₦airaland Forum

idiot:
I suppose Cro-Magnon never had old men in their population right? All of them died young? BTW. . define old. . .and young. . .

Assuming even that your claim is true, how is that proof of anything other than a mistake? So. . .lets see, i'm digging in my backyard and I find a bone which I claim is a dinosaur bone. Later, scientists discover its the bone of an old man. BOOM, I just disproved the existence of dinosaurs. . If that is all your proof. . . you cannot be expected to be taken seriously.

What I suspect may have happened is, a paleontologist studied some of the Neandertals remains, noticed and published that some of the fossils included elderly neandertals, who also happened to have athritis. However, in true creationist style, a creationist most likely misread/misunderstood/intentional misrepresented what was said, and unfortunately many anti-evolution proponents are misled into repeating it.

zebudaya:
scientists say a lot of stuff, science said the world was flat, and killed everybody who said it was round.

Actually that's not true, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth. What is surprising though is the fact some christian literalists still hold to the belief that the Earth is flat, see here: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm, for a stellar example.

P.S. the idea of scientists killing people who don't hold to their findings, is ridiculous at best. What you may be referring to, is the Church's actions against scientists who held that our system was heliocentric. Remember Galileo?

choice.A:
The fact that you're trying to interpret the Bible as a non-Christian is forgiveable,

Okay? I don't see what that has to do with anything, especially as the Bible is not a book that is indecipherable (is that even a word?) by non-christians. What's more, many christians, both homosexual and heterosexual, agree with my premise.

but that still does not carry the point that homosexuality is an OK lifestyle from the Christian point of view. If you read Romans in the Bible, you'll see that God was not focusing merely on "the Roman heterosexuals" but on everyone in every place engaged in the practice condemned in Rom.1:27. The scope of Romans is "for obedience to the faith among all nations" - (Rom.1:5); and when God says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (ch.3:23), you certainly would not suppose that was limited to just the "Roman sinners", would you?

Actually, it is more evident that he is addressing the Romans specifically, especially if you take verses 7-15 into consideration. Reading in the context it was written in, shows that Paul was preaching against the practise of Roman heterosexuals who dabbled in lustful homosexual practises which were unnatural to them, and that preaching could be applied to moden day heterosexuals too, but he is no way condemning homosexuality. Also, in Romans 3:23, just like in the firts chapter, Paul is telling the Romans, they, like all humans, are born sinners. What he was stating applied to the Romans, but we in modern times can read it and realise that according to Paul, all men are sinners.

So, let me ask: does the love of Christ pass the bill for promoting what the Mosaic Law forbids? I don't think so. The ten commandments are part of the Mosaic Law; by the same reasoning that we are not under the Mosaic Law, does that mean it is okay for anyone today to kill, steal, commit adultery, and bear false witness against one's neighbour? (Exo.20:13-16). The fact that Christ came preaching grace and love does not mean that the implications and significance of the Law is thrown overboard wholesale.

Of course, it is not right to steal etc, but we don't need the mosaic laws to know that, because Jesus surmised the ten commandments in Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


The mosaic laws and commandments were not thrown overboard, but superceded by he who preached, "turn the other cheek", as opposed to the mosaic "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

Your opinion. But putting words in Christ's mouth does not help the argument.

Aye, it is what i assume he would have believed though.

Good to note that homosexuals were around in Jesus' time. But just because He apparently did not say anything on the issue does not mean that He gave His consent. Leviticus is part of Jesus' assertion in Matt.4:4 - "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." He definitely shamed those who felt that God's Word could be relaxed just to suit people's appetites for whatever they chose (Matt.15:1-9). Anyone carefully studying Jesus' teaching would know what to do with Lev.20:13 - would Jesus have nullified that warning simply because He came to preach love?

Once again, Leviticus' take on homosexuals, is as applicable as the decrees on menstruating women, garments made of two different materials, and the many more laws that only applied in the Mosaic era.

No Christian would be justified in stating that God made them gay or homosexual - Eccl.7:29 refutes that notion: "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

How does that verse refute the notion of God creating a human with a sexual attraction to the same sex?

I apologise for my strong verbiage in calling their bluff as straight lies. But I still maintain that people choosing to be gay or homosexuals or whatever does not mean that God made them so - from the Christian point of view. Nowhere is that thought sustained in the Bible as far as 'man + man = homosexuality' is a discountenanced lifestyle in God's eyes.

What about people that don't choose to be gay, they know they are gay, believe it's a sin, and thereafter have to spend their lives in celibacy. They can't have relationships that involve the kind of love and companionship their heterosexual counterparts enjoy. What about them? Can they claim GOD made them gay?

t4cash:
I wonder how atheists i.e people who don't believe in the existence of ANY kind of God (god) explain the concept of morals. How can there be good/evil if there is nobody up there to decide that this is good;this is evil

Most of our morals have evolved over a long time, but it seems more likely that it all started with the ability to empathise, coupled with the need for self presevation, especially in group or herd. That in turn either gave rise to, or was coupled with the simplistic "do unto others as you'll have them do to onto you"

By the time a child that lives with other human beings is 2 years, he gets an idea of this principle. (Even if his parents are atheist).

Atheists are not necessarily immoral.

Once again, let me make my opinion clear: God did not make this boy gay. He did it by himself.

What you posted above just reminded me of a wonderful christian man, who also happens to be anon-practising homosexual. He, like many others, states that he has been attracted to the same sex since he was a little boy. He is now a christian, and has been for a long time, and he also believes homosexuality is wrong. However he acknowledges that despite that, he is still attracted to men. In my opinion, and taking into account his protestations that his homosexuality is most likely a "thorn in his flesh", he really didn't choose to be gay, and he would gladly do anything to be straight and not be a lonely celibate for the rest of his life. Perhaps GOD didn't make him gay, but it sure would look like that to the haunted christian.

choice.A:
I have met many people from other religions who speak of 'God' as the deity of their religion - and not even one of them would readily think first and foremost of the Christian God when you mention 'God' to them. For example, in religious discussions with some of my friends of the Bahá'i faith, the moment I mention 'God' to them, they readily think of the deity they worship in their religion. Although its history is recent, Bahá'i believe quite a few things about God that sound 'Christian', but that is not to mean that just because they also call Him 'God' in English, therefore it is the Christian God that they are speaking of. The one thing a Bahá'i sharply disagrees with the Christian about God is that "God cannot become incarnate in a human being." [You may find this link helpful: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bahai/beliefs/god.shtml]. I'd say you're inaccurate in representing this view that anyone mentioning 'God' must be speaking of the Christian deity by default; and if that's what you'll still try to drive around, it would only mean you're forcing this idea without any justification. Incidentally, when my Bahá'i friends leave me offlines (Yahoo IMs), they say just the same things as you mentioned in your reply - "I prayed to GOD last night", "GOD made me all that I am today", "GOD created the universe" - and for all that, none of them ever was referring to the Christian deity!

