A Challenge to any atheist

 A CHALLENGE TO THE MOST EDUCATED AND CAPABLE ATHEISTS In the above article, I have proved that atheism did not have an earthly and human origin, but had its origin from satan before this state of time. Out of all the responses I have received from atheists, not one has been able to intelligently and credibly dispute that fact. They are confounded that they cannot come up with a human author and earthly time of existence for their atheism. They are quick to erroneously claim that the TEN COMMANDMENTS were authored by a human, and some of them claim that Moses authored them, but they cannot name an earthly author and time of origin for their own philosophy.

Why are atheists so quick to try to attach a human to the TEN COMMANDMENTS when they cannot do so to their own philosophy? If Satan is not atheism’s author and atheists cannot pinpoint a human author, perhaps their atheism came into being by a cataclysmic explosion. LOL! Or perhaps atheism brought itself into existence by its own prior nonexistence. LOL!

So I have two bold challenges for atheists: If satan is not the author of atheism, I hereby challenge the most educated and capable of them to prove that satan is not its author and prove that it had an earthly origin. I also challenge atheists to prove that the TEN COMMANDMENTS were authored by a human. Before you try the latter impossibility, read my article titled: “God is the Author of the TEN COMMANDMENTS”.

About these ads
Explore posts in the same categories: A Challenge to any Atheist

115 Comments on “A Challenge to any atheist”

  1. why am I even wasting my time? Says:

    Democritus and the Atomists were the first Atheists. I guess you can go ahead and say that they were inspired by Satan, but you can say that of any philosophy. If you want me to prove anything you have to give a reasonable criteria of proof. What would convince you that Satan did not inspire Atheism, or that the ten commandments were written by a man? If I don’t know what will convince you then I really don’t know where to start.


  2. Democritus also believed that different tastes were a result of differently shaped atoms in contact with the tongue….(A true whack job)
    You are right, I can say that Atheism is inspired by Satan as it has no known origin in the annals of the human race, but you stand corrected on the latter half about “any philosophy.”
    The ten commandments were inspired by God,and I don’t know what it would take in the face of all of the evidence to convince you of that either?
    A man convinced against his own will remains a man unconvinced.
    Whether you stay unconvinced is of no concern to me.This blog is about God, and your hatred for him.

    • Lithp Says:

      Of course, you are aware that Democritus did not have access to electron microscopes, particle beams, cathode rays, or any other modern machine to analyze the quantum universe, so him arriving to the conclusion that atoms existed at all is quite impressive, aren’t you?

      The fact that he got things wrong doesn’t mean he was a “whackjob.” He made the best theories with the data that he had. Even when we had these machines, we’ve had to discover the atom’s components one by one, with as much as decades between each.

      And even the things he got “wrong,” you might want to take a closer look at. An object’s properties, including taste, are in fact determined by the shape of the molecule.


      • *sigh*…Are these real questions, or are are you simply trying to avoid the discussion with a feeble Red Herring?

      • Lithp Says:

        They aren’t questions, they are facts phrased as questions. I am simply pointing out that you are rather ignorant of a man who was much smarter than…well, to be honest, probably anyone in this blog.

        As for them being a red herring? You’ve already been given multiple answers. I may have attributed some, or someone else may have said everything I felt like saying. Either way, you’ve categorically ignored every explanation that wasn’t “atheism comes from Satan,” so you aren’t engaged in a discussion, you’re merely monologuing.


      • “Either way, you’ve categorically ignored every explanation that wasn’t “atheism comes from Satan,”

        Tit for tat my friend.
        Only one of us can be right, and I say that it’s me.

  3. why am I even wasting my time? Says:

    I thought I just gave an example of a human origin for the philosophy of Atheism in Democritus. I do not stand corrected at all in my statement that you can say that about any philosophy. In order for me to stand corrected you would have to say something that refutes my statement and you haven’t. It makes no difference whether I can be convinced of your point of view about the ten commandments or not. If you do not give me some reasonable criteria of proof by which you would be convinced of the human origin of the ten commandments then it is unfair to challenge any one to convince you. Since you put up the challenge, you should put up the conditions by which the challenge will be met. This statement “a man convinced against his own will remains a man unconvinced” could be just as easily said about you. You seem to have a lot of hatred in your heart as well. Are you sure that you are the best person to be railing against it? After all, don’t you believe in the golden rule? I sure do, even if I don’t believe in it’s divine origin. I guess that makes me a better Christian. Peace brother.

  4. Michael Says:

    You stand corrected on all of your statements, and I have handed you all of the answers on a silver platter, but true to form to the God Hater you are, you chose to simply stick your head in the sand like an ostrich choosing to deny the truth, and blinding yourself with your head stuck firmly in the dirt.The conditions were posted and you failed to address them.
    Checkmate,
    Peace brother

  5. why am I even wasting my time? Says:

    I’m sorry. I’ve scoured the entire article and cannot find any conditions by which you would be convinced of the human origin of the ten commandments. Perhaps I have misunderstood something. Since you apparently handed me these conditions on a silver platter I must be incredibly stupid to not be able to find them. Well, my mistake. Indeed you have won this round. I don’t know why or how. But you said you did, and I guess I’m as dumb as a pile of rocks so it must be the case. Good luck with the preaching and what not. Hopefully you can incite more hatred for Atheists and make the world a better place.


  6. When will you learn that 10 minutes on an atheist web page, and denial of facts in good old black and white in the face of evidence does not make you a Biblical expert.You see, this is the best you have for an argument. You are
    a fool, who seeks to destroy PEOPLE, not arguments.You think that people should take you seriously and yet, you act like an immature little child. This is because you realize that you would not be able to go toe to toe with someone who has a brain.You God-haters are so predictable. If you can get someone emotional, you can point to how emotional they are and then claim that they are a nut case, not because of ones point of view, but because of how one is reacting.You God-Haters do this, because you know that you cannot defend your point of view. If you could and if it was a reasonable point of view, then you wouldn’t play these games, but rathe r, would treat others respectfully and have an intelligent, mature conversation with them.It’s a game God-Haters play. It’s like when two people argue and you overhear it.If one yells, then that one is automatically wrong in everyone’s eyes.They lose sight of the actual issue and focus on the yelling. Here, they want to lie and tell everyone that you’re a whiner, thereby labeling you as unreasonable. Understand what I mean? :)

    • Kira Says:

      When will you learn that 10 minutes on an atheist web page, and denial of facts in good old black and white in the face of evidence does not make you a Biblical expert.
      ————–

      When you learn that reading a bible for ten minutes doesn’t make you a biblical expert.

      You are
      a fool, who seeks to destroy PEOPLE, not arguments.
      —————-

      See what I mean?
      If you would have read your bible you would that calling someone a fool was an offence worthy of hellfire.

      Jesus himself called the atheist a fool.
      You hate God so yeah I guess you’d be correct in certain respects.
      Sorry for calling you an atheist….. you God hater.

      • Lithp Says:

        I have a better question: When will this guy learn that spouting off stereotypes like it’s a basic bodily function only exposes his own ignorance?

        Yet another of the most wonderful things God has done is hide
        spiritual truth right in front of the eyes of the non-elect. so much
        so that they perceive the things of God as ridiculous. only the
        Master could be of such wisdom and power to accomplish these things.

        untrained and wholly disinterested in the things of God as recorded
        in Holy Scripture, the reprobate suppose themselves to be qualified
        expounders of Sacred Text, enlightening themselves and others from
        darkness just as the Pharisees who were ” blind guide of the blind “.

        ” Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind
        man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” Mt. 15:14

        there it is stated that the elect are not to take it upon themselves
        to correct them… ” let them alone. ”

        using the same ploy as their father the devil, these pervert the
        Word of God to their own ends, which is, to make the Lord God appear
        to be a liar, just as Satan’s recorded utterance from the Garden
        saying… ” indeed, has God said. ”

        it must be remembered that these are held fast in the snare of the
        devil, held captive by him at his will ( 2 Tim. 2:26 ) to which these
        have absolutely no interest to expound on as they do against God
        directly. as soon as Satan tells the truth so will these.

        why then do they find 101 and more contradictions in the Bible while
        the elect find none ? simply because they are liars like their father
        the devil ( Joh. 8:43,44 )… there is no truth in them. the
        Scriptures are closed off from them ( 1 Cor. 1:18; Lk. 8:10 ) God
        resists them ( Jas. 4:6 ) hates them ( Ps. 5:5 ) is angry with them
        everyday ( Ps. 7:11 )

        so, when these post by direction from their father the devil, not
        being capable in the Scriptures since they are devoid of the Holy
        Spirit, the elect ones can shout for joy since these are given by God
        as a sign of salvation to the elect, as well as a sign of damnation to
        them. Php. 1:28.

  7. why am I even wasting my time? Says:

    Yes, I understand exactly what you mean. In fact I agree. When people engage in immature tactics that focus on the people and not the arguments, such as name calling, it does detract from the actual issues. I will refrain from these activities from now on.

    Sincerely,
    The Immature Childish God-Hater

  8. Why am I even wasting my time Says:

    Yes I do understand what you mean. In fact I agree. I think that when people engage in inflammatory tactics that focus on the people, such as name calling, it detracts from the actual issues. I will refrain from doing such things from this point forward. I’m sorry if I have said anything that makes you look unreasonable.

    Sincerely,
    The Immature Childish God-Hater

  9. Doug0 Says:

    I doubt I could name the originator of the non-belief in astrology, witchcraft or the ability to communicate with the dead. We don’t generally challenge people to disprove those beliefs, we accept them as almost certainly non-existent until shown by evidence. God should fall into the same camp.

    Neither can I disprove that God or Satan wrote or didn’t write (at least by inspiration) the Ten Commandment or The Origin of Species. Nor that they weren’t inspired by Jupiter, Thor, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.


  10. Consider this my friend.
    The beliefs that you so lamely justify in an attempt to deflect the tenable reasoning behind the authoring that you cite can be found in the Necroman(sic)and, Satanic Bible, and all have a direct tie to the devil, and hell as their original source.
    You are deluded if you think you can pick and choose the rules that govern the truth.
    Atheism has no known author on the face of the entire planet because it is a demonic ideology.

  11. Matt Says:

    Your supposed proof is faulty at best. What you offered forth is, at best, an example of conjecture … maybe, at a stretch, a loose hypothesis. You offered your own personal guess and looked for evidence to support it – instead of the proper method which is to look at the evidence and then form your conclusion on that.

    And, indeed, you have also fallen for another logical fallacy in that you have failed to properly understand the Burden of Proof principle. You are the one that has made the claim therefore it is up to you to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, not for others to prove the negative.

    I’m just toying with you right now, so try not yo crinkle your uni-brow at me like the angry ittle glob of spittle that you are.
    If only I could find my slippers. Care to find em for me? Good boy!

    But first I have a point to make.
    Your claim that my supposed proof being an example of conjecture is simply an example of you begging the question, and nothing less.That wasn’t the point here. The issue isn’t me proving God exists (proof is different than persuasion). I tried to point out that since atheism cannot be proven to be true and since disproving evidences for God’s existence not prove there is no God, the atheistic position is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God’s existence.
    Again, we deal with what is and is not sufficient evidence and those evidences are subject to atheistic presuppositions. The issue is not that you have proof of God’s non-exisetence.(Of which is logically impossible) The point I was making was dealing with evidences for God of which such evidence exists (whether or not an atheist admits it). We have fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, miracles, the transcendental argument, the argument from entropy, etc. However, to the best of my knowledge, we have absolutely no evidence for a flying Spaghetti monster,dfference between the two is the fact that there are many evidences put forth to support God’s existence and there’s absolutely none put forth for the evidence of an imaginary metaphor and your comparison cannot hold water.

  12. Neal Says:

    I defy you to PROVE, beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt, that Satan exists. Then, prove that atheism had a single creator, instead of simply being the complement to theism throughout history.

    THEN we’ll talk about showing Satan created atheism.

    You are my best testament to being Satan’s existence.
    Along with the sciences of demonic possession given to the world by the Vatican ,and other religions including Islam and Judaism,(All Vatican priests are Phd’s I may add) and the inerrant word of the Bible, as well as the testimony of thousands directly or indirectly involved is plenty of evidence for starters.
    No I I defy you to PROVE, beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt, that Satan does not exist. Then, prove that atheism is not Satan’s ideology for the uninitiated masses, instead of simply being the ignorant putz that you are.
    It’s you verses the hundreds of thousands of witnesses to the supernatural including myeslf.

  13. Robert Walper Says:

    ////////
    So I have two bold challenges for atheists: If satan is not the author of atheism, I hereby challenge the most educated and capable of them to prove that satan is not its author and prove that it had an earthly origin.
    ////////

    Atheism isn’t authored. Atheist is merely a lack of belief. There’s no author for the disbelief of Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Boogyman, Dragons, Unicorns, etc, etc.

    Atheism has no Earthly origins which makes it a highly strange phenomenon, and is addressed logistically in the Bible as having Satan behind it’s authorship.
    Read the entire article and refute it piece by piece,(which you cannot and are unwilling to do) then maybe you’ll prove to me that you are little more than a chattering howler monkey.

    Atheism only exists as a term to describe those who do not believe in what large portions of any human population clain to believe.

    The subject is atheisms author,and you’re losing, hurry up and switch topics again before anybody notices.

    ////////
    I also challenge atheists to prove that the TEN COMMANDMENTS were authored by a human. Before you try the latter impossibility, read my article titled: “God is the Author of the TEN COMMANDMENTS”.
    ////////

    Any educated human being can write words, rules and laws. People are still doing it today.

    “Thou shall not eat chocolate, nor allow one’s fellow soul to eat chocolate.”

    WOW!
    And I’ll show you how the atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
    The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic
    Can the atheist present a logical reason how his worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic? I think not. But, the Christian world view can. The Christian worldview states that God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc. Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles). Is this logically defensible?
    I present this outline in hopes of clarifying the issue and presenting, what I consider, an insurmountable problem of the atheistic worldview. I hesitate to state that this is a proof that God exists, but I think that it is evidence of the Absolute Nature of God.
    This argument is adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen.
    1. How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?
    1. The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth.
    2. Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.
    1. God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God’s thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.
    3. Man, being made in Gods image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them.
    4. Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.
    5. Nevertheless, the atheist might say that in his answer is too simplistic and too convenient. It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.
    2. Examples of the laws of logic
    1. Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
    2. Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be its self and not itself at the same time in the same way and in the same sense.
    3. Law of Excluded Middle: a statement is either true or false. Thus the statement “A statement is either true or false” is either true or false.
    3. How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?
    1. If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to “vote.”
    2. The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
    3. If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
    1. We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.
    1. For example, we do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time.
    1. Why? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn’t exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot.
    2. Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.
    2. Or, where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?
    1. You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all and how can any laws of logic be applied to or derived from observing nothing at all?
    2. The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind and they do not describe physical behavior of things since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
    1. In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things since they reside completely in the mind.
    2. We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don’t watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn’t exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.
    4. If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
    5. If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with.
    6. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
    4. Atheists will use logic to try and disprove Gods existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview.
    1. The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God who is Himself absolute.
    2. But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God.
    1. So, we ask, “How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy and motion?”
    2. In other words, “How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?”
    Conclusion :The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
    The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.
    1. God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
    2. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
    3. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
    4. The are absolute because there is an absolute God.

    The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

  14. Atheist Says:

    So let me get this straight bud…

    You challenge any Atheist to prove that Satan did not create Atheism and that a human wrote the Ten Commandments?

    I honestly can’t believe that there are so many people in the world who still believe this garbage.

    Ad Hominems are not proof and neither are your emotions.
    The fact that the world is predominantly Christian must say something about Christianity’s validity.
    Christianity: 2.1 billion
    Islam: 1.3 billion
    Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
    Hinduism: 900 million

    I challenge YOU sir to provide undeniable proof that Satan DID create Atheism. Bring him on up from the Underworld and have him address the whole world! What’s that? You can’t do that? Of course you can’t! You know why? Because you’re living in an insane dreamworld.

    I challenge you to prove that he is not the originator of atheism, and that you are not his spawn.
    Atheism has no author.
    The Bible showed it as being Satan’s author thousands of years ago, and the fact has yet to be broken.
    Argued against but never broken.
    Atheists have yet to break the cycle.
    Speaking of atheists of which you are not,practical atheists don’t come into hostile territory.
    God-Haters do.
    You hate your God
    Textual evidence = 1
    Your claim = 0

    How can people like you sit around and swallow everything religion pukes at you? How can you not believe in evolution, when there is PROOF! You simply don’t want to be wrong. You’re afraid that there really ISN’T a God or a Heaven. What would it mean if God didn’t really exist?

    Tired of being a blowhard? Then lay it out for me. Describe to me all
    of these imaginary creatures you *know* existed in the grand march from
    a small land mammal to a whale. And tell me how each successive
    creature was better adapted than the last.
    If you can’t do that — then you’re full of crap.

    “Oh no! We’ve been completely wrong this whole time? We’ve been complete idiots and believed every single lie the church threw at us? Well shucks Norma…looks like them Atheists were right all along…”

    Every last one of you is so quick to jugde everyone else based on their beliefs. Ever stop to remember how many priests have been linked to molesting little altar boys?

    Then they weren’t priests were they?
    They were pretenders just like yourself.
    Ever wonder how many innocent souls atheists and God-Haters have Killed?
    Here is a short list of your religions 20th century Genocide:

    http://bp1.blogger.com/_k85DLLhZWsw/RiBHJX62_vI/AAAAAAAAAA8/YlNeOPsR8oA/s1600-h/Atheism+Kills.gif

    Men of the cloth? God-fearing men? I’m not saying that no Atheists have ever committed such atrocities…but I’m certainly telling you to look at your own belief system’s history. Religious people can be so hypocritical it’s disgusting. And for you to come on a website every day to tell the world how wrong Atheism is is even more sickening. Are you missing something so important in your life that you need to judge people who don’t believe the same things that you do? Are you that much of an ignorant cretin that you feel the need to come on here and constantly try and prove that Atheists are immoral?

    It’s different though, when an atheist fails to accept or distorts the truth because they can always claim that they are “logical”, “rational”, and “un-biased”. Yeah, whatever….I never said that all atheists are immoral,I merely stated that they have no moral compass to guide them.Does becoming an atheist make a person a better human being? Does not believing in God prompt or inspire a person to positive actions. Christianity (and other religions) can point to many, many people whose lives were changed for the better by adopting the faith. Can atheism make the same claim? Can atheists point to examples of people who have had their lives positively changed? Have any drug addicts given up their addictions as a result of discarding religion? Have any thieves stopped stealing and started earning an honest living as a result of becoming infidels? Have any abusive husbands stopped beating their wives as a result of abandoning a belief in God?While I have made several negative comments on atheists on this blog, it wasn’t atheists, but secular/religious humanists (reactionary or socialist atheist types), such as yourself that I was referring to. Their various “manifestos” stated intention is nothing less than the total deconstruction of western society, the destruction of the United States, its culture and national sovereignly. It seeks to impose a socialist “world” government in place of the US Constitution. This to me is nothing less than treason.

    What they can rarely manage to be, however, is logical, or rational, or
    unbiased. Indeed it is hilarious to note that they keep repeating, in
    set phrases, atheist slogans like ‘think for yourself’! People who
    think for themselves do not need to talk in elderly slogans.

    If there is a God, I hope he strikes you down for being such a hateful person to a number of “His own creatures”. Sounds like you need to follow your “Book” and maybe forgive people for not being sheep like the rest of you.

    And I hope that the light off God shines in your life and that you find Christ.You sound devoid of life, and your hatred for religion has you tossing and turning at night.

    Oh, one more thing. If Jesus were to make his glorious appearance once again…how many of you do you think would actually believe it? Charles Manson claimed to be Jesus and look where he is. And how many people have claimed to have spoken with God? I bet you there are alot of them living on the streets of New York rambling to themselves.

    The bottom line is that you sir, are insane.

    LOL!
    Nihilism is your God, and insanity is your answered prayer.It is apparent, from your definition of atheism, that atheism and theism exist in the same relationship as evil and good. Atheism cannot exist without theism, and evil cannot exist without good. But theism can get along perfectly well without atheism, and good can get along perfectly well without evil. Also, atheism opposes theism, and where atheism is firmly rooted, it destroys theism. Similarly, evil opposes
    good, and where evil is firmly rooted, it destroys good. A relationship of one entity to another wherein the first entity cannot survive without the second, while the second can survive perfectly well without the first, and wherein the first entity, where firmly rooted, destroys the second, is called parasitic. Thus, according to your definitions atheism exists in a parasitic relationship to theism. It owes its existence to theism as a necessary condition, and it is parasitic to it, i.e. deriving sustenance from it but making no good return, and detrimenting its host.Atheism is a cancer on the human race.

    Oh and btw–How did you get an Email like that?(scavengerofhumansorrow@hotmail.com |) Fits you like a glove.

  15. Atheist Says:

    you have not said a single thing that has made any sense so far, sir.

    Once again by whose criteria?
    If you answer as to yours I’d have to question the validity of the person doing the questioning that’s all.
    Your ability to judge anothers rationale is in serious doubt, and cannot be used aqainst me in an argument of logic.

    my mother believes in God, but does not look down upon people as pathetically as you do. my father is agnostic. he’ll believe it when he sees it. me? i don’t believe in anything. i live my life peacefully, not bothering anyone with any delusional beliefs in a being that has yet to be proven exists.

    The very fact that you are here arguing against something you claim does not exist makes you a scared believer.For starters,you are exactly what a recovering fundamentalist should not become: an anti-fundamentalist fundamentalist. Anti-theists (and I do not necessarily mean atheists here) are often what I call “dry fundamentalists“—folks who refuse to do the hard work of leaving the pain of fundamentalism behind, opting instead to get stuck railing against their past.

    again, the bible was written by men. who was to say the greeks were wrong in believing in all of their gods? all of a sudden jesus comes along and everyone forgets about poor dionysus and zeus. religion is a crutch for people too weak to think for themselves. you’ve been force fed this stuff since you were born and lack the willpower to break away from it and realize that your beliefs will forever be uncertain. for that, i feel sorry for you.

    Strawman argument aside,you claim that you are using “Logic” and “Science” to disprove God’s inerrant book, The Holy Bible, however where do you think that Logic comes from? Logic and reason only exist because they are gifts from God, and any attempt to rationalize a universe which is not ordained by Jesus is ultimately self-defeating.You also say that God does not exist – however this cannot possibly be true because every single Christian in the world has a personal relationship with Jesus. We can all talk with Jesus because he is our personal savior, and he is 100% real. How dare you deny our Lord’s existence just because Jesus has not revealed himself to your closed, cold heart. Because the Bible is inspired by God, (breathed life into) it is also inerrant. This means that the Bible is without error, in the original documents and that everything that it addresses is without error in fact or understanding. The Bible is not a scientific book, but what it says scientifically is accurate:

    The spherical shape of the earth (Isaiah 40:22).
    The earth is suspended in nothing (Job. 26:7).
    The stars are innumerable (Gen. 15:5).
    The existence of valleys in the seas (2 Sam. 22:16).
    The existence of springs and fountains in the sea (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Prov. 8:28).
    The existence of water paths (ocean currents) in the seas (Psalm 8:8).
    The water cycle (Job. 26:8; 36:27-28; 37:16; 38:25-27; Ps. 135:7; Ecc. 1:6-7).
    The fact that all living things reproduce after their own kind (Gen. 1:21; 6:19).
    The nature of health, sanitation, and sickness (Gen. 17:9-14; Lev. 12-14).
    The concept of entropy, that energy is running down (Psalm 102:26).
    Furthermore, no archaeological discoveries have ever proven anything in the Bible wrong. It is accurate as a historical record.

    it’s amazing the arguments you come up with…

    Translation:You don’t like the truth.Atheists often deny that they are part of an international conspiracy with their allies the Islamofascists, the Homosexuals and their masters: The Satanists. The conspiracy has it’s own website with an alarmingly huge membership. Next time you try to convince someone of your false claims that your beliefs are harmless show them this site! Note that they appear unsure that Satan exists: This is all part of Satan’s evil plan to cast doubt in America.

    you challenge me to prove i am not satan’s spawn? are you serious? how do i know satan didn’t spawn you?

