dont you just love it, cloud? the government steels your money, wastes all of it, and now when you criticize it, you're biting the hand that feeds you.

"hehehheh. This is pretty far out there man"

its not far-fetched at all. its fact. there is no way to tell anything you sense to really exist, unless you define existing by what you sense. if you disagree with that, explain why please.

"At least it's a bit better than most responses I end up getting, which typically is "God works in mysterious ways""

the explanation i gave, was by no means an explanation for what happens in the world. im not justifying the bad, by saying, "there is no proof the bad is happening" im saying, you put too much importance on requiring proof in the argument against Religion, when atheists believe in just as many things that are not proven.

life is a personal journey, being christian, or jewish, or atheist is simply a reflection of what values you personally uphold in that journey, (none more valid then any other)  it has nothing to do with what a certain chapter of the bible says or whether Noah was real or fictional or a pagan. it doesnt even have anything to do with whether Jesus or God exists.

"I don't doubt this. Because this is true, God could potentially exist in a 4th or 5th or 1024th dimension, right? So because there is potential for this, and because your family, friends, priest told you so (please see Frenzy's post for good examples of this), you choose to believe that he does exist, created the world and all that's in it, he is watching over you and he does love you. Interesting."

wrong. there is no reason to believe God doesn't exist in this dimension, the fact that there could be multiple dimensions doesnt change this. i am merely pointing out, that while there is no proof of God, there is no proof of anything other then your own mind existing and some form of stimulus.

"It's fair enough to say they may have liked slavery. Did they like slavery and find justification for it in the Bible, or do they like the Bible and then after reading passages such as these decide that slavery was ok?"

i stopped looking at the sources when the first one listed was Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States of America, if there is one, where you think had no bias to try to interpret the bible as pro-slavery, please post his name. and the quote you have of him saying the bible encourages slavery.

"Why did you put the words "Murder" and "exists" together??"

typo. although it could work, because Murder is basically, when killing someone is wrong, so if whether killing somone might not be wrong, murder might not exist, but it was just a typo though. 

"was talking about the slavery thing. A Christian man would presumably have better morals that a slave-driver/owner; yet he abandons those morals and provides instructions on how to keep slaves in order to popular with slave owners or prevent bad things happening to himself. Does that sound very Christain-like?"

i had a hard time describing it. the writer doesnt necessarily think all slavery is wrong, whats important is that the message the of the writer was step towards a slavery is wrong mentality. also, the writer wasnt a christian, the old testament happened before Jesus, so all the Writers were Jews. just like, the person who wrote and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, might not of believed you should turn the other cheek when someone strikes, you, but its a step in that direction.

"We have telescopes and satelites and spaceships and all sorts of instruments"

i'll try to be alittle more obvious. how do you know what you see exists? your eyes send signals to your brain that your brain interprets as something. so, everything that you have seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched, are really just your brain  or mind reacting to stimulus. there is no evidence that what your mind interprets is what actually exists, unless you want to define reality by what people's minds interpret from stimulus, inwhich case, theres are billions of realities, some where God exists and some where God doesnt exist; some where murder is wrong, some where killing a 6 year old for no real reason isnt wrong.

"for example I believe that both halos and (edit: specific) holidays were convinently adopted from previous religions/traditions."

i dont understand your problem with that. the church doesnt say Jesus was born on December 25th; christians just celebrate Jesus's birth on December 25th.

"Is it not un-Christian like to abandon one's morals in order to gain favour with other people."

starting traditions of celebrations at convenient times isnt abandoning one's morals.

"hahahaha. 'Murder is wrong' is a personal opinion, just as 'God exists' is a personal opinion"

wow, im amazed you said that. so beleiving or not beleive in God is no different then beleiving or not beleiving Murder exists?

"while 'the earth moves around the sun' is a proven fact. Please continue avo"

woah, woah, hold on there, cowboy. you claim the earth moves around the sun is proven fact. thats a stretch for me. dont get me wrong, i BELEIVE the earth orbits the sun (i think orbit was the word you were looking for) but our senses are not perfect, as many optical illusions can prove to you; all that is truly fact is that your mind exists and that its receiving stimulus that you interpret as reality.