I see your point, and I may have been too hastyin generalising. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be, "when most people refer call a deity by the name GOD, especially in a country with a christian majority, they are more often than not referring to the christian God.

To be fair, I went to the site you offered in your last reply - and I was shocked to find it confirmed my suspicion. On the one hand, as far as I'm concerned, the writer did not discuss the Biblical position of immoral sexual activities as is clearly stated in Lev.20:13 -

There was no need to, Lev 20:13 is a mosaic law, and has been superceded by the love of christ. This is also clear freom the other mosaic laws that have been disregarded, like, the recommended punishment for many practises, the belief that eating certain animals would make you unclean, the keeping of the sabbath day free, and the law condemning the wearing of a garment made of two different materials.

it doesn't matter to me whatever translations he or she was reading. Okay, they don't read 'homosexual' prior to 1946, but 'effeminate' was the hush word? So, what were the writer(s) trying to sell - that 'effeminate' persons were heirs of the Kingdom of God whereas 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says 'No'?

No, the writer was trying to point out that homosexuality is not a condemned sin. there's a difference between effeminate and homosexuality.

Let's be honest with ourselves. The truth is, homosexuality is listed as a sexual sin in God's eyes, and it does not matter who else feels it's right. Go figure - even the word 'catamites' (a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man) is not disconnected from this practice; although the author, in quoting Daniel Helminiak, wants us to believe that homosexuality was not an issue as far back as 347-407 A.D. What these gentlemen should realise is that Leviticus 20:13 was penned long before then, and even the New Testament did not countenance such sexual vice. Let me put it simply: in sexual relations, "man + man = homosexuality" - and that is what Rom.1:27 clearly states ('men with men working that which is unseemly'). In the list of verses given in the article on the website, I wonder how it is that the author just did not see the Rom.1:27 text - and by all means shied away from it.

Rom 1:27, is not condemning homosexuals, but is instead condemning the Roman heterosexuals, who unnaturallly decided to partake in lustful homosexual practices, something that was prevalent in ancient Rome. Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Please. I offer again that the young man could not have been referring to the Christian God.

And I offer that the young man may very well have been referring to the christian God. What's more, the many homosexul christians would also be referring to the christian God as their creator.

There's just a simple way to look at it: God speaks through the Bible about the way He created us, and states in clear terms that His design in sex was not homsexual, else we would not find Lev.20:13 (OT) and Rom.1:27 (NT) in our Bibles. Think about it for a moment: if He sees these acts as both 'abominable' (OT) and 'unseemly' (NT), why would He want to create people this way and then later punish them for what was not borne out of their conscious choices? It is alright for someone to make a claim that God created him or her in a certain way, but if we look in the Bible (speaking as a Christian now) and find that He did not create them that way, who would be lying?

Except perhaps, he isn't going to punish them for being homosexuals. Taking into account the many testaments of Homosexuals, who have stated explicitly that they have been attracted to the same sex as far back as they can remember, and coupling that with the occurence of homosexuality in other animals, it would seem to me that a christian would be justified in stating "God made them this way".

It is true that Jesus preached love and commitment - but just what do these terms mean if one still parades a lifestyle that the Bible openly discountenances? Your reasoning here does not make a strong point. If Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, does that in itself make it an OK lifestyle? Again, it is also true that Jesus had nothing to say about abortion; but does that make abortion a happy-clappy thing to pursue?

I'm sure Jesus would have pro-choice too, and I believe he would have supported a woman whose only choice was abortion (but that's another thread).

Just because Jesus seemed to have said nothing about one issue or another does not justify an act in itself. "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." [Gal. 5:18]. My question then is, who would really be claiming they are led of the Spirit if they were holding a lifestyle that Rom.1:27 does not approve of?

Homosexuals were around in Jesus' time, if he didn't think the love between two consenting adults of the same sex was worth condemning, then, It's also a good thing that homosexual christians are not living a lifestyle condemned in Romans, they can therefore be led of the Spirit (big S).

Anyone could claim just about anything - but if they were referring to the Christian God as responsible for their preferred lifestyles while excusing themselves as not consciously choosing to do so, I'd call their bluff and challenge their lies by asking they point out their beliefs or convictions from the Bible itself.

Once again, lying is too strong a term. you may disagree with their premise, but it would be a tad self-righteous to condemn it as lies. Just out of curiousity, did you choose to be attracted to the oppposite sex?

Like to know this may be we love God to the extent of execution. Lets presume that army robbers come to someones house and said Choose God to daeth and choose Satan to live.

Which one will you do?

Satan. I don't believe in the existence of either, so there's no conflict of ethics.

4get_me:
KAG,

Did you say that 'the Adam and Eve story is mythical?' You want proof? Don't make me laugh. Just go to your bedroom, take off your clothes, bend down, and look at your middle region. What do you see? If you're married, ask your husband (or boyfriend) to do the same. If you both have the same 'thing' as Steve, then Eve didn't exist and she's only a myth! Yes, then I would be one of those so-called miss-road 'Christians' who would believe that when God made Adam and Eve as male and female, it was all a myth.

The fact that there are distinguishing traits between men and women is not the myth, the story itself is the myth. The Icarus tale is a myth, but that doesn't mean the Sun doesn't exist.

choice.A:
KAG,

Your response is simply hilarious. In stating that "GOD = christian God " you assume that the English name/word 'God' must have been hijacked by Christians. So much for misrepresenting facts. So, anyone who talks about God today must necessarily be referring to the Christian God? - if you could only sell that story to the Hindus who see their religion as predating Christianity, and still talk about 'God' without necessarily referring to the Christian deity.

I fear you misunderstood me, in many parts of the world where christian evangelists have spread the christian doctrine (amongst other things), the christian God is often referred to simply as GOD. "I prayed to GOD last night", , "GOD made me all that I am today", "GOD created the universe", etc. Hindus on the other hand don't refer to their God(s) as GOD, they say Brahma (sp?), Ganesh, etc. What's even more telling about the usage of GOD for the christian deity, is the fact that many from other religions, call the christian deity GOD too.

