The problem I see with this thread is that you're putting theism into one entire group... If there was only one religion in this world, then we wouldn't have to have separated it from our system of government (U.S.). They are completely taken out of government because there are different religions about with different opinions, so even there, theism squares off against each other, bashing their faith with other faith. We don't allow this to get in the way of government, because it is totally biased against each other.
Hmm...where am I going with this...
...
Okay, I found a reason. Do you wanna know why something, say science, isn't taken out of government? Because it can be accepted by all colors of the rainbow. What Christianity (even different branches of it) might say may be conflicted with Judaism, Islam, Scientology, or even Enchilladotuilluptia. Science can be accepted by one and all, only if you are willing to learn it.
Another concept. If I asked you how many times you would see someone in town trying to convert others to a particular religion, versus someone in the same town trying to convert others to atheism, who would you say does the most? The religion guy, right? It's not just him, but other people that don't preach as well. They use many claims, such as past experiences, what is said in their books, and other forms of "ropaganda" as ways to persuade, influence, or entice others to convert to their religions. We take religion out of the system of government completely so that any and all laws or regulations won't be based on a belief, because obviously, others just won't agree to it. But hey, science doesn't do this, which is a relief. We don't "convert" anyone; we just give the info out, and we let the people decide if they want to learn about the info or not. Nothing in science conflicts with any religion, and people need to know this.
So let's move on to the "info" shall we? All three sides of the triangle have their own claims that serves as a functional basis as to why their beliefs are evident. Religion has their books and emotional and psychological beliefs, atheism has hundreds if not thousands of years of built-up research and development that both adds and takes out their claims, aaaand Agnostics. Well, I'm going to have to say they use both. I'm not sure how else to say it. Agnostic is not a very general term; there are many different forms of it that cannot become a simple definition.
So what is it that we seriously butt heads about our own beliefs and claims for? Too many to type here, that's what. Let's put it simply to say that science believes that religious beliefs are not true in the least. Vice-versa believes that the other is not true. Both use their "evidence" and claims that say can debunk the others' beliefs, and in the end, none of them win. But what separates science from religion. What is true is that science keeps building up on itself, whilst taking away parts of their many claims that are proven to be untrue, and religion remains constant. There is nothing new to be added, unless you are talking about newly-discovered objects that claim to be parts of the religion.
In hopes that someone will actually comment and discuss this debate, I will put this here: There are three main, core ways of denying the existence of God or any other deity:
1. Origin of life, explained in scientific explanation
2. Origin of universe, explained in scientific explanation
3. Origin of what created the universe, explained in scientific explanation
-- Theories and Hypotheses do not count, as they are not proven to be 100% true. Laws count. If you can do these clearly, succinctly, and irrefutably, then you have just disproven the existence of a deity.
-- Using Creationist methods will void your answer.
To PROVE the existence of God, I'll give you two:
1. Reason why animals will choose mates of specific types in order to survive and reproduce under different types of environmental stimuli, using Creationist explanation.
2. Reason why bacteria and other small organisms are becoming more and more resistant to biological chemicals that would otherwise eliminate them, using Creationist explanation.
-- Provide logical reasons why such things would occur under God's hand; you cannot say "He did it because He can", or "He did it so it would be this way", so on and so forth.
-- Using scientific methods will void your answer.
If you can do this with the same manner above, you have just proven the existence of God or other deities.
So before I get done typing this wall o' text, I'm going to remind you that, in order to be a better debater about what you believe in, you need to learn more about beliefs that conflict with yours. Do this properly many many times, and you will become... a masterdebater!
...
*cough*
