After reading some posts here, I think that the theists should know that atheism doesn't mean believing in evolution, nor a belief that god does not exist, or a belief of anything. It is a deceptive word. The 'ism'; implies belief in something. But in reality, atheism is just the lack of a belief in a god. Think of it more in terms of 'without theism'. Now when a theist comes to this section of the forums, instead of assuming anything about atheism and arguing with it, try proving theism.

Just to give a heads up: 'Just look around at the wonderful specialness of everything in the world.' Is not satisfactory.

I think 'necessarily' would have been a good addition to that question, but I added it for my purposes. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Sorry, I did mean that. That any beliefs are inherent to atheism.

Frattro,

You make an excellent point. It is a frustrating assertion made by many Xtians to aver that Atheists "believe" there is no god. Of course that, makes sense to them since they can only imagine that not believing in a god is to tantamount to denial. (Sweet Jezuz, I love anachronism)!

It is indeed absurd to say: "I don't believe in celery"

The term Atheist is specific to belief in a god, so I voted yes. Now a skeptic may well fit this description.

Atheists come in many shades - after all we ARE humans!

Afterall, there are Atheistic "religions" all over the world.

There are many people who believe Extraterrestrials made our planet and have been probing our rectums for thousands of years - yet there exists no scientific proof of this. If they do not believe in a god, then they are certainly Atheists. <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Some years ago, when Minnesota Atheists was first formed, there was a big issue with Atheism and liberal ideology. The president of MA at the time was keen on advocating that the organization support socially liberal issues - like pro-choice. Turns out that there were a few members who were anti-abortion. After much debate and some intrigue, a splinter group was formed: Atheists for Human Rights.

Both organizations are thriving and are excellent resources and serve as catalysts for education, advocacy and the support of atheism in our world today.

Interstingly, MN Atheists participates in Gay Pride marches along with many other churches, banks and real estate companies.

It would be interesting to find a group similar to the one above in which I would 'blend'. Wait...I think that's a bit frightening....we'll go back to thinking about the gay pride marches.

Thats the problem with people who get together in groups, they always want to DO something. haha, just kidding, they usually have good intentions.

I know there is a whole spectrum of atheism definitions. The one I present, I feel, is universal. If we agree on this definition, then it gives us the most freedom, and the most potential for avoiding arguments based on our labels.

Every once in a while someone always brings up the idea of changing the name of the organization to include more potential members - like adding or changing to Agnostics or Freethinkers. It just muddles the field I think so it never gets anywhere.

A lot of time agnostics are people who don't know where they stand as non-believers in society. I think it is very helpful to talk to other Atheists and gain the knowledge of their collective experience - like what to do when you are sworn-in in court!

At least these are people I don't have to worry about pissing off advertently.

Seems conclusion of this question wasn�t bad so far.
I suggest, you add a line as second paragraph: vote about knowledge of theists does believe.

Otherwise known as "weak atheists" or "weak theists" ... really it depends on where you derive your definition from.

I don't stand anywhere - I sit (as in "on the fence"!) Theists cannot prove god(s) exist and atheists cannot prove god(s) do not. Therefore I have taken the most logical position by saying I cannot confirm or deny the existence.

I can be pretty irreverent about the whole debate (even going so far as to root for the aliens), but it does not meam I am confused or weak in my position. It's actually difficult most days because there is a constant push and pull from either side trying to convince those of us on the fence to go to either side in the absence of proof.

Atheism by difination is a disbelief or denial in God or gods. Now onething that athiest say that I don't get is that it is not a belief of any kind. But why is atheism not a belief? See Athiest can never proof there is no God, so they believe that there is no God. And I don't know why atheists are so afraid of that word.

atheism
From the Oxford Online Dictionary:

/aythi-iz�m/

� noun: The belief that God does not exist.

� DERIVATIVES atheist (noun) atheistic (adjective) atheistical (adjective).

� ORIGIN from Greek a- �without� + theos �god�.

I am a Buddhist Atheist.
I follow a specific creed, but as far as I am concerned, There is no God.
But that's just my 'Truth'.....

Speaking for myself only, I know exactly where I stand: My choice is to not concern myself about such things as "god" and "belief in higher powers". Therefore I don't call myself an atheist because I'm not interested in trying to disprove god - I simply don't care. Ergo, I fit more into the definition of agnostic.

This particular forum happens to be called "Atheist/Agnostic". There are many other forums only for Agnostics and only for Atheists.

The rest of my "beliefs" are not relevant to this forum.

to be or not to be?
Let me tell a sample. Some one believes that an asteroid between planets of Mars and Customer named Siamac is full of Gold mines and nobody could prove this is wrong. dose it mean �it�s right and true�?
I�m not sure, maybe Atheist or anybody else hasn�t this ability to prove God isn�t exist at all, but I think they can tell us a lot of sane and understandable reasons to show that religions aren�t right about God.

I'm sorry but that definition is wrong. Their own origin proves it. Atheism. A-without. Theism - belief in a god. If you put it all together, it means "without belief in a god" there is no positive assertion in that sentence about believing anything. To say that an atheist believes anything BECAUSE they are an atheist would be a fallacy.

Just to clarify:

Atheists have no burden of proof because they aren't asserting anything. No beliefs, no burden, just freedom.

Think "asexual". It doesn't mean it is a man or woman who does not believe in sexual organs. It means that there are no sexual organs, and the organism reproduces on its own, like cellular division.

Anti-theism is what most of the posters in this forum confuse with atheism. Without theism is different from against theism.

I don't know how to make it any more clear.

If it is really as frattaro claims then I have a question. If someone thinks that aliens exist and someone else thinks aliens don't exist but they can't both prove their case 100% then are they both believing what they do or one is a believe and another is not a believe? And then how do you know which one is a believe and which one is not? How do we decide?

And about your sample babak, you do have a point but you are also preassuming that such a thing didn't happen. I am not claiming that it did but of course there is a possibility. You yourself said that atheist could never prove that God doesn't exist but atheist do deny the possibility of the existance of God but then that just begs the question. And I am not sure how many of those sane arguements about atheism I have heard.

On the subject of aliens, like the existence of a god(s), we are going to have 3 types of people, the believers, the refuters and the ones who abstain from assertions because there is no proof either way. If someone is a non-believer, they could fall into one of the two other categories.

Bottom line is that there is not enough information for either the believers or the refuters to be correct. Why waste your time in an argument that only ends when one side gives up?

And you are claiming that Atheists are "the ones who abstain from assertions" based on your three types that you believe there are? Well atheism does say that God doesn't exist then it also has to claim that the opposite of it which is theism, which claims that there is a God, is incorrect and wrong by the law of non-contradicion because they both can't be right at the same time. Either there is a God or not and if one claims there is no God then in order to make sense of their worldview, they also have to claim the opposite of what they believe is wrong otherwise their worldview wouldn't be logical or rational. Atheists don't abstain from assertions on the topic but rather presuppose that God doesn't exist and it is the agnostics that "abstain from assertions" on these topic because they believe that there is a no way to know. Therefore atheism by logic would be the refuters of theism (based on the 3 types that you say) , not people that the "abstain from assertions".

Ferrato
Nice sentences I think, you described properly.


God Loves You
I just said

I don�t know about Atheist philosophy and what they really mentioned about their believes but nearly know about theism, hence could guess which one is more right.

I guess Atheist will be meaningless without the existence of Theist, so first of all we have to talk about what the Theist believed, and more over what the meaning of God in theist.

When I saw your sentences, guessed you more liked to magnify some disability on Atheism and in this way justify the Theism and existence of God. Is it the right manner? It�s more acceptable for Atheist I think, when we see the words.

babak, first of all, I didn't use any arguements for Theism or anything. I just point at the atheistic prosuppostions and in no way I am using it as a prove for Theism. If you also notice, I was reply to frattaro and I was pointing out that atheist do have to "believe" or presuppose that God doesn't exist because it can't be proven that God doesn't exist as you pointed out. So I think I have make my point there.

You cannot prove that I don't have a invisible dinosaur living in my backyard. If I say I do then it is up to me to provide the evidence. The burden of proof is on the person who holds the belief.

And if I say that you don't have a invisible dinosaur in your backyard but you actually do then what does that do to my arguement? It proves me wrong. And if I still believe that it is not possible that you may have a dinosaur in your backyard then I have as much burden of prove as you do. That is by using logical induction.

