you don't even understand it? It is one thing to say- this is my understanding of what you are saying- but that is not what you are saying. You are adultrating my arguments to fit your agenda, and that is one of my points with religion. If you don't understand something you adultrate it to fit your agenda... <<"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." This is a false statement. Sin entered the world through man. If we were all-knowing and perfect, what would that make us? God.>> -This was a rhetorical statement, not a false one. Is God not a "saint" in sacred text descriptions of him? Is he not "perfect"? How are you taking a rhetorical statement and attacking it as if this is the premise of my argument? That statement states in other words- religion was not conveyed on man from God- rather from other men. If at some point God gave a message to man, MAN adultrated his message and as a result created hundreds of different religions to fit his own agenda. "All you have done in your argument is restated my points and repeat how they have nothing to do with the topic." -Really, how can I move on from "round 1" if you have yet to address the arguments made in Round 1? I restated your statements because this is a debate, and I was showing you where your arguments were not adequate against my original statements. "You say I make a contradictory statement, your whole argument has been nothing but a run-around in fancy terms." -Fancy terms? Look, I did not choose you to debate this topic- you chose an open debate. If you are not at the level of knowledge required to debate this topic then move on. If I say "fancy words", look them up. Don't attack my argument based on the words I use rather than the argument itself. It is much worse to attack arguments I never made- which is what you have been doing. If you had ever addressed the topic this could have been a great debate, but you never once touched on the topic- rather you formulated your own topic in your own head because that is what you were confortable arguing for. I think your manner of argument has in the very least proven how man adjusts truths to fit his own agenda, and that speaks to the topic at hand- Religions are corruptions of man's interpretation of that which he does not understand...