Religion Is Man-Made.

Dear Con,in a formal debate,or especially in these type type of debates,the burden of proof falls on both of us,unless your only target is to prove me wrong,with you having no point to defend,so debates as you know is the action of give, and take, and the action of presenting arguments, and ideas so that both contenders can share thoughts, and present wise ideas.It seems as if Pro does not understand how a debate works. It is sufficient for one person to rebut another's assertion without providing a unique assertion of his own. The burden of proof rests upon the person making the assertion. Pro has asserted that religion is man-made and thus the burden of proof falls upon him and only him. Had I asserted, "Religion was created by God," or something to that effect, then, true, we would both share the burden of proof. Fortunately, I have made no assertion. My only responsibility then is to show why Pro is wrong and thus reaffirm the neutral position: It is not known whether religion is man-made.If someone were to argue that he was born on Mars, it would not be necessary for his opponent to demonstrate that he was born someplace else. It would be sufficient to simply refute the pseudo-Martian's points and thus reach the conclusion that the pseudo-Martian was not born on Mars. His exact birthplace could be the subject of another debate.Point 7: you commented on the number of major religions in this world,although you know it is 100% irrelevant to the point I was making in my statement,so mentioning it as a major point is lame, and useless, because you know that the point I was making in this statement has nothing to do with the number, but anyway for you to get over this point, I'm going to mention those 20 major religions so we could focus on what is really important in this debate and not deteriorate it's value-the 20 major, different religions are(Christianity,Secular,Judaism,Islam,Buddhism,Agnostic,Atheist,Hinduism,Unitarian Universalist,Pagan,Spiritualist,Native American Religion,Baha'i,New Age,Sikhism,Scientology,Humanist,Deity (Deist),Taoist,Eckankar)Rebuttal 7: (Everyone should notice that the list contains no reference to any sources external to Pro's own opinion of what a religion supposedly is. The list has been created in absence of any demonstrated rationale, a repeated violation of rule 5.) Agnosticism, atheism, "secular," humanism, and deism are not religions. The absence of religion is not religion, just as baldness is not a hair color. The New Age movement is a spiritual movement, so it's not even mutually exclusive with spiritualism. Furthermore, spiritualism is not identical to religiosity. (Hence the term "spiritual but not religious.") "Paganism" refers to all non-Abrahamic religions, usually indigenous. It is not mutually exclusive with the Native American religions. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Where is Zoroastrianism? The religion has almost three million adherents... Why is Taoism mentioned but not Confucianism or Shintoism???The number of religions is irrelevant. The claim is that religion is man-made. Pro has failed to demonstrate how the number of religions leads credibility to his assertion. It is like saying, "There are a lot of races. Therefore, race is man-made." In absence of a given reason, number is irrelevant. Point 7: If Islam states that no Crucifixion occurred in history, and the Christianity state that Crucifixion happened and it is the greatest event in history, that doesn't make them mutually exclusive ?.If you want to get deeper,just to come with minor points just to say that they don't contradict each other, then I must say that, there is a Christian philosophy that considers Christianity as a polytheistic religion, so that is your contradiction right there, with the Islamic fact that state that Monotheism is the only true concept.Concerning "Buddhism teaches that there is no divine"that you saw irrelevant,is completely relevant,because I didn't say that Buddhism considers other wrong,but I said Islam, and Christianity consider Buddhism not true because is doesn't have a divine.Rebuttal 7: Christianity has been interpreted as saying, "Believing in Jesus and being a good a person are sufficient for salvation. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Islam has been interpreted as saying, "Believing in God and being a good person are sufficient for salvation." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) An individual can believe in both God and Jesus and live a good life, satisfying the soteriological requirements of both religions at the same time. Therefore, the religions are not mutually exclusive.(It seems as if Con does not understand what mutually exclusivity is. The term means that two particular contradictory positions cannot both be true, not that the positions are in 100% agreement.) (http://www.mathsisfun.com...)I don't see how the last statement on Buddhism has anything to do with my respective rebuttal in round 2. Con made no mention of Buddhism's nontheism in the last round; he argued only that the sacred texts contradict each other. I responded that the alleged contradictions are irrelevant because it is possible the texts have been misinterpreted. (It wasn't long ago, after all, when people thought the Bible supported racism.) In this round, Con has made the seemingly off-topic response aforementioned in point 7.Point 8: If you want evidence that religion's God can't be mistaken then you lowered the quality of this debate with such sentence, and seem as if you want to speak just to sound smart,so you should focus on commenting on the major ideas in this debate.And since Buddhism suggests that all religions lead to truth, then it holds the definition of contradiction, because they are never mutually exclusive,and the biggest evidence that you agreed that they contradict with the event of Crucifixion,so mentioning that point makes the concept wrong itself.Rebuttal 8: Con has admitted to his violation of rule 5. He is unable to provide evidence is support of the claim "God cannot be mistaken." Nullius in verba.Con does not seem to understand the difference between contradiction and mutual exclusivity. Buddhism can be true in regards to other religions. Other religions can also be true at the same time, if they have been misinterpreted relative to Buddhism's claim. Any contradictions are only alleged until reconciliation of passages is demonstrated to be impossible."Point" 9: Now commenting on what follows,I mentioned why I think it is man made. [...]Rebuttal 9: The ninth point contains no argument.Within the Royal Society in London, England, the members have a pet saying: "Nullius in verba," Lain for "On nobody's word." It is official policy within the society that, during debates, no member is allowed to share his opinion, whatever he thinks is true. Anything a member says must be verified through either experimental evidence or external citation. Con has failed to do this. By his own admission, the only evidence needed is logic and "common sense." Realize the irony. He has made statements which are explicitly false and illogical. He has claimed, among other false things, that secularism is a religion and that Hammurabi claimed no divine inspiration. He has fabricated a false trilemma; he has committed several fallacies. He has repeatedly violated the the rules of a debate that he himself started. Worse of all, he has the audacity to accuse me of not presenting an argument, in sheer ignorance of what a debate is.