    Because you are a God-Hater that denies God,and I am a Christian

    how does anyone know you’re not secretly doing the devil’s work and only pretending to despise “god haters”? oh by the way, you also mentioned that i hate my god. sorry friend, i don’t hate something that i don’t believe in.

    Because you are a God-Hater that denies God,and I am a Christian

    i don’t hate santa claus or the easter bunny because i don’t believe in them.

    Santa is just a strawman. Either your perspective or mine MUST be wrong.

    those two fictional characters can be perfectly related to this debate.

    Sounds like an undisciplined imagination to me.

    some people though them up in their heads, told the stories, and look how long they stuck! parents from generation to generation have been telling their children that santa claus brings them presents, and that the easter bunny brings them chocolate eggs…but kids grow out of that bud. not to mention that alot of parents that tell their kids these stories are religious…isn’t telling innocent children these stories lying?

    You use your religious faith extensively as evidence by the fact that you are willing to put your faith in anything but God.

    parents have also been telling their children the story of the baby Jesus and how there is an almighty power watching over us at all times. is it not fair to assume that some children will eventually outgrow such stories as well? of course not! anyone who doesn’t believe the “word of God” is obviously a god-hater and satan’s spawn!

    as for evolution: you obviously lack the mental capacity to understand the concept. it is (no matter how much you deny it) not difficult to picture the evolution of man. we’ve even seen evidence of fish who have evolved in the deepest parts of the ocean, adapting to the darkness by growing skin over their useless eyes and gaining hightened senses. or maybe God did that just because he figured they didn’t need eyes since it’s so dark down there. man evolving from sea creatures, to mammals, to what we currently are is definitely plausible. a talking snake and two naked people however, is not.

    Strawman aside Evolution will be dead within in 10 years.I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those changes in the first place.
    Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the
    veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess,
    suppose, etc. but they don’t “know.” Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that
    only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.
    Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not. Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man!
    Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.” The fossil record offers evidence of both abrupt and gradual transitions. I assume that all college professors
    know that Darwin admitted the same fact. I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher! Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.” All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them.Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been “discarded” and is considered a “phantom” and “illusion” because it is not proof of evolution. Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Not one. Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig, not an ape
    man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired “ape man.”

    come to think of it, from the numerous conversations i’ve had with religious people…yes even priests…you sound like the kind of person that would be immediately looked down upon. judging non-believers so harshly and so brutally. you’re nothing but a religious bully, and quite frankly, i find it nothing short of hilarious.

    You sound upset. Do you know what the word ‘hilarious” means?
    If you did then you’d know that you fit the definition as well as anyone else.
    You see, for simpletons it’s easy to dismiss anothers argument (for themselves at least) by passing this label onto someone they dislike, and do not agree with.In their feeble mind it makes their job easier to rant about something they believe is the truth w/o paying credit to the oppositions thought or logic.Though the object of their content is not a troll,they like to pejoratively label their opposition as such due to their innate lack of logic and debating skills.
    You fit the label.
    Wear it well my friend.
    It’s all you have.

    nihilism seems pretty appealing now that i’ve read some of your writings. judging by your attitude towards people who think for themselves, this world is never going to get any better. so call me satan’s spawn if you will, but i know in my heart that i am a decent human being. it’s people like you that keep this world so full of hate. and to answer your question regarding my e-mail: it’s a song. but no doubt listening to the kind of music i listen to is undeniable proof that i am the spawn of satan. pure madness.

    by the way, does it not say in the reply section that e-mail will not be published? sounds like someone was running out of bad things to say about the little god-hater in the end and had to resort to childish insults.

    Judging for the tone and content of your post one would have to say that you are just the opposite of what you claim to be.Since you offer nothing in support of this claim besides sweeping (and disfigured) generalizations (e.g., “Like all creationist whom are misguided, you certainly fit the cake.”), it remains unqualified and unsubstantiated, as does the balance of your message.

  16. Jason April Says:

    Babies don’t believe in God. Therefore we are all born atheists.

    First strawman reference
    Therefore atheism is natural.

    second strawman reference
    No one can prove who wrote the ten commandments. Maybe Satan did. Prove that he didn’t. You can’t.
    3rd Strawman reference

    The best we can do as fallible human beings is look for evidence, a.k.a. facts. There’s no evidence for God, therefore there’s no reason to believe he exists or wrote anything at all. However there’s plenty of evidence that humans write things. The best conclusion, therefore, is that humans wrote the Bible and the ten commandments.

    4th strawman reference

  17. David Says:

    Prove that satan did not come up with the idea of atheism? That’s cute. Atheists do not believe in Satan or any other supernatural being.

    In order for your assertion to be true, you must first prove that satan exists. Atheism has no author because it is not a beleif system. I don’t beleive in any god because I see no prove that such an entity exists.

    Rationalism is the concept that you don’t beleive something unless you can prove that it is true. You can’t prove that god, zeus or shiva exist, so I don’t beleive in them.

    However I would expect a very close minded response that is characteristic of someone who is convinced that he is right without any real argument to back it up. Your entire site is based on ridiculing and misconstruing what it means to be an athiest.


  18. First thing first.
    You are not an atheist.
    Now with that out of the way let’s begin today’s class.
    Jesus, and the Apostles were rationalists, and Empiricists.
    They only spoke through their direct experiences of what could be observed.
    Satan is your father, and your religion is his author.
    Class dismissed.

  19. Pwnage Says:

    Is this site purely for your own mental masturbation?

    I see your faith is weak and you have enough to not be considered to being an atheist.
    That’s okay we understand.
    You toss, and turn in your bed every night thinking of ways to get God out of your head, and you just can’t seem to ever do it.
    The struggle must be tremendous, and you have my sympathy.

  20. Bob Dol Says:

    You’re a fuc**** idiot. I need not say more.

    I’ve started several threads, here. Let me assuage that notion of yours that it results from any social difficulties. It’s the price you pay for coming into the forum and acting like an ass. See? You come off like an ass and recieve an anti-social response. Personal awareness! It’s what’s for dinner.

  21. Øyvind W. Says:

    Burden of proof. You lose.

    Which you Evolutionsists have yet to provide.
    You’re a loser.

  22. cantata Says:

    “Democritus also believed that different tastes were a result of differently shaped atoms in contact with the tongue….(A true whack job)”
    Er. Are you being funny? This is much closer to the truth than you apparently think. Plenty of the Early Modern philosophers (the majority of whom were religious, by the way) believed much the same thing. Take a look at Locke’s theory of primary and secondary qualities.
    Also, dude, unbelief doesn’t need an origin. Is there an origin of your belief that unicorns don’t exist? Oh, blimey! It must have been inspired by Satan! Quick, start believing in unicorns, before the sky fairy gets you.
    Isn’t it funny how pink Unicorns are the center of the atheistic monkeys critique?
    God God why don’t modems come with mandatory IQ testing? Now, please, do everyone a favor and either think of something intelligent to say, or don’t say it at all. Or just be as stupid as everyone is convinced you are, and post your confused drivel again. I do so love publicly humiliating morons on this newsgroup.
    Even the most annoying posts by you are no match for the obvious male falsettos, and insipid music score.Here is the way that atheists explain the world. Get ready for a good laugh.
    1. First, there was only random atomic motion of dead atoms. This
    continued for billions of yearsuntil….
    2. Somehow, in the pre-biotic soup of earth, some of these dead atoms
    magically sprang to life. The dead chemicals of the pre-biotic soup
    somehow sloshed around, and magically constructed the 3.5 billion
    base-pairs of the first DNA strand.
    3. But simply constructing the first DNA strand was not enough. Because
    at precisely the same time, the necessary enzymes for DNA replication
    also magically appeared.
    4. Not only that. For some unknown magical reason, the first DNA strand
    suddenly decided to replicate it’s own complicated double helix
    structure. Even though the Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen atoms
    that DNA is composed of is PRECISELY THE SAME as any other dead
    atoms….. nevertheless, for some magical reason, the first DNA strand
    decided to replicate it’s own structure.
    5. This first DNA replication, conducted by recently dead atoms,
    involved all the inherent morphological difficulties that would be
    expected when you have to spin and unzip 3.5 billion base pairs. But
    somehow, it all happened, as if by magic.
    6. After the first DNA strand magically felt the need to replicate
    itself, this replication continued for billions of years. It is
    important to realize that the whole show is being conducted by the VERY
    SAME ATOMS that were originally dead and non-living. So these dead
    atoms were magically replicating DNA structure for no good reason.
    7. But it gets better. After magically replicating DNA for awhile,
    these very same dead atoms magically became aware of their own
    existence. (the appearance of the first human brain.)
    8. After magically becoming aware of their own existence, these dead
    atoms went on to invent all kinds of technology, including the internet
    and the newsgroup “talk.origins.”
    9. These very same dead atoms are, at this very moment, causing me to
    type this posting. And they are causing you to read it. Because
    according to atheists, the human mind, and in point of fact the ENTIRE
    HUMAN RACE, is nothing but a complicated arrangement of dead atoms.
    10. There is some humor for you! Now go pray to God that you are never
    such a fool as to believe in that hogwash. Nuff said.

    Shutup dummy

  23. roflcopter Says:

    I stumbled upon this website, and i am truely amazed at how much time you put into hating atheists. Wouldnt it have been a better use of your time to create a website that explains why belive what you belive, rather than critcize others beliefs?

    I just stumbled across your post,and i (sic) am truely amazed at how much time you put into hating theists. Wouldnt it have been a better use of your time to create a post that explains why belive [sic] what you belive [sic] regarding your religion of anti-theism , rather than critcize [sic] others beliefs? [sic]
    With that being said I am sure you can find a Nambian text converter somewhere online.
    Hope this hepls.

  24. Dane Says:

    Challenge accepted.

    Statement: Atheism began as human ideal, as evidenced by not only Classical Greek philosophers but also the philosophy of Siddhartha (Buddha)and other worldly sources/

    Proof of statement:

    Diagoras of Melos expressed his atheism by publicly denouncing the Eleusian Mysteries and attempted to convince others that they were completely non-sensical.

    (Not a point of origin)

    Epicurus expressed his atheism by stating his disbelief in any afterlife in addition to his lack of belief in the existence of gods.

    (Not a point of origin)

    Siddhartha (Buddha) did not hold any belief in any supreme deity or deities for that matter.

    (Not a point of origin)

    The Icelandic sagas of the 10th century had an openly atheist protagonist (Hrafknell)

    (Not a point of origin)

    The Indian Carvaka school of philosophy was openly atheistic.

    (Not a point of origin)

    Check of proofs: Since the aforementioned were openly atheist, it is readily apparent that atheism is of human origin.

    Now, are you going to accept this? Probably not. Even if I was to produce documents that were 10,000 years old that established atheists of that time period, you would simply argue that “Satan deceived them into being atheists” or some such line. You are already pre-disposed to the belief that, no matter the time period or person, any instance of atheism is as the result of some “satanic influence”. Well, that’s okay…after all, theism is a man made device as well.

    BoNk!
    You’ve failed the test miserably by parroting others beliefs, and thus have failed to prove that atheism has an earthly origin as I’ve (Actually the facts) have predicated that it does not.
    All of you’re quote mining over at alt.atheism and talk.origins won’t help you at any stage at this point.
    Alas I’ve tried, and alas another Anti-theistic God Hater has succeeded at failing.
    So many crickets and so little time.

  25. Dane Says:

    As I predicted, you are too far gone into your own belief system. You insist upon a “point of origin” for atheism. I don’t suppose it has ever occurred to you that atheism has it’s roots in pre-historical timeframe? However, since atheism is, as I proved, a multi-cultural idea, does it in fact have a single point of origin? Probably not…just as theism has no singular point of origin.
    Now…prove that it’s not.

    Lets file this under answers that belong in a toilet.
    I laughed until I cried when I read the part about theism having no origin.
    You see that’s how stupid and convoluted the God-Haters thinking is.
    Totally shredded and blotted out from light with any ability to think critically.
    I say atheism is of an unearhtly, and demonic origin.
    Now prove it’s not true.
    You’ve failed to prove it with your circular reasoning and the thread is now closed.
    The thread is now closed because you’ve failed miserably at trying to be critical in your answers.
    I leave you with a couple of more facts regarding your religion.

    Most Atheists come from a family where the father was missing, dead, weak or abusive. Paul C. Vitz has written a very interesting book entitled Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism (Spence, 1999).

    Madalyn Murray O’Hair
    According to her son William, Madalyn had an intense hatred for her father so much so that she tried to kill him. Madalyn was probably abused psychologically and physically in her childhood. William Murray writes about this in his first chapter of his book entitled My Life Without God.


  26. Do you really think that Satan is first of all real, and second the creator of something? Theologically God had to of created atheism as well as everything else. But, as for the premise that atheists are like animals, and possibly even descendents from apes, well, that is highly humorous, but I think it’s the product of an elitist mindset and not rational thinking.

    The entire ideology of atheism derives itself from one type of critical thinking: nay saying. You say this is, nay-sayers say it isn’t, then have to prove it. I can say we live on earth, a nay-sayer will try and prove that we really live on Mars, but through historical falsification this planet has been called ‘earth.’ So basically, it’s like a game children play, one says ‘it is,’ the other says ‘it isn’t.’

    But the real origin of atheism is not satan. Satanists believe in a soul, atheists do not. The real origin of atheism is nihilism, the belief in nothing, by nothing. A nihilist believes he doesn’t exist. Absurd, but that is the belief. Since nihilism is so ridiculous no rational person would ever claim to be one unless pulling a practical joke, most people opt for the more rational (sic) form of atheism.

    So where a nihilist does not believe in anything, atheism believes in no God. That’s like me being an anti-dragonist, a firm believer in the non-existence of dragons. It’s ridiculous. In its place atheism fills in the gaps by believing in science, which is just as bad as religion.

    Science and religion are like yin and yang, one can never beat the other. Religion kills, science kills. Religion blesses, science progresses. Religion lies, science fails. They are both imperfect forms of science, evolving or correcting themselves towards perfection.

    If anything, the origin of atheism is stupidity, and I can prove that. Any time I insult an atheist, their proper response is: ‘Gee, how very un-christian-like of you.’ But I have a News flash to the atheists: I’m not a Christian! Stop assuming I am. The fact that you assume that everyone who is not an atheist is a christian, or that anyone who talks about God is a christian is a good indication of your ignorance towards all things spiritual.

    Ditto,
    You have your own beliefs whether you are Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist.
    I in way way am here to tell you that Christianity is the only path to God as there are many roads.
    Very few real atheists come out of the closet so to speak.
    The loudmouths are the God-Haters.
    They know God exists, and that is why they are so outspoken and vehement, spreading their vitrol every chance they get.
    They have their own little organizations, and blogs.
    They are very unorganized, and loosely cluttered throughout the world.
    Weak minded reprobates they are indeed.
    They can’t even see the forest for the trees let alone the fallacy of their own belief system.
    They not only need a good ass kicking for their forceful and arrogant ways but they need strong psychological help even more.

  27. J. D. Hunter Says:

    The human origin of atheism (absence of theism) arises in the intelligence evolution gave every man to discern that the inventive rationales used to posit “god” are pure fabrications of an unnecessary “creator”.


  28. Personal opinions will only be considered when backed up by citation.
    Properly stated your opinon reads.

    “The human origin of atheism (absence of theism) arises from an unknown earthly source.Our origins lay in the intelligence God gave every man to discern that the inventive rationales used to posit “absence of a creator” are pure fabrications of a Satanic origin.

  29. Shane McDonnell Says:

    The first human who was an atheist, was the first human. We are all born atheists but then ignorance gets the best of us and we start to believe whatever people tell us to believe. Some of us have seen the light and see how logic and reason lead us back to our atheist roots.


  30. So the first human was an atheist we agree on that without a doubt.
    Now to complete the circuit, where did the atheistic ideology originate from?
    I say it was from your father Satan.
    I also say you cannot name it’s origins.

  31. Lithp Says:

    Atheism: Belief that there is no God.

    Christianity: Belief that Jesus is the one, true God. Follows the 10 Commandments. Hundreds of sects. A whole frickin’ book, most of which is plagerized.

    As I have half-assedly demonstrated, atheism, as a philosophy, is much less complicated. The “author of atheism” would be the person to coin the term “atheist.” As atheism is disbelief in gods & goddesses, it has always existed, even though it has not always had a name. Kind of like how people existed before the dawn of written history.


  32. “Ex-Nihilo” Lithp.
    Ever hear the term?
    Out of nothing comes nothing.
    It’s the universal law that nobody can violate.
    You’ve demonstrated zero with your past 5 posts.

  33. Lithp Says:

    Untrue.

    I’ve demonstrated massive boredom to willingly feed the trolls.

    Also, universal law that nobody can violate. I’m just gonna go ahead & assume that there’s a special ammendment to that law that says, “Except for God, because I’m a hypocritical bastard.”

  34. Back2Christian Says:

    I’ve tried atheism but it didn’t work too well for me.

    Sleepless nights and living with disbelief just doesn’t cut it. I need to get some sleep.

    Sometimes a simple life is the best life. And for me, being Christian is fairly the best experience, even though some people tell me that I’m brainwashed. I never was and never will be. I chose my life the way it is, and didn’t base it on some atheist hype.

    So my question to atheists is: why on earth are you keeping on arguing when you’ve already proven your point?


    • They hate God, and to hate something you must believe in it. What they want to do is snag the weak-minded, and confused over to their side.
      Thank you for such a clear post. To the point and logical.

      • Lithp Says:

        Umm…should be obvious from the douche above me that the point is not proven.

        Also, lulz at that circular reasoning. “You must believe in God because you hate him. How do I know you hate him? Because you secretly believe in him!”

        Right, and given the fact that you’ve found your way to an anti-atheist ideology forum commenting on something you claim not to believe in sez it all!

  35. thinking Says:

    Atheism has been around since man became a thinking animal. I has the same origin as truth.

    Poorly written, and still begs the question, ” Where did atheism originate from?”
    I say Satan, you God-Haters lay your answers on guesses, half-truths, and conjectures with none of you being able to answer the question without cascading into circular reasoning.

  36. thinking Says:

    BTW, there’s no Satan, either. Why would a loving god make one?

    Pretty bold statement coming from someone who doesnt possess the knowledge needed to know everything. The short answer to your question is that a loving God grants free will to everyone and everything, including the angels. How much more loving can anyone get than that right God Hater?

  37. Lithp Says:

    You know what else is a pretty bold statement? You calling us “God Haters.” You are assuming that we not only believe in, but hate your imaginary friend, but can you read minds? No.

    Let me guess. It says in the Bible that I hate God, therefore it must be true. And you know that the Bible is true because the Bible/the Holy Spirit/your warm & fuzzy feeling when reading it says so?

    Now, I don’t even know why the “commenting on what you don’t believe in” thing should be countered. Are you saying that because I play Final Fantasy, & occasionally talk about it, I really believe that a man with a 6-foot long sword who has the power to come back from the dead is trying to destroy the planet?

    Well, I don’t. I don’t believe everything I read. Hell, why do you even acknowledge the existance of atheism, if you believe in a God? You mentioned it, so by your logic, you believe it! There’s a little thing called “being hypothetical.” You should look it up sometime.

    Now, the fact that I’m here tells you nothing. I’ll tell you how I “somehow ended up here.” I found this place due to a site called Fundies Say the Darndest Things, which in turn was linked to me by someone else during an MSN conversation. The reason atheists comment on your blog is most likely because you’re arrogant & need to be knocked down a peg or 2 before the police start finding dead bodies in your basement.

    All this being said, I would very much like Back2Christian’s response.

  38. dug Says:

    As different to some Christians most atheists freely admit we do not know everything. It is the arrogance and pride of some who profess to be Christians to set themselves up as being morally and intellectually superior. Remember pride is one of the 7 deadly sins and it looks to me like satan ( if he did exist ) has you hooked.

    I do not know the answer you are looking for and I don’t think the answer is important. There probably has always been those who do not believe in Gods or Deities but due to the hate and repression present in most religions they have been silenced and any of their history destroyed.

    As for me I try to keep an open mind on all things, if I can find a shred of proof for any God Goddess or supernatural being then I will be happy to believe, as none has ever been presented then I will remain a sceptic.

    Your sincerly Doug

    PS if you do believe in the Abrahamic God then you need to ask for redemption and forgiveness for your arrogance and how you have insulted people on this thread.

  39. Haseen Says:

    Atheism never had a “first author”. This doesn’t mean it was “the devil”, because it could just as likely be Agent Smith, Phantom Limb, Jade Curtiss, or whatever other fictional character you want it to be. (I’ll pick Jade because he’s awesome)

    I can’t say for certain, because *gasp*, I don’t know. But guess what, you don’t know, either. Sure, you can pretend to be absolutely certain, but there’s no actual evidence to support it. Countless other people are absolutely sure their religion is the One True Religion(tm), and most of them are different from yours.

    Maybe you have that 1/(Graham’s Number) chance that you’re actually right, and God/Satan is playing this massive conspiracy to cover their tracks. But my odds are better. No matter which of the infinite permutations of possible gods there are (including [null]), there’s *always* a chance the god(s) want to be left alone and just let us live our lives normally. I’ll take my chances with that one, and based on the total lack of “corrective actions” from “God”, I’m pretty sure it’s the right choice.

  40. Interesting Oxygen Says:

    You ask where atheism comes from, then claim that it comes from Satan. You claim Satan, when Satan in reality is the Hebrew theory of doing that which is opposite of God’s will. Satan is not a physical being, it is a concept of going against God’s will. So how could Satan have authored atheism when Satan is not the kind of something that can exist in a bodily form?

    Seems to me that first you must prove that Satan is a physical being, and not just the concept of doing the opposition to God’s will, as the Hebrew’s intended it to be. Oh, and to do this, you must of course use the Torah since the 10 Commandments are in there too. So, good luck proving the Jewish concept of opposition to God is the physical being you believe in, without discarding the Old Testament, thereby nullifying the second half of your bet.

    Checkmate, amigo.


    Let’s take your unsupported, and horribly inaccurate premise on the Hebrew Bible version of Satan, and shine a light on the truth that you so inadequately attempt to twist into your own version of the facts. Satan is a real being, (Job)was an extremely pious man. He was very prosperous and had seven sons, and three daughters. Constantly fearing that his sons may have sinned and “cursed God in their hearts” he habitually offered burnt offerings as a pardon for their sins.
    The angels of heaven (the Hebrew word translated as “Angels” means “the Sons of God”) and Satan (literally, the Hebrew word means “the accuser” or “the adversary”) present themselves to God. God asks Satan his opinion on Job, apparently a truly pious man. Satan answers that Job is only pious because he is prosperous. In response to Satan’s assertion, God gives Satan permission to destroy Job’s possessions and family.All of Job’s possessions are destroyed and all of his offspring are killed. Job does not curse God after this but instead shaves his head, tears his clothes and says, “Naked I came out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return : YHWH has given, and YHWH has taken away; blessed be the name of YHWH. So despite all Job’s sufferings, his response is to worship the Lord. As Job endures these calamities without reproaching Divine Providence, Satan solicits permission to afflict his person as well, and God says, “Behold, he is in your hand, but don’t touch his life.” Satan, therefore, smites him with dreadful boils, and Job, seated in ashes, scrapes his skin with broken pottery. His wife prompts him to “curse God, and die” but Job answers, “You speak as one of the foolish speaks. Moreover, shall we receive good from God and shall not receive evil?” In all this, Job did not sin in his lips.

    Now couple this with the testimony of the Vatican Exorcists, (of whom all happen to be Phd’s) the testimony of countless living people regarding physical attacks and assaults by these fallen angels (demons) and the testimony of countless witnesses throughout written history and you can see that you’ve just been punked without even trying my friend.
    Ciao!

    • Lithp Says:

      A PHD in theology is worthless. That’s like me seeking a PHD because of the amount of Greek Mythology I read. So, don’t be surprised if we aren’t swayed by some nut who claims he was attacked by demons.

      That said, I believe Interesting Oxygen can debunk you himself. I’d just like to point this out:

      “God gives Satan permission to destroy Job’s…family.”

      And God is the good guy…how?