Thanks for your response.
This is not at all inductive reasoning/logic because the premises of your argument does not support the conclusion. All observed crows are black therefore all crows are black (thats inductive reasoning). You state:
"And if I say that you don't have a invisible dinosaur in your backyard but you actually do then what does that do to my argument? It proves me wrong."
Let's look at what this means. If I say I have an invisible dinosaur and you deny it, then I prove it to you, it would be ridiculous for you to continue denying it. Once it is proven it is proven, if you still deny you are just delusional. Your second point "And if I still believe that it is not possible that you may have a dinosaur in your backyard then I have as much burden of prove as you do." is therefore irrelevant. If I have already proven my point you will not be able to prove yours.

For the sake of argument lets say I tell you I have a shed in my backyard. You say "I don't believe it". I say "come on over", and show you the shed. You now say "it is still not possible that you have a shed in your yard". This would make you delusional.

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion. -Richard Dawkins

Welcome skeptic
Who is Richard Dawkins? Nice quote.

Thanks babak.

Richard Dawkins bio is here:
BellaOnline ALERT: For anti-spam reasons, we restrict the number of URLs allowed in a given post. You have exceeded our maximum number of URLs.

thanks Skeptic
nice guy you inform me about.

well based on the fact that you have been given enough prove for God's existence and you still deny it, what does that make you guys? Delusional? I don't know. Based what you are saying that is the conclusion one can make.
And about Richard Dawkins, I still haven't got to read his book yet but I don't really expect much from it. He doesn't even know science works but the book does sound rather interesting.

What???
What proof of God? Please provide this proof.


He doesn't know science works. What does that mean? He is a biology professor at Oxford and one of the best known scientist in the world today.

You always end with a bible quote so I will do the same.
"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)
yikes, that will go over well on bellaonline.

Good thing I don't go to church

There are plenty of objectionable verses; I am especially fond of the sanctioned murder and abortion by the 'moral lawgiver'. Interpretations vary regarding them, but you can't escape the fact that they are pretty primitive and mirror greatly practices of the Taliban.

I�m not so familiar with Christianity but Seems it has some common bases and laws with Islam as condemn abortion and homosexuality.

Whereas Buddhism doesn't judge or condemn anything, but simply manifests Wisdom, Love and Compassion....

I would argue that the very existence of matter which Mr. Dawkin studies is proof for God's existence.
And about the verse in the bible, I believe that Christianity regards women higher than any other religion including atheism. We believe that Women are created in God's image but what is the best atheism can offer? That women are created by the almighty protoplasm billions of years ago and then evolved from stupid, nonrational animals to human beings.
Being silent in the Church is as a sign of respect and the bible claims that women are equal to men as is a black man to a white man but if atheism was true then we wouldn't really know for sure what was true and what was false.

Here is verse that I want to end with:
GAL 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Seems Buddhism has nice attitude in human affair but can count it as a religion?


Nice statement! Can you show evidence (in Bible I mean, directly without doubt)? Christian history hasn�t shown it, I think.

I can bring a part of Quran with nearly as same as you mentioned in your post but it don�t mean equality.

If you would argue that, then by all means make your argument, because the sentence you just wrote is not an argument. It is just a statement for which you provide no evidence. Likely because there is none.



Christianity regards women higher than any religion including atheism??? First of all atheism is NOT a religion. It is NOT a belief system. It is the name we give to those who lack the belief in a deity. I presume each atheist could regard women differently. There is no doctrine.
On the other hand Christianity does make specific statements about women. note:
"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
Add that to the discrimination of women by the Catholic church, Judaism and Islam. In fact women have been discriminated against in every major religion. If you would like specifics just ask.

I am glad you brought up slavery. Let's take a look at what the bible says about that:
"Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ."(Ephesians 6:5)

"Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord." (Colassians 3:22)

"Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back ." (Titus 2:9)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18)


A simple explanation, but that is about right.
To discover that the Universe is some 8 to 15 billion years and not 6 to 12 thousand years old improves our appreciation of its sweep and grandeur; to entertain the notion that we are a particularly complex arrangement of atoms, and not some breath of divinity, at the very least enhances our respect for atoms; to discover, as now seems probable, that our planet is one of billions of other worlds in the Milky Way Galaxy and that our galaxy is one of billions more, majestically expands the arena of what is possible; to find that our ancestors were also the ancestors of apes ties us to the rest of life and makes possible important - if occasionally rueful - reflections on human nature.
--Carl Sagan


Frankly and with all do respect I don't even know what this means.
Could somebody please explain this quote to me. It is this kind of double speak that those without evidence use to make it look like they are making a point. Most may just wince a little and move on, but as a skeptic I must have read it 10 times. I sincerely hope you miss typed something here.

I can see a problem with what Alexandra said about Buddhism which that it "doesn't judge or condemn anything" because even a Buddhist would have to say that killing is wrong and that is a judgment. So that statement doesn't hold true and I don't have a problem with Buddhists "showing love and compassion" to others because that is exactly what I, as a Christian, am suppose to do too but obviously we all judge everything, even if they don't want to admit it, because everyone knows that there is such thing as right and wrong and there is such things as truth and false and there is such a thing as good and bad.

Babak then said:


Yes actually I have put a verse there just in case you might have had that question. But sure here is the verse again:

GAL 3:28


Then Babak said


Well I have to agree with you to that but that does not mean that Christianity think of women inferior to men. Just because I do something doesn�t mean that Jesus told me to do it because even Christians are humans and disobey God at times.

Then Babak said


I would like to see a couple of verse from Quran about that. Actually there is a whole post about �Good Treatment of women in Islam� in this forum and I believe it is titled that too. I am not sure where but I believe it is in the Islam section.

Skeptic, I am going to write an arguement God's existence as soon as possible.

Thanks Skeptic to inform us about point view of Christian religion about slavery. In Islam is nearly the same, our prophet and all Islamic saint men had slaves, and it was approved by God in Quran, I guess need not to bring some verse for sure but if you interested I can mention some.

Why did God approve slavery!!? Maybe you responses that, on that time if God didn�t do such, people wouldn�t accept religion according to their culture and customs on that time! Is it good excuse?

For sure I can mentioned an instance that humans did it in 6th century BC under the reign of Cyrus (Kurosh in persian) hence God could do that in better way I guess but why didn�t!!!?
You can see Cyrus Cylinder
BellaOnline ALERT: For anti-spam reasons, we restrict the number of URLs allowed in a given post. You have exceeded our maximum number of URLs.

Thanks babak for the information.
The old testament and the Koran were both rewrites of much earlier testaments. The old testament was plagiarized from other wittings which contained many more books. It was up to those who wrote it which to include and which not to include. It was completely subjective at the time. The Koran was heavily lifted from the bible as it was written many years later. This explains the similarities.

"There is nothing 'Good' nor 'Bad' but that thinking makes it so"... (Shakespeare)

It's all a question of point of view, or perception. And you cannot claim that I see things as you do, because you can never know that for sure.




Not so.

We would look at the individual circumstance and consider the action in isolation.

If for example, you had a parent in terrible and constant pain and suffering,begging you to help them put an end to their own misery,because they simply could not go on enduring such pain and distress, dayb after day.... If you were, out of compassion, to 'kill' them, we would never condemn that, because even though strictly speaking (by ANY standard) you should not 'take a life', the motive behind such an action is compassionate.

If on the other hand, you were to bludgeon another person to death, out of extreme anger (a large majority of murders occur as a result of the kller's dependency on drugs/alcohol or questionable Mental state) then whilst we would still maintain (in line with all creeds, laws and religions) that the act was 'Unskillful', we would view the condition of the perpetrator with compassion. In line with the law as it stands, the person would merit punishment. But in line with Spiritual thinking, (and I can only speak for Buddhism) that person also merits compassion, understanding and Support.
But not Judgement. Not in the condemnatory way.

Thank you.

Quite so. Buddhism is the most 'Humanist' Religion there is...As there is no 'God'to be accountable to, we are fully responsible for - and to - ourselves.

Substitute the word 'Arguement'(sic) for 'Proof', then I'd sit up and take notice.

