davien:
"Others state that selection had nothing to do with the takeover of the human population. They inject that it was a purely statistical process"

It's referring to mitochondrial eve's mitochondrial dna not being interbred with other groups in the homonoideae family and thus her mitochondria dna was the superior in taking over the world.... exposed dishonesty #1

Notice your first sentence contradicts the end of your last sentence. You quote how it had nothing to do with the takeover of the human population, then you quote that her dna was superior in taking over the world. Yes scientists argue the findings from this study, just like other scientist argue the findings of the fossil studies.

Bold statement - not being interbred, so her offspring repopulated the world through inbreeding.

davien:
"These effects are mainly due to an increase in the frequency of homozygous genotypes (AA and aa) at the expense of heterozygotes (Aa), which is caused by inbreeding"
Above(bolded) is the part you left out...
.

You admit that I left that part out. This is your own evidence.

"these effects (defects) are mainly due to an increase in the frequency of homozygous genotypes at the expense of heterzygotes, which is caused by inbreeding."

The increase of the frequency is caused by inbreeding. Not the defect.

Weah96:
Can an undefeated boxer have a 50-3 record? Can an omnipotent God kill himself?

This is putting limitations on God. You are claiming that it has to be one way or another or he doesn't exist (he is limited to one outcome). Omnipotent means not having any limitations.This is not a paradox.

Weah96:

Direct your frustration at the creator of languages. Or find another word to use besides omnipotent. Almost-omnipotent, for example, is better.

What frustration? I have not lost my temper in any of my posts. I have been arguing with respect toward every one. In all honesty I am doing this because it relaxes me. I have free time at work so I hop on and research, type, research, type, research, and type. If people get upset reading things that are contrary to their belief they should avoid reading them. Again, nothing I have typed proves that God exists. All I have done is disprove claims that state God does not exist.

LordBabs:
17.) ARGUMENT AGAINST THE DEVIL:
Theists' often claim that God created the Lucifer and not the devil is not only preposterous, but also flawed! Ask a theist the creator of ALL THINGS, he/she won't hesitate to reply tacitly by saying GOD! Then ask a theist who created evil, he/she will be cunning to tell you that it's the devil, that is after the previous assertion that the source of all things is God. Thus:

(Keep this in mind, you do not have to believe what i type here. This is the explanation from the Holy Bible why evil exists.
Lucifer and the Devil are the same being. So yes God created the Devil. And yes god created evil.
Isaih 45: 7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

God does not make angels or men evil. Evil thrives from people turning from God. Lucifer turned from God, then became evil.

LordBabs:
1. Is evil not part of the 'ALL THINGS' created by God?

Yes it is a part of all things created by God

LordBabs:
2. If God creates ALL THINGS, then he is (chiefly) responsible for the outcomes(good or bad) of the 'ALL THINGS'.

Like I stated above, God does not make men good or bad, so he is not responsible for the outcomes of good or bad. We all have free will to choose our own path just as the angels did. One thing that theists and atheists can agree on is that men choose to be good or bad.

LordBabs:
3. Hence, it's either you agree that God is the same double-actor-devil, or that he is the originator of evils(as attested by the scriptural quote of Isa 45: 7)

Your belief is that evil was created just because God is evil. The existence of evil on this world is a part of our test. I have explained in an earlier post how this world is to test our worth to enter God's kingdom. (Refer to my argument against the 6th claim)

LordBabs:
4. It's either you agree that God is not the sole creator of ALL THINGS, and that it's got a co-founder(Devil), or you agree that there is nothing like evil, so, all that exists(e.g.murder,râpe,gay...) is good, or you agree that there is no God whatsoever.

You give limited options to pick from and claim that these are the only choices. These are not the only explanations.

[size=18pt]18) Hitler was not an atheist[/size]

Many theists have claimed that Hitler was an atheist
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html
http://thechrist.gr/en/686/license-kill-atheism-mass-murders-history/

However, the evidence shows that he was a christian.

Evidence of Hitler being a christian or at least, a theist
-"God with us" was written on the Nazis' belts
-Hitler made reference to his lord Jesus Christ

This neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. This is just an argument over what an insane person believed or didn't believe.
In any case, the argument can be weather theists or atheists cause more murders.

The answer is simple. Men cause murders, it doesn't matter what their belief is. Many people have been killed "in the name of God" and many people have been killed "in the name of man"
The Crusades: People were manipulated by the corrupt Catholic church to kill in the name of God.
Communism: (An atheistic form of government) Has also lead to the mass killings of people in this world.