I don't know if you've been reading another book, but I find it no where stated in the Bible that Christ came to save us from the mosaic law. The two things indicated in the Bible in this context are that (a) Christ came to save us from our sins (Matt.1:21 and I Tim.1:15), and (b) Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Rom.10:4). That Christ is the end of the Law does not mean that we are no longer obliged to live in righteousness as the Law stipulates - for what is an abomination in the OT does not suddenly become a licence for lasciviousness in the NT. "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. [Rom 7:12]. Just because Leviticus is under the OT economy does not justify or relax the implications of homosexuality in the NT dealings of God with man. Let me reference this with a few quotes -

Gal 3:13 "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law", Gal 5:18, "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." The very fact that christians do neither practise "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", nor do they bother to keep the Sabbath day free from any work, shows that the Mosiac laws have been superceded. It is pehaps telling that Jesus who had nothing to say about homosexuality, preached love and commitment.

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." [Rom.1:27, KJV]; "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [I Cor.6:9-10, ESV].

See here: http://www.christianlesbians.com/articles/biblehomosexuality.php?id=000012, for an indepth article into why they don't apply.

Just because someone believes just about anything does not establish a case for his or her adventure. I have heard some very silly things in just the same strain of thought. If people reason that "all things were planned by God" and the many stupid things they do under the sun are not a conscious choice of theirs, it still doesn't change the fact that they're lying. And that is precisely why we challenge such hypocrisy and ask that they point out the verses in the Bible that justify their homosexual preferences as the handiwork of the Christian God. At best, they could talk about the million and one gods out there and I as a Christian would not lose sleep over that.

The point is, are most of our sexual orientations concious choices? Do homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex anymore than heterosexuals choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? The young man, like many homosexuals, claims he never made a concious choice to be attracted to the same sex; if that is the case, and it is evident to me that it doesn't seem to be a conscious choice, then they could make an argument that they were "created" that way by GOD (if they are christians).

kimba:
@ pearldrops,

Are you serious, perhaps there might be, but not pronounced as the case may be, as in someone saying that hes been feeling gay since he was 10. I wonder what kind of family would have accomodated such a person in this nigeria,

Anyway, if youre serious about the loads of gay men in nigeria, please tell me more, are they hiding because ive not seen any. I once lived in a country where u can see them gay men putting on makeup etc, wearing minis in public(don't ask me where), ofcourse, thats extreme but u never know, Nigerians usually like outshining the rest of the world.

please tell me more,

Maybe you need to update your gaydar . I keed

choice.A:
Really? And what God is that you're talking about?

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" Lev.20:13.

GOD = christian God (once again thanks christians for hijacking the word, the English language salutes you). That's the maosiac law, remember "Christ came to save us from the law", or something like that. Those laws in essenec don't apply anymore.

It is hilarious to read of the notion of "non-practising homosexuals" - what does it take to be a practising homosexual?

Sexual relations.

Bottom line: anyone excusing his homosexual preference as God's handiwork is lying through his or her teeth. At best, they are welcome to claim and blame any other 'God' as responsible for their profession - but they definitely would not be referring to the same God who speaks in such texts in the Bible as Lev.20:13.

Lying is perhaps too strong. If he truly believes that all things were planned by GOD, and he clearly believes that his sexual preference, like many heterosexuals, was not a conscious choice, then it is plausible and logical to believe GOD made him gay.

The question of 'this gay boy' deconverting from christianity is stretching the story a bit too far - there's nothing in the original post to suggest that he was a Christian.

He says "God", the name used colloquailly by christians to mean their God, made him gay, it isn't a stretch to imagine he is a christian. Also, there are many homosexual christians, so that advice applies to them too.

In black and white in Genesis, God created the first humans male and female and called them 'Adam and Eve' - not Adam and Steve. The Bible does not encourage fornication, so I don't agree with you that "it is possible that marriage would cover the fornicating part."

What I meant by marriage covering the fornicating part was, if he is the type that worries about fornication, he can now get married, ergo he won't be fornicating with his partner. Hurray for same sex marriages. By the way the Adam and Eve story is mythical, and yes many christians accept and believe that.

kimba:
Number 2, please, tell the boy about this wonderful country Nigeria. Invite him to come here and see wild animals. Tell him he'll see a lot of adventure and real-time wildlife. I hereby volunteer as his escort. Ill be wearing my tuxedo to make him look dignified when i meet him at the airport, and ill drive him to Ikeja to where he can be flogged with real koboko. I believe that after 3hrs, he'll become a MAN,

Yes, because we all know there are no homosexuals in Africa, especially not Nigeria; and it is even more clear that excessive beatings will not only make a MAN (Grunt, Grunt) out of you, but it will also rid you of all traces of homosexual tendencies.

In my opinion, your friend is actually telling the truth, he didn't decide to be physically attracted to men, in much the same way heterosexual men don't choose to be attracted to women, so in a sense he's claim that GOd made him gay is valid. It is also my opinion that the Bible doesn't condemn non-practising homosexuals, and in fact it is possible that marriage would cover the fornicating part.

The options I feel that could be open to him are, to become a celibate homosexual christian who believes "GOD hates gays", become a married christian homosexual, or deconvert from christianity and become a buddhist. I'm sure there are other options, but those were the ones I could think of.

ThoniaSlim:
I have heard so many people say the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome a.k.a AIDS, is a punishment from God, for people who can't control their sexual urges. What do you think?

No, I strongly doubt AIDS could be a punishment from any God, especially not from the apparently omni-benevolent God of christianity. It would seem highly careless and deviod of intellect, for any God to use a means as hereditary and transferable as AIDS. Would an omniscient God seeking to punish an adult allow the resulting child to catch AIDS? Would an omi-benevolent God trying tp punish a rapist, allow the innocent victim to receive the same punishment as the repist? Would an intelligent God trying to punish a sexually active person, allow the AIDS infected punished, to pass on their punishment to an innocent person who needed a blood transfusion?

I honestly don't think any God would be that callous, but then again many have attributed worse acts to their God(s), and usually in the name of divine retribution.

4Jesus4Eva:
You may be familiar with the evolution progression chart (you know, the one where it shows the stages of monkey-development into modern man).

The chart would be wrong then.

The Nebraska Man was scientifically built up from one tooth, and that tooth was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

Nebraska Man was a mistake that was accepted by about two scientists, and an over-eager editor.

The Piltdown was built up from an whole jawbone and a few pieces of skull, discovered by an amateur geologist in 1912. In 1953, scientists did in depth research on the pieces and radiocarbon tests showed that the pieces of skull belonged to a 600 yr-old woman and the jawbone was that of a 300 yr-old orangutan from the East Indies.