      The denial of God does not really solve the problem. It is one way of saying that there is no solution. If there were no God there would be no point in looking for answers. Injustice and pain would continue to challenge us, but we would have to take the view that since death eventually terminated the game for all players, there really is no point to it all.

      At times it does seem as if life is pointless. This is bleak and discouraging. At other times we see abundant evidence of the Lord’s love and power, and we can hold on to a belief that He does rule the universe wisely and with great compassion. This still leaves the question of whether He can overcome evil, and unfairness.

      Why is it that God seems to let creation get out of hand and even turn against Him? We cannot really say what the answer is without some idea of the overall purpose of creation. God is love. He creates people so that He can share His love with them. Since love cannot be forced, He gives us choices as to how we respond to life. We have the freedom to accept His love or to reject it. This freedom is so important that He will not force us to love Him, or compel us to live honestly, fairly and peacefully with each other.

      We are all in the process of developing and growing. Things outside of us are not really good or evil in themselves. We have come to know the difference between good and evil within us, and it is up to us to choose the blessings of life or its curses. God allows us to fail at times. He even allows us to fight against the very laws of His creation. But He will never take away our freedom of choice, or take away from us the responsibility of choice.There are things that are contrary to the will of God. He tolerates them because it would be to damaging to human freedom to eliminate them. To make it impossible for evil and suffering to exist would at the same time make love and joy impossible.

      It is hard to explain how God can permit disasters that cause so much suffering and death. To unravel even one disaster would be far too complicated. To make any kind of judgement on the long-term effects of a single tradgy we would have to know how it affected every individual involved, not only at the time it happened, but as one of the events in the whole course of that person’s life.

      Rather than try to sort out the effects on a vast network of people, we can look at the experiences of our own life and see how they affected us. We have all been touched by tragedy and suffering. Rather than ask why Godd permits great disasters, such as floods or earthquakes, perhaps we should look at events in our own lives. Do we find anything that was so evil that it ought not to have happened at all? Is there something in our past that was so totally negative that we can say that the Lord ought not have permitted it? If God could protect us from harm only by taking away our freedom, or the freedom of other people, wouldn’t the cost of protection be too high?

      Here we come to an important principle. There are many things that the Lord permits even though they are against His will. He permits them because preventing them would be harmful to more important goals. When He does permit disorder, He does so only where He foresees that some good can come out of it. People often find compensations in the midst of tragedy. Events are never so tragic that God cannot bring a blessing, somewhere, somehow out of the ashes.

      When people think of tragedy, they are often thinking about death. They think of the loss of human life in earthquakes, famines, war, disease and murder. The timing of death can be very tragic, and can hurt people deeply. Some people suffer terribly as they are dying. But death itself is a natural and unavoidable event. What is death like for the person who has died? There are accounts of people who have come very close to death, and who resented the fact that they were brought back to life! They report feelings of heavenly peace and contentment that made them reluctant to return to this world. This is after only a small foretaste of heaven. Would any angel, no matter how short his life on earth, or how painful his death, say that dying was a mistake? Would he want to return to this ” vale of tears”? Death, for all the bitterness of separation that is involved, is not a curse. It is an important step on the journey to eternal life.

      Instead of asking why God permits the evils that happen to us, we could ask why He allows us to bring evil on ourselves. Rather than ask why God permits wars, famines, crime, corruption or pollution, perhaps we ought to wonder why He allows us to do things that are harmful to ourselves and to others. Take pollution as an example. Some of the major pollutants people cope with are the ones they themselves introduce into their own body. Why does God allow us to pollute ourselves, hurt our own marriages, betray our own beliefs, or bring pain to those we love? At times we are brought to the painful recognition of our own intolerance, cruelty or deceit. The evils we worry about in the world as a whole are very familiar in the world of our own hearts. Instead of asking why God allows these evils to exist out there, we must ask why He allows them to exist in here– in our hearts. Instead of asking why God permits evil in the world, we should ask ourselves why we permit it in that part of the world which is under our control.

      At first we might think that it would be a blessing if the Lord were to intervene and remove all of our faults and evils with a single stroke. What would that do to us? Can you imagine what your life would be like if all of your imperfections and weaknesses were removed? Could you preserve your identity if your character were so dramatically changed? We do change, of course, but we do so gradually, so that throughout our growth we retain a sense of who we are.

      The Lord loves us and wants us to exist, in spite of our limitations. He gently leads us to choose for ourselves the good and right way. He helps us to see our faults, and gives us the courage to deal with them. We know, from experience, that this is a slow process, and we have god reason to be grateful for the Lord’s infinite patience. He wants to lead us to a better and happier life. At times this means allowing us to make mistakes so that we can see for ourselves the great difference between good and evil, between heaven and hell within us.

      This leaves us with a heavy responsibility. We are free to look to marriage as a beautiful ideal, and work for it. We are also free to meditate adultery, and even to commit adultery. This is not because God wills that it should happen, but because He teaches what is right, and leaves us free to choose for ourselves the kind of life we want to have. Some people are in positions of great power, and when they are corrupt or evil, they can bring damage to others on a large scale. Evil is always hurtful and destructive. This applies to any evil, and we cannot expect it to be permitted in the lives of individuals without finding it in groups or nations.

      At times we are brought very low by becoming aware of evil. In the midst of tragedy we may think that evil will eventually destroy us all. And yet, marvelously, the recognition of evil serves very powerfully to restrain it and bring balance back again. in our rash moments we would like the Lord to act more swiftly in preventing evil or blocking it an early stage. We might even think that the world would be a better place if He would destroy all the wicked. But thenwe stop and wonder who that would include. “If Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” (Psalm 130:2).

      The goal of creation is far too important to be destroyed by impatient wrath. There is no anger in God. He lovingly provides a heaven after death for those who learn to love Him and to care for each other. He sees what we are, and knows what we can become. He leads us with the greatest tenderness and wisdom to the point where we can see heaven for ourselves, and learn to put away the things that block us from heaven. The only serious barriers to heaven lie within us, and He gives us the power to become aware of them and overcome them. If the Lord did not permit evil to exist and flare up at times, it would be impossible for anyone to deal with evil.

      In the course of life we find much that is beautiful and inspiring. There are also things that are painful and hard to understand. Sometimes the very grimness of events can lead us to reflect on the things that need to be accomplished in our own growth. We all bear scars, some from self-inflicted wounds, others from forces outside of us. We may suffer because of the faults of our parents, our parents, our leaders or the leaders of other nations. We all have reasons to complain about injustices in the world. Even if all of these complaints could be answered, we would still be faced with the question: “What am I going to make of life?” “How am I going to cope with my own weaknesses?” “How can I live with the fact that I have hurt other people?” It is reassuring to know that all people are under the care of God, and that the only permanent harm we can do is to ourselves. We might wish that the Lord would not permit evil in this troubled world, or in our troubled hearts. The truth is that He permits it so that in the long run we may have life, and we may grow to receive it more fully and joyfully.

      • Lithp Says:

        What an extremely long rant that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

        We aren’t talking about some people who screwed Lot over, we’re talking about God & Satan making some stupid bet on someone who we are informed was a good guy who praised God out of no selfish motivation.

        But, to counter your argument, if God’s big plan is to do nothing, he really has no business demanding to be worshipped, now does he? That’s “infringing on your choice,” or some such nonsense. It’s definitely more of an infringement than just not letting that tsunami hit southeast Asia.

        Gods big plan “to do nothing” is your preception and your perception only. Your faith lies in the things you can see and feel, and not of things of a much higher conciousness.
        People of faith are more highly developed than you can ever imagine, and there are people much smarter than your Gods Darwin and Dawkins that believe in a deity. God gives man a free will to do what he chooses. When God created men like you and me, he was looking for fellowship…not automatons. He could have easliy done that as well. God is the creator of the universe….. so to answer your question, yes he does deserve my attention and worship. Your vision is myopic, whether by choice or outside circumstances in your life. You cannot rise above your own myopia. This is to be expected.

  41. Lithp Says:

    Whoever edited my post did not really address my question at all. I did not ask, “Why does God allow bad things to happen?” I asked, in simple terms, this:

    God allowed Satan to destroy Job’s life to prove a point. He did all of that just so he could say, “See! I was right!”

    Taken at the message of “trust God,” there’s really nothing wrong with the story, provided you believe in God, but at the literal end of the spectrum, it just doesn’t work.

    Now, you seem to be saying that atheism must be wrong because there has to be a God. This is circular reasoning. Atheism isn’t saying there is no solution, more like the solution is 0. No solution would be, “the universe does not exist.” Semantics aside, deities are not “solutions.” They only further complicate things by providing new questions that nobody wants to–or even can–answer.

    When someone has objectively proven that their God exists, then it will be the “solution,” as well as likely forming the basis for a whole new set of equations.

    Finally, atheism=/=nihilism. Just because you don’t believe in gods or goddesses, it doesn’t mean you throw in the towel. You go on living, & hopefully try to come to terms with the world.

    The Bible does not say that God is omni-benevolent. God is also just, holy, righteous, et cetera. Whenever you exalt one attribute of God and say that that is all he is, you will end up with problems. When the Bible says that Job was blameless, it does not mean that he was absolutely sinless. It means that he was a God-fearing man who sought to do what was right before the Lord. Job’s awareness of his own sins is acknowledged by the fact that he sacrificed animals to the Lord as atonement for his sins in chapter 1.
    As the story goes, the “sons of God”, angels, presented themselves before God. Satan was there and a conversation ensued about Job’s goodness. Satan challenges God by stating that Job will denounce God if afflicted. God gives permission to Satan to afflict Job. Of course, Job doesn’t denounce God. So, the question is why would God allow Satan to do this?
    The reason is so that God may be vindicated at His word and so that we might understand that trials and tribulations will come to those who are godly. In the former, we see the righteousness of God. After all, none are righteous before God (Rom. 3:10-12). In the latter we see the perfection of Job’s faith (James 1:2-4).

    Now I have a challenge for you.
    Atheism is impossible if held positively. Atheism only exists in a vacuum. It must disprove theistic proofs. It cannot prove itself true. It is a very weak place to be intellectually. That being said: “Where is the evidence that God does not exist?” It is incumbent upon those who makes claims to provide evidence.You have a position. Unless it is based completely on blind faith, there must be some reason you hold to it. That would be your evidence. It is your position I am asking you to establish. Not mine. So tell me. What kind of an atheist are you? Strong? Weak?

  42. Dr. Benway Says:

    Dude. You really need to get laid. Work with cripples or something. You seem to have way too much time on your hands.

    I work with mental cripples everyday….you’re here right?

    BTW since when was sex meant to be dirty?
    Only mental cripples such as yourself use sex as a crutch.
    Have a great day.

  43. Lithp Says:

    There is no evidence that God doesn’t exist.

    There is no evidence that he does.

    You see how that works? You don’t get evidence that something is not there. You get…nothing.

    And fine, just. Whatever. Tell me, where is the justice in royally screwing over Lot’s life just to prove a point to Satan?

    The God of the Bible is also described as being jelous, wrathful, & petty. I think that suits his character more.

    And don’t even get me started on the fact that the Satan of the Old Testament is not the same Satan as Christian mythology holds him to be.

    That’s good, keep searching for the answers because you won’t find any answers in the religion of atheism. Don’t get me started on how many times your watered down argument has been negated. Anger towards your God is not the way to find truth. Lofting yourself to the position of God is detrimental and downright deadly from a humanistic POV.

    • Lithp Says:

      Tell someone their argument has been negated. Don’t disprove it in the slightest. A winning strategy.

      “God is detrimental and downright deadly.”

      Fixed.

      Ok I’ll play your game, present your evidence.

  44. christianidiots Says:

    Yeah because demonse wrote atheism LOL. Your a moron. Gtfo the net. Leave technology and science to the people that believe in it. I would rather believe in something with no origin than something with an origin of something supernatural. Chode.

    LOL!!
    Hey dummy …..newsflash. Historys greatest scientists were theists, and there are literally thousands of people smarter than your God “Dawkins” that believe in a diety.
    Now you can unplug.

    • Lithp Says:

      You mean like Einsten (questionable)? Hawking (atheist)? Darwin (yeah, I went there)? Who, exactly, do you consider the “greatest scientists”?

      And, to resort to the nonsense you pulled at the top of the page, Newton was an alchemist, a geocentrist, and an astrologer.

      THIS OBVIOUSLY MEANS THAT HIS LAWS OF MOTION ARE WRONG!!!!1!!!1!ZOMGELEVENTY!!1111~

      Yeah. No. It doesn’t. Obviously. But there’s a funny thing about people from way back when not knowing what we do now: They didn’t know what we do now.

      Democritus wasn’t born with knowledge of the atom, & neither were you. If he hadn’t come along, you’d probably never even bother to figure it out. And if you tried, I bet the best you’d come up with is “GOD DID IT!!!!11!!!1!ZOMGELEVENTY!!1~~~”

      As for the Commandments, that’d be the same as the rest of the Bible’s authorship: Unknown, despite what anyone might tell you. Certainly terrestrial. Of course I can’t tell you who wrote it, that knowledge is lost to history. I also can’t tell you who wrote the story of Odin.

      In any case, you got your answer within the first comment. But by all means, keep up this farce. I find it quite entertaining.

      As for the Commandments, that’d be the same as the rest of the Bible’s authorship: Unknown, despite what anyone might tell you. Certainly terrestrial. Of course I can’t tell you who wrote it, that knowledge is lost to history. I also can’t tell you who wrote the story of Odin.

      Everyone knows that Odin is a Nordic fairy tale and nothing more. The Bible was inspired by God through men, and the Bible is correct both historically, and scientifically though it was never intended to be a science book. I find errors in the skeptics position and not in the Bible though Lord knows I have tried many times. The Vatican has documented thousands of miracles. (The Vatican scientists are all trained doctors and scientists that carefully examine data impartially and within the scientific equation.) They are trained not to lie like the evolutionists and humanists in our universities.

  45. Lithp Says:

    “Everyone knows that Odin is a Nordic fairy tale and nothing more. The Bible is the same for the Jews, dubious both historically and scientifically, though it was never intended to be a science book (lol copout lol), which is obvious to anyone who reads it. I find errors in the skeptics position, because I don’t know the first thing about skepticism, and not in the Bible because of my preconceived notions, because Lord knows I haven’t the critical thinking skills of a lawn flamingo. The Vatican has documented thousands of miracles, all of which are bullshit. (The Vatican scientists are all poorly trained doctors and scientists that carefully examine data impartially and within the scientific M-E-T-H-O-D, then promptly discard that data & come up with ridiculous explanations for their dead theology.) They are trained to lie like a rug, & throw words like “evolutionist” and “university indoctrination” around like confetti. Also, I smell like a dead otter, and Lithp is the greatest person of all time. All hail the Lithp.”

    Fixed that for ya.

  46. ExiledAlien Says:

    Your challenge is both dishonest as well as moot.
    There’s nothing we could say that would convince you, and the burden of proof rests on you as the proponent of a statement. You make a statement, then you get to prove it.

    Even so, you state a “challenge” for atheists to describe the origin of atheism as a philosopho, yet you fail to present any criteria by which your challenge would be met. This allows you to discard any and all answers safely, and this is a blatant display of dishonesty on your part.

    Fact is that there is no single point source of atheism as a philosophy, and you will never find one. Atheism is as old as mankind itself, and so is theism in it’s many forms and shapes. You state that you want us to provide you with the sources of atheism in literature, and it seems as though you expect atheism – much in the same way as christianity has it’s bible – to have a single defining “holy book” so to speak. However, there is none. There are, of course, thousands of atheist authors, but the only thing most of them have in common is a lack of a belief in god – any god(s).

    And that’s what atheism at it’s core is: a lack of a belif in any and all deities. This includes, but is in no way limited to, Allah, Odin, Zeus and Jahweh – and yes, even Satan. You will not find a defining crede written by an originating atheist to set standards for all atheists, and you will not find atheistic communions or anything like that. Let me state this again: the only thing atheists have in common in being atheists, is a shared disbelief in god(s).

    You’ve been presented with this fact several times, yet you do not accept it and proceed to ask for sources of origin that will never come. The fact of the matter is that as long as there has been people believing in gods, there have been people who didn’t – and atheist is a modern label put on these people as a descriptor, nothing else.

    You repeatedly state the bible as infallible, inspired by god and handed down to man for him to put into writing, and you list their knowledge of ocean currents (for instance) as proof of this. But this is simply not good enough; the fact is, the bible was written by bronze age people who knew next to nothing (compared to what we know today) about how the world around them worked. However, there were seafaring people even in those days, and as such it would be dishonest to assume that they would not have knowledge about ocean currents. They would certainly have known about the currents, but they would not know how, or why, they worked, and so attribute them to god – much like any other natural phenomena they could not understand.

    And that’s the crux; religious belief – any religious belief, stems from a combination of fear and ignorance. Let me state an example: the savage man does not understand the forces involved to create a lightning storm, but he understands enough about the dangers of the lightning and what it would do to his hut if it were to strike it. So, the savage sees the cause as “god”, and thus worships it – not out of love or admiration, but out of the fear of what it could do to his home, his family and himself. Today, however we understand vastly more about the forces of nature and how they work, and we find that they are all parts of natural processes – no god(s) needed.

    In conclusion, atheism have no single point of origin, nor any defining credo apart from the one thing common to all us atheists: a shared disbelief in god(s). But I will raise you one other point; I contend that we are all atheists, but I just disbelieve in one fewer god than you do. After all, mankind have invented thousands upon thousands of gods over the ages, and you choose not to believe in any of the other ones. Why not? They all stated that they were the true religion, and theirs were the true gods – same as with christianity. If the bible was admissible as proof, then so is the Quran for instance.

    The bible states that rabbits are cud chewing animals, yet they are not. The bible states that pi equals 3, yet it does not. The bible state that bats are birds, yet they are not. The bible states that insects have four legs, yet they do not. The bible states that snakes eat dust, yet they do not.

    I am an atheist, and I am in no way a bad person. I try to do the best I can, and to live my life as well as I see possible. I do not steal, I do not cheat, I do not lie, I have never used violence or caused harm to anyone, and I help out my peers as much as possible. Why? Because I believe that this is the only life we’ve got, that there is no afterlife, and that I therefore should make the most of my time.

    Are there atheists that are bad persons? Of course there are, just as there are bad people being christian. However, consider this fact: the percentage of atheists in prison is only a fraction of the percentage of christians. We are as diverse as flakes of snow, and the only thing common to us all is a shared disbelief in god(s).

    Thank you for your post.
    My challenge is both honest and valid.
    The absence of any known author is a highly strange phenomena that atheism is guilty of.
    You just don’t have any answers so you ignore the question thinking that not addressing it or calling it “moot” (your opinion only) somehow truncates the importance of the question.
    It is the declared intention of atheists to put the burden of proof for the existence of God on the theists. They don’t want to be put in the position of having to prove the non-existence of God. They know it can’t be done. Of course skeptics seldom think of themselves as part of a tradition. They take no more responsibility for the follies of earlier versions of themselves than they do for the claims of theists. The skeptic is always at Square One, arguing ab ovo, willing to be himself alone against the world, and even when he wheels in the views of others for support we sense that he feels no need for company in order to hold what he does, or to deny what he does.f an theist asserts that his god exists, then the burden of proof rests with him to prove that his god exists.
    If an atheist asserts that gods do not exist, he assumes the burden of proof to prove that gods do not exist.

    • ExiledAlien Says:

      Again you fail to understand one simlpe fact; you cannot prove a negative – it is an impossibility. Therefore, the burden of proof always rests on the one making a positive claim. Allow me to state an example: In my garage I have an invisible pink unicorn. I claim this as fact, now you prove that I don’t.

      Atheism is impossible if held positively. Atheism only exists in a vacuum. It must disprove theistic proofs. It cannot prove itself true. It is a very weak place to be intellectually.
      It is the atheists who claim there is no God who must prove their point.Where is the evidence that God does not exist?
      You have a position and unless it is based completely on blind faith, there must be some reason you hold to it. That would be your evidence. It is your position I am asking you to establish. Not mine. So tell me. What kind of an atheist are you? Strong? Weak?

      “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” -> “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.” Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it.

      Your assertion that it is up to me to prove that god does not exist is called an argument from ignorance, or “argumentum ad ignorantiam” which is a logical fallacy as it asks for negative evidence and because it claims a premise is true simply because it has not been proven false. I cannot prove that god does not exist, but neither can prove that he does exist.

      So your atheism is weak and untenable and held by faith, at least we agree.

      Why would you expect there to be single point source of atheism as a philosophy? Atheism is a word invented to describe people who doesn’t believe in god. It is not a structured belief system, and it is not a religion.

      Do you know there is no God? or believe there is no God? Atheism is a position that you hold. But, you have no evidence for it so you are contradicting yourself.The Bible is fact,the fact is that contemporary historians DID record it: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John…. I am certainly able to appeal to the eyewitness documents. Furthermore, if you want to require lack of evidence vis a vis historians, as some sort of proof for your position, then you must realize that it cuts both ways.

      The word “religion” is defined as such:

      –noun
      A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

      And the word “atheism” is defined as such:

      –noun
      Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

      The term “atheism” does, however have an origin, though it is hard to pinpoint exactly, it originated from the word in ancient greek “atheos” – meaning “without god”. So, the fact that the ancient greeks originated the term that modern man would call “atheism” in english, means it goas back at least as far as the 9th century BCE.

      Once again I have proven that atheism has no origin and your best is a Red Herring…cmon really…you can do better I would have hoped.
      The english term “atheism” was derived from the french “athéisme” around the 1580s, then having the understood meaning of “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of god”.

      So you see, while religions such as christianity does have a structured system of belief that we associate with the word “christianity”, atheism does not. Again, atheism is nothing more than a descriptive word set forth to label those who do not believe in god(s).

      Similarly you will not find a single point source of origin, or an author, for the term “theism”. Theism itself is not a religion or a set system of belief, it is simply a term – a word – that is used to label people who believe in god(s).

      I don’t have to labor to prove the non-existence of god; I am an atheist, and hence I don’t believe in god. If you want to convince me that my stance is incorrect, then you will have to prove to me that god does exist. So far though, I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe any deities to exist.

      We are not part of any kind of tradition because we have no directing credo. Apart from the fact that none of us believe in god, we are as diverse and as different as the stars in the sky. The only thing common to us all is a shared disbelief in god(s).

      Also, could you please answer my questions as well as I am doing my best to answer yours, as well as try to clear up any misunderstandings. If you could show me the same courtesy it would make debating you a lot easier.

      Again you fail to understand one simlpe fact; you cannot prove a negative – it is an impossibility. Therefore, the burden of proof always rests on the one making a positive claim. Allow me to state an example: In my garage I have an invisible pink unicorn. I claim this as fact, now you prove that I don’t.

      “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” -> “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.” Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it.

      Your assertion that it is up to me to prove that god does not exist is called an argument from ignorance, or “argumentum ad ignorantiam” which is a logical fallacy as it asks for negative evidence and because it claims a premise is true simply because it has not been proven false. I cannot prove that god does not exist, but neither can prove that he does exist.

      Why would you expect there to be single point source of atheism as a philosophy? Atheism is a word invented to describe people who doesn’t believe in god. It is not a structured belief system, and it is not a religion.

      The word “religion” is defined as such:

      –noun
      A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

      And the word “atheism” is defined as such:

      –noun
      Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

      The term “atheism” does, however have an origin, though it is hard to pinpoint exactly, it originated from the word in ancient greek “atheos” – meaning “without god”. So, the fact that the ancient greeks originated the term that modern man would call “atheism” in english, means it goas back at least as far as the 9th century BCE.

      The english term “atheism” was derived from the french “athéisme” around the 1580s, then having the understood meaning of “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of god”.

      So you see, while religions such as christianity does have a structured system of belief that we associate with the word “christianity”, atheism does not. Again, atheism is nothing more than a descriptive word set forth to label those who do not believe in god(s).

      Similarly you will not find a single point source of origin, or an author, for the term “theism”. Theism itself is not a religion or a set system of belief, it is simply a term – a word – that is used to label people who believe in god(s).

      I don’t have to labor to prove the non-existence of god; I am an atheist, and hence I don’t believe in god. If you want to convince me that my stance is incorrect, then you will have to prove to me that god does exist. So far though, I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe any deities to exist.