When killings continue to happen even without the belief of God, only men can ultimately be blamed for these actions.

Hitler was just a puppet conducting orders given from higher arcky monarch's orders running on the "theory" to create the state of "israel" making it exist in accordance to the "theory" for the "intention" of "it".

[size=18pt]20) Atheism is not a religion [/size]

[size=14pt]
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n] (from Dictionary.com)
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.[/size]

[size=14pt]
If atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God, how does it then fit into the definition of religion above?[/size]

This is a post that does not attempt to disprove the existence of God.

I agree for something to be a religion it must be based on the idea that one or multiple supreme beings created the universe.

Atheism is however a belief.
Definition from Webster's New World College Dictionary: The belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist."

Some try to claim that it is not a belief and its lack of belief in God.
Definition of lack- "the fact or condition of not having enough; shortage; deficiency." and "the fact or condition of not having any"

So there is a shortage of belief or no belief in God.
I believe that some atheist try to twist this around so that they don't have to defend what they think. For one I agree, no one truly has to defend what they think, but not by twisting definitions to suit your needs. Just believe what you want to believe. What does it matter to you what other people think.

[size=18pt]21) The lie that Christianity is not a religion[/size]
Some christians, in order to deflect criticism from their religion claim that christainity is not a religion. A good example of this was Bill O'reilly of Fox News who claimed that christianity is not a religion but a philosophy!

Bonetoy:

The term Christian can be classified more as a label than a religion. Christianity is only labeled as a religion due to its ultimate origins of the Old Testament. Christianity itself is a faith that focuses on the salvation of man through Jesus. The Christian mission is to try and save as many people as possible in this world, it doesn't focus on how the universe was created.

Ultimately yes it is a religion. The teachings of Jesus are also a philosophy of how to live a life that pleases God.

This is another post that does not attempt to disprove the existence of God.

[size=18pt]22) A problem of hell and freewill[/size]
If human beings go to hell because they reject God, then there is no freewill. We are forced between believing or being punished. That is not a choice or freewill, it is a threat to keep people in line.

Definition of free-will from Webster's New World College Dictionary: "freedom of decision or of choice between alternatives"
You gave two alternatives, and claimed that people are forced to believe or be punished. No one is forced to believe, and no one is forced not to believe. You still get to choose between the two. Just because one has an incentive and the other a deterrent does not mean that you are being forced.

For theist it means the difference between heaven and hell.
For atheist it means nothing at all, they don't believe in heaven or hell.
This would only concern someone who wasn't sure if God existed or not.

[size=18pt]23) Sexism and Misogyny in the Abrahmic religions[/size]

One can look at the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, christianity and islam) and find enough sexism against women.

Sura 2:228 says:. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status .

1 Corinthians 14:34
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says

Exodus 21:7
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.

One can also look at the leadership in these religions where many religious people reject female priests, female imams and female rabbis.

One can also look at the double standard put on the viginity of women. There is little or no value attached to a male virging but a woman has more value as a virgin. A woman should be more than her virginity.

This argument does not prove that God doesn't exist. The Holy Bible does teach that women should submit themselves to their husbands. But it does not teach to treat them badly.

The verse you took from 1 Corinthians is relating to guidelines of worship according to the Old Testament. This was not how they were to be treated at home.

And the Exodus verse only explained a small part of slavery. It was not just women that were slaves, both men and women were sold into slavery. But permanent slavery was forbidden in the Holy Bible, unless the slave asked to be a permanent slave. Why would someone want to be a slave you ask? Many people found it and still find it easier to live a life of servitude rather than having to make their own decisions.

The Holy Bible does teach men to respect and honor their wives.

Corinthians 7:3, "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband."

Ephesians 5:28-29, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:"

In a sense women should be treated better than men according to the Holy Bible.

Ephesians 5: 22, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."
Ephesians 5: 25, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"

Women are not ordered to love their husbands only to submit, while men are commanded to love their wives. There is much more dedication involved in loving your spouse compared to submitting.

To sum things up, not agreeing with the laws that God gave us is not evidence that He does not exist.

Bonetoy:


Notice your first sentence contradicts the end of your last sentence. You quote how it had nothing to do with the takeover of the human population, then you quote that her dna was superior in taking over the world. Yes scientists argue the findings from this study, just like other scientist argue the findings of the fossil studies.

This is genetics not fossilization,and i quoted the passage that selection had nothing to do with mitochondrial eve's mitochondrial dna' due to no interbreeding with other members of the same homonoideae family....how is that a contradiction in any degree?

