I Do Not Believe in God

When you need something that man cannot give, you will believe.

I pray she realizes before it's too late.

 Acts 17:23:
For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

Or smart enough to realise that his show of self-confidence will lead others to believe in him.

I get so tired of all of this.

Belief in a supreme being is irrational. It may be comforting, it may give you purpose, it may even help you be a better person, but in the end it remains irrational. Having faith is believing without evidence.
I only believe in what is based on solid evidence. If you want me to believe in your God, bring me evidence of his existence that can withstand scientific scrutiny.
Nobody has ever been able to do that.
Using the Bible to prove a point is useless unless it is supported by external evidence, e.g. there is a strong likelyhood that Jesus actually was a real person because several independent sources point at his existence.

Talk about spirit, God, intentions, and what Jesus actually said, does not lead anywhere because it is intangible and cannot be proven. All these things have to be taken by faith and only through faith do they become a personal reality. Utterly meaningless if you do not met the requirement of having faith. The very survival of this worldview is only relying on the fact that those who subscribe to it do not question it ever.

There is more than enough solid evidence of the existence of God and his sovereignity, he just is refusing to accept it, even while it stares him in the face

Yes, you can prove the existence of air. If you really want it, I can go and look it up. Science has most definitely been able to prove the evolution of men from simpler organisms. Once more, if you do not believe this, I'll get you the evidence.
Your comparison is pointless as it has no solid ground. Science is an evidence based process.
Btw, proof is for mathematics and logic, the real world does not work with proof, only evidence

evidence___some take time to materialize, pride may not permit you to admit it on this forum but as donnie has rightly said and thats my last word to you on this evidence/proof stuff: the time is coming when you will require something man cannot give you, and the scientists you trust so much and the medical doctors will look you square in the face and tell you....nferyn, only a miracle can save you now. I recommend you read I believe in Miracles, by Kathryn Kuhlman.....the irony of the whole thing is the birden of proof lies on you, not God.

My dear u better try working your mind in2 believing in God.he is d author and finisher of your life.he loves u and he his desparatly waiting4 that day uld invite him in2ur life.i dnt only biliv in him.i love him and he his my best friend.why? Cos i tell him anything.and he listens patiently.and when iv dun smtn prity bad.he 4gives me,den scolds me.den draws me close2him again.try him o.he his da bomb.bliv in God please ok.

Can't anyone here present a rational argument for the existence of God?
Apparently not 

Goodguy & others, Listen Up

Check out these links for answers to the evidence of existence of God Almighty instead of blindly rejecting what is obvious: 

http://www.probe.org/content/view/638/0/

http://www.godandscience.org/

http://www.doesgodexist.org/

Take your time and read and be wise and educated.

Mister, why are you emphasizing on my name? Have I said that I don't believe in God? I'll check your link anyway.

This is going to be my last and final reply to this thread (part 1  ).
Geez, I have read you links and found them lacking.
I will take the arguments from the first link (http://www.probe.org/content/view/638/0/) and discuss them.

I cannot possibly discuss everything the links of other Christian Apologists touch on, because it would take me literally days, if not weeks to pick apart the false analogy, misrepresentations, out of context quote mining and blatant falsehoods in defense of the Christian position. I have neither the time, nor the patience to invest for an argumentation that will fall on deaf ears anyway.

For those of you who have a sufficiently open mind to look at arguments that do not sprout from a Christian perspective, have a look at the following url's:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood.html
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/trees.htm
http://www.becominghuman.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Next post: http://www.probe.org/content/view/638/0/ skinned ... the Emperor has got no clothes after all.

How so?

Nowhere in the theory of evolution is chance a determining factor. The only place where chance has any effect is in the random mutations. Natural selection is anything but chance. An environment where a specific mutation increases the fitness of an organism to survive and reproduce is anything but chance. This is once more a complete misrepresentation of a crucial aspect of the theory of evolution.

An analogy: look at mutation as a chance drive process whereby a pile of rocks is formed, all of different sizes.
Natural selection is one hole of a specific diameter that will only let the rocks of that diameter or less pass. You try to make thousands of rocks fit that hole. Some pass, some don't. the resulting selection of rocks are all of a diameter smaller than or equal to that of the hole. the result is anything but random, but meets specific conditions.

The complexity of DNA is perfectly understandable when you take into account:
* the non-random, non-chance driven process of natural selection
* a geological timescale
* gene duplication
* a cumulative increase in complexity in some organisms where complexity increases the fitness.

You probably mean Prof. Michael Behe, who's positions are not even recognised by his own university?
See: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
Anyway, his arguments for irreducible complexity are thoroughly refuted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Proof is for mathematics and logic, not for the real world. If you are talking about convincing evidence, this is blatantly false. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Again, if specific fossils would be the only line of evidence for human evolution (and the lack thereof a refutation), you might have had a case, but this is most definitely not the only line of evidence, on the contrary.
By the way, what evidence is there available that all humans evolved from Adam and Eve and what counterevidence is there for that claim. If you look at it with an open mind, you might come out quite surprised.

Why do you people continuously repeat the same empty talking points?

Show me where my word are erronous. Assertion is neither evidence, nor proof.

@ Geez,

Have you even read my reply?
1. Organisms do not originate from other organisms by chance. I explicitly said that your misrepresented the theory of evolution.
2. What similarities do you talk about?
3. Similarities in living organisms are an indicator for evolution and common descent, especially when better mechanisms would be available to an 'Intelligent Designer'
4. We share a common ancestor with apes, as we do with all mammals, all therapods, with all living organisms, including bacteria. The Biological clock (determined by the rate of mutation on non-coding or junk DNA) shows when exactly we share an common ancestor with what organism, which happens to be perfectly in tune with the geometric dating of the relevant fossils.
5. Some scientists are divided on the claim is an intellectually vacuous claim. There are immensely more working scientists called Steve than the total number of scientist supporting Intelligent Design Creationism or any other form of Creationism (see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/ or http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18 ) Moreover most of these scientists make claims on a scientific field that falls outside of their specific field of expertise. What is the value of a mathematician (e.g. Dembski)  making claims about biology, without actually having studied the field?
6.  Find me one living, working biologist who has contributed anything of value to his field that refutes the Theory of Evolution (which is greatly enhanced after Darwin, by the way) and we'll something to start talking.
7.  Please get your facts straight when you're talking about scientific laws and theories:
from http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/940942724.Sh.r.html

1. Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.
2. Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

You're turning the argument against the wrong person. It is you that is unwilling to see the other side. I have seen the other side and it is not convincing.