      We are not part of any kind of tradition because we have no directing credo. Apart from the fact that none of us believe in god, we are as diverse and as different as the stars in the sky. The only thing common to us all is a shared disbelief in god(s).

      Also, could you please answer my questions as well as I am doing my best to answer yours, as well as try to clear up any misunderstandings. If you could show me the same courtesy it would make debating you a lot easier.
      yann.andersen@post.hfk.no
      ExiledAlien
      0

      We know they were written by eyewitnesses because they speak in the first person, recounting the events, describing accurately events verified by history related to the time of the gospels, etc.
      The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheisms truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
      But, you really don’t’ have a reason for your belief…except lack of evidence. But lack of evidence isn’t a good enough argument because the evidence iS there and you, apparently, haven’t done your homework concerning it.Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you’d have to know All things to know there is no God.
      It is not logical for you to claim your strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God’s existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation. Alright, Let’s talk faith.

      Once again I ask you, “Who authored atheism?”

  47. ExiledAlien Says:

    Atheism is impossible if held positively. Atheism only exists in a vacuum. It must disprove theistic proofs. It cannot prove itself true. It is a very weak place to be intellectually.
    It is the atheists who claim there is no God who must prove their point.Where is the evidence that God does not exist?”

    Not impossible, and certainly not intellectually weak. As I’ve said, the burden of proof always rests with the person making a positive claim – it is an impossibility to prove a negative. I cannot prove that god does not exist, but neither can you prove that he does exist. The evidence, however to indicate that there is no god(s) is clear for anyone to see and research on their own. You state that in order for this universe to come into existence there must have been a creator. I say that there is no need for a creator because we can see that the universe as we know it today is simply a result of matter and energy working together through the laws of physics to form the universe we see today. Today we understand how gravity pulls matter together to form stars, and how stars form heavier and heavier elements as they burn through their fuel supply.

    The only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible, and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, the atheist would have to propose that it may be possible that there is no God.1 But stating that something is possible doesn’t mean that it is a reality, or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is a possibility? Not at all. Simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than “It is possible,” or “There is no evidence for God,” otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter, and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.
    [i]“You have a position and unless it is based completely on blind faith, there must be some reason you hold to it. That would be your evidence. It is your position I am asking you to establish. Not mine. So tell me. What kind of an atheist are you? Strong? Weak?”

    Of course there is a reason for my stance; the more I’ve studied and come to learn about the natural world and the universe around us, the more convinced I’ve become that there is no god, and that the universe is simply the result of natural processes through aeons of time. There is no faith involved, simply an acceptance of the findings of modern science. I’m not sure though, whether I would call myself a strong, or a weak atheist, but I am an atheist. I do not go around trying to convert people to my view of reality, but I will answer them when I am asked.

    In order to state there is no proof for God’s existence, you the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God’s existence. But, since you cannot know all things, you cannot logically state there is no proof for God’s existence.
    At best, you can only state that of all the alleged proofs you have seen thus far, none have worked. You could even say you believe there are no proofs for God’s existence. But then, this means there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there, and that you simply have not yet encountered one.
    Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God’s existence, would the atheist be able to accept it, given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that you the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for you to accept a proof for God’s existence, you would have to change your presuppositional base. This is not easy to do, and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God’s existence, and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.

    “So your atheism is weak and untenable and held by faith, at least we agree.”

    I am trying to be polite and to treat you with respect, so I would appreciate it if you could show me the same courtesy. There is no need for you to put words into my mouth, and this will not make you look good in the end. I never stated anything like that, I only accepted the fact that I cannot conclusively prove that god doesn’t exist. This has no bearing on my stance as an atheist, nor how I maintain this position.
    Refuting evidences for the existence of God does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven, and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say there are no convincing evidences for God that have been presented so far. They cannot say there are no evidences for God, because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence presented so far has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has been undiscovered, and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God’s existence.

    This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning God’s existence, which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
    “Do you know there is no God? or believe there is no God? Atheism is a position that you hold. But, you have no evidence for it so you are contradicting yourself.”

    That is a good question, and one that is not as straight forward as one might think. I will say this though; I’ve lived long enough now to become well aware of my own ignorance, however throughout my life I have seen nothing to make me think that there is a god. If anything my position have only been strengthened the more I’ve learned and researched, but there is no contradiction. And for you to claim that there is one is a blatant display of arrogance – you don’t know me or anything about me, other than what I have chosen to tell you.

    “The Bible is fact,the fact is that contemporary historians DID record it: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John…. I am certainly able to appeal to the eyewitness documents.”

    Ask any investigator and he will tell you exactly how little value eyewitness accounts have. The fact is that all eyewitnesses are human, and thus they are prone to human tendencies for modifying the truth – even if this is done subconsciously. In the case of the gospel writers they clearly had an agenda – uniting people against the roman dominance for instance. But I will not go into this apart from simply stating that if the bible is admissible as proof, then what about the Quran? By your very same argument we can assert that the Quran must also be true, and thus that Allah must be real. And if the Quran is true, and if Allah is real, then what about the Vedas and Upanishads of Hinduism? They must then also be true, and if so the the entire pantheon of gods from Hinduism must be real – and Hinduism predates christianity by at least 2500 years, probably more.

    The Bible is full of prophesies that happned centuries after they were foretold and no other religion can make that undeniable claim for example:
    Prophecy Old Testament Prophecy New Testament Fulfillment
    Born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matt. 1:18,25
    Born at Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matt. 2:1
    He would be preceded by a Messenger Isaiah 40:3 Matt. 3:1-2
    Rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3 John 7:5; 7:48
    Betrayed by a close friend Isaiah 41:9 John 13:26-30
    His side pierced Zech. 12:10 John 19:34
    Crucifixion Psalm 22:1,
    Psalm 22:11-18 Luke 23:33;
    John 19:23-24
    Resurrection of Christ Psalm 16:10 Acts 13:34-37
    The eyewitnesses recorded the miracles of Jesus, and the gospels have been reliably transmitted to us. Therefore, we can believe what Jesus said about Himself for two reasons: one, because what He said and did agrees with the Old Testament; and two, because Jesus performed many convincing miracles in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw Him do.

    Can you provide secondary or thertiary sources? No you cannot, and please don’t bring up Josephus. Josephus’ supposed notation of jesus’ exploit is clearly a fraud, and has been defined as such several times – including by the church.

    Citation?

    “Once again I have proven that atheism has no origin and your best is a Red Herring…cmon really…you can do better I would have hoped.”

    You have proven no such thing, and I have not tried to prove it for you. Please re-read what I wrote and you will see that I did, in fact, provide you with an origin for the term “atheism”. However, I will state it once more: atheism is not a rigorous system of beliefs. An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in the existence of supernatural entities, and “atheism” is simply the non-specific descriptor for such a world view that originates from ancient greek – predating christianity by the way.

    A person who do not believe in god(s) is an atheist.
    A person who do believe in god(s) is a theist.

    So, while the term “atheist” coming from the ancient greek “atheos”, is at most a 3000 year old term, people who are now defined as such will have existed for as long as there have been humans on the planet. And so is also the case with theists. An atheist does not believe in god(s), whereas a theist does. Atheism is just a word, and it does not imply any kind of organized system of belief. I really don’t know hot I can make this any simpler for you.

    “We know they were written by eyewitnesses because they speak in the first person, recounting the events, describing accurately events verified by history related to the time of the gospels, etc.”
    I’m sorry, but that is not proof of anything other than that wven back then there were people able to write stories in first person. I can think of at least 10 different books right now that are also written predominantly in first person, and by your logic these must be true as well (which means that humans are currently busy exploring the galaxy, and waging interstellar war). And no, the bible has not been verified by secondary sources. But sure it describes real places, and some historical events, however this doesn’t make the whole thing any more truthful. If you claim that it does however, then I guess also Harry Potter must be true because we know that London exists. Or that the Lord of the Rings must be real because I know that Vestfold is a real place.

    [i]“But, you really don’t’ have a reason for your belief…except lack of evidence. But lack of evidence isn’t a good enough argument because the evidence iS there and you, apparently, haven’t done your homework concerning it.”[/i]

    I have provided you with ample reasons for my stance, and yet you seem to choose to ignore it. Why? I have read the bible twice, and flipped through it several times more. So you see, I have done my homework, and I have done my research. And while it is not conclusive, I could argue that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

    [i]“It is not logical for you to claim your strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God’s existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation. Alright, Let’s talk faith.
    Once again I ask you, “Who authored atheism?””[/i]

    But you see, for me the logical conclusion is that there is no god. I cannot prove it, but you cannot prove that there is one either. So we’re in a stalemate. However, I do not accept that agnosticism would be more logical – agnosticism is a cop-out, and in my head is nothing more than a modified version of Pascal’s Wager.

    You’ve been answered as to who authored atheism, but I state it once again. Atheism has no “author” or single point source of origin: it is just a word. It is just a word that defines people who do not believe in god(s), nothing more, nothing less.

    I will keep debating you if you are up for it, but I am going away this weekend so I might not be able to reply again until monday. So do not take my lack of immediate response as a forfeit. My pink unicorn is getting restless so I will have to take him out this weekend.

    Again, you miss the point. When you say you “believe” there is no God, or you “know” there is no God, you cannot logically and authoritatively demonstrate that what you”believe” or “know” is objectively true. Of course, this precludes any attempt at logical proofs that God does not exist. You have not come up with one yet. If you had, you would be using it everywhere. If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God’s non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God’s non-existence.

  48. Lithp Says:

    I notice that my epic win post never made it through.

    Is it just me, or do only willfully ignorant people tell others they haven’t “done their homework”?

    The amount of ignorance displayed in this little mini-debate above me is simply absurd. The fact that there is no known author is a strange phenomenon? Since when? Who’s the author of Hinduism?

    According to scholars, the evolution of Hinduism may be divided into three periods: the ancient (6500 BCE-1000 AD), the medieval (1000-1800 AD), and the modern (1800 AD to present). Hinduism is commonly thought to be the oldest religion in the history of human civilization. Hinduism is an eternal religion which is known to have no beginning and no end. It is supposed to be founded somewhere around 3200-2500 BC. According to the great epic Mahabharata, the more approximate date for this is 3102 BC.
    Mahabharata states that at the time of the birth of Lord Krishna on earth, the exact positions of the stars were recorded. The dates later than this mention come from linguistic and literary dating of the Rig Veda — the oldest of Hindu scriptures

    Of unrequited love? Of harnessing fire?

    God and the Torah\Judeo Christian Bible.

    There are a lot of ideas whose originators we don’t necessarily know.

    As I have pointed out “atheism” is the only such religion.

    “ZOMG SATAN!” is an illogical solution to this problem.
    moot

    Furthermore, it is interesting that you state atheists “try to put the burden of proof on you” when it IS on you, & because you can’t prove it, you try to pass it off on everyone else. You are correct in that you cannot prove a negative, but you take that to an incorrect conclusion that this means the philosophy is intellectually poor. I cannot prove there is no Superman. I cannot prove there is no Easter Bunny. I cannot prove there is no Sephiroth. I cannot prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. And I cannot prove that there is no God.

    In discussions with atheists, I don’t hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no “proofs” that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard — especially since you can’t prove a negative regarding God’s existence. Of course, that isn’t to say that atheists haven’t attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can’t. Besides, if there were a proof of God’s non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we don’t hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying God’s existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism’s truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.

    I also find it hilarious that you refer to skepticism with a negative stigma when you are being skeptical (albeit selectively & with flawed reasoning) of atheism.

    At least we Christians have evidences for God’s existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus’ resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc. There is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for God’s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage.

  49. ExiledAlien Says:

    “The only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible, and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, the atheist would have to propose that it may be possible that there is no God.1 But stating that something is possible doesn’t mean that it is a reality, or that it is wise to adopt the position.”

    The only way that theism is intellectually defensible, and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, the theist would have to propose that i may be possible that there is a god. But stating that something is possible doesn’t mean that it is a reality, or that it is wise to adopt the position.

    See what I did there? We can both play that game, but that doesn’t make it any more constructive. I’ve already stated that I cannot conclusively prove that there is no god, but on the other hand you cannot conclusively prove that there is a god either. I’ve taken my stance as an atheist because I’ve seen nothing to convince me otherwise, however I am fully capable at admitting to being wrong if I am proven to be, and that is intellectual honesty.

    I have some questions for you. At this point the evidence points towards agnosticism on your part.
    Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism. There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible, and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But stating that something is possible doesn’t mean that it is a reality, or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. Simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than “It is possible,” or “There is no evidence for God,” otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.“If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is a possibility? Not at all. Simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than “It is possible,” or “There is no evidence for God,” otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter, and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.”

    Yeah, and here you’re using the exact same argument I used earlier – which you chose to ignore by the way – about the fact that I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. I do have one, it’s pink and invisible, and it’s unmistakably a unicorn. What? You don’t believe me? Prove that I do not have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage.

    “In order to state there is no proof for God’s existence, you the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God’s existence. But, since you cannot know all things, you cannot logically state there is no proof for God’s existence.”
    I’ll accept the notion that there might be proof of god’s existence somewhere in the universe simply because I accept the fact that I could be wrong. But I do not know of any such proof, and as such the logical conclusion for me is that there is no god, and that therefore my stance as an atheist is the correct one. Prove to me that there is a god, and you will have convinced me that I am wrong, and I will then change my views of reality. You have attempted no such thing – because you can’t obviously – and instead you resort to spouting derogatory and condecending comments about atheists being intellectually weak, in spite of knowing full well that this is simply not true.

    “At best, you can only state that of all the alleged proofs you have seen thus far, none have worked. You could even say you believe there are no proofs for God’s existence. But then, this means there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there, and that you simply have not yet encountered one.”

    What you don’t seem to understand is the fact that I accept the possibily that I may be wrong, and that I have no problems admitting to such if it is proven. And as I stated; I’ve seen nothing thus far in my life to convince me that any deities exist, and as such I have concluded that there is no god(s) – hence I am an atheist. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about this, and there is nothing logically weak about it. If god were to manifest itself out of thin air directly in front of me an introduce itself as “I am god, I am the alpha and omega, hear me” then I would admit that 1) Oh well, guess I was wrong, and 2) but that doesn’t make this god any more worthy of my worship.

    “Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God’s existence, would the atheist be able to accept it, given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that you the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for you to accept a proof for God’s existence, you would have to change your presuppositional base. This is not easy to do, and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God’s existence, and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.”

    As I said; I would have no problem changing my views if presented with irrefutible evidence that I am wrong. Most atheists have no problems with this, and most atheist would tell you so. If god were to pop into existence out of thin air to introduce itself to everyone on the planet, give televised interviews and such we would all be convinced of being wrong, and we would all change our views. That’s not to say we would resort to worship though, as there are certain atrocities your particular brand of deity would have to answer for.

    “They cannot say there are no evidences for God, because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence presented so far has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has been undiscovered, and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God’s existence.”There you go again with defining the thought processes of a whole collection of people in spite of understanding them or accepting the fact that you have no way of knowing what makes any of us tick. An agnostic is a person who has not taken a defintive stance on the question of whether or not god exists – it is a cop-out, and at best a mild version of Pascal’s Wager.
    Everything can be explained by natural phenomena then?
    Tell me this, “Where did the first living cell come from?
    What is the chemical equation for love?

    I proclaim to be an atheist because I have seen nothing to convince me that there is a god, and therefore I conclude that there isn’t one. Everything can be explained by natural phenomena, and everything will be explained as such. Prove me wrong.

    But you’ve just admitted no more that 3 paragraphs ago that you believe that there may be a God but you lack the evidence to support your atheism, so which is it? Do you even know what you believe? You seem confused. In order to state there is no proof for God’s existence, you would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God’s existence. But, since you cannot know all things, you cannot logically state there is no proof for God’s existence.
    Science has not shown that there is no God, nor is there any logical proof (that I am aware of) that there is no God. Since atheism is the position of “no God” either in belief or “lack of belief,” and since there is no proof that God does not exist, then faith must make up the difference. Either atheism is absolutely true or it is possibly true. Since it cannot be proven that atheism is absolutely true (i.e., prove that there is no God in all space and time, etc.), then all that is left is a possibility that it is true — or, dare I say, that it simply is not true.
    Furthermore, you seem to believe that because science can explain things it means there is no God. But this is not logical, as I have demonstrated above.Finally, people can believe what they want to believe. I simply question the evidential and logical validity of the atheistic belief system.

    Most of us are quite happy letting the christians, or the muslims, or the hindus, or whichever group of religious people you might think of, go about their lives undisturbed. You will not see atheists proselytizing at street corners—

    BoNk!!!
    Liar,
    This is where you’ve gone off the rails, and the rest of your lunacy will be truncated as redundant and arguing from ignorance.

    http://atheiststooges.wordpress.com/category/the-fruits-of-militant-atheism/

    That about sums it up wouldn’t you agree.
    See I’ve done the same thing youre doing minus answering my questions with other questions thereby dodging your responsibilty to have a debate honestly and openly.
    You God Haters are truly laughable and always predictable. Get some game and come back. I’ve had much harder questions given to me than the introductory lessons I’m giving back to you.My advice? Head on over to talk.origins for the latest downloads, and learn how to parrot better.

    If there were no God, there would be no Atheists. — G. K. Chesterton

    • ExiledAlien Says:

      “Everything can be explained by natural phenomena then?
      Tell me this, “Where did the first living cell come from?
      What is the chemical equation for love?”

      The first living cells probably came about through the process which we today call abiogenesis. I am, however not a biologist so I wouldn’t be able to explain it in sufficient detail, so I simply advice you to research it on your own as I have done. I will advice you to goolge the Miller-Urey experiment, and the phrase: “Kastelein abiogenesis” – the first hit will lead you to a pdf document explaining very well what abiogenesis entails.

      What you believe, is all speculation and philosophy.You cannot show how life could have arisen from non-living matter naturally.You cannot show one single progression of fossils, from one kind to another.The dating methods evolutionists believe in are built on a false assumption that nothing has ever, nor could ever affect the rate of decay, which would require a closed system and there is no such thing in the universe.Thus, the three most important aspects of your belief system, are speculation and a desire to reject God and nothing more. That makes it superstition anda religion. If you wish to contest these facts, then just prove me wrong. You will be the first in the world and will withoutany doubt whatsoever, win a Nobel Prize and be the most honored person ever in science.
      Abiogenesis has never been observed, has never been duplicated and is contrary to established laws of science.The reality is, that this is an attempt by naturalists,
      to explain how life came about ON ITS OWN and when evolutionists make the statement that one can believe in abiogenesis and God, they are already admitting that there is no evidence that abiogenesis happened, which it couldn’t, since it would violate a known law of science, which is that life comes from life. The truth is, that if there were any evidence for abiogenesis, we would never hear the believers in abiogenesis stating this “fall back” position, including atheists, who will say that. Now why would an atheist say that, when the atheist says that there is no God? Simple! They know there is absolutely ZERO evidence for abiogenesis!They will say yes and then, when you ask for proof,they will tell you that science isn’t in the business of proof.True enough. But if you ask for evidence, we have mountains.evidence for abiogenesis? where? They always say they have “mountains of evidence”.
      It’s their mantra. When pinned down, they demand that you disprove it happened.

      Love is another label invented by man to explain the bonds humans form between themselves. It is highly beneficial to evolution in that human infant require many years of nurturing when they grow up in order to become capable of managing to live on their own. Our big brains make it necessary to birth our young a long time before they are able to survive on their own, and as such it is beneficial for nature to provide the necessary mechanism to ensure bonding between parents and their young. Nothing magical about this.

      And yes, there are chemical reactions involved, and they take place in the brain. There are various hormones, such as Oxytocin involved,

      Oxytocin has not been proven to be involved with love.Operative words being “may be” and far from being proof. From the prestigious Journal of Psychiatry
      “This is one of the first looks into the biological basis for human attachment and bonding,” said Rebecca Turner, PhD, UCSF adjunct assistant professor of psychiatry and lead author of the study. “Our study indicates that oxytocin may be mediating emotional experiences in close relationships.”

      And besides I asked you for the chemical equation for love and you’ve failed therefore your naturalistic worldview has just collasped.

      however me not being a biochemist makes it hard for me to explain it to you in necessary detail so again I suggest you do your own research.

      Oh thats fresh, you inability to answer a challenge with a weak attempt then place the challenge back on the challenger. A typical God-Haters move. All too prevelant in your circle.

      “But you’ve just admitted no more that 3 paragraphs ago that you believe that there may be a God but you lack the evidence to support your atheism, so which is it? Do you even know what you believe? You seem confused”

      I did not.
      I admitted that it is possible that I might be wrong, but I did not state that I believe that there may be a god. There is a difference, and no I am not confused.

      So you’re a liar as well…Here I’ll repost and let you comment again because I want you to try to squirm out of what’s coming.
      I’ve taken my stance as an atheist because I’ve seen nothing to convince me otherwise, however I am fully capable at admitting to being wrong if I am proven to be, and that is intellectual honesty.

      also:I did not. I admitted that it is possible that I might be wrong, but I did not state that I believe that there may be a god. There is a difference, and no I am not confused.

      My friend this makes you an agnostic whether you want to admit it or not. You are as far from being a practical atheist as I am.

      This is where you’ve gone off the rails, and the rest of your lunacy will be truncated as redundant and arguing from ignorance.
      *snipped link to see if that was what made my reply become discarded*
      That about sums it up wouldn’t you agree.”

      Oh I never claimed all of us where happy leaving the religious crowd alone; I said that most of us will do so. We have our share of fundamentalists, just as you do.

      What about the citation that atheism has killed tens of millions of people worldwide and why have you dodged that? Here I’ll give it to you again so can can be the honest intellectual you’d have me to believe that you are.

      http://atheiststooges.wordpress.com/category/the-fruits-of-militant-atheism/

      “See I’ve done the same thing youre doing minus answering my questions with other questions thereby dodging your responsibilty to have a debate honestly and openly.

      You God Haters are truly laughable and always predictable. Get some game and come back. I’ve had much harder questions given to me than the introductory lessons I’m giving back to you.My advice? Head on over to talk.origins for the latest downloads, and learn how to parrot better.”

      Furthermore, I did answer your questions, and I did provide citations for my claims when asked. You seem to have edited my post however, and that is certainly not what I would call intellectual honesty. Also, I am now unable to post replies with links in them, which worked for me yesterday. Strange, wouldn’t you say?

      And I’ve addressed each one from science as well.

      I do not hate god – I simply do not believe it exists, and it is impossible to hate something that doesn’t exist. And I am not parroting anything – my arguments are my own; I am not a talk.origins stooge, though I respect what some of those guys are doing over there. It is an important debate, and one that will never be resolved to the full satisfaction of either group of people I suspect. What we will have to learn to do however, is to co-exist to the best of our abilities.

      I hate that sound, you know the one of the table legs turning?
      You’ve repeatedly stated that you’re an atheist then claim to be an agnostic in other parts of your messages so which is it? Do we need to address your atheism or agnosticism? I’ve shown why you cannot be an atheist, and when I do that you tap dance and state that you’re an agnostic. You really are confused you know.

      So you want harder questions? Well, explain then the need for god with the CMB in mind. Explain then the need for god when we can show to thousands of extinct species displaying the exact properties that scientists expected, and showing the evolution from one species to another. Or better yet; instead of reiterating your same arguments over and over, could be please say something new and original to explain a reason as to why there must be a god.

      The fact is, evolution fails miserably and in this regard there is zero evidence for macroevolution, which is why evolutionists never present any.Are you able to defend your claims, point by point, in
      detail? If not, then you have proved yourself ignorant of science and yet, wish to portray yourself as some great intellect and knowledge, who’s going to educate us poor dumb Christians. There is no fossil evidence that macroevolution occurred.None. Zero. And the famous names in evolution know that and admit it. That is why Gould (one of the most famous evolutionists who ever lived) took Goldschmidt’s ridiculous concept of “Hopeful Monsters” (the idea that for example, a bird hatched from a reptilian egg) and toned it down and claimed that macroevolution occurs in “fits and starts” and
      called it, “Punctuated Equilibrium”. Why? Because he knew AND ADMITTED that the fossil record does NOT contain ANY evidence for macroevolution. Macro-Evolution is a bad fairy tale and there are no transitionals to show for it. Thats why it’s still a stupid theory up for debate. Show me how evolution is a fact and I’ll convert. Give me your best because I’ve seen all of the alleged proofs and none of them can fly in the face of cold hard science.