Piltdown was an hoax that many believe was perpetuated on scientists, however you would hard pressed to find another hoax that has slipped through since then. One more thing, Piltdown man unsurprisingly didn't fit the data, and was an anomally that stuck out severely in the common descent theory.

The Peking Man is the next step up in the chain but as he is estimated to be 500,000 years old, all evidence of his existence has disappeared.

What do you mean by "all evidence, has disappeared?

The Neanderthal Man, whose skeleton was discovered in France over 50 years ago, when being examined by the Int'l Congress of Zoology, was found to be that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.

Yes, if old men also have heavy brow ridges, a long low skulls, and live in caves together for long periods, and happen to not seem like old men.

I don't really know about New Guinea Man but since 1970 this species has been spotted just north of Australia (hahahah lol jk).

Cro-Magnon Man was considered one of the best and stable fossils of the evolutionary chain. He was in equal physique and brain capacity as modern man. But then scientists began to wonder what was the difference.

Nobody (to my knowledge) ever claimed Cro-Magnon was different from modern man, well except from evolution dissidents that is. Cro-Magnons were the European bound humans from Africa.

And just another piece in this little puzzle regarding the development of humans: Platelets in the blood are what cause the clotting process to occur when a person is wounded. It has been found that platelets work in a complex 12-step process in order to cause blood to coagulate. If just a single thing went wrong in this process the whole thing would fall apart. And since evolution by definition is progression, how could man have survived without the entire process being present all at one time. Which parts came first knowing that just one SINGLE little nick or scratch could cause this person to bleed to death?

The way the evolution of blood clotting in humans most likely occured, has been tackled ever since it was introduced by Behe. One of the scientists that tackled it (adequately) is none other than the brilliant theistic evolutionist Ken Miller, see here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html. I haven't read it all, but I do remember watching a "lecture" where he addresses it, so I'll assume it's more or less the same thing.

There's some more stuff about evolution that was proven wrong, I'm sure. Afterall, it was just a really good theory/idea that seemed to make sense for a while but then most of the evidence that was its foundation ended up false or misunderstood or fraudulent. But that's okay, because there is still truth in this world: Christ.

Surely you must mean creationism.

4Jesus4Eva:
lol I apologize APKevin for the structure of my response

First of all, no need to start complicating my response. I said, "I believe in God because <insert multiple reasons here> " Personally I found that an appropriate response to the question you posed: "Why do you believe in God?" But to clarify, I mean that I believe in one single God, the God that is described in the Bible. He's Who I believe. And, your conclusion is inaccurate. You see it that because God exists He must have a creator. But that's wrong. God is the sole Creator of everything. He is the beginning and the end. God has simply always existed and He always will. He needed no one to create Him nor was there anyone TO create Him. It's something that's truly hard (impossible, really) to capture and I wouldn't suggest trying to think about it too long, you may hurt yourself (jk). I really don't know how to put it but I'll try to the best of my ability: it's like a circle or a line. Neither has a beginning or end as far as discrete geometry is concerned but they still go on forever. If you can accept that, you can accept that God is eternal by His own nature. And sadly, when you try to put a man with a carnal nature to ponder upon eternal things and supernatural things, it's a trying picture to capture. But that's what this thread is about isn't it?

Okay, I understand what you mean.

Good observation, however, inaccurate once again. Sure THINKING is done chemically by the firing of neurons across synapses and all that but just because that can be done doesn't mean we don't truly have souls. People do! PHYSICALLY, we're made up chemicals and all that stuff, but we're also composed of body, spirit, and soul as well. Think about this: sure, your mind is what cause you to think, but is it really your BRAIN (your physical brain, the thing sitting inside your head) that cause you to think or is it your mind (the invisible thoughts that just come up)?

It really is the brain. I haven't seen any evidence for souls etc.

It's like an imaginary thing that sits above your head that causes you to think and envision and imagine, not the physical brain. Think about this too: what you are made up of is just a mixture of blood, tissue, cells, water, organs, and some other stuff. Now, how is it that all that stuff can cause a feeling or emotional pain or even an imaginary thought? It really doesn't add up and it doesn't make sense if you think about it. How can a composition of all those things cause me to fall in love or to cry when my friend rejects me or any of that? I'm not saying that those things aren't important, and that soul and spirit and physical things are independent of one another--simply that God did literally breathe a soul into every one of us and that soul and spirit is what causes us to have a conscience and emotions.

I honestly believe emotions etc, are because of the brain, as opposed to a "God breathed soul". That belief is further boistered by the fact other animals have feelings, go through pain, fall in love etc.

I'm sorry, I really don't know too much about mutations and the intricacies therein. I do know though that mutations are no reason that a species should jump from one to another, no matter how many years go by.

Mutations alone won't do that, but mutations and selection can cause, and have caused speciation.

I know that mutation is an occurrence in the DNA or RNA that causes an offspring to differ from the parent in a certain trait. But because it is defined as the recombining of genetic code, there is no reason that it should bring about new creations.
That is, there is no reason, by mutation, that I can come from an ape or anything like that. If I were to recombine the letters in the English alphabet, surely I'd produce some interesting and new words, but never would I start to produce Chinese words.

the evidence says though that speciation occurs, and it definitely shows that we share a common ancestor with other apes. Also, the evolution of languages (in essence words) is very much like biological evolution, for example, Latin over time evolved into olde English, archaic French, and some other languages, Olde English and archaic French have also given rise due to selection, to Queens English, american English, Black English Variety, and a vast number of "Englishes" (to quote my flat mate), in countries like India, Nigeria, etc. note also, that the original languages have become practically extinct too.

Also, if you want evidence of a higher mind, consider these: How did matter organize itself so perfectly that it would form creation as stable as is existent?

Is matter organised, or is it the human mind that desires to see order that assumes matter is orderly?

And How did hair, nails, and skin and all that stuff evolve or become created? And in the bodily systems, which evolved first, (how and how long did it go on without the others) the digestive system, the nervous system, the endochrine system, etc. Or what came first, reproduction or the drive to reproduce and how did one go on without the other? These are really rhetorical.

Too many questions, and many of those questions require indepth answers with at least some research. You may very well believe those were rhetorical, but they do have answers. For example the evolution of hair, which by the way is not exclusive to humans. I'd imagine our distant ancestor acquired it's fur in much the same way some other organisms have acquired feathers, a mutation occured resulting in the outer covering, it was either naturally or sexually selected, and became prevalent. humans or the human like nacestor started to shed it's fur, and one theory holds that somewhere in our evolutionary history we were aquatic, that theory is supported -amongst other things- by the way our hair is distributed. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html#lost3.