Consider each letter to be part of the same genera but different species... A(1Bx2)... A(2Cx2)....A(3Dx2)...A(4Fx2)..
Let the string of letters in parenthesis represent mitochondrial dna.

If genera A(all the A's) were to both start out in a population and reach a population(let's call it N) inwhich all members of the last surviving genera retained it's parent mitochondrial dna and gained neither what would be the conclusion?...

The conclusion would be that though they started in the same genera no interbreeding had taken place with other members...and so the surviving mitochondrial dna need not to be selected against..

Bold statement - not being interbred, so her offspring repopulated the world through inbreeding.

You're just picking my words at this point...

We are talking about mitochondrial dna here(not nuclear dna) which is always gained from a female....it can't be interbred with the males....so it's always dominant and is retained within the species...

You admit that I left that part out. This is your own evidence.

"these effects (defects) are mainly due to an increase in the frequency of homozygous genotypes at the expense of heterzygotes, which is caused by inbreeding."

The increase of the frequency is caused by inbreeding. Not the defect.

Are you well learned in English?...Or did you fail to see that the passage reads and interchanges "effects/defects' being increased by the frequency of homozygous genotypes(AA for example) at the expense or sacrifice of heterozygous(AB for example) genotypes exclusively caused by inbreeding... :-/

Bonetoy:


This neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. This is just an argument over what an insane person believed or didn't believe.
In any case, the argument can be weather theists or atheists cause more murders.

The answer is simple. Men cause murders, it doesn't matter what their belief is. Many people have been killed "in the name of God" and many people have been killed "in the name of man"
The Crusades: People were manipulated by the corrupt Catholic church to kill in the name of God.
Communism: (An atheistic form of government) Has also lead to the mass killings of people in this world.

When killings continue to happen even without the belief of God, only men can ultimately be blamed for these actions.

Atheists do not try to condone or justify the atrocities and genocides of such individuals, but we'd point out that they were not committed in the name of "atheism" but for political, racial and nationalistic reasons.....is communism not a political regime? :-/

While Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were atheists,the point is that it was not their lack of belief in a god which drove them and motivated them. It was the fanatical and uncompromising political, racial and nationalistic dogmas which animated them,not the product of any religious belief(or lack of belief), but political beliefs taken to excess........

Thus, while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism, but in the name of their own dogmatic variant of Marxism....

davien:
Atheists do not try to condone or justify the atrocities and genocides of such individuals

This wasn't the intent of my post. My explanation was to show that God is not to blame for the murders that take place on this Earth. With our without God, events such as the ones we are talking about have and will happen.

I don't blame atheist for the evil in this world. I blame people who choose to be evil both theist and atheist.

Using the name of ur lord God in vain is quite some how...ATHEIST! ATHEIST!! ATHEIST!!! REPENT and be GENUINELY born again or HELLFIRE AWAITS AT THE END OF UR MISSERABLE LIFE ON EARTH (REVELATION 20:10 and REVELATION 21:read it and see for ur self if there is no reward attach with this stupid fin that ur doing on this earth be warned.

Bonetoy:

"I leave you with this— ‘For what shall it profit God to watch and see all he created perish and do nothing?’"

His whole view on God is that there is no ultimate purpose for this life. And if he was real we should all be given Heaven. I have explained the purpose of life in an earlier post if any one cares to read. One thing I noticed about the writer is that he always went off of what others told him about about God. He never tried to study the Holy Bible. Millions of Christians have a skewed view of their faith because the go based on what they are told rather than what they have learned through research and studying.

Timothy 2: 15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Hey, can you please copy this comment to our blog. So that the writer can reply you. Thanks

[size=18pt]24) Why heaven makes no sense
[/size]

1) Both Islam and Christianity paint heaven as a place above the earth. Jesus ascended into heaven in the bible and Muhammad flew into heaven on a winged creature.
However, thanks to modern science, we know that ascending from the earth is going into empty space (if you dont hit an asteroid or planet)

The term ascend means to move upward. When Jesus ascended into heaven he wasn't moving upward in a physical sense. He ascended into a higher plane of existence, which is heaven. This term is not just used by theists. Buddhism has no belief in God or gods, but it does believe that people can ascend to higher planes of existence.

And as for the Buraq, I don't follow Islam so I cannot answer for it.

2) If heaven is a place for goodness (God can't be evil or allow evil in his home), then there is no freewill there. Humans have the potential for good and evil. If we are compelled to only have good thoughts, we will become lobotomized robots for all eternity.