I guess you are right although I�m not familiar with Bible.
You have to know that two of the first Muslims were Christian. One of them was Khadijeh (first Mohammad wife), she was the one of the richest people in Mecca on that time and during her life Mohammad hadn�t any another wife, and another was one of closest pal of Islam prophet named Roozbeh (Arab call him Salman Farsi) that was helper/councilor of Mohammad.


yeah, Buddhism accepted in the world as a religion. I guess Buddhism can better deal with human needed in compare of other religions.

Muhammed did have another wife. She was six years old when he married her and he took her virginity at nine. Muhammed was a pedophile.

No, he wasn't. Such actions were acceptable then, because Mary mother of Christ was around 12, according to Biblical authoritative historians. So by your reckoning, that would make God a paedophile too....Wouldn't it?
In the USA, even today, different states have different age limits to marriage and sex, so I think perhaps that was a bit of a sweeping statement, don't you?

Thank you Alexandra, I thought about responding to that too being as 2000 years ago the morals of those living were far different than they are today. I think most of the elite in Roman times had young boys in the bath houses. Further evidence that morals are evolved and not handed down by God. Now I am mixing up the forums .

Just a side note:
Bye the way I love your name. My daughter is named Alexandria after the Egyptian city and library that fell to the Christians in 413 and began the dark ages. Carl Sagan has said we would have walked on the moon by the year 1000 had it not been for the knowledge lost when that Library was burned in the name of God.
Is it any wonder that the tree Adam and Eve ate from in the myth is the "tree of knowledge". The symbolism here is is exactly what religion practices today, knowledge is death, faith is life.

Lovelove
Yeah you mean �Ayeshe�, she was one of the most effective woman in Islam history. Her father was �Abo Bakre� first Islam Califa (substitute of Mohammad).

I just told Khadijeh was the first wife and our prophet hadn�t other wives during her life.
Mohmmad had married 15 times and 2 divorces and two slave women. He had 11 wives in same time and when died had 9 wives.

According to Islam a girl can marry in 9 year old and boy in 15.

Alexandra
Oh so amazing Mary was 12!! I care to tell my opinion in this case.

three of Knowldge.
skeptic
yeah maybe
I think any prevent and unreason order have not to be follow by sane people, beside it take more attention, when try to prevent people from something.

Mary was 15 not 12 when the Holy Spirit came upon her. There is a huge difference between that and nine. 15 can be a very young woman but 9 is a child, period. Muhammad was a pedophile.

Did you try to justify this?
If God was almighty no any difference�s between 12 and 15 would be, I guess.

Depends on the culture. There are girls who get their periods at 9/10 and that is the yardstick many cultures used to determine womanhood. Under current morals and most cultures that is unacceptable, but in more primitive times it was necessary to ensure survival. Do you know the life expectancy of women in those times? Or thought about what it's like giving birth without the modern conveniences and techniques to ensure safe births for not only the child, but also the woman? Young and fertile ensured a man's best hope of progeny.

People keep trying to apply primitive texts to modern day society; it's no wonder things are so screwed up. There are parallels that can be drawn, but these kind of arguments really diminish any sensible information that might have been contained in the texts.

And since I'm on a roll this morning, does anyone read world history? Any part other than war or biblical perspectives? I have a daughter that is turning sixteen. A hundred years ago I would have been marrying her off about now - it was quite common. In medieval times she might have been promised in the cradle then fostered when she could walk to her prospective husband's family. They would have been formally married after her first menses - at whatever age that occurred. From an evolutionary perspective our bodies have not caught up with our current moral or lifestyle standards. Pubescent girls still have those hormones running through their bodies that scream "have sex and babies" at a young age although our society now says that we shouldn't until we're in our twenties and thirties. We have even managed to screw that up further by polluting our water supplies with chemicals that activate hormones; girls are menstruating earlier because of it instead of evolving towards our civilizations 'ideal'.

If you're going to argue someone's moral values you might try putting them in context with the correct century. You might also look at things from a biological and scientific perspective. It really does make for a more rational and interesting discussion.

A nine year old is a child and having sex with her is child rape, any way you slice it. If it were a Christian doing this would you be defending him? Or assailing him?

Lovelove..... When Churches in America are marrying under-age children today, now, as we speak - shouldn't you perhaps be directing your vitriol at them, instead of decrying something considered perfectly normal in those days, 2000 years ago?
What good is this argument doing you? What are you achieving?
What's the point of your argument?

Churches in America are not marrying six or nine year olds. If you disagree then prove otherwise.

I didn't say they were. I'm just saying that they marry people who in other states - and countries - would be considered under -age.
I'm wondering why you have such a bee in your bonnet about this. I mean, what's your point?

Denise
Yeah you mentioned good information and how much was pregnancy difficult on that time but more over had been under pressure of accusation for illegal sex and having illegitimate child was more difficult on that time I think. Maybe a lie can convert a bad situation to good one!!! ?

Lovelove
I don't know why you try to magnify something about Islam prophet and reiterate it every time. I thought you got my point of view about that. Beside Jesus is our prophet too. any way if you have any question about Islam or want to know more weakness points in there I'm at your service.
I tell you my opinion more obviously. It was a crime more than rape I think even if it happened more than 5000 years ago.
My daughter is 12, really I can't think about it.

Alexandra
Nice Questions

Happy Darwin Day everyone.

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

I am educated and I dispute the THEORY of evolution.

Go ahead dispute it. Show us you understanding of biology. Don't just say you dispute it, that is not an argument. Actually make your argument against it. Perhaps try to disputing evolution without quoting the bible because that is not a source of evidence, it is a source of stories. Provide evedence, I already know the stuff about seven days and I know the stories that imply that humans only date back 6000 years to Adam and Eve(I went to Sunday school too). But there is no evidence of that. Perhaps you will argue for an Earth centered universe too, or have you accepted the scientific evidence on that, because it ook years for religions to accept it.

Evolution in no way implies there is no God, it is only evidence that the ancient and deverse creation stories of every culture are false. You can have your faith with evolution.

O.K.let's talk about irreducible complexity shall we?

"Light blue touchpaper, and stand well back....."


Whooooooosh!

Obviously you don't have a clue. Why am I not surprised?

I'm not taking part in this aspect of discussion, but for my part, I agree with Skeptic when he says that you can still understand and accept Evolution, and believe in God.
That's why I decided to "Stand well back." Over to you guys, I'm just watching and observing with interest from the sidelines.
Thanks.

I take it that what you actually mean here is you want me to talk about it. You seem to think that writing one sentence suggesting we talk about something is an argument. You have not stated which systems you define as Irreducible complex (IC). Which system do you want me to refute: the eye, blood clotting cascade, flagella. Pick one or add another, and state how they are IC.

Just so we set some parameters lets define IC shall we. The following is how Michael Behe defined it in his book Darwin�s Black Box.

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Of course this book was written before he was completely discredited in court of law at the Dover trial.

One thing to bear in mind is that scientists love the truth. That�s all they are looking for. If Behe had actually presented evidence of IC that could stand up to peer review then the scientific community would adapt. Scientists and atheists just require evidence. Science does not set out to destroy religion, this is just a side effect of seeking the truth.

He is not the only one putting forth that argument. The fact is even Darwin wrote that he was stumped by the eye and it could wreck his whole theory.

Oh, touche, that's a great come-back Lovelove. That will definitely stump him....

Then he should explain how the eye could develop by the process of evolution and how that complex sysem could have either evolved simultaneously ( what luck!) or how it developed individually while still retaining the previous traits that provide no survival advantage. This is the crux of Darwin's problem. When we get through with that he can explain how animate material evolved from inanimate material. I want the mathematical probabilities of the randomness of these events fully explained. I await an answer.

Me too..... This is fun!

Lets look at what Darwin actually said. Anti-evolutionists often use the following sentence so demonstrate Darwins unsureness of his theory:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

The quote is taken out of context. Darwin answered the seeming problem he introduced. The paragraph continues,

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.

Lets also not forget that Darwin was the first to come up with the idea of evolution. Of course at the time it had holes in it, that is to say there were things not fully considered. But over the years evidence continues to stack up to support it. Evolution is much more understood now that it was in Darwins time so quoting Darwin you must remember that your are quoting science that is 150 years out of date. Argualbly every biologist today knows more about evolution than Darwin did.