By the way, all those systems you listed above, did not appear as "complex" as they are now. They all started off in simplified forms, and in some cases may even have served other functions.

But it just shows there is now way these things could have been formed without Someone there to form them and in His own specific and higher thinking order. Even Darwin submitted ever so pompously (to me at least), "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 degree."

That quote is a famous quote mine often used by anti-evolution proponents. I'd be very cross with the (most likely) lying creationist weasels that made you fall for that "lying for Jesus" quotemine. Carryung on from where the quote mine stops "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 degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html)

I have an online text of the "Origin of Species", if you are interested in reading it. Also, Darwin gives an idea of how the eye could have formed.

Now, you say that along with mutation it can all be possible, but can you even begin to think that CHANCES of that?

1

Hand-in-hand with Darwin's quote, George Gallup stated, "I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone. The chances that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity." (I'm normally not too fond of quotes but I found these particularly meaningful here because Darwin somewhat pioneered the theory of evolution) See, there had to have been a Higher Mind dreaming us up and creating us with His own two hands. It couldn't have just happened on its own.

I'd have to see how Gallup calculated his odds, what factors he used etc. I'd also like to know if he factored in the seemingly badly designed parts of the human body, like the having of the important reproductive organ in the same place as the waste disposal unit, or the crazy position of the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

I see what you're saying but I know you don't get what I mean. You'd have to have experienced the same thing I did in order to know what I'm talking about. But that's okay. But I see where you're coming from, I didn't really expect it to convince you or anything so it's reasonable to say that if you were to say that it wouldn't convince me either. I was just stating another reason I believe.

Okay.

I know. I was just making an example of how God changed my grandpa and nothing else did. It was just rhetoric, sorry.

Okay.

I understand what you mean. And you're right. I'm sure that people can use my same reasons to believe in their own god and such. But I was just adressing the question why I believe in God the Father--not why I believe in Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit (once again, They are all One and the Same) or the Bible. You see, I didn't just decide to 'jump into Christianity' as many think I would. I have reasons for what I believe and what I know is true and reasons why others should believe, too. And I'm glad you asked about the significance of personal experience for my belief. Because, yes, it is highly important. My testimony, I know is just one of the things that NO ONE would be able to take away from me. My personal experience is my own, and it is confirmation. How could I believe in God if He says He can change my life and make me new but then my life is never really truly changed? That is how I know: His Word and the fulfillment of It tells me that He is true. And if I were to have just personal experience, then I would have no one to believe in and I would have no one to give me that word. You can't have one without the other. Also, faith is experimental, much like car brakes. You never know it till you try and it works. However, my God, unlike car brakes, always works.

Cool, thanks for responding and telling me why you believe, it was an interesting read too.

APKevin:
Unfortunately enough we can always make a positive into a negative. I'm directing that toward the constant remarks toward every line of text we as believers right.

It's the only way I can address posts that have a lot going on in them, it in no way turns a positive into a neagtive

The irony around what I said though is that you even made an atheistic belief of mind a false or negative statement. If oneself does not believe in a God then he/she will detest everything that one says.

I don't understand what you mean here, are you suggesting I detest what I say, because I disagree with what you think all atheists believe? Also, could you quote the part of my response you mean.

it is funny though that not matter how many people can surround a person and give a life experience or even show the existence of God to be true the person can never believe it. Reason, because he/she does not want to.

I think you are oversimplifying a lack of belief, especially a lack of belief in a God. I can only speak for myself, but I honestly don't believe I lack belief because "I don't want to believe", it's more of a case of "I see no reason to believe, my insticts give me inclination to believe, and I'll be lying to myself If I pretended to believe." On a related note, when it comes to not believing in the Gods of other religions, do you lack belief in them simply because you don't want to believe?

This example is even showed to us by people who are in the "church" and say that they believe in God. although a belief in atheism maybe justified to ones only personal choice I ask you what is the proof or evidence in that belief.

You can't believe in atheism, in very much the same way you can't believ in theism. Also atheism is a lack of belief, the burden of proof is not on the atheist, but on the theist to prove or present hard evidence for their claim(s).

They have yet been able to find a link to a prehistoric man, for the supposed evidence they find is proven to be false.

Could you explain what you mean, what evidence was proven false?

P.S. I'll be waiting for the comment to comment response of my statement

Once again, it's the only way I can respond to a post with a lot going in it, especially if I don't want to get lost. I hope it doesn't bother you too much, I could try to change that format, but no promises.

4Jesus4Eva:
I know this question wasn't directed toward me, but I chose to answer it anyhow. Hope you don't mind.

Not at all.

I believe in God because of logic.
For every building there is a builder. For every painting there is a painter. For every creation there is a Creator. I couldn't have been here by chance. Someone had to have come before.

Does that apply to GOD (to differentiate between christian God, and other Gods [thanks christians for hijacking the word])? If you posit that the Univers and all in it needed a creator, then surely GOD must need a creator too, and his creator a creator, ad infinitum.

And neither chemicals nor atoms would know how to give me a conscience or thoughts. Neither would understand what I understand.

Why not? Human beings and every other organism on Earth, are made up primarily of chemicals. All it takes for a human to think and infact believe he has a soul, is the firing of neurons in the brain, all the work of chemicals. The same is applicable for other intelligent animals, for example dolphins.

Natural selection couldn't have formed me. Nature has no mind. Nature only exists because there is Someone higher who does have a mind.

You are right, natural selection couldn't have formed you alone, coupled with mutations on the other hand, You say nature exists because of a higher mind, I have yet to see any evidence for that.

I believe in God because of instinct.
I always knew God existed. Something within me always said it. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't deny that fact.

That's an interesting point. I have never felt the existence of God, and truth be told, I don't think I've ever really believed in the existence of God, let alon GOD. My siblings on the other hand, have no trouble believing in GOD, sometimes in spite of themselves. Perhaps humans are generally wired for belief in the supernatural, and atheists (and their ilk) are the mutants .

I believe in God because of feeling.
I have FELT God before. It's unexplainable. But I knew it was Him the whole time. It's like getting butterflies in your stomach, except all over your body. But it's serenity; it's peace. Not sickness.

Would it matter that I have had feelings like that, and believe me when I say this, it wasn't GOD?

I believe in God because of faith.
God has given me a measure of faith. I have the ability to capture a measure of His love, His grace, His personality.