      Atheist newsgroups like alt.atheism is for suckers, The Atheist Revolution, and to all others who claim that atheist belief is superior, I leave you this: Your beliefs are just as whimsical as the religious beliefs you mock. The condition of God is unknowable. Until it is proven one way or the other; you have no right to call anybody’s belief irrational.

      ” ….And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes me the smartest of all.

      • ExiledAlien Says:

        It’s science, there’s no belief involved – there’s simply an acceptance of the data and evidence at hand. The evidence point toward a process that is studied under the name “abiogenesis”. However, abiogenesis is a fairly new field of study, and as such it’s still in it’s infancy.

        Why are you tap dancing around my evidence? I’ve made a statement of fact from science and all you can do is tell me that there’s no belief involved. Here are those facts again in a nutshell. What you believe, is all speculation and philosophy.You cannot show how life could have arisen from non-living matter naturally.You cannot show one single progression of fossils, from one kind to another.The dating methods evolutionists believe in are built on a false assumption that nothing has ever, nor could ever affect the rate of decay, which would require a closed system and there is no such thing in the universe.Thus, the three most important aspects of your belief system, are speculation and a desire to reject God and nothing more. That makes it superstition anda religion. If you wish to contest these facts, then just prove me wrong. You will be the first in the world and will withoutany doubt whatsoever, win a Nobel Prize and be the most honored person ever in science.
        Abiogenesis has never been observed, has never been duplicated and is contrary to established laws of science.The reality is, that this is an attempt by naturalists,
        to explain how life came about ON ITS OWN and when evolutionists make the statement that one can believe in abiogenesis and God, they are already admitting that there is no evidence that abiogenesis happened, which it couldn’t, since it would violate a known law of science, which is that life comes from life. The truth is, that if there were any evidence for abiogenesis, we would never hear the believers in abiogenesis stating this “fall back” position, including atheists, who will say that. Now why would an atheist say that, when the atheist says that there is no God? Simple! They know there is absolutely ZERO evidence for abiogenesis!They will say yes and then, when you ask for proof,they will tell you that science isn’t in the business of proof.True enough. But if you ask for evidence, we have mountains.evidence for abiogenesis? where? They always say they have “mountains of evidence”.
        It’s their mantra. When pinned down, they demand that you disprove it happened.

        However, did you, as I adviced you to, research the subjects I suggested for you? Did you research the Miller-Urey experiment in which they managed to create organic materials from inorganic ones? Did you read the paper I made available to you, as I have done, or are you simply spouting the same derogatory nonsense that most creationists I’ve seen online are guilty of?

        Nowhere in that paper did it demonstrate how they could create life from non- living material or otherwise. If they could we would have seen a Noble Peace prize. The paper was nothing more than a regurgitated demonstration of a thousand pissed off fruit flies left behind by Darwin. Your evidence has failed you again.

        Abiogenesis and Evolution are two separate disciplines of science – they are linked, absolutely, but evolution only came into play after abiogenesis had taken place. The mountains of evidence you refer to are in fact related to evolution, and you can deny these as much as you want, but that doesn’t make them any less valid.

        And once again I ask you for the earth shattering proof for evolution and to show me how life could come about by non-life and you keep failing whether out of ignorance or willful discrimination. (or a combination of both)

        The fact is that we can show to a massive collection of fossils – all of which are transitional by the way – and we can see traits in modern species that must be remnants of much more ancient functions.

        I repeat,all I am asking you is for a single one that I can analyze from science and fact and you’ve yet to honor my request?

        Examples of such, in man, are the coccyx, the appendix, vestigial tails, wisdom teeth and so on.

        The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim’s list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a “vestigial organ,” was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997:Other bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer’s patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection.313It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column supports the bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some small muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit comfortably without a coccyx.

        Also the fact that we share 97% – yes, 97 percent – of our DNA with the chimpanzee is conclusive proof that we once shared a common ancestor with them.

        Homology is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

        “And besides I asked you for the chemical equation for love and you’ve failed therefore your naturalistic worldview has just collasped.”

        No, you asked me to provide you with an impossibility. There is no single chemical equation for love, and there is never going to be one. Feelings of affection – feelings in general – are the result of electrochemical reactions in the brain; it is not one single chemical reaction that is responsible, but a whole series of them.

        All produced by God

        I quote:

        “There are a lot of chemicals racing around your brain and body when you’re in love. Researchers are gradually learning more and more about the roles they play both when we are falling in love and when we’re in long-term relationships. Of course, estrogen and testosterone play a role in the sex drive area (see How Sex Works). Without them, we might never venture into the “real love” arena.

        That initial giddiness that comes when we’re first falling in love includes a racing heart, flushed skin and sweaty palms. Researchers say this is due to the dopamine, norepinephrine and phenylethylamine we’re releasing. Dopamine is thought to be the “pleasure chemical,” producing a feeling of bliss. Norepinephrine is similar to adrenaline and produces the racing heart and excitement.”

        All produced by God and no chemical equation. You take a beating and keep on ticking and I like that!

        Besides, I never attempted to provide you with “the chemical equation for love”, and as such I didn’t fail in it either. I knew from the get-go that there was no single “chemical equation”, and that none would ever be found because of the large amounts of chemicals and hormones involved. And no, my naturalistic worldview has not collapsed because of this.

        Without the chemical equation your naturalistic view has collapsed. Love can only become an emotion when it is created from a divine diety and not from rocks, dirt, and talking monkeys.

        “Oh thats fresh, you inability to answer a challenge with a weak attempt then place the challenge back on the challenger. A typical God-Haters move. All too prevelant in your circle.”

        You do realize that it is apparent to anyone reading this, that I am the one actually attacking the arguments – such as they are – and not the person, whereas you repeatedly attack me – and fellow atheists – on a personal level time and time again. Hardly constructive behaviour.

        You keep parroting the atheistic party line while being a self-described agnostic. You refuse to answer questions posed to you in a simple and intellectually honest manner. How is that constructive behavior on your part? You should be ashamed of your ignorance.

        “So you’re a liar as well…Here I’ll repost and let you comment again because I want you to try to squirm out of what’s coming.”

        I read your repost of what I said, and then I re-read it, and I still don’t see anywhere where I state that I believe there may be a god.

        Then reread it again until you see the facts.

        “What about the citation that atheism has killed tens of millions of people worldwide and why have you dodged that? Here I’ll give it to you again so can can be the honest intellectual you’d have me to believe that you are.”

        And you are mistaken. Atheism in itself has not killed anyone. Atheistic dictators that were raving lunatics did, but they are not representative for all atheists. They were individual human beings with individual desires, and individual lunacies. I could also state that christianity – religion as a whole – has killed more people across history than anything else. I can prove it as well, but since you’ve disallowed links in replies I am unable to do so.

        The commonality is that they were “ALL ATHEISTS,” and bore the fruits of atheism. Atheism is deadly to both the spirit and society. It makes dimwits of all of its subjects and is a demonic ideology as I’ve proven. Atheists are the most distrusted minority in the world and there are very good reasons for that.

        “And I’ve addressed each one from science as well.”

        You have done no such thing.

        Then reread my responses one by one.

        What you have done, however is to deride the scientific discplines, and atheists.

        And you create one logical fallacy after another and step over them like they are weeds. Can you be more specific so I can educate you on my scientific discipline and how it’s blowing your unscientific discipline out of the stratosphere?

        While you do not seem to be able to understand that you can be an atheist without having deep knowledge of the various scientific disciplines. I am, for instance, primarily interested in astrophysics and astronomy, hence I don’t devote as much time to biology in comparison. And while I am able to explain much of it to a certain extent, and to provide resources for research, I am more comfortable while discussing astronomy compared to biology.

        Then why are you arguing from ignorance and placing your head on the plate?

        And seeing as how you’ve made it impossible to post replies with links in them , I am unable to cite sources for the claims. But the fact remains; evolution is firmly rooted in the scientific community, and it has heaps of evidence supporting it.

        And the fact remains, I have repeatedly asked you for your best alleged proof and I will abandon my creationistic worldview. Give me just one and make it your best and I’ll agree that if I cannot address it then I’ll admit that I have failed, but if I can address it logically and from science then you must admit that your best has failed fair enough then?

        A 3 second google search will render millions of hits that you can research at your leisure, and I also suggest you visit your local library where you will find hundreds of books devoted to the subject.

        That’s original… point me to a thousand posts by other God-Haters such as yourself and I can show you ten thousand more in favor of creation.

        Creationism Results 1 – 10 of about 3,300,000

        You say that there is no evidence for it, and that proponents of the theory are never posting any citations or evidence in support of the ToE. However, you are sorely mistaken on all these claims. Modern medicine is to a very large degree dependent on the theory of evolution to be correct in order to function, and in addition evolution has been observed in the lab. Google “bacteria makes evolutionary shift in the lab” and you will find at least one very interesting article about a certain strain of bacteria taking on whole new traits. Also, explain multiple antibiotics resistant bacteriae without using evolution. Also; flightless birds, the platypus and whales.

        And you fail to differentiate the differences between micro-evolution and macro evolution. The most obvious example—one Darwin himself used—is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding. You are full of failures today particularly.

        You lot keep asking for evidence of a “crocoduck” or that a “bird hatched from a reptilian egg”, but in doing so you demonstrate nothing apart from your own appalling ignorance of the subject at hand.

        Attempted deception by omission noted.

        Again you are showing your ignorance to gradeschool Biology. Every living organism shows a transition within its kind. That is except in the case of macroevolution.

        “However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. …We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework of frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables.” [Davis E. Green (evolutionist, Institute for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Robert F. Goldberger (evolutionist, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland), Molecular Insights into the Living Processes, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp. 406-407]

        No serious scientist ever claimed that such a thing would occur. Evolution is small increments of change over vast periods of time.

        “The fact is, evolution fails miserably and in this regard there is zero evidence for macroevolution, which is why evolutionists never present any.Are you able to defend your claims, point by point, in detail? If not, then you have proved yourself ignorant of science and yet, wish to portray yourself as some great intellect and knowledge, who’s going to educate us poor dumb Christians.”

        First off: “macroevolution” is a nonsensical term invented by creationists, and no serious scientist would ever use it. What you would call macroevolution is simply the result of lots and lots of microevolution over vast periods of time. Also, google “twin nested hierarchy”.

        Evolutionism fails to be self-consistent by requiring multiple “definitions”, depending on the need of the moment in the varied, and contradictory camps connected with thermodynamics, phylogeny, proposed mechanisms, and various sub-theories, etc.
        Evolutionism fails to agree with observations in:
        1. the fossil record
        2. geology
        3. genetics
        4. molecular biology
        5. thermodynamics
        6. dozens of dating methods (both radiometric and geological/geophysical)
        7. probability mathematics
        Evolutionism has failed to prove useful, having produced no new advancements in scientific knowledge or technology no advancements in medicine—and actually has hindered past research because of false claims (now discarded) concerning “vestigial” organs no positive contribution to society through evolution-based social “sciences” having served as a pseudo-scientific justification for racism, nazism, communism, and other societal/ideological ills.


        Secondly: Yes I can defend my claims, but you taking away the ability to include links makes this difficult. As I said; I am not a biologist, therefore I am not able to explain in sufficient detail the many intricasies of evolution. I can however describe the gist of it, and I can provide you with thousands of sources and links to sources for you to research on your own. Why are creationists always asking us to do your research for you? Is this intellectual honesty?

        Claims are not proof and a thousand links to evolution will not prove a thing. As I’ve said earlier, for every reason you can give me as to why what you believe is true I can give to you 10 other reasons why it is false. And all from science.

        Thirdly: I never claimed to be a great authority on the various sciences – in fact, I never claimed to have any knowledge of science at all. As it stands, however I am a person who is highly interested in some of the sciences, but only to a lesser degree in biology. And yes, I do believe I could be able to teach you a thing or two, but teaching requires the other party to be willing to listen, and so far you have shown no such willingness.

        Look alien, I used to be an evolutionist until I examined “ALL OF THE EVIDENCE,” and all of the best evidence that secular humanist based teachers have given me have failed under the light of reason and intelligence. I don’t listen to fairy tales and wishful thinking this is correct.

        And this is another thing you lot always seem to fail to understand. The fact is that all species – whether they are currently living or long ago extinct – are transitional. Evolution is slow increments of change over vast periods of time, and the consequence of this is that evolution is a relentless on-going process. Evolution never rests, it never stops, it has no conscious motivation on it’s own and there is no perfection to be had.

        Evolution has never been observed while variation has.
        Substantial differences exist between such systems as breathing, vision, circulation, locomotion, etc., both in general configuration and in the critical details. Faced with the absence of empirical evidence for transitions in these systems, few evolutionists bother to speculate on how these systems could have successfully “transitioned” from one to the other, or how an intermediate version could possibly provide the needed functionality for either the “original” or the “descendant” system during the alleged transition.

        “The condition of God is unknowable. Until it is proven one way or the other; you have no right to call anybody’s belief irrational.”

        I understand why you would say that, however I find the notion of adults having invicible friends to be highly irrational. Besides, you do the same thing, and by your own argument, what gives you the right to do so?

        And I don’t believe in atheists either.
        As I’ve stated earlier, out of all of the evidence in the universe available, your tiny little brain grasps less than 1% or more who knows for sure. To say you don’t believe in God due to a lack of evidence is a huge leap of faith on your part. You would have to see all of
        1.the evidence to make that assumption. The best you can say is that from what you have seen thus far there may be a God. To say “I believe there is no God” is a conscious choice. Then, on what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three?
        If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God’s existence?

        1.There can be no such evidence, since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove the existence of God who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
        (I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible).
        2.Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist.
        3.If logic, then what logical proof do you have that negates God’s existence?
        4.At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs presented thus far are insufficient.
        5.Logic can be used to disprove theistic evidences that are presented. Negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs, since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God’s existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God’s existence.
        6.If there were a logical argument that proved God did not exist, it has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God’s non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far there are no logical proofs for God’s non-existence.
        7.If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
        8.If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
        9.For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith, since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.

  50. Lithp Says:

    “According to scholars, the evolution of Hinduism may be divided into three periods: the ancient (6500 BCE-1000 AD), the medieval (1000-1800 AD), and the modern (1800 AD to present). Hinduism is commonly thought to be the oldest religion in the history of human civilization. Hinduism is an eternal religion which is known to have no beginning and no end. It is supposed to be founded somewhere around 3200-2500 BC. According to the great epic Mahabharata, the more approximate date for this is 3102 BC.
    Mahabharata states that at the time of the birth of Lord Krishna on earth, the exact positions of the stars were recorded. The dates later than this mention come from linguistic and literary dating of the Rig Veda — the oldest of Hindu scriptures.”
    Come now, surely I don’t have to point this out to you–you failed to provide an author, because the originator of Hinduism is UNKNOWN.

    “According to scholars, the evolution of Hinduism may be divided into three periods: the ancient (6500 BCE-1000 AD), the medieval (1000-1800 AD), and the modern (1800 AD to present). There I’ve given you a period and we pretty much have the authors nailed down to a handful according to research. So I ask you again, if you cannot provide an author for atheism or even a period then it is of an unknown origin. I say it’s satanic in its nature, I believe it’s satanic in its nature because no one can come close to documenting its beginnings. You have not given me an origin for atheism and you haven’t even tried because you have none.

    “In discussions with atheists, I don’t hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no “proofs” that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard — especially since you can’t prove a negative regarding God’s existence.”
    Exactly. You can’t prove a negative. But what you’re saying is that holding the viewpoint that something does not exist is irrational. By this logic, you must also believe in the Tooth Fairy. It is impossible to prove that a magical being does not exist. Your parents would have proved this to you when you were little, & started having your doubts.
    “The tooth fairy isn’t real.”
    “Of course she is.”
    “How does she get into our house?”
    “She can go through walls.”
    “How come I’ve never seen her?”
    “She can turn invisible.”
    “I saw you putting money under my pillow.”
    “She was sick that day, & I was passing the money along for her.”
    And they will likely do this with every imaginary figure until you reach a certain age. You & I know this is nonsense. You may have even known when you were a kid, but realized you couldn’t disprove the claim. This is exactly the way it is with Christianity. No matter how many logical arguments people will come up with, Christians will ALWAYS find a loophole, because you can’t prove a negative.

    First of all, Jesus is presented as an historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings. Tooth Fairy is simply presented as a fictional character.
    Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles. These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably; the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. Santa Claus is intentionally, and knowingly, presented as a fictional character who lives at the North Pole.
    Third, the intention of the gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults, whereas the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children. This is why the vast majority of healthy, mentally competent adults do not believe in a real person known as Santa who can travel through air being pulled by several flying reindeer, who can carry in his sled enough presents for all the good children in the entire world, and who can descend and ascend through chimneys even though he is quite overweight.1
    Fourth, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit an historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality. Santa Claus stories do not contain any such integral contextualization, except to state that there is a North Pole and that there are cities and countries where Santa visits at night.
    Fifth, the facts are that parents buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children, and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer. This latter point is worth a comment, since we additionally have no evidence at all that reindeer can fly. This further adds to the irrationality of the Tooth Fairy and santa claus story. Additionally, if a large sleigh (sufficient to carry millions of toys) approached the Washington D.C. area (surely there are at least some good children there), we would expect to hear of military fighter jets being scrambled to intercept the intruder. No records of this have yet surfaced.
    Sixth, given that the gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him), that the gospels are historically accurate, superbly transmitted to us through the copying method, we can then assume at the very least that Jesus was an actual historical person. But, we have no hard evidence to establish the validity of Santa Claus. We have found no reindeer tracks on the roofs of millions of snow-covered homes on Christmas Eve. There are no video accounts of Santa roaming throughout peoples’ homes. We know of no flying reindeer, and no one has yet established how Santa can live at the North Pole for hundreds of years without being detected — particularly in this technologically advanced culture. Add to that the lack of Santa Disciples going about the world, risking their lives, being ridiculed by religious and political adversaries, writing inspirational text, performing miracles, etc., and you really don’t have much evidence at all that Santa exists, except in the minds of children.
    Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can reasonably be proven to exist. Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus, and though millions of children affirm the existence of Santa, we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality — particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them Santa is real.
    For an atheist to reject Jesus’ existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for the atheist to distinguish between historical, verifiable documents and known, constructed childrens’ stories. Jesus was an actual historical figure. Santa, of course, is not.

    So, if it is irrational to not believe in something soley based off of lack of evidence, then it follows that the only rational thing to do is retain belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Greek gods, et cetera.
    Unless there’s a different angle you’d like to approach this from, your argument is invalid.
    “Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism’s truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.”
    Hypothetically, let’s say you’re correct in your reasoning. What’s your point?
    “At least we Christians have evidences for God’s existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus’ resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc. There is another problem for atheists.”
    The problem is that none of THIS evidence is satisfactory. Skeptics can tell you a lot of ways prophecies can be inaccurate. Either they’re written after the fact, the “truth” is all in the interpretation because prophecies are often vague, the prophecy is self-fulfilled, or other problems in determining that the prophecy is “true.” Jesus’s ressurrection is also an idea accepted on faith, the major evidence being that we have a claim that he rose from the dead, & no body to prove that he didn’t. The Transcendental Argument is not proof of anything, because it does not demonstrate the Christian God’s existance, it just argues that morality, logic, & science come from it. You can’t use an argument’s premise as proof of anything, because the premise is entirely hypothetical. As for the entropy problem, I am not certain what that is.
    “Refuting evidences for God’s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage.”
    If you refute the eye witnesses to a marriage, it places that marriage in doubt. Now imagine that the couple cannot be located, there are no records of the ceremony, & all of the witnesses are dubious at best. Someone might come along & go, “You know what? I’m starting to think there never WAS a marriage in the first place.” This would be equivalent to atheism, in this analogy.

    As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account for our own existence. Okay, so we exist. That’s obvious. And though atheists like to tout the evolutionary flag, evolution isn’t the issue here. Instead, we need to go way back and ask, where did the universe come from? You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else. The universe came into existence. So, what caused it to come into existence?
    When answering this question, there are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the universe: an impersonal cause and a personal cause. This is an antonymic pair that exhausts all possibilities. It is either one or the other. There is no third option. Let’s first look at the atheist option to explain the universe, an impersonal cause.
    If the atheist were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can’t be performed such as bringing itself into existence. So, that doesn’t work.
    If the atheist said the universe has always existed, that doesn’t work either because that would mean the universe was infinitely old. If it is infinitely old then why hasn’t it run out of useable energy by now as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can’t work.
    If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can’t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again), not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now. So, that explanation doesn’t work either.
    Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot be infinitely old, in its present form or any other form. So, how did it, and ultimately we get here? Atheism can’t help us here. So, let’s turn our attention to the other option: a personal cause. If there is a personal influence, which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe. Let me explain.
    A rock doesn’t suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head unless acted upon by something else. For matter and energy to change and form something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist?
    Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.
    In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.
    You see? The atheists have nothing to offer us with the important issue of explaining how we got here. Atheism can’t answer one of the most important philosophical questions pertaining to our own existence. It is deficient and lacking and at best can offer us only ignorance and guesses.
    Okay, finally, even though it isn’t necessary in this video, I’ll deal with one of the standard objections atheists have when this topic comes up. What brought God into existence?
    The answer is simple. Nothing brought him into existence. He has always existed. He is the uncaused cause. Think about it. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. It’s like having an infinite line of dominos falling one after another. If you go back infinitely in time to try and find the first domino that started it all, you’d never find it because you’d have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do. This would also mean that there you can’t have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore, this would mean there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause, then there can’t be a second, or a third, and so on and you wouldn’t have any of them falling at all. But since they are falling, there had to be a first cause, that itself was uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past. So too with the universe. It was caused to exist at a specific point in time. The uncaused cause is God, who decided to create the universe and who, as the Bible says in Psalm 90:2, “is from everlasting to everlasting.”

  51. Lithp Says:

    There I’ve given you a period and we pretty much have the authors nailed down to a handful according to research. So I ask you again, if you cannot provide an author for atheism or even a period then it is of an unknown origin. I say it’s satanic in its nature, I believe it’s satanic in its nature because no one can come close to documenting its beginnings. You have not given me an origin for atheism and you haven’t even tried because you have none. You were given several answers, all of which you ignored on similar grounds. I see no reason to meet your challenge, because it has already been met. Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere. Besides, as I’ve already stated, not having a known origin does not prove that it’s from Satan. That’s an irrational leap.Evolution is as logical as if an explosion in a book store resulted in an unabridged dictionary. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics states that matter if left to itself does not become more organized etc, it actually deteriorates. I used to consider Evolution, until I really studied the theory and then read some books on Scientific Creationism. It actually takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than the theory of creationism. For instance, how could inanimate matter suddenly decide that it should form an eyeball, or male and female parts?? Evolution is a religion.

    +Identify the objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are unique in a way which will affect whether they both have that property. Until then you’re a fool.

    I’ve spanked, owned, racked, and punked you out and you somehow still think you are winning. I doubt you could even get a REG to come in here and back you on this one. I’m sure they don’t want to look stupid going down the drain with you.

    First of all, Jesus is presented as an historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings. Tooth Fairy is simply presented as a fictional character.

    You fit the textbook definition of a troll.You are nothing more than prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed into a corner in an argument.

    This is completely irrelevent. First of all, you’re being vague. I hear this tossed around a lot, but it’s never backed up. Second of all, this has nothing to do with proving a negative, the futility of being that which is what I was demonstrating.

    You wouldn’t know nonsense from truth if it hit you upside your head with a crowbar- You have two faces, and you don’t even try to hide them. You say one thing in one comment and in the next completely contradict your last statement. Try not to let these people watching think you’re some great debater. You’re borderline schizophrenic and that’s not name calling. You really say one thing then the opposite next to get your ways.

    Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles. These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably; the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. Santa Claus is intentionally, and knowingly, presented as a fictional character who lives at the North Pole.

    But you still can’t prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. That’s the entire point. Nevermind how they’re “portrayed,” because it doesn’t follow that if they are stated to be real, they are. You yourself deny various gods that came before and after the Judeo-Christian one.

    You mean, I tell the truth and I show everyone what a liar you are and that makes you angry and you post
    innuendo saying that I’m a troll. Doens’t work.

    Third, the intention of the gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults, whereas the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children. This is why the vast majority of healthy, mentally competent adults do not believe in a real person known as Santa who can travel through air being pulled by several flying reindeer, who can carry in his sled enough presents for all the good children in the entire world, and who can descend and ascend through chimneys even though he is quite overweight.

    Of course, the fact that you responded to this post, shows that you’re lying about not seeing the facts.You fail to acknowledge the facts, because you’re
    unable to refute them and so, you pretend they
    don’t exist. Them, you wish to challenge me, as
    if you are an honest individual?

    And yet these same adults are being logically inconsistent. You also see this same thing in people who identify as agnostics. Only gods are given the credibility that they “might exist,” & is completely irrational. Just because something’s portrayed as fictitious, it does not mean it’s held to a lower standard of proof. You can’t disprove that it might exist outside of your universe, that it might be unobservable, or disprove other arguments that are often used for God.

    As I thought. You think repeating what has been
    refuted many times equates to a rebuttal.

    Fourth, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit an historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality. Santa Claus stories do not contain any such integral contextualization, except to state that there is a North Pole and that there are cities and countries where Santa visits at night.

    Now you’re just picking apart the details of my analogy. We are getting further & further from the point, & this doesn’t even prove anything. The Fullmetal Alchemist movie takes place in Germany. It mentions Adolf Hitler, the Thule Society, Rudolf Hess, & other figures of the period. It’s still fiction.

    It’s different though, when an atheist fails to accept or distorts the truth because they can always claim that they are “logical”, “rational”, and “un-biased”. Yeah, whatever….What they can rarely manage to be, however, is logical, or rational, or unbiased. Indeed it is hilarious to note that they keep repeating, in set phrases, atheist slogans like ‘think for yourself’! People who think for themselves do not need to talk in elderly slogans.Let’s take the fact that you hate God into consideration.
    This is part of the pattern of denial that goes hand in hand. When something is threatening,the mind tries to deny it.In Psychology this is called repression.

    Fifth, the facts are that parents buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children, and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer. This latter point is worth a comment, since we additionally have no evidence at all that reindeer can fly. This further adds to the irrationality of the Tooth Fairy and santa claus story. Additionally, if a large sleigh (sufficient to carry millions of toys) approached the Washington D.C. area (surely there are at least some good children there), we would expect to hear of military fighter jets being scrambled to intercept the intruder. No records of this have yet surfaced.
    Yes, but you STILL can’t disprove it. Remember, Santa is magic. If he doesn’t want you to find him, you aren’t going to do it. Listen, the argument is not whether or not Santa exists, it’s the fact that the same arguments used to defend the concept of God effectively make it impossible to disprove Santa. You’re getting into lack of evidence, it doesn’t even matter. The point is that it’s impossible to logically refute. The idea is not falsifiable, & that is why it is irrational. The same goes for God. Regardless of whether or not there is any evidence for him (there is not), the concept can still be defended with arguments like, “God works through people–he inspires people to do good things.” You can directly parallel this with the fact that parents put presents under the tree. I’m sure your parents have told you at least once that Santa gets parents to put gifts under the tree, because he’s very busy. Well, just picture that he can do this for every practicing household in the world without them even knowing. That’s the same argument that all good comes from God, even if you don’t believe in him.

    “Over the years, I have found there are negative skeptics and cynics out there on every subject. It is easy to find them. They are so predictable, and they typically reject anything supernatural. They have to, because to admit it would be tantamount to admitting to a God to whom they are accountable. They cannot permit that. It is as simple as that. Biblically speaking, you could say they are spiritually dead and they think everything must have a natural, material explanation.”

    Sixth, given that the gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him), that the gospels are historically accurate, superbly transmitted to us through the copying method, we can then assume at the very least that Jesus was an actual historical person. But, we have no hard evidence to establish the validity of Santa Claus. We have found no reindeer tracks on the roofs of millions of snow-covered homes on Christmas Eve. There are no video accounts of Santa roaming throughout peoples’ homes. We know of no flying reindeer, and no one has yet established how Santa can live at the North Pole for hundreds of years without being detected — particularly in this technologically advanced culture. Add to that the lack of Santa Disciples going about the world, risking their lives, being ridiculed by religious and political adversaries, writing inspirational text, performing miracles, etc., and you really don’t have much evidence at all that Santa exists, except in the minds of children.
    For the first part, you have not demonstrated any of this evidence, merely stated it to be fact. For the second part, it’s a moot point. I could indicate that other religions have followers who die for their beliefs, & you’d still say they were false. The fact that people are willing to go far for an idea does not prove it.

    You militant atheists pretty much all work from the same script.
    Although viewing yourselves as “free thinkers”, you all have a Party Line you follow rather closely.
    It isn’t difficult to anticipate your arguments on any
    given point. Most intelligent religious individuals almost always can correctly predict what
    you’ll say next.Interestingly, militant atheists get much of their beliefs about “Christianity” from liberal Christians.
    They’ll pejoratively label all Christians as “Fundies”,
    then presumptively attack liberal theological concepts
    they suppose us “Fundies” subscribe to !
    Nearly all militant atheists are followers of the
    religion of Scientism. Their priests wear white lab
    coats. Their sacramental objects are the microscope,
    the telescope, and the test tube. Blasphemy is to
    deny the ultimate authority of science.
    But the militant atheists -the ones who have devoted
    their lives to refuting Christianity- are almost like the
    demons …who believe more firmly in God’s existence
    than do Christians !
    It can unequivocally be stated that militant atheists are some
    of the people who most solidly believe in God !
    Ain’t talking ‘practical atheists’ here …those who don’t
    even think much about atheism. They’re the true
    atheists.
    Professional atheists who’ve dedicated themselves
    to eradicating the Lord do so because they hate Him.
    They’re the God-haters.
    To which they’ll invariably reply: ‘How can we hate
    something we don’t believe in ?’.
    Exactly ! It’s their belief in God which drives them to
    relentlessly attack Him.
    Run of the mill, everyday ‘practical atheists’ don’t
    give God a second thought. They’re the ones
    I worry about.
    Whereas militant atheists are fighting against the
    innate knowledge of suppressed in their hearts.
    As a militant atheist I can unequivocally state that there is no time in your life that you
    totally disbelieved in God. And -in fact- were driven to
    work against the Lord by belief in Him !
    It isn’t that militant atheists don’t believe God exists.
    Instead: That they don’t want God to exist.

    Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can reasonably be proven to exist. Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus, and though millions of children affirm the existence of Santa, we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality — particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them Santa is real.

    Here’s the kicker: Even if you were to prove Jesus existed, it would not prove God exists, which is sort of the point.

    For an atheist to reject Jesus’ existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for the atheist to distinguish between historical, verifiable documents and known, constructed childrens’ stories. Jesus was an actual historical figure. Santa, of course, is not.

    No, this demonstrates your inability to see the point of an argument, recognize basic logical fallacies, & counter said argument. Of all of these numerous, unnecessary supporting details, which I wasn’t even commenting on in my original analogies, you have not once countered the fact that the same arguments used for God also render it impossible to prove any other being, obviously fictious or not. Furthermore, you repeatedly mentioned Jesus, when the point was not the historical figure that might or might not exist, but the deity that I’m supposed to believe in. Rather than see the point, you’ve made a sweeping, generalizing ad hominem. I was honestly expecting more out of you. What a shame.

    Since you offer nothing in support of this claim besides sweeping (and disfigured) generalizations (e.g., “Like all creationist whom are misguided, you certainly fit the cake.”), it remains unqualified and unsubstantiated, as does the balance of your message.

    So, if it is irrational to not believe in something soley based off of lack of evidence, then it follows that the only rational thing to do is retain belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Greek gods, et cetera.
    Unless there’s a different angle you’d like to approach this from, your argument is invalid.
    “Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism’s truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.”
    Hypothetically, let’s say you’re correct in your reasoning. What’s your point?
    “At least we Christians have evidences for God’s existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus’ resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc. There is another problem for atheists.”
    The problem is that none of THIS evidence is satisfactory. Skeptics can tell you a lot of ways prophecies can be inaccurate. Either they’re written after the fact, the “truth” is all in the interpretation because prophecies are often vague, the prophecy is self-fulfilled, or other problems in determining that the prophecy is “true.” Jesus’s ressurrection is also an idea accepted on faith, the major evidence being that we have a claim that he rose from the dead, & no body to prove that he didn’t. The Transcendental Argument is not proof of anything, because it does not demonstrate the Christian God’s existance, it just argues that morality, logic, & science come from it. You can’t use an argument’s premise as proof of anything, because the premise is entirely hypothetical. As for the entropy problem, I am not certain what that is.
    “Refuting evidences for God’s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage.”
    If you refute the eye witnesses to a marriage, it places that marriage in doubt. Now imagine that the couple cannot be located, there are no records of the ceremony, & all of the witnesses are dubious at best. Someone might come along & go, “You know what? I’m starting to think there never WAS a marriage in the first place.” This would be equivalent to atheism, in this analogy.

    As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems.

    Is this a “words that have no business being in the same sentence” contest? Okay, then, let me try: In beef jerkey, you can find a key, which will open the apricot to the land of magical baked potatoes. Do I win?

    One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account for our own existence. Okay, so we exist. That’s obvious.

    Okay, so you want the simple statement “God likely does not exist” to explain literally everything? And I suppose you don’t see how illogical this is…?

    And though atheists like to tout the evolutionary flag, evolution isn’t the issue here.

    That’s a shiny mirror ya got there.

    Instead, we need to go way back and ask, where did the universe come from? You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else. The universe came into existence. So, what caused it to come into existence?

    We don’t know. And we don’t claim to know. Claiming to know something that has not been demonstratably proven is intellectually dishonest.

    When answering this question, there are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the universe: an impersonal cause and a personal cause.
    This is an antonymic pair that exhausts all possibilities. It is either one or the other. There is no third option.
    Let’s first look at the atheist option to explain the universe, an impersonal cause. If the atheist were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can’t be performed such as bringing itself into existence.

    Yet we’ve actually observed this happening. Note the crazy quantom physics bullshit below.

    So, that doesn’t work. If the atheist said the universe has always existed, that doesn’t work either because that would mean the universe was infinitely old. If it is infinitely old then why hasn’t it run out of useable energy by now as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would state.

    The system would have to reset itself periodically, which is actually one theory. It basically goes Big Bang–>Billions of years–>Big Crunch–>Repeat. How, exactly, would that work? Well, things on the quantom level have a funny way of not doing what they’re supposed to do. You can actually get antimatter & matter to appear spontaneously, & every so often, you’ll get a bit more matter than antimatter.

    Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can’t work.

    If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can’t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again), not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now. So, that explanation doesn’t work either. Energy isn’t created or destroyed. It would run out of the ability to expand, but what would happen then? Would it collapse & rebound off of itself, effectively creating another universe? Nobody knows.Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot be infinitely old, in its present form or any other form. So, how did it, and ultimately we get here? Atheism can’t help us here. So, let’s turn our attention to the other option: a personal cause. If there is a personal influence, which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe. Let me explain.

    Careful we’re you’re going with this. I see a double-standard on the horizon.

    A rock doesn’t suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head unless acted upon by something else. For matter and energy to change and form something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist?Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.
    In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.
    You see? The atheists have nothing to offer us with the important issue of explaining how we got here. Atheism can’t answer one of the most important philosophical questions pertaining to our own existence. It is deficient and lacking and at best can offer us only ignorance and guesses.

    You’re only noting the problems for the universe, but ignoring that they exist for God, too. The statement that God has always existed is unscientific. The statement that God created itself is also unscientific. Furthermore, valid though this argument is, it also works for an IMpersonal cause acting from the outside. M theory would be a chief example of this: Universes are formed as a result of the “dimensional membranes” colliding with each other.

    You know it’s funny; atheists like yourself seem to spend an awful lot of
    time reading things you supposedly don’t believe.
    Question: Have you ever done a critical historical and exegetical study of the Bible yourself? I am willing to bet that you haven’t. It is said that 95% of those who come across as you do, and choose to denigrate Christianity, have not either – they are just repeating things that they have heard, read, or been taught, from others without examining objectively the facts, evidences and writings of our faith. Which makes you a parrot at best?

    You haven’t posted a single worthwhile argument to even contemplate a decent reply. Don’t imagine you’re the first to pour your need for reassurance on alt.atheism. There are no converts here. Judging from the number of posts generated by your thread, most are passing you up
    as a wacked out hippy moron pushing the ordinary fantasies. Boooooooring……..

    Okay, finally, even though it isn’t necessary in this video, I’ll deal with one of the standard objections atheists have when this topic comes up. What brought God into existence? The answer is simple. Nothing brought him into existence. He has always existed. He is the uncaused cause. Think about it.

    No. You think about it. That does not work with your prior logic. Your conclusion does not follow your premise.

    You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. It’s like having an infinite line of dominos falling one after another. If you go back infinitely in time to try and find the first domino that started it all, you’d never find it because you’d have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do. This would also mean that there you can’t have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore, this would mean there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause, then there can’t be a second, or a third, and so on and you wouldn’t have any of them falling at all. But since they are falling, there had to be a first cause, that itself was uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past. So too with the universe. It was caused to exist at a specific point in time. The uncaused cause is God, who decided to create the universe and who, as the Bible says in Psalm 90:2, “is from everlasting to everlasting.”

    And the universe cannot be this uncaused cause because…?

    The problem with you is that you have this huge empty hole right through the middle of your heart and you need revenge for being born. That’s the entire focus of your life.

    I have no interest in responding to another ridiculously long word salad. You may very well not hear from me again.

    Translation: I tell the truth and the truth is too hot for you to hold so you give up and call me a loser…does’nt work Lithp…you’re as transparent as glass and since you offer nothing in support of this claim besides sweeping (and disfigured) generalizations (e.g., “Like all creationist whom are misguided, you certainly fit the cake.”), it remains unqualified and unsubstantiated, as does the balance of your message. You are dishonest and possess a very low I.Q. Good Riddance!

  52. ExiledAlien Says:

    Why are you tap dancing around my evidence?”
    You want me to dissect your every sentence? Fine, I’ll do so in spite of you having made no effort to do the same. You attack my person and my convictions, but unlike me you have not attacked my arguments. Why is that?

    Translation: I dodge the questions asked by providing more questions to avoid having to answer the challenge. I avoid answering the challenge because the questions I am asked are too hard for me to answer.

    “I’ve made a statement of fact from science and all you can do is tell me that there’s no belief involved.”

    No you haven’t, and no there isn’t – and anyone going back to read the previous comments will see so, provided that their reading comprehension is above that of a Bonobo. Science makes all it’s tools available to everyone with the willingness and the know-how to perform the experiments themselves. Science can back up their claims with evidence – religions cannot.

    Intelligent design is based on science and religion is based on intelligent design,

    Arguments for God
    The Design or Teleological Argument.
    We see much design in the world. Something designed points to a designer. The universe is very fined tuned for life. This could not be by accident but design. This is the number one reason why people say they believe in God. British physicist Paul Davies writes in his book Superforce, “The laws [of physics] …seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design…The universe must have a purpose.” In his book The Cosmic Blueprint he states, “[I see] powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.”
    Hugh Ross has some excellent books pointing out how fine tuned the universe is for life. His web site is Reasons to Believe. The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross published by Promise, 1989. The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross published by Navpress, 1993.
    Primer Mover Argument – The world is in motion. Someone must have started the motion. This is similar to the next argument.
    First Cause Argument-The world has cause and effect sequences. There must be an efficient first cause for everything in the world. Since the discovery of the expansion of the universe, Scientists realize the universe had a beginning. How did the beginning begin? Some astronomers turned to God. Astronomer Robert Jastrow states, “The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
    A good book on this is Show Me God by Fred Heeren (Day Star, 1997). Website: Day Star

    The Perfection or Ontological argument. If there is something good and true, there must be something truest or perfect from which everything comes which must be God.
    The Moral argument. Humans know right from wrong. Animals do not. Where does this morality come from, God.
    The miracles argument. Miracles show there must be a God.
    The experience argument. I have experienced God’s power, he must exist. Similar to this is the next one.
    The consoling argument. I believe because it makes me feel better.
    Pascel’s Wager Argument morality is only justifiable if God exists. In theory you can have morality without believing in God but it can’t be validated. societies exist even if they dont believe in God because they do have moral theories of how things “ought” to be. Even Kant knew that God must be postulated for morality to be legitimate. “Here are those facts again in a nutshell. What you believe, is all speculation and philosophy.”
    Ah yes, attacking my personal convictions instead of my argument, and presenting no actual evidence to suggest that I am wrong…
    I’ve just given the evidence again, now you can go ahead and ignore it if you like but you’re very close to getting banned for being a troll.
    “You cannot show how life could have arisen from non-living matter naturally.”
    As of yet, no we cannot do this conclusively.
    It’ll never happen
    “You cannot show one single progression of fossils, from one kind to another.”

    Yes we can:

    YOU’RE COMPREHENSION NEEDS ADJUSTMENT-There you go again ignoring the rules of the game, I asked for you’re best (remember?) and now you decide that you can change the rules w/o cause or justification. Here is the challenge again (GIVE ME YOUR BEST EVIDENCE FOR A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL AND ONLY YOUR BEST AND IF I CANNOT DISPROVE IT FROM SCIENCE THEN I”LL ADMIT THAT YOUR BEST HAS WON, BUT IF I CAN THEN YOU MUST ADMIT THAT YOUR BEST HAS LOST)
    For this example we’ll look closely at the Tiktaalik as it is a beautiful intermediate species. And I quote:
    [i][b]This creature is called Tiktaalik roseae, and it was discovered in a project that was specifically launched to find a [u]predicted intermediate[/u] form between a distinctly fish-like organism, Panderichthys, and the distinctly tetrapod-like organisms, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. From the review article by Ahlberg and Clack, we get this summary of Tiktaalik’s importance:
    First, it demonstrates the predictive capacity of palaeontology. The Nunavut field project had the express aim of finding an intermediate between Panderichthys and tetrapods, by searching in sediments from the most probable environment (rivers) and time (early Late Devonian). Second, Tiktaalik adds enormously to our understanding of the fish-tetrapod transition because of its position on the tree and the combination of characters it displays.
    The analysis of the fossil clearly positions it as an intermediate: it has a more mobile skull/neck than a fish, and although its limbs are clearly fin-like, they also have features that presage the digits of tetrapods.[b][i]
    Quote ends.
    I would link you to a number of articles detailing the Tiktaalik to a much larger degree, but seeing as how you’ve removed the linking ability (and have shown no compulsion against editing the posts I’ve made) I can’t do this.

    Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom,but evolutionists had similar high hopes for the coelacanth fin. However, when a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938, the fins turned out not to be used for walking but for deft manœuvering when swimming. Thus all the claims about Tiktaalik are mere smokescreens, exaggerating mere tinkering around the edges while huge gaps remain unbridged by evolution.
    Read the rest here as it totally exposes your best for what it is another fairy tale.

    http://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a-fishy-missing-link


    ~SNIP~
    Look I warned you if you pull this crap again I’ll ban your IP from posting here. If you want to debate then debate, but if all your interested in is in scouring uploads from other peoples work then posting them as your own your going to get banned.

  53. ExiledAlien Says:

    Well this is what happens when I rush through answering some parts of this. Here is a snippet from my previous post:

    4) I have lived long enough to become well aware of my ignorance, but I am not ashamed of it – I am rather proud of it. It shows that I have not succumbed to the arrogance of believing to know all there is to know, but rather that I am fully capable of being awed by the splendour that is the universe around us. And this is what in turn drives me to learn ever more about it. I am happy with the answer “goddidit”, and I never will be.

    That last sentence should, of course, read ” I am not happy with the answer “goddidit”, and I never will be.”
    I would appreciate it if you could correct that for me, though I do not expect you will.

    It’s so simple and it boils down to personal choice and experience, so you can believe whatever you’d like and 99.9% of Christians don’t care. But when you infect society with the poison of atheism and anti-theism this is where the line in the sand must be drwan.
    I already explained this all to you but you gloss over the facts as if they don’t even exist so what is the point in arguing with you if you purposefully ignore my answers to your alleged problems?

    Reality 1: Everyone including atheists know the Christian god, God is real. We know he is real since we call him God with a capital “G” — that proves it right there. The more than 2,500 accounted for “gods” are all made up to attempt to draw Christians away from the one True god, God. All these non-Christians hate Christians, as well as God.
    Another fact is that atheists believe in the most eggresious of fairy tales.

    During my time at school, my study of philosophy (in the old sense which includes the study of music as part of philosophic education) was limited to playing the violin and the piano, and studying old Greek and Latin at college, and was further limited to a ‘Time-Life’ book from the library, that explained, that

    “Life consists of molecules in the sea that have been hit,
    by accident, by lightning,

    “to combine into simple proteins which, by chance, combined
    into living cells which,

    “by an endless succession of chance occurrences, finally
    combined into human bodies.”

    The book had a painted picture of a sea, with lightning flashing
    above it. And that picture ‘proved the matter conclusively.’

    One teacher at college knew it wasn’t true, but he did not
    dare to say anything when I mentioned that “proof:”

    Simple ‘accidental’ proteins would ‘accidentally’

    – without any spiritual or Life Energetic cause
    or control –

    combine into extremely complicated, pulsating,
    living, moving cells.

    Again without any spiritual cause or Life Energy

    – ‘by accident’ –

    these went through such an incredibly complex process
    as cell-division.


    And they kept on ‘accidentally’ dividing and combining,

    till, by the laws of chance,

    there ‘accidentally’ appeared the most complex and
    organized thing you can imagine:

    An ape-like body.
    This is the reason that I consider you, and others that believe all of the lies that you do as dimwits. And logic puzzles dimwits much like calculus puzzles dimwits.

  54. Lithp Says:

    “The problem with you is that you have this huge empty hole right through the middle of your heart and you need revenge for being born. That’s the entire focus of your life.”

    Idiot. I have real life obligations like homework, & this is the kind of shit you attempt to “debate” me with. Is it any wonder why I don’t wish to waste my time?

    There’s a huge difference between troll baiting and debating so do your homework well.Now, please, do everyone a favor and either think of something intelligent to say, or don’t say it at all. Or just be as stupid as I am convinced you are, and flame me again. Take some junior high English classes before you fail miserably at sending out any more of your idiotic “flames.” Secondly, your opinions don’t mean anything to me, or anyone else with a lick of sense, so keep them to yourself.

    I do have one final question and that is if this post belongs to you?
    I’m betting no, bit I am curious none the less.

    Lithp10-12-2002, 06:26 PM
    I believe the answer is yes. If you have heard of GOD and reject HIM, HE, in turn will reject you at the time of judgement.
    Atheists, like all of us, will still have to answer to GOD whether they believe it or not. At that time they will worship and believe but it will be too late.
    Many atheists believe in the theory of evolution rather than creation, even though there is no evidence to support it. People claim that there is scientific evidence of evolution without ever analysing (or even seeing) the data. Nor would the average person be able to interpret or gather all of the data necessary to formulate a truly scientific opinion. Yet we teach this theory in schools.
    Those who prescribe to the theory of evolution are actually part of a religion – much like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. For all of these religions, including evolutionism have followers that put their faith in the people or data that explains the world around them or above them.
    That being said, whenever I argue the point creation vs. evolution I am always willing to make the following compromise:
    I, as a believer in creation, was created sentient, whole and able to walk upright, complete with full intellectual faculties.
    You, as a believer in evolution, slowly evolved from primitive single celled creatures to “higher” forms of life who were hairy neanderthals who dragged their knuckles on the ground and until recently, were unable to even grow crops. :)
    But hey, to each his own. :)

  55. ExiledAlien Says:

    “Look I warned you if you pull this crap again I’ll ban your IP from posting here. If you want to debate then debate, but if all your interested in is in scouring uploads from other peoples work then posting them as your own your going to get banned.”