...Just as we know now, for example, that Freud, as a psychoanalyst was a seriously flawed human being, with seriously flawed ideas. Some of his work is stil practicable today. Much of it though, is contested and set aside... because we now know more about behaviour than we did then.

You are surely kidding that you want me to explain this in detail here. I am not interested in writing a biology book for you on this forum. Especially when there are many books already written on these subjects by the worlds leading scintists and biologists. I suggest you buy one.

You want the mathematical probabilities of the randomness of these events fully explained - give me a break. Why don't you or anyone who beleives as you require as much evidence of your beleifs. The fact is I am not going to copy and paste pages of evidence into this forum so that you can state that you still disreguard evolution.

Here are some articles that will answer you questions:
BellaOnline ALERT: For anti-spam reasons, we restrict the number of URLs allowed in a given post. You have exceeded our maximum number of URLs.

Except for the fact that there is a missing link to evolution. If evolution could be proven, there would be no missing link.

Why are not we still evolving from apes then? Why did that stop?

All life will produce like life. Not one case of accidental or spontaneous generation has ever been observed.

In every species, the number of chromosones in every cell is exactly the same.

Every cell in a housefly has 12 chromosones
"""" "" " " lily " 24 chromosones
an ox has 38
a human has 46

The only exception is those species which produce by sexual attraction. In these, the chromosones of the reproductive cell is halved: e.g. in a man the sperm has 23 chromosones and in a woman the ova has 23 chromosones. When they come together there are 46.

The DNA in every cell tolerates no change unless affected by an exterior accident, such as radiation

Missing links are misrepresentations

The tooth used to construct Nebraska Man was found to belong to an extinct pig.


Bones used to reconstruct Java Ape Man were found to belong to an elephant and the bones used to reconstruct Piltdown Man turned out to belong to an ape.

Go ahead check it out and try to prove me wrong.

Who says we're not still evolving? Scientists have discovered that in the last 300 years, the little toe on each foot has gotten so much smaller, that they believe that within another 200 years, we will have dispensed with it altogether.


Not so. An extremely recent discovery of wild leopard-like cat in the Jungle of Borneo, has demonstrated that this is a species entirely unique, and unlike any other cat species on the planet. it doesn't share any genetic similarity to any other wild cat species.

It would be more useful, given that you are on the atheist forum, that you provide irrefutable proof to the ridiculous creation theory expounded in the Bible.

Not to mention the fact that no evolutionary biologist ever said we evolved from apes. He knows nothing of evolution yet still disputes it. We share a common ancestry but we are not descended from apes. Of course we also share a common ancestry with flat worms, you just need to go back further.

Actually it can be observed on a year to year basis in the Galapagos. It is a fact. Evolution is not evidence of no God. If you would just drop the whole creation thing and say God works through evolution then you would have a much more intelligent argument. Evolution is a fact and continued denial of the overwhelming evidence takes away any credibility you have. Just like when you Christians thought the Earth was at the centre of the universe.

God created man in his image not from sludge in the ocean. He breathed life into Adam.

And there is no accidental life generation in the Galapagos. All life creates like life.

How come you didn't argue about the chromosone thing?

You guys just like to pick and choose things that suits you and argue about things that you think you know about.

However, that is fine. Whatever gets you through the night. I know it cannot be true because I said it and I am a Christian.

Again if there was evolution, there wouldn't be a missing link. Everyone keeps glossing over that fact.

Why is that?

This is not an argument, it is just a bunch of statements unsupported by evidence. That is all you ever offer. Do you know what evidence is? If so please, try using it.

Why don't I argue about the chromosone thing? First of all it is called a chromosome and secondly, I don't know what your point is. You just state a bunch of chromosome numbers. I would have to verify them but even if you are right with the numbers, there is no point. You never state what your point is. You just say a bunch of numbers and I am suppose to know what that means. Thats like me saying I can disprove Gods existence because light travels at 220,000 kps. What does that mean? I don't know but I am throwing numbers around so I must be smart.

No, you really aren't that smart, skeptic. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

The evidence I have you don't want to hear about anyway.

My evidence is the word of God.

All you can do is pick on my typos. It must be sad to feel as empty inside as you do.

Don't worry I will still pray for you. There is still hope you can be saved. God's will be done.

Yes I am so empty, and words in a book are not evidence. And I am quite sure that was not a typo. Clarify why don't you. What do these chromosome numbers prove? What was your point there.

I address your post. Mine in bold.


The DNA in every cell tolerates no change unless affected by an exterior accident, such as radiation
Except for the fact that there is a missing link to evolution. If evolution could be proven, there would be no missing link.

Do you know what a missing link is? A missing link is a fossil record of a evolutionary step. To find a fossil record of every evolutionary step back to the beginning would be impossible. Lets pretend these numbers represent document-able evolutionary steps.

1 2 3 4 8 9 10
As you can see numbers are missing. You would state that there is a missing link between 4 and 8. Now I go digging in Ethiopia and I find a fossil record that fills that gap. Let�s pretend I find �Lucy� (number 6). The numbers now look like this:

1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10

You would now claim there are 2 gaps, and if I find 5, then what about 4.1 and 4.2. You see there is no missing link. There is only the evidence that we find and it is always increasing and reinforcing the theory. The missing link is something those who do not understand evolution or even want too, hold on to. Like they expect the link to be some sort of half human half monkey creature. Evolution is very small mutations compounded over millions of years. Evolution explains why blacks live in the equatorial regions and whites in the temperate zones, because we have evolved the pigmentation necessary to protect ourselves from the sun depending on our level of exposure.

Why are not we still evolving from apes then? Why did that stop?

We never evolved from apes and we have not stopped.

All life will produce like life. Not one case of accidental or spontaneous generation has ever been observed.

I agree, we live for 80 years or so and evolution occurs over millions. We are not going to see a new species born spontaneously out of another. That is not even how evolution works especially with macro biology. But if we look at micro biology then we can easily see the evolution of viruses as they become resistant to antibiotics. The virus reproduces millions of times and one of those times there is a mutation, if the mutation does not give it an advantage then it simply dies off but if the mutation allows the virus to thrive then it is passed on and evolution has taken place.


In every species, the number of chromosones in every cell is exactly the same.

Every cell in a housefly has 12 chromosones
"""" "" " " lily " 24 chromosones
an ox has 38
a human has 46

The only exception is those species which produce by sexual attraction. In these, the chromosones of the reproductive cell is halved: e.g. in a man the sperm has 23 chromosones and in a woman the ova has 23 chromosones. When they come together there are 46.

I still don�t know your point here please explain. By the way, if chromozones was a typo you would not have done it 4 times.


Missing links are misrepresentations

The tooth used to construct Nebraska Man was found to belong to an extinct pig.


Bones used to reconstruct Java Ape Man were found to belong to an elephant and the bones used to reconstruct Piltdown Man turned out to belong to an ape.

Go ahead check it out and try to prove me wrong.

We have already addressed all of the above. You are welcome to look back and review. Your research obviously comes from religious websites or literature, not from biology texts. Those who write your literature have an agenda to protect their faith. Those who write my literature have and agenda to know the truth. Which is more noble?

I never said chromosone was a typo, it was a spelling error. Good thing spelling isn't a requirement to get into Heaven, huh?

Again on the evolution thing, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You read and review what you feel are your truths and I will read and review the only Truth that matters.

The Word of God.

Have a blessed day, Skeptic. I am still praying for you.

Skeptic, you are again trying to use logic on a zealot. It simply won't work. Amadeus and TD, I think are closely related and several steps down the evolutionary ladder.

but if I look back I see you wrote:


Spelling might be ok but I believe lying breaks a commandment in your mythology.

And actually I do agree to disagree, you are in the atheist forum remember so it is you that is on my turf. If you really do agree to disagree then leave.

It seems that christians love to torment and throw hatred at athiests. They love to come to athiest forums and start with their ridiculous stories. I doubt you will find athiests in a christian forum. Why? Christians love being deluded and think the rest of the world should be just as deluded. They are not capable of figuring out a life code for themselves; they must listen to their 'leaders' who are very smart and have learned they can make lots of big green dollars leading their sheep to the fleecing area.

Skeptic, I have written my arguments for God's existence below as I had promised to do. So here it is.