I believe in God because of experience.
I asked God to change to my life and to make me a new person. He turned my life around. He showed me a new hope. He gave me a reason to live. He gave me a purpose and I found it in Him. I believe in Him because I've actually encountered God.

Okay.

I believe in God because of testimony.
The story of my grandfather's life is almost unbelievable. Long story short, my grandfather was, by people's standards, one of the world's worst people. He was a drunkard, a fighter, a killer, a cheater, you name it. The man went to church ONCE, and God turned his life around. He's a pastor now. Not any amount of drugs, hypnotism, pain, evolution, anything could have changed him. Just God. I believe in God because he saved my friend from committing suicide. He saved my family from falling apart. And more than that, He saved them all from hell. There are SO many other testimonies from other people but if I tried to fit just a portion here, I would, blow up? Is that the way to word it? Ah well.

Just to point out, evolution is neither theological nor is it philosophical, so evolution can't, nor should it be expected to, cahnge people.

There are so many other reasons why I believe in God. Honestly, I don't even like to word it that way. God is so real that I shouldn't have to have a REASON to believe in Him. Just like I shouldn't have to have a reason to believe that my mother exists. Or that the computer that I'm typing on exists. I just know. I believe in God, because He believes in me. What more can I say?

~Jordan

I have to say though interesting, I don't think it would be remiss of me to state that your reasons for belief in your God can, and I'm sure they are, be applied by any believer in another God. Also, does it matter that the reasons for your belief are anecdotal?

What Happens When We Die?

The end, that's all she wrote. Nothing. What I'd like to believe on the other hand, is some kind of a paradise with music, books, and some of my other favorite things, but I don't want it to be eternal. Another good one, would be to have a viking warrior afterlife, that would be fun, or perhaps to awake periodically to see and explore the world,

Quick responses, because I have to hop catch atrain soon, and I doubt if I'll be back on here for a couple of days.

APKevin:
@Kag
I don't see how the fact certain humans having mutations that others lack, is a problem for evolution. You seem to be under the misconception that it is individuals that evolve. In truth, evolution is the "change in allele frequency of a population, "

What is to determine these population affects? Yes the environment affects us in many different ways, but there is more to it then that. There is the mental environment on which we live in. This also can have a positive or negative affect in our lives; one that can cause a change within what we become. So a general population cannot be in complete correlation with one another. That makes it seem like there is some force that ties us together that our genetics are coherent with one another.

Actually the general pouplation is still in correlation because we all share a common human ancestor, and there has been no way for the evolution into another species to have occured. For human speciation to happen, you'll need a population of humans to become completely isolated from the general population, and then over a long time they could possibly speciate.

If I'm in a position where certain variables from the environment do not affect me as much (due to adaptation) as others, then the affects within my life would be completely afar from people around me.

It wouldn't be that far off though. Take for example, lactose intolerance. Many are born without the enzyme that digests lactates, although they have lost a component, on a genetic level they are still not that different from others.

Not everyone is in the same life style or environment. Is there evolution that causes one to be immune to the negative affects of drugs (although I know your body becomes altered and tries to cope with the problem)?
If so people have been drunkards for thousands of years (this is just recorded evidence, I’m sure this extends beyond what is recorded). Dont you think that things like this would cause a possibly change? That the body would be able to cope with the affects of alcohol. Now you may say what does alcohol have to do with evolution. This consumption is just like any other negative affect that can be inflected onto your body (Ex: getting cut).

I don't think alcohol "immunisation" is something that can be passed down from generation to generation, because for one thing evolution is not, in practically every case, a conscious choice, and for another alcohol is not something that affects genes. However, there are certain indigeneous cultures that boast of excellent boozers that can hold their liquor *cough* Irish *cough*

REASONS WHY EVOLUTION does not make sense. First, if evolution is a continual growth in development that oneself becomes more optimum then the previous.

That's not what evolution is. Evolution is not like ladder where evrything keeps evolving to a better state. Evolution can be better or worse, from a human (and environmental) perspective.

Then how come I may over come a bacteria in my life, and that genetic code is not saved in order for the cells within the body to recognize the attack for my next offspring.

See http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Immune_system?OpenDocument, for how the immune system works.

We have been in disease for such an extended period of time, yet something like having the chicken pox and overcoming it can not be passed on. Now if you meditate on the issue, what causes your body to recognize a change that it would record erroneous affects so that the next offspring can uphold that optimum level of survival. If this where so then every negative aspect present we would continue to record and evolve. So we may ask ourselves, what requires change, what is suitable enough to make a change? You may say anything that causes degeneration within the body. Well, death causes degeneration, smoking, alcohol, the list can continue (these factors are also in the millions).

No, no and no! Genetic mutations and selection, are the main causes of a species developing immunity to a bacterial/viral stain etc. By the way, overcomin chicken pox is not always the end of it, the same virus can also cause shingles.

This shows us that a multitude of people does not affect what the outcome of the new evolved creature is going to be, the only possible variable needed is a continual negative event that would recur in that line of species.

What?

Evolution is only the belief for those who do not accept a divinity, or are not satisfied by one.

That's clearly not true, as the majority of people who accept evolution are in fact theists, and many of whom are christians.

Unfortunately, we have to speak to each other in these terms. Rather, I would like to speak to you in a friendlier manner. Like why do I believe in God, or why do you believe in evolution.

Why do you believe in God? By the way, evolution and christianity are not mutually exclusive. I accept evolution (I don't believe in it) based on my readings, and my understanding of it.

I really don't think what I may say is going to cause you to change your mind (although I hope), and im sure you believe the same thing toward me.

I'm not that dogmatic about it to be honest.

Even though we are on opposite ends of the rope I would like to understand why you choose this path, and would love to discuss the principles you live for. I'm not just trying to evangelize I just want to converse, and get to know ya betta .

Cool, that would be fun.

With all due respect, I don't think you know much about evolution.

APKevin:
Unfortunately the thought of evolution does not justify itself. They still lack any evidential knowledge of making such as statement such as "Evolution". The only evidence they said was linking us to a prehistoric man was the Neanderthal. Even this was proven to be false, when the bone of a Neanderthal was excavated next to a Homo-Sapiens dating around the same time period. So where is the proof and evidence?

There really is no lack of evidence, and neanderthals have never been hailed as human ancestors, and it is generally accepted that neanderthals were contemporaries of homo sapiens. For the evidences of evolution, I'm currently writing something like a little primer, that details some of evidences (I should have finished it about a week ago, but I'm a procastinator). One of the best evidences that I've written about is "endogenous retroviral insertions". They are in a sense genetic markers that can be used to ascertain parentage and genetic relations. Humans share endogenous retroviruses with our ape cousins, and that shows we share a common ancestor.