"The response to that is simple. You're asking for a normative (one ought to do x), but you can't derive an ought from an is, as Hume demonstrated. So justifying the empirical method depends on something other than an ought, which you have for whatever reason considered unacceptable."

you're self-defeating youself. you determine oughts through empiricism but admit you cant justify empiricism itself through your system, to follow your system is to go against it. you believe that you should only believe things that can be empirically proven (you're determining oughts through empiricism); so how can you empirically prove that you should only believe things that can be empirically proven (which is also an ought that contradicts your first ought)?

"Agreed. That's why we have to make do with things that we can observe/test to decide for ourselves (some people can't) as to whether or not to believe. If we can't test it, we can't observe it, and all we have is some guy telling us about it, then we get a very poor foundation."

how can you empirically test murder is wrong? you cant, so, using this logic, no one should believe murder is bad, because you cant empirically test it. edit, also, you dont simply beleive there is no evidence that there is a God, you beleive that there is no God, despite no empirical evidence.

"well-placed people"

what are well placed people?

"I am waiting for you to provide me with the correct interpretation."

there is no correct interpretation, but here is mine.

your quotes recognize passages in the bible regulating slavery. the well educated people, the people that could write, were high in the rung's of society and were greatly biased against slavery. anti-slavery propaganda would not survive the culture. instead, the bible encouraged a step in the right direction, where you dont enslave your own people specifically in the quote you gave, and others in other biblical quotes. to take a passage that is telling people not to enslave people of your country, as pro-slavery is the type of twist, to the bible i've been talking about.  you can see another example of this, where the author asks for one step in a certain direction, and a future author asks for another step in that direction with the old testament teaching an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth which is much better then the rediculous things they were doing people for minor things; but later, once that has taken hold, Jesus goes further, and says when someone strikes you, to turn the other cheek.

"You didn't answer why, if God and Allah are the same, do their holy scriptures tell you to kill each other?"

they dont. and you can continue to take things out of context, and twist them to try to disprove religion, but the only one you're fooling is yourself.

"ie following everyone else is what makes you believe in him."

the only reason you believe anything you believe is because of what other people have done, and you're just following.

"The evidence is always mounting for science."

religion and science are not at war and have never been at war.

"why didn't you choose Allah"

allah is God, the god of Muslims, Jews, and Christians are one in the same.    if you meant why didnt i pick islam, i think its a reverance to my ancestors, the same reason why i feel attached to my country and my language.

"But he doesn't exist."

what makes you believe that? what evidence do you have? none. typically atheists choose to live in a world where everyone is delusional, because they need the self-esteem, they need to think they're better then the vast majority of people

"Like the examples given in the bible? At the risk of going backwards, the Bible says you are allowed to hold slaves"

christian values do not reflect that of having slaves. i doubt there is a single story in the bible that it was the writers intention to justify slavery. yes, theres slavery in the bible, but as i have pointed out earlier, the bible is not a history book, and while reading it, you should be trying to interpret the message the writer is trying to portray.

"but beliefs based upon tradition and following along because everyone else does, sounds like lack of choice and a bit sheepish."

well, do you BELEIVE  the color green is green? you're just a sheep. do you beleive murder is wrong? you're just a sheep. do you beleive there is no God? you're just a sheep. use you're logic. escaping influence is pointless, yes, you could claim green is black and black is green, and you could claim murder is the only ethical thing to do to someone who has a cold and you're beleifs would have no less merit; or you could simply look at the merit of beliefs, and mold your own beliefs off of them. Christianity is a great set of beliefs and values.

"So because I believe in Jesus I am now Christian?"

beleiving someone exists is not the same thing as beleiving in them. if you beleived in Jesus and believed everything else you stated, you would fit the definition of a christian.

"Why bother with the 10 commandments?"

because you're obviously not a christian; why do you beleive murder is wrong? why do you have values when logically you cant deduce values?

"sway =/= control."

"a controlling influence"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sway

"I'm going to allow someone else to answer this one for me. It's a video clip about 30sec or so long:
http://www.truveo.com/Jesus/id/2670744822"

well, the gospels and much of the new testament was passed down through text. the oral ones was largely if not solely the old testament. although i do not dispute the fact that the stories prove nothing.