God is dead

God is dead. I stated this sentence figuratively, in the sense that humanity has grown out of its infancy and the need for an idea of God to explain natural occurrences is no longer necessary. A disease, earthquake, lightning bolt etc. was not explainable at all a thousand years ago. Science has slowly replaced this need for humanity. You see, the notion of God was a tool for us, to try and make some sense out of this world. Without science, a tornado would have only one possible explanation: wrath of God. Religion is obsolete, as there are better ways to explain natural occurrences with science, and there are better principles to guide your life with than the ten commandments. The seven virtues are infallible and highly useful, and the ten commandments are flawed and close to useless (telling me not to kill someone or covet someone's wife isn't the most useful information). There are some very, very insightful and useful ideas in the bible, don't get me wrong. Although the utility of the lessons it provides are undeniable, the actual literal interpretation is not. I know that Christians are quick to point this fact out when it disagrees with what their interpretation of the bible is, but you can't just point out pieces of the bible and say "that's literal, that's not". None of it is literal, and the lessons can be inferred out but you can't get any more than that. Jesus didn't flick his wrist like a magician and turn water into wine. The bible may be the most important book ever written, about the most important individual who ever lived, but that is where it ends. As an agnostic, I don't make judgements on whether or not God exists. I only question the people who do say that he does or does not exist. You say that there is "more research" done than science and that "research yields more proof everyday that God exists". As to the first part, more research doesn't mean anything. The results of the research are more important than the amount of research done. As to the second part, you are quite obviously wrong, but if you want to show some data for the existence of God in the last round go ahead, it will be highly conjectural at the very best, and that is if you are REALLY good at talking. There is obviously no evidence one way or another for the existence of God, or else a scientist would take that evidence and do something with it. There are plenty of Christians that are scientists and they would die to get their hands on some evidence like that. If there was even a shred they would be all over it like starving dogs on a steak. Math uses words like hypothesis and postulates because it is not perfect. It doesn't need to be perfect to allow you to type on your computer right now, does it? Religion uses words like God and heaven and perfect, which is why it will forever remain a superstition and never produce tangible results. My girlfriend takes me to church, and I see that it is a good thing and that it is useful, but there is a difference there. It is useful because the priest is good at preaching virtuous lessons to the people, and it makes the people feel good. But to say that there is anything supernatural going on and that they are going to heaven instead of hell just by attending is nonsense. Any Christian who says that a good man or woman is going to hell is pathetically ignorant, and if anything, the judgement alone would send themselves to hell if it did truly exist. About galaxies: I don't mean to say this as an insult, but you really should consider reading a good astronomy book. I would suggest Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Besides the Bible, it is the number one selling book of all time (at least that's what he says in he book). To a non-scientist who hasn't wrestled with the reasoning, it is pretty easy just to discount the telescope discoveries we have made in the last few hundred years. To put it succinctly, the data is EXTREMELY convincing. There are something like a dozen completely different ways to judge distances on heavenly bodies, from measuring red-shift to measuring how much they move against the background stars, and the data fits together like a glove every time. There are also indirect methods of demonstrating the distances to these objects, like viewing the diffraction of distant galaxies by watching them as they pass behind another object like the sun. Again, all of these varied, independent tests show way beyond a reasonable doubt that the astronomical data is air-tight, and it would be a tragedy beyond any other to just dismiss this incredibly enlightening, inspiring and useful data just because Christians can't accept it. You say you read Neitzche, and I see a little Descartesian train of though as well. I never could understand why Descartes couldn't explain his own consciousness without the need for God, maybe you can clear that one up for me. Nice debating you...