johnydon22:
exactly what you will make of it if a mad man calls you by name
and tell you that you serve Osiris

podosci:
The truth of the matter is God existence cannot be proved by the absobity exhibited by the religions of this world through the nuisance written in both the Bible or the Quran or the thousands of religion spread across the world. Religion demonizes God with it doctrines

timonski:

lol. This makes you sound close-minded

johnydon22:
it is absolutely illogical and irrational to fill a gap you don't have answers to with any thesis that pops in mind, it is misleading as it is preposterous. . it kill the intellectual curiosity that drives the zeal to learn what exactly happend.

If we have swallowed the god did answers of the ancient men, we wouldn't have gone to space by now, we would still be of the opinion that the sky is the abode of the gods.

Your analogy is like "I don't know how a child is formed, heck that means i will just believe a god does it" But just a simple touch of science with the use of ultra sound you can monitor the formation of a child first hand see exactly how it forms. . .

"God did it" is never an answer to any question

johnydon22:
Exactly,

and i disblief exactly the notion of spiritual
god concepts like Wotan, thor, yahweh, allah, osiris and every other concept humanity have cooked up within the years

johnydon22:
The Op as copied and pasted as it is, is riddled with many misconceptions, assumptions, misrepresentation of many notions to cook a poorly worked christian apologetic article.

bi0nics:

Do you believe in materialism?

johnydon22:
Let see who exactly is close minded here. . . .tell me exactly what you will make of it if a madman calls you by name and tell you that you serve Osiris ? (When you employ assumptive questions, it is very ok to make you answer it first)

IsaacBuchi:



So if I get it clearly, you are doing findings for the logical source of human existence. So how far have you come?

Would not living a life of being irresponsible for once action or being accountable drive human life crazy?

An2elect2:
I think it is good to ask questions and be not hasty in conclusion especially when it comes to the matter of God.
The OP has made so much sense and to be honest, only a biased and closed minded person will not see reason in them but faults where there is none. Just look at the rejoinders after the Op.

timonski:

At least, as a rational person, i would first ask myself..."how did this lunatic know my full name?"...
Your reply shows that you are not willing to consider any evidence for the Almighty Creator!

timonski:
Aren't you suppose to be in the kitchen or something?

An2elect2:

Is the op reasonable?

menesheh:



you don't see air but you feel it and its impact

timonski:
nope, bad copy and paste job

IsaacBuchi:


I don't see God but I feel his impact.....I cannot attribute the whole world, the tiny atom, the billions on billions of memory card in my brain, the precise mathematical movement of the universe, the millions of data in my DNA to mere chance. I would be taking the credit that belongs to someone away. That could hate, even mere humans are hurt by plagiarism.

An2elect2:


I will like to know what made it bad? you mind sharing?

timonski:
Dalaman you dey shame to post?

timonski:

first, like johnny depp said, WEAK atheists do not know whether God exists or not. They have been SILENCED SPIRITUALLY so they seek PHYSICAL proof of a god. Thats all.

podosci:
Did your Bible or Quran tell you about Mars? Or asteroids talk more the thousands of galaxy spread across the universe.
I have not disputed the existence or non existence of God, I have only talked about the stupidity of the eathly religions we practice.

davien:
If you want to face atheism,ask yourself this question.....why do i believe in my god and not others?...when you have your answer,then ask yourself,is that reason a smart one for believing anything or is it a reason anyone can use to believe in anything?

bi0nics:


"A child miseducated is a child lost." - John F. kennedY

You need Jesus

davien:
Who believes a virgin can magically be pregnant?

bi0nics:
atheists think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense. No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe. There are still those who insist the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence. There are always folks, no matter if religious or atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense? You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says: come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to our perverse judgements. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist, despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate irrational leap! 1 THE IRRATIONALITY OF ATHEISM Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. Atheists tend to put a lot of stock in the emperical method and in logic. One cannot disprove God exists using the emperical method. You might reply: But I can't disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists. The atheistic position denying God's existence, if based on the emperical method, is absurd. Why do I say that? In order to prove the assertion No God exists experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So, based on emperical methodology, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself! But some would say you can indeed assert something does not exist if its existence is logically self contradictory, such as a square triangle. By definition it cannot exist. It is illogical for something to be a square and to also be a triangle. Again, granted, but this line of reasoning assumes logic and real meaning exist and are our basis for knowledge --something an atheist has no right to assert! The existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential. (We'll get to that more later below.) One cannot prove logic exists unless one first presupposes a God in whom reason and meaning are transcendentally rooted, otherwise these categories are mere philosphical prejuduces. Atheism is inherently self- contradictory. The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it. King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there is no God. (Psalm 14:1) In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or ethics. For the sake of brevity,

bi0nics:
NO PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR ETHICS
Beyond dispute there are moral atheists.
I ve known atheists who are more ethical
than some people claiming to believe in a
god. This is not the issue. The question is,
why be ethical? Can an adequate basis
for morality be found given atheistic
premises? Think about it. Unless God
exists, there is no eternal and
transcendent standard for right and
wrong. If God did not give the Ten
Commandments to Moses at Sinai,
thereby establishing a moral standard
above human creation, we are merely
left with humanly devised scruples. If
humanity is left to create its own ethical
standards, we are left with only three
options to base ethics upon: 1) collective
tradition, 2) human survival, or 3)
personal preference.
IS COLLECTIVE TRADITION AN ETHICAL
BASE?
Those who argue that morality is
properly based upon what society as a
whole deems moral have a big problem.
What one society says is moral another
says is immoral. Nazi Germany held that
it was morally good and beneficial to
exterminate the Jewish people. The Allies
saw the Nazis as evil and fought against
them. Who was right? If one believes God
gave the law You shall not murder, the
answer is obvious. Any society that
advocates murder is evil. How can an
atheist respond? Most would admit the
Nazis were evil, but according to what
standard? Were the Nazis evil just
because the Allies said they were evil or
were they in fact evil? One can try to
argue that it isn't just what a few
societies say that matters, but what the
majority of human societies agree upon.
This does provide a better basis, since
God has given us a conscience, but it has
been corrupted by rebellion. At one time
most human societies placed less value
on female offspring than on males. In
many societies female infants were left
to die. In some places this exists today.
This is morally wrong, no matter if the
whole of human society were to say
otherwise! Basing morality on human
society does not provide an adequate
answer.