Here is what i said follwed by his response:there is no debate for one reason.

You cannot provide a shred of crediable evidence that God exists. Your argument must rely on faith or belief without evidence.

want to try something new in this post.  take it down a notch from all the curriculum and evidence from each side.... sit down and tell us why you personally agree or disagree with religion without the use of works sited.

it's not that you can't use facts to support your points but i want the meat of why.  i want to give everyone the freedom to put down our guards and tell a story of what impacted you the most or a thought of why we believe what we do.  what was the breaking point or what was your personal proof?

too often we got lost in what ways to debate another person and we don't slow down and have a conversation.   you can get crazy if you want in here cause the box is boundless, step out here and lets embrace the sincerity of our minds.

Hello,

First off, I will say that I am a Christian and watched the opening arguments for the debate (will watch the rest later) and wanted to drop by and pose a question or two to begin with and go from there.

So, here we go

1) Kelly stated that Atheism is a lack of belief and therefore that makes everyone an atheist because, for example, I don't believe in Zeus.

JH) Actually, what I don't believe in is that Zeus is a god. I believe he was a mythological being that many people worshipped, but that is not my question. My question is that what you believe an Atheist is? I ask because webster's dictionary defines an Atheist as "one who believes that there is no deity" which is what I always thought an Atheist was. Just want to understand where you come from?

To theists...

Do you believe your beliefs require complete faith or do you believe your beliefs are supported by scientific proof? If so what scientific proof do you have?

Okay, I have noticed in various threads on this site, that some atheists seem keen to blame everything that is wrong with the world on religion.  I will be the first to admit that religion and politics should be separate.  I want freedom to believe what I believe.  However, some people seem to think (and this is an assumption) that the world would be perfect and happy without religion.  People have blamed everything from the AIDS epidemic in Africa to all types of cultural and racial oppression and other such tragedies.  Here is my question:  Is it held by a general majority that religion is always bad?  Sure, some negative things are directly caused by religion, (same sex marriage laws, the Phelps family, etc.).  However, religions are not always bad.  And I don't know of any connection between the AIDS epidemic in Africa and the Pope.. (but I could be wrong).  It just frustrates me that people just go off on religion as though religions are the sixth reich. 

This editorial was in today's St. Louis Post Dispatch from a local contributor.

The writer basically states that placating religion is the way to achieve world peace. She asserts Europe is in serious trouble because of their efforts to keep society secular and encouraging religious beliefs to be private.

I found it interesting that she asserts muslims in secular societies only have a choice between militant atheism or militant islam. This is a complete non-sequiter, the article pretty much started my morning off right by completely pissing me off.

"Suppressing religion is not the key to world peace
BY COLLEEN CARROLL CAMPBELL

Thursday, Jun. 07 2007

I recently returned from a cultural exchange program in Switzerland, where I
spent my days admiring alpine vistas, eating too many truffles and trying to
explain American religiosity to puzzled Europeans.

Gently — but persistently — my Swiss interlocutors pressed me for answers: Why
are Americans so religious? Why does faith play such an important role in
American debates? And why, in an age in which terrorists murder in God's name,
do Americans affirm the value of religion in public life?

Implicit in many of these questions is the view that religion is a divisive
force best quarantined from public life. For many Europeans, this view is
confirmed by their continent's history of religious wars and by the assumption
that all religions and religious beliefs are essentially the same: that is,
essentially irrational and inherently dangerous.

Although atheist regimes from

Stalin's to Mao's made the 20th century the most murderous ever, many
secularists still believe that suppression of religion and rejection of theism
are the keys to world peace.

Attempts to eradicate religion's influence appeal to secular Europeans facing
the threat of Islamic extremism. After witnessing bombings in Madrid and
London, riots in France and worldwide violence to protest Danish cartoons, many
Europeans believe such incidents can be combated only with aggressive
secularization laws such as France's ban on religious apparel in state
schools.

That law, which sparked a fierce Muslim backlash, illustrates a deeply rooted
distinction between contemporary American and European approaches to religion.

