i can support Christianity more than an athiest can support Athiesm.

We were all new at some point :PTrust me, you're doing fine.The burden of proofThe Pro makes a couple of errors when trying to address his burden of proof:1) Can the bible really be used as evidence?In short, no. But don't take my word for it, allow me to quote the Pro when he said: "I will start off by saying i understand the flaws in the Bible and in Christianity. The fact that it was written by man is the cause for these flaws." This itself demonstrates why we can't look at the Bible as reliable evidence to demonstrate the four areas of proof for the Pro. What are the flaws in the bible? Where do the flaws begin? Where do they end? How can you distinguish flawed information from true information? When a source of information isn't credible in some areas, who's to say it isn't credible in others as well?2) Can religion or atheism be proven?As my opponent and I agree, no. But how exactly does this stand on a debate over whether or not Christianity is an accurate representation of reality? Well, the fact that religion can't be proven is exactly what makes atheism the most rational position to take. Take a look at the definition I offered in my first post:Atheism - the lack of belief in a higher power.The reason as to why atheism is so appealing is because it isn't making a claim that needs to be justified. Atheism is simply the defense of the status quo. Atheists don't claim that a God doesn't exist, they simply lack belief that one does. As an atheist myself, I reserve my belief for when it is actually proven that a religion is true. Once that is done, I will gladly subscribe to that belief. Until then, I choose to not make a decision between the thousands of different religions that exist because not a single one had offered any justification for their claims. This is what makes atheism the null hypothesis, which is what should be accepted by default when an alternative hypothesis cannot be proven to be true. It is for this reason that it is more rational to be an atheist than a Christian (until, of course, proof can be provided, and I'll leave that area of the debate for the Pro)3) The presupposition of GodThe Pro states that if God exists, then he is all powerful, meaning that he created everything, including science.Sure, that would be true, if God existed. In an argument like this, you can't presuppose that a God exists, because if you happen to be wrong, then you argument will be wrong as well. For this argument to count as proof that God is above science, God must be proven to exist first.Does science really support religion?1) Evolution and the BibleIn this argument, the Pro claims that it is possible that the Bible supports the theory of evolution. While I'm glad that the Pro isn't attempting to discredit evolution, I'm disappointed that he didn't give any specific examples of text in the Bible which could support it. Not only that, but this isn't exactly an example of science supporting religion; it's more along the lines of religion supporting science. Even if what my opponent is saying is true, it doesn't give any truth to the other claims in the Bible (e.g: a God existing). These are separate claims that stand or fall on their own merits.2) The weight of the soulIt's alright that the Pro didn't cite this study as I'm familiar with it as well. Unfortunately, this is a study that scientists have not been able to reproduce since the original experiment. This doesn't necessarily mean that the study is false, just that it can't be used to justify any claims made about a soul existing.Among the other errors made in this study, the sample size was also too small to prove anything. The study was done on six humans and fifteen dogs, and like I said earlier, was never replicated. Even MacDougall realized this problem when he said "I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error, but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost importance"[1]Christianity can benefit you as a person.As I said earlier, this argument does nothing to demonstrate the truth of the claims that are being made.Status of the debate:Look back to the argument I made about atheism being the most rational position to take if there is no evidence to justify the claims made by religion. If the status quo stands on any of the four areas of this debate, then the Pro has failed to support Christianity, and we must accept the null hypothesis (atheism).The four proofs:1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.The Pro attempted to prove this using the Bible. Given my response, the status quo stands2) This God created the universe and everything in itSame as #13) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sinSame as #14) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live againSame as #1With that being said, I urge a negative vote.Citation(s):http://www.snopes.com...