Being human includes having a physical body where our soul resides until we die. Once we have left the body behind and are allowed into heaven we will be leaving behind that body, including the corruption and sin. We will no longer be human as we are on this Earth. If you truly want to know more about this you can read this link. http://www.gotquestions.org/glorified-bodies.html

3) What is the point of living forever? Even life becomes boring after a while.

This problem has been addressed in the philosophy of vampire movies. In the movies, Vampires live for a very long time, the enjoy their immortality for a while by travelling around the world and learning new cultures. Unfortunately, they become bored as they have done all the interesting things life has to offer. They become distant, nonchalant and gloomy. They either then hibernate or look for another vampire or human hero to kill them.

This only relates to living on Earth for eternity. You cannot compare a vampire's existence on earth to man's existence in heaven. I would agree, I don't want to live on Earth for eternity. But an eternity in paradise is a completely different scenario.

AmakaDNB:

Hey, can you please copy this comment to our blog. So that the writer can reply you. Thanks

Done

[size=18pt]25) The problem with exorcism[/size]

Exorcism is the removal of demons or spiritual entities from possessed humans or places. Exorcism exists in the Abrahamic Faiths (christianity, islam and judaism)

The problem with human exorcism is that the exorcised person or victim is consistently misdiagnosed with demonic or spiritual possession instead of a physical or psychological health problem. A good case was that of Anneliese Michel whose death would have been prevent a week before she died had medical remedies been sought rather than the exorcism. Exorcisms are quite rare in the West nowadays
http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/afterlife/exorcism5.htm

By the way, spirits or demons have never been scientifically proven to exist, just like fairies and elves.

Some information about me before I continue, I do believe in demons. I do believe that demons can and do possess people. I do not believe in Hollywood demon possession as shown in the movies. I know that exorcisms as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church are ceremonial, ritualistic, and do more than is necessary. A person should never be bound to a bed by a priest, if the person must be bound to prevent them from hurting themselves, professionals should take care of that.

When people die from bad exorcism practices, it is because the priest did something the he should not have been doing. Tying down a person should not be done and isn't necessary if someone is truly possessed.

As explained in Acts 19: 13-20 Faith in Jesus is all that is necessary for us to overcome demons. Not just using the name of Jesus. Without true faith demons will prevail over man. So if you have to tie down the person for fear that they will harm you or themselves then you lack true faith.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2019&version=KJV
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=44&c=19

People who died because they didn't eat or drink for multiple days and were not allowed to get medical help, I agree this was neglect and the people involved are to blame.
This does not prove that God is not real. This shows that men are flawed.

[size=18pt]26) A special case of argumentum ad ignorantium; Shifting the burden of proof by the religious[/size]

You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

I will agree, this type of arguing does not prove the existence of God. But theists are not the only people to use this in their arguments. It has gone both ways. Some theist try to say that atheist have to prove God does not exist. Some atheist try to say that theist have to prove God does exist. Both sides are wrong with this thinking.

This is how logic works

X exists or is true because there is evidence for X
Tasmanian devils exist because we have scientific documentaries or videos showing them in their habitat

Logic is "Correct reasoning; valid induction or deduction" (Webster's New World College Dictionary)

So it is logical for one to conclude that God does not exist based off of what he or she believes from the evidence given to them.
At the same time it is logical for one to conclude that God does exist based off of what he or she believes from the evidence given to them.

Neither side can be considered illogical because there is no defining proof for the existence of God and there is no defining proof against the existence of God.

What it comes down to is do you have faith. This is the big difference between theist and atheist.

This is a common argument from some theists. The make the argument that since the atheist can not prove that their supernatural beings can not be disproved, they exist. They are putting the burden on the atheists to prove their claims wrong when they the (theists) havent tabled any evidence for it.However, that is not how logic works. That is an argument from ignorance.

Ultimately the burden of proof is on the accuser, or the person making the claim. If I come up to you and claim that God is real, then the burden falls upon me to prove it. If you come up to me and claim that God is not real, then the burden falls upon you to prove it.

Bonetoy:


This is putting limitations on God. You are claiming that it has to be one way or another or he doesn't exist (he is limited to one outcome). Omnipotent means not having any limitations.This is not a paradox.


What frustration? I have not lost my temper in any of my posts. I have been arguing with respect toward every one. In all honesty I am doing this because it relaxes me. I have free time at work so I hop on and research, type, research, type, research, and type. If people get upset reading things that are contrary to their belief they should avoid reading them. Again, nothing I have typed proves that God exists. All I have done is disprove claims that state God does not exist.

