Staredit Network

If it didn't exist, we wouldn't have Christians.

I could say that same thing, Cheeze cept about Atheists... "They can't provide evidence"...
And which book did u read?
Why you reject any proof. You obviously are biast and against christians. Why don't you look at it from a neutral side and please specifically tell us what is wrong... Just like I did?

Anything exists as long as you believe in it.

You can't prove that.
We (Christians) are throwing a flurry of punches while you (Atheists) are trying to defend with pitiful blocks and defenses, but it's not doing much good, but we both think we're winning...

What's the point of saying I can't prove that if you won't disprove it?


Just since I don't believe in Christianity doesn't mean that I'm automatically an Atheist. I love how you Christians like to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with their religon is automatically an Atheist.

Yeah, that's why our literally thousands of books, magazines, science articles, etc, should be just thrown away.

I read "The Case for Easter". I thought it was funny book.

I don't reject proof, because you don't have any. I reject faith, however.

I have looked it from a neutral side; I even considered myself religious some time ago. That is, until I realized my "prayers" and all that good stuff was never answered, not only that, but after I learned more about the human history, it was easy for me to conclude god was simply our imagination.

They reject reasonings they dont like (which is pretty much all), not necessarily proofs. Whenever it's something which they dont find comfortable with, they just say "That's not a reason/proof," but really what they mean is "I'm not satisfied with it. I'm not convinced," which is a euphenism of what they normally say.

EDIT:

I dont always see them as atheists. I think most of the nonbelievers out there are actually agnostic rather than atheist, i think...

The goverment invented God so they could control people.

The levity gauge for this post just blew up.

God is used as a point of transition from the goverment to the faith believers.

Then where did we get moral values? How did we divide right from wrong? If you're really THAT MUCH against Christians, I really want you to interview these people and try to convert them into Atheism or something because these guys have actual proof (After all, a book is meaningless to you? Why read History books if it's all fake, why read non-fiction if it could be all edited?)
First I will tell you their name and in the parenthesis, it's what they can answer.
Peter John Kreeft, PH.D (Since Evil and Suffering Exist, a Loving God Cannot.)
Willian Lane Craig, PH.D (Since Miracles Contradict Science, They Cannot be True)
Walter L. Bradley, PH.D (Evolution Explains Life, So God isn't Needed)
Norman L. Geisler, PH.D (God isn't Worthy of Worship if he Kills innocent children)
Ravi Zacharias, D.D., LL.D. (It's offensive to Claim Jeses Is the Only Way to God)
J.P.Moreland, PH.D. (A Loving God would never torture people in Hell)
I'm sure they can answer everything else, but it's just what was in the book
There, there's my proof, where's yours?



ADDITION:

It says in the book:
Even if the first cells were simple, it's really not simple at all.
Essentially, you start with amino acids. They come in eighty different types, but only twenty of them are found in living organisms. The trick, then, is to isolate only the correct amino acids. Then the right amino acids have to be linked together in the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules. Picture those plastic stick-together chains that kids play with--you have to put together the right amino acids in the right way to ultimately get biological function.

You think that doesn't sound very difficult?

It wouldn't be if you were applying your intelligence to the problem and purposefully selecting and assembling the amino acids one at a time. But, remember, this is chemical evolution. It would be unguided by any outside help. And there are a lot of otehr complicating factors to consider.

Such As?

For instance, other molecules tend to react more readily with amino acids than amino acids react with each other. Now you have the problem of how to eliminate these extraneous molecules. Even in the Miller experiment, only two percent of the material he produced was composed of amino acids, so you'd have a lot of otehr chemical material that would gum up the process.
Then there's another complication: there are an equal number of amino acids that are right- and left-handed, and only these select ones to link together in the right sequence. And you also need the correct kind of chemical bonds--namely, peptide bonds--in the correct places in order for the protein to be able to fold in a specific three-dimensional way. Otherwise, it won't function.
It's sort of like a printer taking letters out of a basket and setting type the way they used to do it by hand. If you guide it with your intelligence, it's no problem. But if you just choose letters at random and put them together haphazardly--including upside down and backwards--then what are the chances you'd get words, sentences, and paragraphs that would make sense? It's extremely unlikely.
In the smae way, perhaps one hundred amino acids have to be put together in just ht eright manner to make a protein molecule. And, rmember, that's just the first step. Creating one protein molecule doesn't mean you've created life. Now you have to bring together a collection of protein molecules--maybe two hundred of them--with just the right functions to get a typical living cell.
Even if Miller had been right about the ease with which amino acids could be produced in the primitive earth's atmosphere, nevertheless the process of putting them together into protein molecules and then assembling those into a functioning cell would be mindboggling.
In livnign systems, the guidance that's needed to assemble everything comes from DNA. Every cell of every plant and animal has to have a DNA molecule. Think of it as a little microprocessor that regulates everything. DNA works hand-in-glove with RNA to direct the correct sequencing of animo acids. It's able to do this through biochemical instructions--that is, information--that is encoded on the DNA.

