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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.)

“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.”

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)

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

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.

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

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:

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 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

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.

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

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.

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.

+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!

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:

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.

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.

“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.”

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

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.

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.

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?”

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.

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.

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.

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.