The absence of limitations is a paradox. What happens when such a person encounters an immovable object and has to move it?

[size=18pt]27) The inconsistency of a good God and the God of the old testament[/size]
[size=14pt]
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."[/size]

God in the old testament sanctioned many crimes against humanity like slavery (Leviticus 25;44) and genocide (1 Samuel 15:3). This is in contrast with what Christians and Jews call a good God that should be worshiped.

All you did in your first sentence is insult God... That proves nothing.

And in your second sentence you claim that God sanctioned slavery, implying that he agrees with slavery as we know it today.
Slavery today is not the same as it was then. People sold themselves and their family into slavery to survive or pay off debts. Slavery was never meant to be a permanent condition unless the slave asked to be a permanent slave. The verses in Leviticus were to protect slaves.
This link can clear up any misconceptions dealing with slavery and the Holy Bible. http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

The next thing you brought up was the genocide in 1 Samuel.
Jeremiah 18 7-8 "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."
God ordered their destruction because they were evil. You can get all the details in the link below.

This link can help you better understand this. http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/

Weah96:

The absence of limitations is a paradox. What happens when such a person encounters an immovable object and has to move it?

As humans we have a limited understanding of existence because our existence has limitations. Asking God to create something that he can not lift would be placing a limit on his power. Ultimately this is just a question, it does not disprove God's existence. The question has no answer that is accepted by everyone in which case its at best unsolved.

Nah its just u with a limited understanding because u don't want to understand , for u won't understand these parables of "mine"

Bonetoy:

As humans we have a limited understanding of existence because our existence has limitations.

Who else is there besides humans? Let's agree on what humans agree on, my brother. That's my point. If you believe that your invisible friend possesses powers which go beyond the meaning of words, that's between you and him. I've yet to encounter such person.

Sometimes things that seem so distant and far are right in front of you , its just u that's to blind to see "it" for the "wool" is pulled over your eyes , beware of the "wolf" in "sheeps" clothing for even the "shepherd" is fooled .

negativecreep:
Sometimes things that seem so distant and far are right in front of you , its just u that's to blind to see "it" for the "wool" is pulled over your eyes , beware of the "wolf" in "sheeps" clothing for even the "shepherd" is fooled .

"What's" "up" "with" "all" "the" "quotation" "marks" "?"

Great comment "well done"

I can understand the fact that if one truly believes that he or she doesn't believe in the "theory of god" then there for even the written word "its" self means nothing and is of little significance, but one would be mistaken because there is a difference between believing and knowing , as to my point earlier , I'm not the only one but there is only one understanding of "it" but many and most will never understand but "it" is right before your eyes , as I said but many and most don't see "it" and neither do they understand these parables of "mine".

Weah96:

Who else is there besides humans? Let's agree on what humans agree on, my brother. That's my point. If you believe that your invisible friend possesses powers which go beyond the meaning of words, that's between you and him. I've yet to encounter such person.

That is all I am saying. I wont force any one to believe my beliefs, but I want there to be understanding for both sides of the argument. I get why some people do not believe in God. I understand they need more proof than faith. The only definite proof of Gods existence is faith. And that is not tangible or can it be tested by science so it is not definite proof for all that he exists.

DProDG:

"What's" "up" "with" "all" "the" "quotation" "marks" "?"

He is trolling

[size=18pt]29) The ridiculous concept of blashpemy laws; reduces freedom of religion[/size]

Blasphemy laws are laws against making insults or acts of irreverence towards a religion or deity. While this sounds good on paper it has negative consequences. The are many arguments on the freedom of speech and blasphemy laws but the most ridiculous problem of blasphemy is religion itself;

Blasphemy - "profane or contemptuous speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything held as divine." Blasphemy is not a law, it is an action. It does not include against religion, within the Holy Bible religion is seen in a negative view. It is only mentioned 7 times and 6 out of those 7 it's in a negative aspect.

Blasphemy kills freedom of religion;
Some religions contradict each other in theology and therefore, supporting an idea from one religion could end up as blasphemy in another religion.

For instance, a Sharia practicing country will naturally ban a signboard claiming that there are many gods because polytheism is strictly forbidden in islam and an insult to Allah. Polytheism is central to many pagan religions.

This here is just placing religion against religion. As stated above Blasphemy is a disrespectful action toward God himself. As far as what religions claim is blasphemous it all runs down to what you want to believe. Just as you have the choice to be theist or atheist, you then have the choice to follow a certain religion. The Holy Bible does not claim that only Christians will go to heaven, any Christian who tries to claim this is wrong and has not done their research.