[Prometheus]

Thanks for consolidating that. Now that this has it's own topic, we can discuss it alone instead of throwing this debate in on top of other topics.

(1). This point presupposes that god does not exist. This is a logical fallacy. You cannot presuppose this. You must keep the possibility open. In this point you point out that religion requests that you accept a false reality. But since we don't know the reality to be false, this point holds no water.

(2). This is probably the strongest point. The basic principal here is the inconsistancy of religions, and the verification of the correct one. The point you make is that only one religion can be true, and there is no way to pick the right one. The mistake you make here is that the truth of religions is not mutually exclusive. Parts of religions may be true. Basic things like gods existance, an afterlife, right and wrong. These are very consistant themes.

Lets say I go into a classroom of 8 year olds and give a long, detailed lecture on the process of cellular respiration. Then lets say that you test them the next day to see what they retained and understood. Their explinations of the process would vary. None of them would be completely true. But a lot of the basic ideas would be the same. Most would probably understand that you put gluclose in and get ATP out (although some would get that wrong). Fewer would remember how many carbons in a glucose. Mabey only one child would remember that you get 32 net ATP from a glucose. Maybe another sudent argue that you actually get 34. They would both be right, you get 34 gross. The point here is that when truth is revealed by a higher intellegance, lower intellegances often get it wrong. Their stories contradict, and are sometimes blatently false. But it dosen't prove the underlying phenominon we are describing to be false.

Some religions out there do not claim that only they are true. They fit into this model. Some religions claim that only they are right. Well obviously they got at least that one point wrong. Some religions (mine) claim that nearly all religions have truth, but only theirs has all the truth that has been revealed. All of them are an honest possibility within the model I propose above.

You would not say that the 8 years olds were lying when they gave false facts. They are 8. They are not equiped to handle this stuff. It's understandible that thy make mistakes. In relation to god, we would be the same.

(3) You bemoan a different standard for verifying truth. How do we verify truth? Our sences. Science only accepts 5 of those sences for the verivication of truth. Is a spiritual sence not possible? If you accept that this sence can exist, then it is possible to use this sence to verfy a proposition scientifically. Many religions challenge the worshiper to seek verification from this "sixth sence". Let me give you an excerpt from a book of mormon scripture:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth• of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Mormon 10:4

This is a perfectly valid scientific hypothisis if you allow a spiritual sence.

(4) If you can verify a belief (see above) the "offer you can't refuse" can be verified, so there is no lie.

(5) Just gripe that lots of things in lots of religions are false. I already alled for this.

(6) Already addresed exclusivity

(7) Non applicible.