Before starting my case for a theistic worldview, I would like to talk a little bit about atheism.

Atheism comes from the two words which are a and theist and it basically means without believe in God. Now even if atheism was true, it would never be able to prove itself right. How can you prove a negative? It is impossible to prove that. So the best an atheist can do, to maintain their position as an atheist, is to prove any prove for God�s existence false which means they would be in a defensive position. But even given the atheistic worldview; there is always a possibility that God exists which means that an atheist can�t really be an atheist but an agnostic at best. But let�s think about what it really means if atheism was true. If atheism was true then what is the problem in believing in God? If atheism was true then I don�t see a problem with anyone worshiping anything and I don�t see why atheists have a problem with people believing in God. If there is no God then everyone is going to die, it doesn�t matter who, an atheist, a theist, a pantheist, everyone and what we believe in doesn�t matter. Therefore an atheist shouldn�t really argue for their atheism because it doesn�t really matter. But if theism is true then it does matter whether we believe in God or not because it has eternal consequences.

I think I have said enough about atheism for now. Now I�ll start to make my case for theism and why theism makes more sense than atheism. When looking at any worldview, be it theism or atheism, they all start with a presupposition. A theist (or at least a Christian theist) starts with the presupposition that the bible is true and we live in a rational world and everything makes sense. An atheist starts with the presupposition that we live in a rational world too and God doesn�t exist. But what are the bases for rationality in both worldviews? For theism, the bases for a rational world is that God exists and He created the world in a rational way and therefore we can rationally think and know things but an atheistic worldview doesn�t have any bases for claiming that this world is a rational world. What if this world is really irrational? I mean what if the law of contradiction is false? What if when you say God doesn�t exist really meant God does exist? And if you say that is absurd and is not correct then what is the foundation for rationality in atheism? As a Christian, my presuppositions are true and logical or at the very least more probable than an atheistic presuppositions. Let me explain what I mean by that. When I say that God exist, there is always a possibility that God does exist (that being the weakest argument one can present and that is definitely not what I am going to argue for but even that is a strong argument for an atheist to disprove). If you even prove all my arguments false, you still can�t prove that God doesn�t exist. So basically, just based on logic, my presuppositions are superior than an atheistic presupposition. Then you might ask, where is the prove that God exists? I would use three arguments for God�s existence. My first argument will be for the origin of the universe. My second argument will be for morality and my last argument will be for Meaning and hope in life.

My first argument is what is known as the cosmological argument. The argument is written as two premises and a conclusion.
1) Everything that has a beginning needs a cause.
2) The universe had a beginning.
3 Therefore the universe needs a cause.

The first premise comes from the law of causality that is nothing can come from nothing. That is a logical and scientific premise. Since nothing is nothing, nothing can cause nothing. No one has ever observed something coming out of nothing without a cause. And just based on that we can make the deduction that since the universe is something, the universe could not have come from nothing without a cause. Then the question can be raised that can�t the universe be eternal? But the second premise tackles that question down by saying that the universe did have a beginning. There are many ways that philosophers and scientist argue for the beginning of the universe (one must also note that majority of scientists believes that the universe did have a beginning i.e. the Big Bang). Scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe consists of the Big Bang Model and the Laws of Thermodynamics. The first Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be made or destroyed. That means that our energy is all that we have got in this universe and new energy is not being made. And the second Law of Thermodynamics states that the mount of our usable energy in this universe is running down and we�ll reach a state, which is called the state of entropy, once the usable energy is not usable anymore and that is going to happen in a finite future but since we still have usable energy, one can conclude that the universe had a beginning in a finite past. Another argument for the beginning of the universe that I would like to use is Zeno�s paradoxes which show us that it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite set of points. As Dr. Phil Fernandes states:



I would also like to point out that if an infinite set of things existed outside the mind then it will be create lots of absurdities. For example, let�s suppose that there was a hotel that had an infinite number of rooms and all the rooms were full but one day one person comes and wants to stay at this hotel. When he comes and says that he wants to stay in this hotel but as we all know that all the rooms are full but the hotel manager says no problem and what he does is, he moves all the people one room up, so the person who was in room one would go to room two and the person from room two to room three and this goes to infinity and we have an empty room!!! But wait you would say, wasn�t all the rooms full? Yes but now we have an empty room for the new comer but this hotel is a lot stranger than this. Let�s suppose that one day an infinite number of people come to this hotel and ask for rooms and as we know all the rooms are full. But the manager of this hotel says, no problem people come on it and he asks the all the people in the hotel to move an infinite number of rooms up, in order to empty an infinite number of rooms for the newcomers and after everyone has moved up an infinite number of rooms, there is an infinite number of empty rooms. But wait, you might say, that is impossible. Yes but this hotel is a lot stranger than that. For let�s suppose that everyone except the people in room one to three wants to leave this hotel. How many people would be leaving the hotel? Well since there is an infinite number of rooms from room three to infinity then an infinite number of people will be leaving the hotel. But wait you might say once more, how is that possible. How is infinity minus infinity equal 3? It is impossible. We can�t have an infinite set of anything and since an everlasting universe needs an infinite number of moments in the past, we can conclude that the universe did have a beginning.
But one might say that there is a trick to that illustration therefore I would like to give you another example. Let�s suppose that there is a library that has an infinite number of books. If one goes and checks out ten books, how many books are left? The answer is an infinite of course but wait didn�t we just checked ten books out, wouldn�t that make a difference? The answer is no because it doesn�t matter how many things we subtract out of an infinite set, we would still have an infinite number of things left in it. But let�s suppose further that this library has only two kinds of books that are equal in number: books with blue covers and books with red covers. How many blue covered books do we have in this library? An infinite of course for what is infinity divided by two? That you might say is absurd since we know that there is half of an infinite number of blue covered books in that library but that is what we get if there was an actual infinite set existed. But let�s go a step further. Let�s suppose that the books in this library have an infinite number of pages. If one reads one book or an infinite number of books in this library then both of these people would have read the same number of pages but that is irrational and illogical and we can conclude that an actual infinite set can�t exist. And since an eternal universe need an infinite number of moments in the past; we once again can conclude that the universe did have a beginning.

The Big Bang Model which is a scientifically accepted model also indicates that the universe had a beginning. By the Law of Causality, everything that has a beginning needs a cause. And since the universe had a beginning, the universe needs a cause. If atheism was true, then the argument above leaves it with two options. The first option is that the universe didn�t have a beginning but as shown above the universe did have a beginning and if someone claims that it did not then it is unscientific and can only be believed based on blind faith. The second option is that the universe had a beginning but it didn�t need a cause but I have given a strong argument for why this option is not available unless one believes it based on faith. Therefore it is only reasonable to believe that the universe did have a beginning and it did have a cause. But the question can be raised, doesn�t the cause of the universe needs a cause? But I have already argued above that we can�t have an infinite set outside of our mind. Therefore there has to be a first Uncaused Cause of everything (i.e. God).
Even though I could leave this argument here (for even a first Uncaused Cause of the universe proves atheism wrong) but I would like to go a step further and argue for the God of Christianity. We could make a couple of deductions to show us some attributes of this Uncaused Cause, which I already have shown that exist, by of looking at the world around us. For example, as we read Skeptic�s or my arguments, we can see that intelligence exist but we couldn�t have come from a non-intelligent being because intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence. (Now evolutionist do believe that this has happened in the past but there is no prove for this but can only be believed on faith since there is no prove) Therefore the Uncaused Cause of this universe must be an intelligent being. We also know that there is such a thing as right and wrong. And since natural is immoral, the Uncaused Cause of the universe has to be a Moral Being (I will argue this a little further later on). Since Morality cannot come from immoral. So far we have got an Uncaused Cause of everything that is an intelligent and Moral Being. Let�s go a step further, since matter can�t create matter (Because in order for matter to create matter, matter has to pre-exist its own existence which means matter didn�t create matter), the Uncaused Cause of the universe must be an Immaterial Being. I will use one of Thomas Aquinas� five ways to prove God�s existence. The argument is as following:
We know that limited and dependent things exist. For example, for me to exist, I would need food and water and oxygen and etc to sustain my existence. And even if we take one of those out, I wouldn�t exist. But if we add all dependent and limited beings, we still would have a dependent being because if everything in the room is red then the whole room is red. Therefore there has to be an independent and unlimited being for anything to exist. Therefore God is an independent and an unlimited being. He is unlimited in power since He is the source of power and unlimited in knowledge since He is the source of knowledge. Since power and knowledge and things of such are perfection, God is unlimited in perfection and is the source of all goodness and perfection.

