First, I'd like to say "Hello" as I am new to the forum. If I do or say anything against the norms, please inform me and I'll attempt to modify my behavior.
I am making this post for a particular reason. That reason is people seem to have the wrong approach to the debate on religion. Whether god exists or not is not relevant. The existence of god does not prove that any particular religion is anything more than a fable.
Also, I have seen a lot of religious people attempt to push the burden of proof on to the denier. This is not a correct position. Since I am most familiar with Christianity, I will address that religion first. The logic applies to all other religions though.
A Christian advocate is in the position that of claiming something that defies science is true. I could pick any book in the bible and point out an impossibility but for my purposes I'll simply pick one. Resurrection. According to all research done, a person can not simply be brought back to life after their brain has been deprived of oxygen for a short period of time. The longer the individuals brain goes with out oxygen, the more damage received. Complete brain failure would occur in a matter of minutes.
The idea that a man came back to life after being dead for a prolonged period of time is physically impossible. To explain this physical impossibility requires a religious person to fall back on "god did it". However, this is not an explanation with out first showing 1. That god exists. 2. That god was capable of doing it. 3. That god actually did do it.
I hope this helps to illustrate the problem with the religious debate in many of these threads.
If you wish to prove that your religion is right, the burden of proof is on you, not on the denier.