Let’s say that all of this was proven to be true though. That there might be an earlier period of man. Well if evolution is the passing of genetic DNA that causes change within oneself structure that is birthed in the new off spring from the inability to cope with the environment, then there should be more species of man. From what I hear people don’t believe evolution within man is still taking place anymore, since man has the ability to change environment. So from an evolutionist stand point you’re technically wrong, and from a Christian stand point you are still incorrect.

I didn't understand the beginning of the statement, and the end to tell the truth; but to say that evolution is no longer occuring, especially in man is patently wrong. An article reporting the findings of a research to determine if humans are still evolving: http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060308/sc_space/hundredsofhumangenesstillevolving

Lets even play with the word evolution a little more. If I was to continue to pass genetic data to my offspring in order to make a positive change within there lives from the negative ability to cope that I go through. There would be certain humans carrying genes that others lack. This would cause not one species of Homo-Sapiens, but rather many forms of humans. So evolution does not justify itself on the principles it stands on.

I don't see how the fact certain humans having mutations that others lack, is a problem for evolution. You seem to be under the misconception that it is individuals that evolve. In truth, evolution is the "change in allele frequency of a population, "

APKevin:
If anything we should come into agreement that there is something greater out there. That man did not evolve from a "theory" of evolution.

Evolution does not preclude a belief in a supernatural deity, and yes man did evolve and is still evolving. Other than that, I agree with a lot of what you posted.

nicetohave:
do you know where all these individuals are today? remember the soul never dies, oh but you may say what is a soul; but where are these people today who have openly ridiculed belief in God (not religion) and God himself?

Karl Mark is six feet under in Highgate Cemetary. All of the others are also six feet under, except from Stephen King, who from what I last heard, still resides in Maine with his wife and kids.

By they way, many of them did not ridicule christian God, they have mostly made astute observations about religion, and in some cases the God(s) most familiar to them.

KAG:
pick one or two things you believe falsifies evolution, and I'll attempt to answer them.

Bumpity.

Softee:
Why Do Muslims Hate Christians So Much, Could This Be The Anti-Christ Coming?

No.

eneekaycee:
Dont say I'm not a christian or that I'm not a good one.The truth is I'm trying my "christianest"(please forgive the word)to be one,the best I can be.But what do you do when you have tried your best to live a good christian life,obeyed the word and all that yet tour fortunes seem not to be improving?To put it more succingtly,your friends or neighbours or other people of "questionable"character are succeding far much more better than you?Doesnt it make it all very discouraging and make you want to reconsider your position?Please I need your help in this.eneekaycee

Realise that "fortunes", riches etc, are not what religions like christianity are all about. Remember the rich man that asked Jesus what he had to do to be saved? Jesus told him to sell all his possesions, , a clear indication that if it's santa you are looking fo, then you may be in the wrong belief system. Something else worth realising is that contentment with the good things you already possess (and will possess) is also a worthy virtue.

Kerby:
sorry i wasn't clear on some parts, im not very good at this sort of thing, just saying what i think . but heres a website that might be able to help you boys understand more what I'm trying to say. and no im not related to will smith !!!!


http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/index.shtml

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

Of all the unholy cesspools of filthy creationist ignorance, halftruth, and outright lies, you had to pick that one. Where to start? I'll just radomly pick parts, because I can't possibly refute a website with so much.

All of the well-known fossils believed to be missing links for humans come from Pleistocene layers. These include Australopithecus (dated perhaps 500,000 years ago in the Gunz-Mindel Interglacial), Peking man and Java man (in between), and Neanderthal man (dated less than 100,000 years ago—the time of the Wurm glaciation)

Disregarding the misnomer of claiming bona-fide transitionals are "missing links", I find it hilarious that they've included Neandethals as possible human ancestors, when anyone who knows at least the basics of the the theory of evolution and paleontology, would know that human ancestors drove neanderthals to extintion.

Investigating the scientific literature reveals that all these proposed ”missing links” are either very humanlike with a trace of some apelike characteristic, or very apelike with a trace of some human characteristic. There is nothing really in between (where you would expect a “real” transitional species).

One has to ask then, what they expect a "real transitional"(tm) to look like. Besides, many of the transitionals don't just have a "trace, ", for example, homo erectus fossils like Turkana boy, has a human torso, and a clearly apelike head.

Most people do not know that most rock layers are “dated” by the fossils they contain. Scientists will choose a special reference fossil called an “index fossil.” Then they assume (based on the phylogenetic tree) that the “simple” index fossils were the oldest. Finding one of these “oldest” index fossils in a layer identifies that layer as the “oldest.”

This is an example of what I like to call lying for Jesus, the above bovine fecal matter gives the impression that geologists, paleontologists etc, are all incompetent, dishonest people, and this is clearly not the case.

The truth is, rock layers/fossils are sometimes initially dated by a well known fossil, however, it is more often than not, cross checked using other dating methods, dating methods that coincidentally collaborate the date.

One article [2] reveals that the fossils of normal birds have been found in older rock strata than Archaeopteryx. Therefore, either Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil (since birds already existed at the same time and there was nothing to “transition” into) or rock strata can not be accurately dated. If either of these is correct (and one must be) Archaeopteryx loses its value as a transitional species.

Normal birds, what are those? Anyway, this is clearly an attempt to obfuscate the truth (hardly surprising). Archaeopteryx is not suggested to be the ancestor of modern birds, however it is a transitional between dinosaurs-bird. Also, "Archie" isn't the only dinosaur-bird transitional, others include: Jeholornis prima, Changchengornis hengdaoziensis, etc.

Archaeopteryx probably could not fly, since it does not have a keeled sternum (breast bone) which all flying birds (and even bats) need to have. Of course, being a transitional species, Archaeopteryx did not have to fly. Yet, if it did not fly, what was the purpose of its feathers?* Since it either flew or it did not—and there are problems with both cases—one or the other removes the support that Archaeopteryx was a valid transitional species.

Wow, the banal inanity of the above really is breath taking, they were so close, yet so far. Ostriches, Emus etc, all have wings too, I guess their wings are illusions planted by the EAC. For your information, if anything the fact that archie couldn't fly, gives more credence that the evolution of feathers was not for flight.

p.s. Bats don't have feathers but can fly, weird no?

At this point I really don't feel like continuing, so I say pick one or two things you believe falsifies evolution, and I'll attempt to answer them.