My second argument is based on Morality. We all know that morality exist. We know that there is such thing as good and bad. For example we know that raping a woman is wrong for all times, everywhere and everyone and these Moral Laws are objective but what are the bases for such moral laws and where do we get them from? What is the basis for our moral decisions? Atheism can only offer us subject Moral Laws which are subjective but there is a major problem with this. Individuals can�t make moral laws because then we can�t call actions of another person wrong since Morality if subjective and what is right for him is right for him even though we know it is wrong. But what about a society? Couldn�t the society make Moral Laws? The answer is no because if a society made Moral Laws then one society couldn�t call the actions of another society wrong therefore once again Moral Laws are subjective in the sense that what is right for a society is right for it, other societies shouldn�t call their actions wrong because every society make their own Moral Laws. And based on that we for example can�t call actions of Nazi Germany wrong since they made their own Moral Laws but we all know what the Nazi�s did was wrong. What about Moral Laws based on a world consensus? But the problem with Moral Laws based on a world consensus is that a world consensus can very well be wrong. For example, at one point of time everyone believed that the world was flat. But Moral Laws are objective and are prescriptive of how things ought to be. And a prescriptive Law needs a prescriber or a Lawgiver. In summary, we know some things such as raping a women is an absolute Moral Law and is true for all times and everyone and humans can�t make Moral Laws therefore there must be a Moral Lawgiver in order for Moral Laws to exist otherwise Moral Laws are subjective and we really can�t call anything wrong. And the only worldview that makes sense of Morality and Moral Laws are a Christian Theistic Worldview. Therefore the uncaused Cause (i.e. God) is also our Moral Lawgiver.

My third argument is based on meaning and value of life. One of the most important questions of the life is why are we living and what is the meaning of life? If atheism was true then there is no meaning to life but we are the product of a bunch of accidents in the meaningless cosmos and our destiny is ultimately that one day we are all going to parish and die. As Bertrand Russell:

�Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins . . .�

If atheism is true then ultimately there is no value to life. As Dan Barker said there is no more value to broccoli than to a human being. We live and we die. It doesn�t matter who it is or what our goals are in life or what status we have, it doesn�t matter. Life is a meaningless journey in a meaningless universe and it is going to end with no meaning at all. If atheism is true, humans are just a bunch of molecules that are in motion. What is the difference between dirt and humans? Nothing. And what hope can an atheist offer anyone? What hope can an atheist offer him or herself? What hope can an atheist give to a mother whose son just died? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The only way our lives could have meaning or value is if that God existed. Otherwise there is no point of even living. God gives life meaning and value. Only the God of the bible promises defeat of evil and winning of good. Only God of the bible promises rewards for people who live a good live and punishment for bad people. The only reason one can be optimistic about the future is God existed. Only God offers hope.

Even though I didn�t go in to deep in of all my arguments, my arguments still provide good evidence on how it is more logical and rational to believe that there is a God rather than not.

well done, I will respond. See amadeus, an intelligent argument however incorrect and non persuasive is possible.

THis was posted elsewhere by another member, but I just thought I'd introduce it here, as it seemed a valid aspect of the discussion.....

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

I haven't thrown hatred at anyone. It is you all who are being hateful. Telling me I am several steps down your mythological evolutionary ladder, making fun of grammatical errors, telling me I need to take my meds and other nonsensical banter like that.

Skeptic, all of my arguments have been very luicid and well thought out. I cannot help if you cannot handle the truth and resort to name calling and the like.

Like I said, I have broad shoulders and the love of Jesus in my heart so go ahead and pick on me. It really shows who are steps down on the "evolutionary ladder". As for me leaving this forum, Iam afraid I cannot do that yet, because the Lord's work is not done here.

I will never give up on trying to bring you all into the Light and to fill your hearts with the love of Christ. You should try it, as it feels really good to have Him in there.

Jesus loves you. Won't you love Him back before it's too late?

Maybe my well done was a little to hasty. I was surprised to find Hilbert�s Paradox written in the late 1800�s being passed off as your work. You were clearly not crediting him. I am giving some thought as to whether I should address the rest of my argument to you or to or to William Lane Craig as I assume it is him and perhaps others who are responsible for much of what is written here.

Well that is not really agreeing to disagree like you said is it? As for Jesus in your heart, well thats just a muscle that pumps blood. Jesus is in your head.

Two things Skeptic, First of all Hilber's Paradox is quite famous and mostly everyone knows about it. Therefore When I used it, I assumed you are smart enough to figure that out because you seem like a smart person. And second thing is that I didn't write a bibliography for it my arguments since it is not very detailed and I used everything that I had in my mind and wrote it down. Now if you would like an argument that goes in every detail and who thought of that idea then I guess you'll have to ask for an argument like that since I have used thoughts of other people but please keep in mind that they are written by me.

Looks like we gotta ban another idiot.

So much for the tolerent Atheists

pondlady Do you have anything logical or rational to say rather trying to be funny and dissing other people. Calling someone an idiot is an easy thing to do but showing that you are not idiot is quite another matter. It needs brains and thinking. And so far you have just been doing the former. I'd like to see you doing the latter. God Love You

No, no. I am saying we will have to agree to disagree on your misguided views of evolution.

Fear not, I will not give up on trying to bring you and the other lost souls here to the Lord.

Jesus loves you. Won't you love Him back?

Unfortunately GLY, That is all Pondlady can do. It is really sad when you think about it.

I am glad I have the Lord in my heart so I don't feel empty inside like she does.

I am still praying for her though and the rest of them who do not know Jesus on an intimate level.

(Oh yeah, do not make any spelling or typographical errors either. They really attack you for that.)

lol amadeus1220

Hey amadeus, I know you think we are all distracted because GLY is back but I would still love your explanation on the chromosome thing. Really, I don't know what you point was so if you could stop complaining about my typo accusation I will gladly listen to your point.

The chromosome thing is just proof that God planned life this way. No accidental life generation would be as perfect as that.

Plus I wasn't complaining about your typo accusations, I was just warning GLY not to make any because that is what you seem to focus on when you have nothing else constructive to say about my posts.

As I said before, I don't care if you want to make fun of me because of grammatical mistakes because I know you need something to fill that emptiness deep inside of you until you let Jesus into your life.

I know it gives you a warped sense of gratification to point out mistakes in my typing and typos and grammatical errors and misspellings are not a requirement to get into Heaven. Loving Jesus is the only requirement and I love Him with all of my heart and soul so I know where I am heading when the rapture happens. Right into the mansion that Jesus is preparing for me now.

I hope you come to your senses before it's too late. You, Pondlady, Alexandra and any other non believer. Jesus loves you, won't you love Him back?

For starters it was not a mistake in typing. If you made it once or twice that would have been the case. You made it every time you typed the word. Which I took as evidence that not only do you not know much about chromosomes, you don't even know what they are called.

Secondly, this:

is not evidence of God. How are the numbers 12, 24, 38 and 46 perfect. Is there a pattern here that I don't see. Then you say the only exception is a species which reproduces by sexual attraction, well I got news for you; three of the four you listed reproduce that way. Exception to what.
You see my frustration in talking to you is not that you are religious, most people I know are. It is that you don't have a point. How is that perfect?

Skeptic, you will never convince someone who operates emotionally only, with logic, no matter how well stated. Religious zealots who feel they are on earth to convince others to be zealots as well do not operate on logic, only emotion and sadly, the emotion is something induced in them by some shade tree preacher with a bad haircut. Or some salesman with a greased back hair cut and wife who sings poorly on cable TV. Convincing a mob is an easy job. Just look how well Hitler did.

Skeptic,

Why are you so bent on pointing out mistakes I have made? I said they were spelling mistakes, so what? Get over it. I used the humans as an example, I never said we were the only ones who reproduced by sexual attraction.

Let it go, I have. I said you have your misguided truths about evolution and I have the real truth about it. You don't want to believe the truth I have, so don't. Just let it go. Don't let it eat it you up inside.