    And here we go.
    I wrote a very long post giving answers to all your questions, but your 1337 editing skills have not surprisingly deleted most of this, which of course leaves you able to state what you’ve just stated. Furthermore I never claimed to own the statements about Tiktaalik – in fact I stated quite obvious that it was a quote by saying “and I quote…”.

    Interpretations of the theory are irrelevant. What it actually says, is. You people claim it’s truth. You tell me exactly how it is supported and we’ll go from there. We can start at the beginning and work our way through time. My editing skills are directly correleated to your ability to post evasive questions and attempt to disguise them as answers just like you are doing once again in the response. Here I’ll give it to you again and if you cannot lift yourself up by the bootstraps and honestly address my challenge then no more of your posts will make it through period and I don’t care how many IP addresses you can muster I’ll know that it’s you. GIVE ME YOUR BEST PROOF FOR A TRANSITIONAL AND IF YOUR BEST FAILS THEN I”LL ADMIT THAT CREATIONISM HAS FAILED ME, BUT IF I REFUTE YOURBEST CLAIM FOR EVOLUTION THEN YOU MUST ADMIT THAT YOUR BEST PROOF FOR EVIDENCE HAS FAILED. TAKE NOTE THIS IS MY THIRD REQUEST AND THREE TIMES YOU HAVE DODGED MY CHALLENGE.”

    I’m guessing you’re feeling the pressure, and that the rest of my post that you have removed struck so deeply that you’d be happier not to have me post here again. Fine, if that’s the way you want to play it, then that’s your perogative. However, anyone reading this will take you even less seriously because of it – not that there are that many taking your nonsense seriously in the first place. I am norwegian, and I can testify to the fact that most of Europe laughs at your particular brand of deluded idiocy.

    That’s why most of Europe is having the problems they are having and it’s because they’ve left God by the wayside.I’ve been to your country and for the most part it is morally bankrupt.Oslo iis filled with male prostitution and the Gay and Lesbian suicide rates are thru the roof.For every adolescent girl selling sex, there are 3.5 adolescent boys selling sex. For your small size to have such massive problems is most telling to a giant such as America.

    Oh, and by the way; I have way more than one IP adress at my disposal.

    And that will be banned as well.

    “Reality 1: Everyone including atheists know the Christian god, God is real. We know he is real since we call him God with a capital “G” — that proves it right there. The more than 2,500 accounted for “gods” are all made up to attempt to draw Christians away from the one Tue god, God. All these non-Christians hate Christians, as well as God.”

    Yes of course. Capitalization makes it true; I see. So that would mean that Allah is for real as well? Notice the capital “A”, and that Odin is for real? Or Thor? Or Zeus?

    Your statements do not jive, from post to post and are self contradictory from post to post and sometimes, even within the same post. (:
    It is the method you dishonest atheists use.You try to belittle Christians and you make completely unscientific statements, as if they are indisputable fact. You think that by making the claims you do and telling people that they don’t understand science, that you can intimidate them. The reality is, you’re just a pretender, who is more ignorant of science, than most and you try to cover it up, with your slams. At the same time,you also try to cover up the fact that you’re intentionally slamming people, by trying to sound scientific. However, you don’t succeed, since it is you who does not comprehend the basic premise of science,let alone anything else about it. You know that you are not educated enough to deal with the issues, which is also evidenced by your “one liner” responses.It isn’t working. I can see right through you.

    You folks like to paste in a bunch of web links, none of which ever prove what you claim.

    No-one can know whether or not an entity that exists outside of observable reality is real – not atheists, not christians; no-one. You can believe it as much as you want to – and you do – but that doesn’t make it fact. Atheists have chosen not to believe in god – any gods – and most of us has done plenty of research before arriving at this conclusion, however most of us are also more than capable of changing our beliefs in light of conclusive evidence. Hence, if it could be proven – conclusively proven – that god – any god – is real, then your lot would have a sudden influx of new believers.

    And I restate that you, you, the idiot tries to past in a ton of supposed “evidence”. You want to spend five minutes with copy and paste and then falsely ridicule anyone who doesn’t spend days responding to each and every one of them. So I selected the first one (Titallak) in the list and then answered it.Now you try to find as much as you can, specifically because of how foolish I made you look, which only shows that you know that I you didn’t know what you are talking about then and you still don’t. You have however, learned how to copy and paste claims. If asked to go into detail about them, in your own words, of course,you will not be able to.

    I don’t hate christians – you’re lying again – I may not respect their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that I hate them. I don’t hate anyone really, I just don’t care. You want to believe in god? Fine, believe. You want to worship god? Fine, do so. You want to proselytize to us all and try to convert me, or my family, to your superstitious nonsense? That’s when you and I will have a problem.

    That’s another weak watered down argument that you idiots like to peddle as truth.No one is preaching to you stupid, and you’re the one in here attempting to preach to someone ten times smarter than yourself.That also makes you a hypocrite as well .It’s their belief in God which drives atheists to relentlessly attack Him. Run of the mill, everyday ‘practical atheists’ don’t give God a second thought. They’re the ones I worry about.Whereas militant atheists are fighting against the innate knowledge of suppressed in their hearts.As a militant atheist I can unequivocally state that there is no time in your life that you totally disbelieved in God. And -in fact- were driven to work against the Lord by belief in Him !It isn’t that militant atheists don’t believe God exists.Instead: That they don’t want God to exist.

    I’ll leave you alone now, so that you may spout your nonsense as you please undisturbed. I don’t expect you will allow this post to go online – hell, I’d be very surprised if you did. My experience with debating with anyone like you has shown me that dishonesty and avoidance are among the primary debating tools of your kind.

    And I’ll leave you with this:

    RULES OF ATHEISM

    1. “I’m right and you are wrong”.

    2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.

    3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.

    4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical, psychological,
    or verbal, at all times as defensive.

    5. Specific example for 4.: Cry for “freedom from religion”, but whenever
    followers of other faiths want the same freedom and courts agree, scream
    “Persecution!”

    6. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
    into a corner in an argument

    7. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of lying rather than
    be honest and admit the obvious

    8. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.

    9. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
    error and correction as part of atheisms failure for you and not as a
    something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
    verbally and secretly to yourself

    10. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of no ones plans for
    the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of being a vertabrate monkey out of the premordial slugde

    11.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.

    12.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
    oppose all such information through classification of such information in
    a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as right wing
    propaganda)

    13.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
    complex and there are shades of grey

    14.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything because you have no moral compass guiding you.

    And I just had to quote this little nugget of genious that you posted as a reply to Lithp:
    “You, as a believer in evolution, slowly evolved from primitive single celled creatures to “higher” forms of life who were hairy neanderthals who dragged their knuckles on the ground and until recently, were unable to even grow crops.
    But hey, to each his own.”
    It doesn’t matter whether you believe in it or not; evolution is a fact, and that means also your very distant ancestors were primitive creatures. However, this doesn’t subtract from the fact that we are human, and that we have, over time, learned to grow crops, to speak, to read, to write and to develop technology. You believe we were created perfectly by god? Then explain cancer, cavities, birth defects and so on.

    What you believe, is all speculation and philosophy.
    You cannot show how life could have arisen from non-living matter naturally.You cannot show one single progression of fossils, from one kind to another.The dating methods evolutionists believe in are built on a false assumption that nothing has ever, nor could ever affect the rate of decay, which would require a closed system and there is no such thing in the universe. Thus, the three most important aspects of your belief system, are speculation and a desire to reject God and nothing more. That makes it superstition and a religion. If you wish to contest these facts, then just prove me wrong. You will be the first in the world and will without any doubt whatsoever, win a Nobel Prize and be the most honored person ever in science.

    It doesn’t matter whether you believe in it or not; evolution is a fact, and that means also your very distant ancestors were primitive creatures. However, this doesn’t subtract from the fact that we are human, and that we have, over time, learned to grow crops, to speak, to read, to write and to develop technology. You believe we were created perfectly by god? Then explain cancer, cavities, birth defects and so on.

    I have studied evolution for years. I am well educated in various sciences and I am telling you, that you are wrong and hold your position because you hate God and I wasn’t about to spend my whole life believing in a fairy tale.
    So I did my research from a scientific standpoint and like many other scientists, I found out that evolution is a house of cards. There is nothing supporting it. And I mean, “NOTHING”! Macroevolution is NOT a fact of science. It has NEVER been observed and the supposed supporting evidence has been a pile of frauds and outright lies. No evolutionist who has a brain, goes to the fossil record to try to support their case. And the funny part is, some even try to claim that the lack of fossil evidence, is proof of evolution. :) Gould,for one, who is very famous in the world of evolution. You see, they have an “a priori” belief. They do not form their ideas from the evidence, as they claim. Darwin had zero evidence for macroevolution and admitted it in his book, yet people believed it.
    There is zero proof for macroevolution. There is nothing they say, that does not simply reveal a common Designer.And they become completely illogical in their approach. They ask why so many living things have common features.Yet, they would never expect any human designer to reinvent the wheel, whenever they make a new type of vehicle. The first pickup truck had round wheels just like a car and a steering wheel and doors, etc.. Does this mean that a car evolved into a pickup truck? :) Abiogenesis and macroevolution defy the laws of probability trillions of times, for what they believe happened, to have happened and yet, they have no issue with this? They also have no proof that it happened and yet, ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. Abiogenesis says that life came from non-living matter, all by itself and this belief started with the belief that maggots appeared out of dead meat and that was disproved a long time ago. They will try to tell you that “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis” are two different things, but they are not. And now that they have been embarrassed by this, they have tried to separate abiogenesis from evolution, as if they are two different things, but the fact is, they are part and parcel with each other.

    The evolutionists claim that there was nothingness and then there was a dot of matter, that contained all of the matter in the universe. Yet a law of science tellsus that matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. So they now claim that “virtual particles” popped into our “space” and that’s what happened. Are virtual particles reality? They can’t be seen, nor measured. They were simply an invention of the mind, to try to explain away the problem. The fact is, even Hawkings , who they worship, lives in a fantasy world. He claimed that (this is funny) because virtual particles could not be measured by a particle detector, that proves that they pop in from nothingness. :) I.e., they assume they exist and then, when they can’t measure them, claim that proves that their fantasy explanation
    happened! They also knew there is not enough matter in the universe to hold it all together. So what do they do? They INVENT IN THEIR MINDS something called, “dark matter”, which they cannot see, nor measure in any way and then claim that this means that it is there. Then of course, the measurements of it change every time they need it to and they call this science?! The atom contains three parts. Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. I don’t know if you’re familiar with atoms, so I will tell you, that Protons are positively charged, Neutrons are neutral and Electrons are negatively charged. The core of the atom is the Nucleus. Inside the Nucleus is the Protons and Neutrons and whizzing around the Nucleus is the Electrons. Since like charges repel each other, the evolutionist can’t figure out how the Protons don’t force each other away from themselves. So what did they do? They INVENTED ANOTHER item for the Nucleus and called it a “Gluon”. Now they teach that Gluons are part of the atom, even though there is absolutely no way to verify that. You see, while they tell you that their “facts” come from evidence, which in science, is either direct observation, or repeatable tests, the fact is, no one can directly observe the things they claim and there are zero repeatable tests you can run for these things.This is what THEY call “science”,and macroevolution is no different. They have NOTHING!This is not real science and macroevolution does not
    become scientific, simply by putting it in science books, any more than beer becomes athletic, because it is sold at football games. :)

    The fact is, these “long ages” are built on a desire to reject God and no matter how hard the evolutionist tries to deny it, that is where this garbage sprang up from. Research your history. These famous men were not Christians and sought to reject the Bible and were actually very sarcastic toward it in their writings. They tried to claim uniformitarianism. They try to tell us that things have always been the same and that it was long, slow processes and yet, have to look at a world full of major catastrophes. A show was just on the other day, which showed an obvious catastrophic flood event in North America and they have been trying for quite some time to explain it and all they had to do, was to open their Bible and they would have seen the Flood. Yet the evolutionists say that there is no evidence of a world wide Flood and the reality is, that they look at major flood events and try to separate them, even though this one, for example, showed that multiple “layers” of rock were involved, yet they tell us that it is the layers of rock that show us that it had to have happened over billions of years. A contradiction? Of course, but they will deny it, even though we can show upside down trees, running through multiple layers of rock,which means that they were all soft and were laid downat the same time. Will the evolutionist admit that?
    No, of course not! :)

    Have a good day, and enjoy your dishonest editing skills.
    yann.andersen@post.hfk.no
    ExiledAlien
    0

    There, you’ve just had your ass handed back to you on a platter once again. What you mean is that I am right and that you are wrong and too weak to admit it.Since you are NOT qualified, all your statement amounts to, is saying that only those who believe as YOU do,
    are considered to be “qualified” by you, which only means that you’ve proved your bias. Thank you. :)
    In other words, since you can’t dispute anything that I’ve rebuttal to, you tried to change the subject time and time again.
    You are dishonest and have a horrible intellect. Good Riddance :-)

  56. Lithp Says:

    I think it’s cute that my post quoting the ad hominem that was used to “debate” me never made it on here.
    Also cute was, “there’s no such thing as a closed system.”
    Light bulb. Please stop trying to sound smart.

    Closed systems do not exist and I’ve already given you the evidence.The naturalistic creed of most evolutionists, however, requires them to account for complexity naturalistically. Somehow a scenario must be developed showing how a primeval chemical molecule could evolve into a replicating protein, then a complex protozoan, eventually a large beast, and finally a human being with an infinitely complex brain. The increase of complexity involved would seem to be incredible—but it must have happened, they insist, because otherwise God would have done it, and that would be unscientific.
    The problem with trying to be scientific, however, is that science doesn’t help either. Instead of a process that increases organized complexity, there is a universal scientific law that all natural processes tend to decrease complexity in the universe. This is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics, or law of increasing entropy. It is expressed in various ways, depending on type of situation—decreased energy available, increased randomness and disorganization, garbled transmission of information, etc. Entropy always increases in a closed system, and it always tends to increase even in an open system.
    In the case of open systems, there must be an influx of energy (or ordering information) into the system from outside in order to keep it in equilibrium and for a time to offset the tendency to decay. Eventually it will decay anyway; a man, for example, may keep functioning for many years, but he will finally die. By the same principle, the earth and all its systems could survive, perhaps, for millions of years, but the sun would itself finally burn out and the earth’s supply of external energy lost, so the earth and its systems also would all disintegrate and die. In fact, if present processes continue long enough, the universe itself will ultimately die.
    How, then, when the whole universe is decaying and dying, struggling hard just to maintain a fragile equilibrium in which living humans and animals can be maintained for a while—how can evolution toward higher organized complexity ever take place at all? Well, here is their current best answer:
    Thus, once again we conclude that an energy flow through an open system is an absolute necessity if order is to be created from disorder.1
    Yes, but that is necessary just to maintain its present order (or better, organized complexity). How can it be increased? How can a population of worms, say, be upgraded into a population of human beings?
    Most evolutionists today, when pressed to answer such questions, will say that Ilya Prigogine, with his concept of “dissipative structures” in “far-from-equilibrium” thermodynamics, has provided the answer to the mystery of life’s origin. However, the author of a recent book has now taken on the ambitious project of applying the Prigogine approach, not just to the origin of life from non-life, but also to every stage of evolution, from the evolution of the cosmos to the evolution of social systems. He rather audaciously tries to make the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the dissipation process, with its inevitable increase in entropy, the very generator of evolution and increased complexity.

    http://www.librarything.com/work/294412

  57. Lithp Says:

    My bad. The post did make it through, I just missed it.

  58. Lithp Says:

    Speaking of that post, to whoever was editing it, what the Hell are you on? Your post was one giant flame at me, & you’re telling me not to flame you? Are you retarded?
    Oh shit, I flamed him! Call the cops, I don’t give a f***!
    As if you’ve ever wanted an honest debate. Now, to answer your question, no, that post is not mine.

    What I’ve done is edit your plagiarism and circular reasoning to bring you back to the point(s) being made. You God-Haters love to dodge questions that you cannot address by addressing those questions with other questions, and love to hand out of Red herring’s as if they were candy. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue, and I won’t allow that so yes, if you cannot handle the heat of the fire then you need to stay out of the kitchen.

  59. ExiledAlien Says:

    You have made it perfectly clear that you have no intention of debating this honestly or evern considering the facts as they are presented to you. Therefore I will not be continuing this excercise in futility. You will however, notice once again that the name calling has come from your end, and that I have made no suppositions as to your intellect.

    I will however, correct you on this:

    “That’s why most of Europe is having the problems they are having and it’s because they’ve left God by the wayside.I’ve been to your country and for the most part it is morally bankrupt.Oslo iis filled with male prostitution and the Gay and Lesbian suicide rates are thru the roof.For every adolescent girl selling sex, there are 3.5 adolescent boys selling sex. For your small size to have such massive problems is most telling to a giant such as America.”

    These are all lies, and I suspect that you also lied about having been to Norway. Norway currently enjoys the highest standard of living in the world, and was once again just recently voted the best country in the world to live in by the UN. Do we have prostitutes? Of course we do, just like any other country in the world. Is it predominantly male prostitutes? Not at all, and if it were; so what?

    1. Purchasing sexual services from prostitutes was demmed illegal by our government about a year ago.
    2. Child molestation (whether male or female) is taken very seriously over here.
    3. Gay marriage was recently made legal, and no; gays suicide rates are not “through the roof”.

    It does not make you look good trying to educate me on the conditions of my own country pal, and you make it abundantly clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Morally bankrupt people such as your ilk should not teach us proper behaviour.
    Here choke on the statistics:

    http://www.youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/news/norway-gay-lesbian-suicide-study.htm

  60. ExiledAlien Says:

    almost made me lose my breakfast…

    “The atom contains three parts. Protons, Neutrons and Electrons.”

    Correct, unless you delve into the subatomic quantum world, in which case you’d want to include quarks. Also, you might want to consider mentioning antiparticles, but I’ll let that one slide for now.

    How can you even say that quarks are real you bozo? Quarks are theory only that are supported by indirect evidence. What about the strings in string theory, or alternate dimensions? Eminent scientists and philosophers have defended imponderables purely on their utility, while dismissing any claims to their real existence.Today, most cosmologists claim that 96% of the universe consists of two imponderable substances: dark matter and dark energy. No one has a clue what these are. This huge appeal to occult forces is making many uncomfortable. Richard Panek, in a March 11, 2007 New York Times article, quipped, “‘You get to invoke the tooth fairy only once,’ meaning dark matter, ‘but now we have to invoke the tooth fairy twice,’ meaning dark energy.” In an April 11, 2007 article in Nature, Jenny Hogan described the mood at a recent cosmology conference; one astronomer said, “There is a sense of desperation…. The standard model is horribly ugly, but the data support it.” Dark energy was called “a profound problem from the viewpoint of fundamental physics.”

    “Don’t know if you’re familiar with atoms, so I will tell you, that Protons are positively charged, Neutrons are neutral and Electrons are negatively charged.”

    I know

    Yeah, there is really no need to be condescending. Particularly not while trying to teach me something which I know very well, and something which is one of my main fields of study.

    And evolution obviously is your weakest.

    “The core of the atom is the Nucleus. Inside the Nucleus are the Protons and Neutrons and whizzing around the Nucleus are the Electrons.”Additionally, Hydrogen lacks a neutron in it’s core, though deuterium does have one.

    “Since like charges repel each other, the evolutionist can’t figure out how the Protons don’t force each other away from themselves.”

    I’m sure they can’t, but evolution has nothing to do with physics or atomic theory. Evolution deals only with biologicals, and hence is the field for biologists and biochemists. Atomic theory is for the physicists. Oh, and by the way; the force you’re looking for is the strong nuclear force.

    Bullcrap, it has everything to do with it when calling the law of Entropy.Not as far as what you were responding with. The problem is, that you side stepped the issue, which was evolution, as you believe it to have happened. You were the one who threw up the red herring of quarks. That may be organized, but it isn’t anywhere near what life requires. You can try to side step the issue, but you are being simplistic in your approach. This is typical for evolutionists. They oversimplify the problem. There is no thermodynamic problem with creation except in the disordered minds of evolutionists such as yourself.

    The strong nuclear force binds the protons and neutrons of the atomic nucleus together. Protons are positively charged – you are quite right -, while neutrons do not have a charge. And you are also quite right in that there is a repulsive force acting between the protons of the nucleus, and you’d expect them to be repelled from eachother.
    However, this is where the strong nuclear force comes in. The strong nuclear force is created between nucleons by the exchange of particles called mesons. This exchange can be likened to constantly hitting a ping-pong ball or a tennis ball back and forth between two people. As long as this meson exchange can happen, the strong force is able to hold the participating nucleons together. The nucleons must be extremely close together in order for this exchange to happen. The distance required is about the diameter of a proton or a neutron. If a proton or neutron can get closer than this distance to another nucleon, the exchange of mesons can occur, and the particles will stick to each other. If they can’t get that close, the strong force is too weak to make them stick together, and other competing forces (usually the electromagnetic force) can influence the particles to move apart.
    “So what did they do? They INVENTED ANOTHER item for the Nucleus and called it a “Gluon”.”

    Yes. They did science, and hypothesized that such particles would have to exist in order to explain how the nucles of an atom sticks together. Then they were able to confirm that such particles really do exist by smashing atoms apart in particle accelerators. Gluons are real.”Now they teach that Gluons are part of the atom, even though there is absolutely no way to verify that. “Yes there is, and they already have – It’s called a particle accelerator. The first direct experimental evidence of gluons was found in 1979 when three-jet events were observed at the electron-positron collider PETRA. However, just before PETRA appeared on the scene, the PLUTO experiment at DORIS showed event topologies suggestive of a three-gluon decay.Experimentally, confinement is verified by the failure of free quark searches. Free gluons have not been observed, however at Fermilab single production of top quarks has been statistically shown. Quark-gluon plasma has been found recently at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL).
    Who did you say got his ass handed to him?

    You’re side stepping the issue again. Here read it again really slooooowwww. “They INVENT IN THEIR MINDS something called, “dark matter”, which they cannot see, nor measure in any way and then claim that this means that it is there. Then of course, the measurements of it change every time they need it to and they call this science?! The atom contains three parts. Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. I don’t know if you’re familiar with atoms, so I will tell you, that Protons are positively charged, Neutrons are neutral and Electrons are negatively charged. The core of the atom is the Nucleus. Inside the Nucleus is the Protons and Neutrons and whizzing around the Nucleus is the Electrons. Since like charges repel each other, the evolutionist can’t figure out how the Protons don’t force each other away from themselves. So what did they do? They INVENTED ANOTHER item for the Nucleus and called it a “Gluon”. Now they teach that Gluons are part of the atom, even though there is absolutely no way to verify that. You see, while they tell you that their “facts” come from evidence, which in science, is either direct observation, or repeatable tests, the fact is, no one can directly observe the things they claim and there are zero repeatable tests you can run for these things.This is what THEY call “science”,and macroevolution is no different. They have NOTHING!This is not real science and macroevolution does not become scientific, simply by putting it in science books, any more than beer becomes becomes athletic, because it is sold at football games. The fact is, these “long ages” are built on a desire to reject God and no matter how hard the evolutionist tries to deny it, that is where this garbage sprang up from. Research your history. These famous men were not Christians and sought to reject the Bible and were actually very sarcastic toward it in their writings. They tried to claim uniformitarianism. They try to tell us that things have always been the same and that it was long, slow processes and yet, have to look at a world full of major catastrophes. A show was just on the other day, which showed an obvious catastrophic flood event in North America and they have been trying for quite some time to explain it and all they had to do, was to open their Bible and they would have seen the Flood. Yet the evolutionists say that there is no evidence of a world wide Flood and the reality is, that they look at major flood events and try to separate them, even though this one, for example, showed that multiple “layers” of rock were involved, yet they tell us that it is the layers of rock that show us that it had to have happened over billions of years. A contradiction? Of course, but they will deny it, even though we can show upside down trees, running through multiple layers of rock,which means that they were all soft and were laid downat the same time. Will the evolutionist admit that?The truth is, you have not demonstrated one fact for macroevolution. Not one. You have made claims. No, of course not!