You've yet to disprove me.

HAHA! This is so funny. You cna't accept anything. We have faith + Proof.

And about those thousands of articles/magazines/etc. what if they were edited to seem like it's true?

Neiji, do you now see why these people are aggravating sometimes

Yes, you have faith. But you cannot PROVE anything. You cannot PROVE that "God" exists, and you cannot PROVE "The Bible" is real. It was written by MAN. MAN makes mistakes! Who knows? If "God" really is real, then maybe he was black? or maybe he is a she? THAT IS HOW MESSED UP THE BIBLE IS! It is just another sexist, and racest thing created by MAN.

EDIT: Plus, Faith leads to blindness. Blindness, of the truth. Sure, you have FAITH that god exists, that does not mean that he does. You have FAITH that your religion is the only "True and Real" religion. You only say so because you have FAITH that it is. You cannot push your FAITH unto people to make them believe in "God". Why do you think the Holy War happened? Because of the stupid ass christians of the middle ages (No, I don't hate Christians, but the middle aged christians are morons) trying to push their FAITH upon the people of the Middle East.

You cannot push FAITH unto people, for it causes violence, and anger, and pain.

Even animals have morals. They know killing their young is a bad thing. They don't have a religion. Likewise, we can make our morals through reason, not through a god.


A book that contains misinformed information is obviously meaningless. History books contain accurate information because we actually have tangilbe evidence and proof of events.


Many of the things in your parenthesis are irrelevant to what I beleive in. My problem does not lie in God; instead, it lies in religion. I feel religion is absurd.


Incorrect. By applying the intelligent design theory, it would require you to have even more evidence in your proofs. We can eliminate this silly idea with Occam's Razor.

However, with the current theory, not only is it 100% possible, but it also works quite well. Chance is what guides evolution. Don't think just because the event has a very small chance that it can't happen. Remember, anything that CAN happen, WILL happen as time reaches infinity. (not as infinity, because I don't want to get into that debate again)


Yes, what if! However, science is based on the ability to reproduce an experimenet. All of these "edited" evidence and experiments to prove stuff are reproducable. You can probably ask any college to do any of the experiments for you (excepte those super high costing ones).


I feel the same.

Then you can't be accused of cheating when you have 4 aces in every hand when playing poker, if anything is possible.

And plus, if we had an infinite amount of time to evolve, why aren't we perfect yet?

Nope, because there was a finite time in playing the game. But I already said I don't want to get into the infinite things. It goes into things you don't understand yet. I've already said don't argue things that you don't know.

Expanded: Saying anything is possible does not mean you always have to go to extremes. I can accuse anyone of anything; however, it still will require evidence and such for me to prove it because I made the accusation (Burden of Proof).

What kind of stupid question was that?

Two Reasons:

First: We aren't "Perfect" because we can never be "Perfect".

Second: We haven't been on this planet long enough to fully evolve to our full potential, you idiot.

I've evolved to my full potential. Let's just say....I got 3 legs, know what I'm saying?

Neiji, you are truely ignorant. Never did I say I denied your facts, but you openly avoid my questions to disprove me, which was a joke in a first place. You provide insufficient proof, if none. It's easier to believe in something that you can't see.

Tell me, why doesn't God put faith in all of us?

Because it's choice. That's what free will is, stupid. If you WANT to believe in God, you can, or else, go to Hell when you die. Again, God didn't say that all will go to heaven. Only SOME, the chosen ones, who WANT to believe.

Free will can't exist of omniscience exists.

See? Right there is why I am argueing with you in the Playing God post....

And where did you hear "God" say this? In a book that was written...... By MAN?

Some "Proof" that "God" exists.... A book written by MAN... Ha..... So "Flawless" and so "Perfect"....

God sounds like he went to school on the small bus. I bet his peers laugh at him, cause he sounds like a complete dumbass. Well, the one you're describing anyways.

God: "The way I'm gonna test if people are allowed to come into my kingdom when they die, is if they believed that I existed or not. Even if they had little or no proof that I did. That's how my system is going to go."

Triton: "You should just do if they're good or bad people. Not if they believed in you or not, unless you're gonna assume that all the ones that belived in you were good people. Which is not true, cause if I recall correctly, most of your psycho murders believed you existed."

God: "Well you see Triton, I really don't give a shit. It's my way. You run your world your way, and I run my world my way."

Triton: "Ya. the dumbass way. You stupid ing dumbass. I don't know how in the hell you got your planet liscense. Seriously."