Now Pondlady is associating Jesus with Hitler? I don't understand that logic except to say that she must have really been hurt by someone somewhere in her life and it has really hardened her heart.

I am praying for peace for you, Pondlady.

pondlady, one thing, do you even know what a zealot is? If so, aren't you the most zealous person here since whenever a christians says something you start screaming that they are idiots and you are willing to defend your faith by calling others stupid. So far the only one operating on emotions is you since I see no logic in any of your arguments what so ever since the only thing you do is fanatically call everyone that doesn't have the same worldview as your's a "zealot". If that is what you think logic is, I tip my hat to you.

Skeptic since you are defending evolution here, I'll throw a question that I would like to know what your opinion is on it.
If evolution was true, why do flowers have the colors they do? It would be great if you could explain that and please don't call me a zealot or a stupid Christian for asking that question because that is a perfectly logical question to ask. Thank you

amadeus1220, as pondlady said, "you will never convince someone who operates emotionally only, with logic, no matter how well stated." I do agree with her on the sentence. You seriously can't. So what I would like to suggest to you would be that don't try to convince pondlady. You can't convince her. And by the way is your preacher someone with bad hair cut because my preacher is difinitely not. I don't know where she gets her idea of a "preacher" from. Do atheists by any chance have preachers?
Pondlady you are seriously confusing me there. Anyways, those were just some random thoughts as I read what people wrote in this page. Wow I don't see why a preacher, even with a bad hair cut, couldn't talk logically.

No, my pastor does not have a bad haircut in fact, his hair is kept short and neatly combed.

He is a true man of God and would give you the shirt off of his back if you asked. He goes out of his way to talk and pray with people before and after services and as far as money goes, they make sure to tell us that we should not feel bad if we do not have money for the weekly collections and the money they do get goes to the building fund as we are building on to our church debt free.

Money goes to the storehouse so we can give food to people twice a month and would eventually like to do it weekly. We normally give out well over a thousand pounds of food to people each week that we have the storehouse.

Money goes to overseas missions that we sponsor in Kenya, Guatemala, Ethiopia and other countries in Africa.

Money even went to New Orleans along with people from our church and four semi trailers of food, clothes, toys, books, water and tools to help repair the devastation that resulted from Hurricane Katrina.

People seem to forget or not know that it was the "religious zealots" who stepped up to help rebuild and clean up New Orleans and its surrounding parishes when the government had all but forsaken them down there. Pondlady should especially be aware of this since she lives in Louisiana.

Money from our collections also goes to to Reach The Children ministries worldwide as well.

Our pastor is not getting wealthy from the church and he and his wife live in a mobile home that has been added onto on ten acres of land. They have 2 vehicles which were made in the 80's. Our pastor is a very humble man.

Money also goes to the church's outreach program in which we do oil changes for single mothers twice a year, Thanksgiving dinners and Christmas dinners for them as well.

I am very proud to be associated with this church and even more proud to be a Christian.

Pondlady and Skeptic should feel so proud but as empty and hateful as they are, I can understand why they aren't.

I will not give up praying for them though or anyone here who is not saved.

In fact you can check out our church atBellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD;
Though they join forces, none will go unpunished.

Prov 16:5

From your own religion ....

Shall I also find something on judgment? Who are you to know what their actions and thoughts are outside of this forum? Frankly I find the trumpeting of "good deeds" in rather poor taste. You might be surprised to find out how many atheists and agnostics also donate to charity, volunteer their time, and contribute to the lives of others. Since there isn't an omnipotent spectator that might have missed the good works or competing 'deed' groups perhaps it simply isn't necessary to announce "I did this!".

By example is a lost art. It all seems to be about the mouth. Too bad, really, our world might be a better place if it were the former rather than the latter.

As a Christian I boast about nothing but Christ himself. As a Christian everything that I do or I should do is because I want to be more like him. When I do good works, I do it because Christ himself is good and I want to become more like Him. I love everyone because Jesus in Mat 5:44 said,



That is what I boast about. As it is written in Psalm 34: 2 says


I do good work not to be saved but because I am saved in Christ alone. That is why I live and talk and do everything that I do. I do apprectiate my atheist friends who do good works too. I love them and pray for them but why do they good works? I don't see why anyone should do good works if there is no God. What is the difference between good and bad? What is the standard for good and bad without God? I don't see one. Dear friend, the only way to get satisfied with our lives, it doesn't matter if we do charity or not, is by accepting Jesus who is the standard of goodness. God Loves You

The post preceding mine was indeed full of boasting and pride. Sorry, it wasn't about a likeness to Jesus or God.

This is the crux of the matter, "I don't see why anyone should do good works if there is no God. What is the difference between good and bad? What is the standard for good and bad without God? I don't see one."

Empathy, sympathy and charity do not belong only to your religion. If you saw a wounded animal or a starving child would you not help them if you thought your God wasn't watching? If not, I think you are the one who should be pitied.

ParrotHead, the questions that I was asking were not whether we should help something or not but I was asking the question from an epistemological point of view. I would definitely help a staving child and wounded animal because based on my worldview, I have to do that otherwise I am not even following my own worldview. The bible says help the widows and the needy. But what is the epistemological answer to that problem from the atheistic point of view? It depends on your feelings and or who you are. Why is helping a starving child a good thing from an atheistic point of view? The question is not if it is good but the question is Why it is good. And I believe that my God is watching me all the time. What is the standard for goodness in atheism in the first place? See when one says that there is such thing as bad (such as as not helping a starving child) then one presupposes that there is such thing as good and once one presupposes there is such thing as good then one also presupposes that there is such thing as a moral law that we use in order to differentiate between good and bad and once one presupposes that there is such thing as a moral law then one must also presuppose that there is a moral lawgiver since a moral law can't exist without a moral lawgiver. Therefore in order just to disprove God, once must presuppose the existence of God to try to disprove him.
And yes my post may have been full of boasting and pride and I do boast in the Lord because He is our Moral Lawgiver and He is the source of our goodness.

We've been down the "moral lawgiver" route before. I disagree with your argument and have made numerous points before on this subject.

I really want to go look up directions in the Bible on how to wipe one's arse because it seems nothing can be done, seen, felt, experienced, or conceived of without it. Animals somehow manage to have empathy and sympathy for one another without a book giving them directions. It amazes me that humans supposedly cannot.

I am wondering if Parrothead was talking about my post and the works that my church has done. I wasn't boasting about the works, I was merely clearing up a couple of issues that referred to my pastor as having a fat wallet and no better than a slimy shyster.

I was pointing out that it wasn't true and that our church does a lot with the money that it collects from the congregation.
I know works don't get you into Heaven.

In fact in Ephesians 2:8-9, it is written: For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone boast.

I was merely defending my pastor and my church and now I realize that it wasn't necessary because, as is the case in point, someone will find fault with it. I should have realized that he didn't need defending and that was an oversight on my part.

It's funny how the non Christians here are quick to start throwing around Bible verses. Oh well, at least it shows they are attempting to read it.

Jesus loves you, won't you love Him back?

ParrotHead, That is not an answer to my argument. You are just assuming that it is wrong. And based on atheism what is the difference between animals and humans in the first place? They are all the same. They all evolved from rocks and I don't see how anyone could get their morality from rocks. Once you stroke down the Moral Lawgiver then I don't see why or you could call anything good or bad.

Rocks????? You mean we didn't evolve from ocean sludge or from sort of kangarockasaurus?????

"It's funny how the non Christians here are quick to start throwing around Bible verses. Oh well, at least it shows they are attempting to read it."

As a child I won many prizes at church and bible camp from memorizing verses. I have read the book cover to cover. You like to believe those you preach to haven't got a clue what they're talking about when in fact most are probably more well versed than you in the subject. If I chose not to think it would be a very easy thing to walk around delusional holding the bible in front of me. Until you can uncouple your teaching/training/indoctrination and look at it rationally there's really no point in trying to discuss anything.

I feel everyone has the right to their opinion or view, since most of us is trying discuss this topic according to our knowledge ans experiences.

By making the above statement - are you indicating we are all wrong or ignorance.

and only you know what is right or wrong.