    BTW Your head is still on the plate.

    “Paleontologists are traditionally famous
    (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals
    from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. …If
    any event in life’s history resembles man’s creation
    myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine
    life when multicellular organisms took over as
    the dominant actors in ecology and evolution.
    Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event
    still dazzles us and stands as a major biological
    revolution on a par with the invention of self
    replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell.”
    – (Bengtson, Stefan, “The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle,”
    Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), pp. 765-766)

    • LeTipex Says:

      “They INVENT IN THEIR MINDS something called, “dark matter”, which they cannot see, nor measure in any way and then claim that this means that it is there.”

      As of now, dark matter is an hypothesis, and no self-respecting scientist will tell you it’s the absolute truth. It just happens to be a model that works quite well… for now.

      “They INVENTED ANOTHER item for the Nucleus and called it a “Gluon”. Now they teach that Gluons are part of the atom, even though there is absolutely no way to verify that.”

      Again, that is a convenient model, that will stand “true” until a more precise way of explaining things is discovered. But the gluon is just a way of representing the strong interaction, the same way that a photon is a good way of representing electromagnetic waves in certain experiments. Those are MODELS! They happen to explain reality, and they change as our understanding of the truth changes.

      It’s like saying the earth is round. It’s not true (it’s actually a bumpy spheroid) but it’s close enought to the truth to work well when you explain the universe.
      “whizzing around the Nucleus is the Electrons”

      False. Obviously, your notion of atomic physics predate the 1940’s. Electrons do not “whizz around” They exist in a shifting probability wave around de nucleus.


      • ” they change as our understanding of the truth changes.”

        So why should one believe something is the truth when it’s subject to change?

      • LeTipex Says:

        “So why should one believe something is the truth when it’s subject to change?”

        Let me give you an example. Imagine someone who has lived in a tropical land all his life. For him, a tree with no leaves is a dead tree (since there is no autumn or winter). When he arrives in europe in winter for the first time, he comes to the valid conclusion that all the trees are dead… But once spring comes, he has to admit that they were not. So, now, in his mind, a tree has no leaves when he is dead, or when it’s winter.

        He changed his mind to go with the evidence : the truth has changed for him, does that mean that he is now MORE wrong than before? Of course not! He’s actually more right than he was. That’s the way science progress: by changing it’s point of view to get closer and closer to the actual, unadultered truth.

      • PhillipGeorge(c)2012 Says:

        You are ignoring or ignorant of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, LeTipex. Are you yet aware of any epistemological brick walls?
        Another man, rhetorically unstuck.

        Jesus is who He said He is.

  61. Lithp Says:

    Flaming is flaming, dipshit. The fact that you accuse me of doing it while doing it yourself is hypocrisy. I gave you my time, & you wasted it with stupid non-arguments. I made it clear I wasn’t going to play your little song & dance, & you insulted me, claimed I made statements that I did not, & just generally acted like a complete asshat. And NOW you’re trying to write this off as “logic” or “getting to the point”? That seems rather dishonest to me. But, I suppose that, since you’re the Christian & I’m the atheist, -I- must be the liar, at least in your deluded little world.

    Ok Bozo, also make sure that you deny that you spent your time claiming that “it is proved” and that you have “a mountain of evidence” and then try to turn the tables and demand that I disprove what you haven’t even shown me.The problem is you have no evidence for evolution so you co-opt genetics and call *that* evolution.Your village must be proud.
    Is being a smart-ass with no answers a lot more fulfilling to you thenever having a more scientific answer than “I believe in evolution by faith”.
    What we (the skeptics) want is evidence for “evolution”. If the evidence is everywhere, why is it so hard to show it to us?
    Cut the crap — present the evidence. Give me names of these “supposed” intermediates.Put up or shut up. (Not that I hold much hope that you’ll do either one. It’s not in an evolutionists nature to shut up when they don’t know what they’re talking about. And there’s no way in hell they can produce non-existent evidence.)

    • Lithp Says:

      “Cut the crap–present the evidence. Give me the names of these ‘supposed’ intermediates. Put up or shut up.”

      Here now.

      Hold on.

      I’mma ‘splain this slowly now…

      Go to your browser…

      Type “www.wikipedia.org”

      And then, in the search bar, type “List of Transitional Species.”

      You may have to try a few slightly different key words to arrive at the page you’re looking for.

      If you don’t trust Wiki, you can cross-check its sources.

      And then–oho–type in any other question you may have on a search engine.

      It’s called “research.”

      Say it with me, now:

      Re…

      Search.

      “What we (the skeptics)”

      No you aren’t.

      “…want is evidence for ‘evolution.'”

      If you wanted evidence, you would not be speaking as though you have all of the answers.

      “If the evidence is everywhere, why is it so hard to show it to us?”

      Kinda tough to get someone to look at something when they have their eyes closed.

      I know I’m responding to an archaic comment here but, as you said, I’m a smartass.

  62. rcpilot Says:

    Atheism has to have satanic origins? Tell me when the very first theists came around (of any sort, not just your particular delusion) and then I’ll tell you when the very first atheists came around.

    But, then, you’ll probably not be able to accept that time extends beyond the length allowed by the Bible, so the point’s moot until you learn to look outside the Bible. And then we’re stuck at square one with you saying everything non-Biblical that doesn’t agree with it is satanic. Are you starting to see the flaws of this line of argument?

  63. Dan Says:

    There is no single human founder of atheism. Atheism was “founded” by many different places at many different times. There is no leader, or organization to it. It is not a religion, but the lack thereof.

    Also, everyone is born an atheist. So the first human= first atheist.

    Every author has an origin. I say atheism is authored by Satan.

  64. Lithp Says:

    Prove that atheism is authored by Satan. By the by, “We don’t know who did it” does not prove that.

    Now, I was not under the impression that anyone was talking about evolution, but since it was insisted, the reason you do not see the evidence is because you are working off of a flawed concept of what it is. “Name the intermediates.” You want me to name a creature that is explicitly half of one thing & half of another. You want the Greek chimera, basically. Well, it doesn’t work that way. No one ever said it did. Therefore, I cannot give you that.

    Genetics is, in fact, the strongest evidence for evolution. If you don’t accept that, then there’s no point in even bothering.

    Do note, this does not make you a “skeptic.” You are not objectively analyzing the claim, you’re setting up a straw man.

    The atheists who are commenting on you are skeptics. Most of them. I can’t speak for all of them, because I haven’t read all of the posts. The point is that they see the lack of evidence, & want–well–evidence. You perceive a lack of evidence, regardless of what you are given, & leap to illogical conclusions (eg. there’s no known author of atheism, therefore it must be Satan).

    Your rebuttal to Democritus as a claim was that he got things wrong. Things which, by the way, had nothing to do with atheism. You then ignored this for the duration of the “challenge.” You never once refuted Democritus as the author of atheism.

    You are not skeptics. You are closed minded, willfully ignorant, & confrontational. There’s a big, BIG difference.

  65. Lol Says:

    Hey lets think about this: A crazy foundamentalist islamist is armed with an AK 47 in a library, he has killed 5 people, and is threatening to blow himself up with the remaining 10 hostages he has. Question: Should we have a sniper Snipe the bastard or *THOU SHALT NOT KILL* and let him kill the remaining 10 hostages???

    What about this? You’re a preist, it’s nazi germany time. You’re hidin jews in your basement. A nazi knocks on your door (*knock*knock* whos thereeee?) and asks you “are you hiding jews?” what do you do? *THOU SHALT NOT LIE!!!!* so you don’t lie and the nazi kills the jews.

    We have a problem with the 10 commandments because they are stupid. If you can’t see that then you’re stupid too.

    Atheism has to have satanic origins? Well tell you what… from the atrocities and massacres committed by your god satan’s evilness pales in comparison. Yaweh is the true satanic devil, you’re worshipping the devil, and it reflects in your actions. What did jesus say in 2 Timothy 2:24-25?

    You’re no christian, you’re a satanist, your hatred for your brothers is proof of your hipocrisy, when jesus teaches you to love thy neighbor and thy enemy as the good christian you are you show anger and hate. Your god is hypocrisy.

    Hello confused and abandonded, I think you may not have the strength to get thru a single cohesive thread. You’re borderline schizophrenic and that’s not name calling.

  66. LeTipex Says:

    BTW, I’d love to debate you concerning evolution. If you want to mail me for the details. I’m not a troll, I’m not an english speaker (or at least, it’s not my first language) so sorry if I make some mistakes.

    I consider myself a scientist (not a evolutionist, althought I believe in evolution) and I currently study physics.

    Mail me if you want a debate by emails.

    Thanks.

  67. Demetrius Says:

    Who’s to say that god (if he exists) didn’t create atheism? The fellow seems to like testing people’s faith.


    • Atheism is authored by Satan, and his biggest triumph and pleasure, is in seeing people not believe in him.

      • Lithp Says:

        Actually, I believe Demetrius has a point. If we accept this completely nonsensical logic:

        A. You cannot name a person who invented atheism.
        B. So no such person exists.
        C. Therefore, atheism must have been authored by a supernatural entity.

        …Then it still doesn’t prove said entity is Satan. How do we know it wasn’t God? Hey, maybe he wants to give you something to do, seeing as your main hobby seems to be insulting atheists & atheism.


      • The absence of any known author is a highly strange phenomena. Atheism therefore clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are superior to all other laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. Atheism is the ultimate of Satanism. Ask Satan does God exist and he will deny it. Ask him does satan exist and he will deny his own existence even while in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in one hand, but deny its existence by denying its truth with the other. In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must understand the natures of righteousness and sin. The two principles are antithetical to one another. Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, its very antithetical nature seeks to nullify righteousness. Since it is an antithetical principle to righteousness, it must remain true to its nature even in the most insane instances. Therefore it must hate God even though God is righteous and has given it no just cause for its hatred. It is this antithetical principle, called “the law of sin” which is at work in the hearts of atheists causing them to reject God. The law of sin is none other than the law that governs Satan’s kingdom.

        “Then it still doesn’t prove said entity is Satan. How do we know it wasn’t God? Hey, maybe he wants to give you something to do, seeing as your main hobby seems to be insulting atheists & atheism.”
        Also as I’ve stated in the past, I have nothing against practical atheists, it’s the anti-theists such as yourself that I disdain.

      • Lithp Says:

        Yes, you have stated that, but it makes absolutely no sense, because you use the word “atheist” in many of your insulting rants. Clearly, you do, in fact, have something against atheists. I believe you are trying to be clever, & saying that there are no real atheists, only “God-Haters.” Well, ONE of your intended messages is certainly getting across. The shame for you is that you can’t actually offer proof that this is true, save for assersions made by yourself & your religion.


      • In the first case, I’m not your instructor, I’m not certified to teach Special Education. In the second, You’ve failed, but I’ll indulge you in it once last time. You said that there are no real atheists and not I. I merely pointed out the differences between the two.
        I don’t buy into your claims that you are an atheist either. You are a militant anti-theist and there is a huge difference. Although viewing themselves as “free thinkers”, they all have a Party Line they follow rather closely. But the militant atheists -the ones who have devoted their lives to refuting Christianity- are almost like the demons …who believe more firmly in God’s existence than do Christians ! It can unequivocally be stated that militant atheists are some of the people who most solidly believe in God ! I am not talking paractical atheists either. I’m talking professional atheists who’ve dedicated themselves to eradicating the Lord do so because they hate Him. They’re the God-haters. To which they’ll invariably reply: ‘How can we hate something we don’t believe in ?’. Exactly ! It’s their belief in God which drives them to relentlessly attack Him. Run of the mill, everyday ‘practical atheists’ don’t give God a second thought. They’re the ones I worry about. Whereas militant atheists are fighting against the innate knowledge of suppressed in their hearts. As a militant atheist I can unequivocally state that there is no time in your life that you totally disbelieved in God. And in fact, were driven to work against the Lord by belief in Him. It isn’t that militant atheists don’t believe God exists. Instead… That they don’t want God to exist. So when debating, I don’t ever buy into their *how can we believe in a sky pixie* claim because they most certainly do though they will never admit it. They have a fire and hatred in their hearts for God and that is what brings them into religious circles on a regular basis. They want to destroy your faith like they have destroyed their own.

        Lying or retarded which are you?

      • Demetrius Says:

        What the heck do the Ten Commandments have to do with the authorship of atheism? Making false claims about the nature of atheism doesn’t change the validity of my argument, nor refute it.

        One other thing. The argument “You’re wrong because you’re wrong.” doesn’t actually follow.


      • Yet another of the most wonderful things God has done is hide spiritual truth right in front of the eyes of the non-elect. So much so that they perceive the things of God as ridiculous. Only the Master could be of such wisdom and power to accomplish these things.
        Untrained and wholly disinterested in the things of God as recorded in Holy Scripture, the reprobates such as yourself, suppose themselves to be qualified expounders of Sacred Text, enlightening themselves and others from darkness just as the Pharisees who were ” blind guide of the blind “.

        ” Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind
        man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” Mt. 15:14

        Using the same ploy as their father the devil, they pervert the Word of God to their own ends, which is, to make the Lord God appear to be a liar, just as Satan’s recorded utterance from the Garden saying… ” indeed, has God said. ”
        It must be remembered that they are held fast in the snare of the devil, held captive by him at his will ( 2 Tim. 2:26 ) to which these have absolutely no interest to expound on as they do against God directly. As soon as Satan tells the truth so will these.
        Why then do they find 101 and more contradictions in the Bible while the elect find none ? Simply because they are liars like their father the devil ( Joh. 8:43,44 )… there is no truth in them. The Scriptures are closed off from them ( 1 Cor. 1:18; Lk. 8:10 ) God
        resists them ( Jas. 4:6 ) hates them ( Ps. 5:5 ) is angry with them everyday ( Ps. 7:11 )
        So, when they post by direction from their father the devil, not being capable in the Scriptures since they are devoid of the Holy Spirit, the elect ones can shout for joy since these are given by God as a sign of salvation to the elect, as well as a sign of damnation to
        them. Php. 1:28.

        Lying or retarded, which are you?

      • Lithp Says:

        You are the one who sometimes refers to “atheists” & “god haters” as though they are different things, but frequently uses them interchangeably.

        You should have just claimed that my theory was right. It was the last chance you had at making any sense at all.


      • You’re theory is wrong, and you make as much sense as the Roswell crash. Stop taking the cowards way out by not challenging yourself. Its time to stop being a coward and see what the truth has to offer.

      • Lithp Says:

        No one’s afraid of you.


      • It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
        It isn’t atheists, but secular/religious humanists (reactionary or socialist anti-theist types), such as yourself that I was referring to. Their various “manifestos” that you subscribe to stated intention is nothing less than the total deconstruction of western society, the destruction of the United States, its culture and national sovereignly. It seeks to impose a socialist “world” government in place of the US Constitution. This to me is nothing less than treason.

      • Lithp Says:

        In fact, it would seem that you’re the one with the irrational phobia.


      • Preach on brother!

  68. Demetrius Says:

    You’re changing the subject. Answer my question- what do the ten commandments have to do with the authorship of atheism?
    Funny, I don’t recall ever saying this.
    Anyways, you claim to love the US constitution so much. Why exactly, then, is “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” on your god hit list? Do you just want the constitution, not the amendments? Perhaps we should revert to ‘the good old days’ when only white, land-owning, Christian males counted for anything?

    If you were born here and don’t like it… you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you. I believe it is time to really clean house, starting with the White House, the seat of our biggest problems. And, no, I don’t mind having my face shown on my driver’s license. I think it’s good…. And I’m proud that ‘God’ is written on my money.. I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA ! I think owning a gun doesn’t make you a killer; it makes you a smart American…My heroes are Malcolm Forbes, John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers I don’t hate the rich. I don’t pity the poor.

    Also, do you want a list of famous conservative atheists? Or will it suffice to simply call you out on your straw man argument?

    Yea thats the ticket, attack what you think is another strawman with your own strawman…you are brilliant arent you.

    Finally, you say that one of the most wonderful things that God has done is to make us atheists? I thought you said that Satan authored atheism?

    You said this and not I, if you were any more vacuous your head would implode. Nice try but I’m light years ahead of you.

    • Lithp Says:

      Now he’s forgetting things he says!

    • Ben Says:

      1) THIS IS A POST ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF ATHEISM. YOU ARE COMMENTING ABOUT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. If the two are unrelated, why are you even bringing the TEN COMMANDMENTS up? For that matter, why are you bringing up the second amendment and driver’s licences?

      2) Actually, I love it here. That’s one of the main reasons that I do not like the people who are trying to change it. Anyways, history has shown that socialism, while a nice thought, just doesn’t work.

      3) You seem to insinuate that atheists are liberal, which is untrue. Still, I’m willing to allow that it was just poor wording on your part.

      4) To quote you, “Yet another of the most wonderful things GOD has done is HIDE SPIRITUAL TRUTH RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE EYES OF THE NON-ELECT. So much so that they perceive the things of God as ridiculous. ONLY THE MASTER COULD BE OF SUCH WISDOM AND POWER TO ACCOMPLISH THESE THINGS.”

      That seems to be saying that God’s the one doing the hiding, thus making us atheists. You also seem to say that ONLY God could make us atheists, so it follows that Satan couldn’t.


      • 1) THIS IS A POST ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF ATHEISM. YOU ARE COMMENTING ABOUT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. If the two are unrelated, why are you even bringing the TEN COMMANDMENTS up? For that matter, why are you bringing up the second amendment and driver’s licences?

        Answer:To demonstrate to Lithp that I am against everything he stands for.

        2) Actually, I love it here. That’s one of the main reasons that I do not like the people who are trying to change it. Anyways, history has shown that socialism, while a nice thought, just doesn’t work.

        Answer: It works on paper only and I agree.

        3) You seem to insinuate that atheists are liberal, which is untrue. Still, I’m willing to allow that it was just poor wording on your part.

        Answer: The VAST majority of atheists are liberal and immoral. Their track records demonstrate that strongly.

        4) To quote you, “Yet another of the most wonderful things GOD has done is HIDE SPIRITUAL TRUTH RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE EYES OF THE NON-ELECT. So much so that they perceive the things of God as ridiculous. ONLY THE MASTER COULD BE OF SUCH WISDOM AND POWER TO ACCOMPLISH THESE THINGS.”

        That seems to be saying that God’s the one doing the hiding, thus making us atheists. You also seem to say that ONLY God could make us atheists, so it follows that Satan couldn’t.

        Answer: You become an atheist by choice, and led thereafter by Satan who is the author of Atheism. God created everything in the universe with free will, including the arch-angel Lucifer.

      • Lithp Says:

        Aren’t liberals usually stereotyped as the overly touchey-feely types? How can they also be immoral. You’d think it’d be more of an excess.

        Also, you’re not very “conservative” if you support the phrase “under God” on money. That’s only about as old as Mcarthy. Same with the pledge, the national motto, & so on.

        If you’re against everything I stand for, I must warn you, I am very pro-breathing.


      • Aren’t liberals usually stereotyped as the overly touchey-feely types? How can they also be immoral. You’d think it’d be more of an excess.
        Answer: Liberalism is a mental disease with no real treatment, except a huge dose of reality.

        Also, you’re not very “conservative” if you support the phrase “under God” on money. That’s only about as old as Mcarthy. Same with the pledge, the national motto, & so on.
        Answer: Is that your interpretation?

        If you’re against everything I stand for, I must warn you, I am very pro-breathing.
        Answer: Looks like you’re rapidly running out of ideas.

    • Lithp Says:

      I may have responded in the wrong section.

  69. Calypso Says:

    [In the above article, I have proved that atheism did not have an earthly and human origin, but had its origin from satan before this state of time.]

    What article? Where? Give me a link before you try to prove that a concept was given to humans by Satan before time. Idiot.

    [Out of all the responses I have received from atheists, not one has been able to intelligently and credibly dispute that fact. They are confounded that they cannot come up with a human author and earthly time of existence for their atheism.]

    We are not ‘confounded’. We are appalled at your stupidity, because, first of all, Atheism is not a religion. It does not have scriptures or gods, or a thick book that dictates what you do, and how you do it. Atheism is a lack of religion, a lack of faith in some ‘awesome being’, and it cannot have an ‘author’. That’s like asking “Who was the author of anthropomorphism?” We might never know who was the first adult atheist, but it is interesting to note that all newborns are atheists.

    [They are quick to erroneously claim that the TEN COMMANDMENTS were authored by a human, and some of them claim that Moses authored them, but they cannot name an earthly author and time of origin for their own philosophy.]

    Look at what I replied to your previous pile of bullsh*t.

    [Why are atheists so quick to try to attach a human to the TEN COMMANDMENTS when they cannot do so to their own philosophy?]

    Because, it is recorded in a scripture that your religion practices and obeys. You say that “this is what happened”, therefore you let us talk about it, and criticize it. Many of us (atheists) would not use that as an argument, but those who would do it because you say that god did it, but here we have a random shepherd come from a mountain with stone tablets.

    [If Satan is not atheism’s author and atheists cannot pinpoint a human author, perhaps their atheism came into being by a cataclysmic explosion. LOL! Or perhaps atheism brought itself into existence by its own prior nonexistence. LOL!]

    What the hell are you on about? Atheism isn’t a book, you moron, it’s an idea and a belief. It doesn’t have an ‘author’.

    Perhaps your ideas on the matter were brought about by a mysterious snake beguiling you in a magical garden. ‘LOL!’ Or perhaps Christianity brought itself into existence by a drunk idiot. ‘LOL!’

    [So I have two bold challenges for atheists: If satan is not the author of atheism, I hereby challenge the most educated and capable of them to prove that satan is not its author and prove that it had an earthly origin.]

    I think I’ve had enough of your retardation.

    How about I give YOU a challenge: prove that Satan exists. Until then, anything you say on the matter topic is dribble.

    [I also challenge atheists to prove that the TEN COMMANDMENTS were authored by a human.]

    It can’t be proven, only disputed, and you are a fool to bring it up.

    • PhillipGeorge(c)2012 Says:

      Atheism is not a religion.

      You become rhetorically unstuck with more than these words alone. Of course it is axiomatic and self referential. What is “not a religion”? Is there a religious null set?

      Prove that secularism exists!

      What is a “no-god”?

      How many things have you proven are non-existent?

      Your religious belief is your faith in knowing what isn’t. By having eliminated so many possibilities the mind has regressed to the most banal state. A self effaced being.

      This is the definition of a fool: a man who has said in his heart, there is no god.

      Can I help you? Moreover can a fool be helped?

      • Lithp Says:

        You ought to tone down the fancy words & references to philosophical phrases. Certainly, memes like “Tabula rasa” can help communicate difficult concepts quickly. And one who doesn’t know the basics of the rhetoric involved in a subject shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously.

        However, the way you use your vocabulary just weakens your own argument. It’s pretty clear that you’re trying to establish yourself as being smarter & more well-read than your opponent, so that you can appeal to your own authority. It is no different than correcting a typo & using that as a basis to dismiss the rest of that person’s argument. Someone who’s been around theological apologists two or three times will not be fooled by this approach.

        You’d have a much better case if you stuck with “your religious belief is your faith in knowing what isn’t,” rather than expanding that whole idea out into a little poem.

        Sorry I had to focus on your rhetorical tone so much, but this will be much easier if you cut the fluff right away.

        With that said, I do know a little bit about the subject of epistemology. An important one you are ignoring is empiricism. Empiricism is the opposite of faith. Faith says that God does or does not exist, regardless of fact. Empiricism says that God does or does not exist based on fact.

        That is the difference. Should additional evidence come to light, a position based on empiricism can be modified. If your position is based on faith, then it doesn’t matter what the evidence says, because your decision is based only on your conviction that you know the truth.

        Kevin Smith’s “Dogma” phrases this another way: “I just think it’s better to have ideas. You can change an idea, changing a belief is trickier.”

        On some level, you know this is true. You don’t go through life assuming that Joseph Stalin has been risen from the dead & seeks to kill you, because that is patently ridiculous. You don’t say that “Stalin is dead” is a religion that you adhere to. However, because this belief is based on experience & a basic knowledge of natural laws, if you are attacked by an undead Soviet dictator, you will rethink your position. But not before.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: