Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

what I meant is that you label them thus because you need some sort of proof for what is a basic logical premise.Logic would be the derivative of the average person would comprehend from the interpretation. Your logic lies purely in your opinion of the scriptures, not the actual interpretation that is agreed upon by Biblical scholars. Religious scripture is open to anyone's interpretationThat is false, their is a method in how to interpret them. False prophets and non-Biblical translations will never be widely accepted. also I'm not the only person that thinks these things.Yet, you have cited no such person. You can't label God's word inerrant, God is unprovenAnd who are you to make such a claim? You are one person who "feels" that the Bible was not the inspired word of God. For you to state this as matter of fact then you had better have some substantial evidence. If not then you are claiming people who number in the thousands that their experiences are invalid. To do this, you would have to be a witness to these people and the supposed occurrences. Since you aren't that old, then your position is that of assumption and conjecture based on "what you want to be true". I believe the accounts in the Bible, and it is relatively easy to accurately interpret God's word. and secular biblical scholars, really.They are out there. http://drjimsthinkingshop.com/2011/04/on-secular-antiquarianism/ It is within your comments that I can see your inability to accept that a true Christian would abandon their beliefs.Exactly, no one who is a "true" Christian would abandon their faith. The Biblical perspective is my basis, any "true" Christian begins their analysis of the world through the Bible first. You never set your heart on God's word. If you did then doubt would never have ate away your 'beliefs' like a secular cancer. This makes no sense, do you know what dogma is,It the the repetitious statement of a belief without adequate evidence. How then do the compilation of 66 books and thousands of eyewitnesses are not adequate? to boldly state that something will never happen is in itself folly.Like how you say there is no God. You believe there will be no more revelations. Matter does come into existence, it is observable by the effect it has on atoms, called virtual particles they are provable and have been proved without a doubt,Matter is the composition of energy and mass. It is either one or both. An electron is matter, which is in atoms. shown that particle and anti-particles are created out of energy and the energy that creates matter is positive which is counter affected by gravitational forces that lead positive particles to be attracted to each other, two particles that are closer have less energy than two that are further apart as they have to use energy to repel each other in the presence of gravity leading to a universal energy of 0 thus matter does come into existence all the time, but anti matter also does and they cancel each other out.This entire theory is based on the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Both of which comprise matter. This does not answer the question of the original creation of the mass and energy (matter). Anti matter has not been proven much like dark matter and dark energy. They have only been hypothesized to explain discrepancies in the Big Bang theory. What would you accept as a transitional fossil, there are many, Goggle Australopithecus or anything in the Homo lineage.I am well aware of Lucy and the fact that she is clearly an ape. How many humans have locking wrists, curled toes and fingers, and tilted spinal base. Not to mention cranial capacity far short of human. This is an ape in every sense of the word. There is absolutely no indication of a transition. To understand evolution is to know that there has to be countless gradations from one form to another, there are plenty of Fossils that prove evolution such as tiltaalik, archeopteryx or the aforementioned fossils of homo habilis and their like, or even living beings such as platypus, or the fact that a whale has hind limbs etc.Tell me what are the evidences? The whale to land animal is based on a skull, not a skeleton or fossil imprints. Most of the Habilis "family" are based on fragments of bones or teeth. Tell me more of your evolutionary faith. Biblical witnesses are not evidence of anythingAnd your evidence is? Wait, or is that just your opinion? most accounts of Jesus were written by men that did not even live at the same time as Jesus.They were written by the next generation of the Apostles. I would rely on that more then I would supposed billions of years far beyond observable history. The old testament goes completely against scientific knowledge,In what way is that? Also Naturalism in the methodological sense is scientific law, it is in essence the scientific method. A method that sees natural phenomena explained through experimentReally, can you re-create the Big Bang in a lab? Or primordial evolution into humans? No you can't and therefore it is not operational science. It is assumption based on assumptions. It is like stellar evolution which teaches billions of unobservable years based on spectroscopy. Also the genetic diversity of man can not be explained by the combination of genes of two or so people.Yes it can, those first two people carried the genetic variants in their DNA and reproduced to create diversity. Evil is defined by man, god's laws are a creation of man, a primitive method to police the ignorant, yet again there is no evidence of God's existence, none. By the way it is a contradiction, one of many.And how do you prove it is not the inspired word of God? You continually ignore those witnesses in the Bible. You discredit them based on your opinion nothing more. I think you'll find that God presents many contradictions, I've already provided you with an explanation as to why, but you argue that there is no grounding in my statements,What contradictions are these? There is no ground for your statements as I have rebutted them. You just refuse to acknowledge the truth. as I infer that God is fictitious then your evidence of the Bible is in valid, as the unprovable words of men.Your inference is nothing more then your opinion.