Kerby:
hi everybody i'd just thought id put in my two cents. I am a christian i guess, I beleive in the bible and creation and stuff, so that could be tons of religons but i sum it up under christianity i guess because that is closest to what i believe heh. these are strictly my opinion and im no scholar or proffesor, this is just what i think about God and the Bible. I am also not a good debator so don't expect to get any replys out of me.
most people always wonder why God "makes" good people suffer with diseases and whatever. In the Bible God created the world as perfect, when Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying god he punished them by allowing diseases,pain,suffering, etc. . So if you want to blame somebody blame Adam and Eve.

That makes absolutely no sense, especially if the Adam and Eve tale is taken as a literal account. Why blame Adam and Eve for a situation that was clearly staged by an omniscient being? Beside, what is the sense in punishing evey descendant of Adam and Eve, especially as the descendents had nothing to do with Adam and Eve's "sin"?

as far as evolution goes i don't really believe in it. All things evolve but i don't think to such a great extent to where man evolved from piles of goo.

From piles of goo? Never heard that evolutionary theory before, care to expand on that a little?

over time man has evolved from wearing sheep skins to building cars and sky scrapers, so thats proof of some type of evolution, but i sill don't think we evolved from amoebas.

First, going from sheepskin etc, is not evolution (at least not biological, which is what you're talking about); also the evidence does suggest that we share a common ancestor.

they say we are related to monkeys because we look the same,

No they don't. They say we are related to monkeys, great apes, etc, because that' what the evidence shows.

well then i could just say im related to will smith because i look like him, sadly.

You are related to Will Smith though.

but we all are kind of related to each other based on creation so who knows on that one eh?

What kind of creation are you talking about?

some people don't like to believe in God becuase they don't like the fact that he punishes you, if you don't follow him you go to hell!! you sin without repenting you go to hell! well that happens everywhere. you steal something you go to jail, you kill someone you go to jail, you run over cats then use their bodies as door mats you get in trouble with the old lady across the street!!

, and some don't believe in the christian God for a myriad of other reasons. However, it does seem odd to me that a supposedly omnibenevolent and omniscient God has no problem with damning the vast majority of his beloved creatures, to an infinite punishment for finite "sins", with some of the sins no more than believing in a theology not promoted by the christian God.

some people say that the Bible was just thought up by a bunch of bored boys over the past couple thousand years, seriously the Bible was written over a time span of 1500 years, you really think that each one of the authors in the Bible was like "Oh heres a peice of the old testament written 300 years ago, I think ill add on to it just for the hell of it!", come on!! the Bible was written by man, but had to be inspired by God,

probably more apt to say that the Bible was put together by a council of people who decided what was Godly, and disregarded many writings they felt were anti what they thought christianity was about, hell they even rejected some of the other writings of those they already included in their cannon.

and heres an intresting thought, everyone knows about the flood right? most people don't believe it exists and all that, but there have been fossils found in high mountain ranges of sharks, whales, and other animals not indigenous to those areas.

Balderdash! By the way, the world wide flood concept has been falsified for centuries, and it was first falsified by a group comprising of mostly christians.

lioness:
Yap Capishe.
Like i said whatever works for you guys

I guess.

Well, i have believed for so long, not believing is like changing my sex organs

It's possible, but you see no reason to?

but since u have decided to be mr Smart.com ,

Mr. Smart.com? Witty.

tell me, How did your own ancesstor evolve theirs

Mutations and natural selection, in other words, the change in allele frequency of many populations over time. Capische?

lioness:
Interesting, So how did u get your being. Your ability to feel, understand, function etc.

Same way other organisms did . My ancestors evolved those characteristics, and I inherited them.

choice.A:
Well, that's news to me since I haven't heard about that until today. Tell me, is there really a teacup orb___ing the Sun, and is anyone believing that as a religion, ideology or worldview?

there could be, but the point was, if you came across a dogmatic "teacup orbiting the sun" believer, how would you disprove his/her claim?

That all the more amplifies what I've said before - atheism has nothing else to present than refutation and rebuttals in statements; and I've said that will not do. In the same way atheists seek evidence from theists, they should themselves prove with 'evidence' beyond mere rebuttals that there's no God.

Why aren't refutations and rebuttals enough? Once again, not only are you asking for a logical impossibility, you are also ignoring the fact that theists/deists can't prove the existence of God.

I do not see why it is an impossibility in so far as atheism makes an assertion, viz: 'God does not exist.'

Neither do Leprecons, Orcs, or Zeus. Zeus does not exist, translates to I have been presented with no reasonable/logical/unrefuted evidence for his existence, ergo, I'll say he doesn't exist. It is not an assertation per se.

It is rather an escapist theory that negatives cannot be proven - and to rebut that idea is what I attempted to mathematically demonstrate earlier in my simplistic analogy.

I totally missed the point then.

I should not be hard on you for that, but it makes me wonder how uncouth some ideas can be if a human being should be refered to as a mere container. _{unless my sense of humour happens to be on vacation at the moment.}

Don't dwell too much on it, it was intentionally used to convey a point.

In the illustration, you could not be correct if you call 1 man + 1 woman = 2 couple. A couple is a group: it takes two people to make a single couple, isn't it?

Couple equals two, that's the definition of a couple, so 1 man + 1 woman = 2 people in a relationship.

I wasn't engaging in sleight of hand by any stretch.

I couldn't think of a better word at the time, but I hope you got the point I was trying to make.

Atheism goes beyond that to assert that 'there is no God' (afterall, is that not the meaning usually vendored - that 'there is no God'?). Contrary to your statement, atheism says: 'I have not seen proof of the existence of a God, therefore God does not exist!' It is the last clause of that statement that makes atheism what it is.

, but it is the first clause that counts, although like I made clear before before I can't remember running into any atheists that have explictly stated that no deities exist (actually I just remembered this one guy who explictly stated that no God exists, so one). On the other hand I've run into many who have explictly stated, "the chistian God (also known as God, by far too many people), cannot possibly exist", and run into many that have stated that the muslim God (also know as Allah, or the great Satan if you are anti-islam), does not exist.

And what kind of evidence are you asking for? Remember, it did not take a religious belief in the sense of "unrefutable evidence for a God" for Antony Flew to become a deist.

A pillar of fire, walking on a sea, talking ass, etc. Those are always handy.

To take a hard-nosed position of asserting that God does not exist is what atheism is all about;

The christian God, or generic God? And no, atheism isn't the hard nosed assertation that no gods exist.

and that is a claim that cannot be sustained merely by refutation without evidence, or the claim has not substance.

Refutation without evidence? Is that plausible?