Unlike Europeans, Americans never have had an established national church. Our
democratic experiment began as a quest for religious and political freedom, not
as a rejection of religion. Our founding documents explicitly refer to God and
draw on a Judeo-Christian worldview to assert the dignity and equality of all.

This heritage of defending religious freedom while affirming religious faith
explains our American tendency to see faith as a source of liberty rather than
tyranny and as a marker of individual identity that still allows for a common
civic heritage. From this heritage came our tradition of welcoming the diverse
religious beliefs of immigrants, while insisting that they accept the
fundamental values of our democratic society.

Our nation and its immigrants have not always achieved this assimilation ideal.
But a key factor in our success has been our vibrant religious marketplace.
This marketplace tends to marginalize and moderate extremist voices by forcing
them to compete with more reasonable religious voices and appeal to shared
values in the public square.

Our insistence on dealing with religious conflicts through vigorous debate,
rather than through state-sanctioned gag rules, makes life messy, but it also
undercuts the appeal of violent extremism. While Muslims in rigidly secular
societies must choose between militant atheism and militant Islam, Muslims in
America have other alternatives. Not surprisingly, they tend to be more
assimilated, tolerant and content than their European counterparts.

A recent Pew poll confirmed this, finding that most American Muslims have a
positive view of society, believe they can be devout Muslims while living in a
modern society and report no religious discrimination.

The picture is not entirely rosy: Eight percent of American Muslims and 15
percent of American Muslims under 30 believe suicide bombings are justified at
times. Those are alarming numbers, but the fact that they are significantly
higher in Europe suggests that Islamic extremism flourishes more in the vacuum
of Europe's staunch secularism than in the competitive marketplace of America's
religious pluralism.

As we confront Islamic extremism at home, we should remember the heritage of
religious freedom that has taught us that the best way to fight bad ideas is
with better ones.

Colleen Carroll Campbell is an author, television host and St. Louis-based
fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Her website is

www.colleen-campbell.com."

There was a recent debate between Rev. Al Sharpton with Christopher Hitchens, while Hitchens was promoting his book “God is not great ". The debate was actually civil, humorous and dare I say I sensed a mutual respect between the two. Hitchens with is passionate distaste for religion and Rev. Sharpton expressing himself with such an elegant calmness, which I have never seen, made this hour and a half program such an enjoyable debate.

I have the utmost respect for Christophers Hitchens relentless attacks on the status quo. Regardless of the fact that I don’t agree with everything he says.

Morality, just jolted this down quickly, I'm sure there's plenty of mistakes in here

knowing the difference between right or wrong. good and bad.

Do something beneficial and you're brain rewards you, with some nice chemicals which makes you feel good. eat reproduce and get rewarded. ( or you can bypass the doing something beneficial and just buy some drugs instead. ecstasy is available from all bad street corners in the red light district ) getting chemically rewarded for eating procreation ect ect. will inspire you to seek these things out to get more chemical rewards.not getting chemically rewarded for doing things would make you less inspired to do them. Natural selection has rewarded the individuals that have evolved the chemical reward system. Those that didn't evolve the system ain't around to tell us about it

Close physical contact with another animal from the same species releases chemicals which makes you feel good docile, If it didn't and you're a social animal relying upon group protection.natural selection would kill you off
If an animal from the same species took a bite out of you. this would release chemicals which would make you feel bad pain. If it didn't you just get eaten natural selection has killed you off
This also works with animals from other species. pet a cat and you feel good. cat bites you yada yada. Of course this works vice versa as well the cat wouldn't be too happy if you took a bite out of it. but it's extremely happy if you tickle it behind its ears

So you have two chemicals in yar head ( there are more but let's keep it simple for the mo ) docile/pain or good/bad

When in a social group
You can benefit from interactions within the social group. you pick fleas off your neighbor. your neighbor has less fleas and is a healthyer individual because of it and it has a greater chance of survival. If everybody in the group picks fleas off each other then the group as a whole benefits. Close physical contact releases chemicals which make you feel good. So you feel good and the group benefits and vice versa

Thus morality or you pick fleas off my back. and I'll pick fleas of yours

And it is based on the understanding of mutually beneficial behavior in any social group of animals. good or bad are simple chemical reactions.