When the answer to everything is "God made it so" or the "Bible says so" there's no further room for discussion or thought. I have tried on many occasions to have rational discussions and after awhile you get tired of hearing the same thing over and over. If we could get past the same two answers (no matter how pretty they are worded) we might actually find a new perspective separately or together. That is the point of discussion, is it not? Neither answer sways me to their point of view so if they can't have a discussion without that fallback position then it is pointless.

And this isn't the Defend the Bible and Christianity forum despite what it's become. I've tried exploring discussions on various topics from different perspectives such as creationism (which doesn't always involve the Christian god) and evolution. I've started exploring the biology and psychology. I would like to hear different perspectives from people who have differing ideas that reach beyond the Bible and Christianity.

ParrotHead, When did I answer any of your questions with a "the Bible says so" type of answer because I don't remember when I have done that but anyway you said you wanted to discuss things rationally but see the problem that I have with that is your wouldview doesn't even have any bases for rationality in the first place. How do you justify what is rational or not from your worldview? I do respect atheist and I do think there are good atheists and bad atheists as there are good christians and bad ones but the problem is that an atheism doesn't give us the rational answer to the problem of morality or other experience that human beings have. Atheism fails to have a foundation for rationality and when we discuss rational things, we have to take a leap of blind faith into the non-rational realm to answer the basic questions of rationality. So atheism fails at an epistemological level.

I find it interesting reading your few posts althought you had a few trophy here and there , it is my view that .....

You not only locked yourself in the cave but you also trying to lock HIM into the cave.

atan

No one is trying to lock Him in a cave. To the contrary, we are trying to espress how much He loves you and wants you to have a personal relationship with Him.

Parrothead, how can you have creationism with out the Christian God? He is the One who created everything. You speak of uncoupling my training and whatever. Uncouple it from what? From God? From Jesus? From the bible?

It took me a long time to be coupled with Them and I am not about to uncouple anything. As far as not having a rational discussion without "falling back on" 'because God said so or the Bible said so' then I get pooh-poohed or get called names. Where is the rationality in that?
I am wrong for only reading Christian literature for discussions on things like evolution but you guys are always right because you don't read Christian literature on it. Where is the rationality there?

Atan, you quoted something from both me and Parrothead and I don't know who your ignorance theme is aimed at, so if it is me, allow me to respond.

I have never once said anyone is ignorant or beneath me or that I am better than the next person. My argument has always been that I believe in God and Jesus and the Bible as the irrefutable truth and I am going to be rewarded for it in Heaven whilst those who do not believe or look to the stars for their answers instead of the One who made those stars, then they are going to "burn in the lake of fire that was created for the devil and his angels." There is no middle ground here. It's an all or nothing proposition.

Parrothead, you won alot of awards for memorizing Bible verses at Bible camp and church. That is awesome, however, if you don't live by the words that you memorized or believe what those words have to say or believe that they were written by God, believe that Jesus was born and died for your sins, then that and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee because it isn't going to matter when you stand before the Throne of Judgment. It doesn't matter if you can memorize the whole Bible chapter and verse, if you don't believe in God as the great I AM, or in Jesus as your only way to Heaven, memorizing anything will not matter

And that is the bottom line.

Jesus died for you, won't you love Him for that?

amadeus1220

I was not refering the above post to you.

but

I was interested in your view.....

What you said is only applicable if you are a Bible person, your truth has limit - only limit within a book .

Whereas - we are free - we are not limited by anythings.

Yes it does, because even atheists - who stand by their right to not believe in anything, which in itself is a form of faith - faith in the fact that there is no God - have a standard set of moral, social and ethical rules and regulations they live by. Morality isn't confined to a specific Religion or creed, you know... one can have morals, standards and ethics without a faith in an unseen Creator....

Atheism doesn't fail on an epistemological level, because even if atheists dont subscribe to God, it doesn't mean they don't know about Him/Her/It.

Christians such as yourself, on the other hand, seem to have very little knowledge or information about other Religions to be able to discuss all manner and means of different viewpoints, because you have a blind insistence that your faith is the one, and none other matters. So if anyone is incapable of expanding their viewpoint, I'm afraid it's you, not us.

Alexandra, wow that is such an amazing answer. First of all, I (And most of the other atheists as well might) totally disagree with you when you say:


See the problem is you are presupposing way to much to come to that conclusion. You said that atheist "stand by their rights not believe in anything" but you are already presupposing that they have a "right". That is not a rational answer to the problem. And most atheist deny the fact that they have any faith or believe in anything.(Actually I have personally never seen an atheist that admit that have faith or believe in anything.)And then you said that athiests "have a standard set of moral, social and ethical rules and regulations they live by." but Alexandra you are not answering the question at all. You are just passing by it. I asked what is the standard for morality in atheism and who decides it and you answered by they of course have a standard set of morals. Maybe I don't really understand your response or maybe you are not answering the question at all but at any rate No answer has been given to that problem(atleast rationaly).

Then you said that


Yes but if you know about epistemology, the question is not IF they know that God exist or not but HOW they not about whether God exists or not and how do they justify it. So once again you haven't answered the question at all. What are the bases for rationality in atheism and how do we know they are right? That is the real question. And something else that I wanted to point out is by using Anselm's argument the atheism fails to even deny that God exist since when we say the word God an atheist know what we are talking about, therefore if we know about something then that something exists in our understanding. So when we say God doesn't exist, we are in fact contradicting ourselves. Just a thought.

And something funny in this forum is that there are way to many personal attacks. See atheists (or a Buddist in this case)don't attack my arguments rather they attack me. I mean seriously. They don't answer to my question but say I am irrational and " have very little knowledge or information about other Religions" to ask question or discuss things therefore my argument is invalid but wait that is a logical fallacy. It is called argument from ignorance. But how does Alexandra know I have little knowledge or information to even argue? She said,


she also said that atheists have faith and I assume she says that Buddhist have faith too but she just blames christians for their faith. What about Buddhists? Don't they have faith? And if yes, then aren't you guys as close minded as you are claiming we Christians are? But now Alexandra might once again respond with her favorite argument that no Buddhist don't because they are tolerant to everyone and are not judgmental at all therefore I'll like to answer to it right now. You as an Buddhist are being judgmental to us Christians and that is totally intolorent. So that will definitely cost you a couple of rebirths.

Alexandra hasn't answered to the question that I asked eariler rather she just put some arguments that are fallacious and wrong.

Atan, that book is the word of God. His truth is limitless. Besides a "bible person" is only concerned with the truth that lies therein.

Alexandra, as far as other religions go, if they do not recognize God as the Creator of Heaven and earth and everything in between, if they don't recognize Jesus as the Savior and defeater of our sins and if they do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, then those other religions do not matter to Christians.

Those religions who believe in other god-heads and do not believe in the One true God or in Jesus as the Son of God, then it is a false religion, created by Satan to provide a sense of false security. This isn't my rule, it's His.

GodLovesYou, You don't half fill a complete page with a whole empty sack of bo****ks sometimes.

What exactly, in a sentence, are you trying to say?
And by the way, I am laughing at you so hard, my sides are hurting, because you patently show by your comments that you know nothing about Buddhism, nor the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, The Five precepts and the Four Dharma Seals. Buddhism doesn't deal with tolerance. It deals with acceptance, there's a difference. And no, whichever way you might perceive it, frankly, no, I am not judging you, because there is nothing of any substance to 'Judge'. And it is because of those edicts of Buddhism that I discuss with you, but know that words on your ears are futile, wasted and frankly, you matter as much as I do, in the grand scheme of things.
Very little, if at all.

It quite funny that I was not even arguing about Buddhism in general but rather the way you are showing it to be. I used the word tolernce and non-judgmental since you have said that a bunch ot times. You said

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Do you know what is really funny, Alexandra? You seem to like laughing so this might give you a good laugh too. You ready? OK here it is. I have noticed something really funny about the way you argue. See whenever I seem to be arguing with someone else, you understand me perfectly and try to refute me but after you join the argument and I refute you, you come up with your "laughing argument" which is so funny. Here it is.
God Loves You, you make me laugh so hard. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Then your conclusion is that Christians are irrational and then you leave it to that. Funny, isn't it? You might so that I am just accusing you of that but a good example is in this very page if you read the arguments above you'll know what I mean and another example is here.


This is from another argument that we had some time ago but as you see that the very same thing is presented here and that is just two examples of it.
I really found that interesting and funny.