Continuation of Christianity debate.

[Backglass]

ID is just a copout that says "_I_ don't understand how all this could be here, therefore it must be magic".

Applause!

[CrazyAnglican]

Hi the debate is done.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16563

It references this thread so you folks may be interested. If you would like, read it and vote there. If you'd like to discuss it further here I'd like to hear your opinions. Sorry to interrupt, have a good one

[unriggable]

Okay I heard this funny thing at school today. This christian guy told me that he believes the bible pretty strictly except for genesis. Not because of science, but because, as he points out, God can create entire planets and stars with a snap of His fingers yet needs a rib to create Eve.

[beezer]

Okay I heard this funny thing at school today. This christian guy told me that he believes the bible pretty strictly except for genesis. Not because of science, but because, as he points out, God can create entire planets and stars with a snap of His fingers yet needs a rib to create Eve.

He didn't need to...He chose to.

[unriggable]

Okay I heard this funny thing at school today. This christian guy told me that he believes the bible pretty strictly except for genesis. Not because of science, but because, as he points out, God can create entire planets and stars with a snap of His fingers yet needs a rib to create Eve.

He didn't need to...He chose to.

Seems like a laughable choice if you ask me.

[beezer]

In the debate between Juggernaut & CrazyAnglican I voted for CrazyAnglican.

Summary of why: I thought CrazyAnglican stuck more to the point of the debate's topic while Juggernaut deviated a little bit by interpreting Bible verses to his own definitions. CrazyAnglican quoted a variety of sources and addressed the subject from a more worldwide view, while Juggernaut focused almost exclusively on American Christians.

CrazyAnglican's best point: That someone who claims to define what a true versus untrue Christian is, is arguing from "omniscience", which is impossible.

Juggernaut's best point: Although Christianity is growing at a rate of 5%, Christians are actually losing ground because the population growth is at 10.8% per year. CrazyAnglican never tried to really refute that.

I'm not a very good debater, but I would like to see if anyone would be willing to debate me sometime on historical subjects. I've always wanted to argue that it was a bad decision for the US to drop 2 atomic bombs against Japan. I know luns disagrees with me on this, maybe he'll take me up on it when he comes back. These debates don't all have to be religious, do they?

[beezer]

Okay I heard this funny thing at school today. This christian guy told me that he believes the bible pretty strictly except for genesis. Not because of science, but because, as he points out, God can create entire planets and stars with a snap of His fingers yet needs a rib to create Eve.

He didn't need to...He chose to.

Seems like a laughable choice if you ask me.

That's because you don't even believe in God. I doubt you could get past the Table of Contents without thinking it's laughable.

[unriggable]

Okay I heard this funny thing at school today. This christian guy told me that he believes the bible pretty strictly except for genesis. Not because of science, but because, as he points out, God can create entire planets and stars with a snap of His fingers yet needs a rib to create Eve.

He didn't need to...He chose to.

Seems like a laughable choice if you ask me.

That's because you don't even believe in God. I doubt you could get past the Table of Contents without thinking it's laughable.

No, I've read the bible through. There is only one part I find funny - God talks to moses in the form of a burning bush. In the immortal words of Jim Gaffigan - "Moses we think you've been burning some bush!"

[vtmarik]

Okay I heard this funny thing at school today. This christian guy told me that he believes the bible pretty strictly except for genesis. Not because of science, but because, as he points out, God can create entire planets and stars with a snap of His fingers yet needs a rib to create Eve.

He didn't need to...He chose to.

Seems like a laughable choice if you ask me.

That's because you don't even believe in God. I doubt you could get past the Table of Contents without thinking it's laughable.

God creates all of reality with a flick of the wrist, yet he makes woman from a rib? Why?

"Because he wanted to" isn't a viable reason. Kids stop going along with the "because I said so" excuse after age 6.

[Neutrino]

Okay I heard this funny thing at school today. This christian guy told me that he believes the bible pretty strictly except for genesis. Not because of science, but because, as he points out, God can create entire planets and stars with a snap of His fingers yet needs a rib to create Eve.

He didn't need to...He chose to.

Seems like a laughable choice if you ask me.

That's because you don't even believe in God. I doubt you could get past the Table of Contents without thinking it's laughable.

God creates all of reality with a flick of the wrist, yet he makes woman from a rib? Why?

"Because he wanted to" isn't a viable reason. Kids stop going along with the "because I said so" excuse after age 6.

Hmm, that implies that God is a 6 year old child, which, if he does exist, does not bode well for the universe in general.

[unriggable]

Okay I heard this funny thing at school today. This christian guy told me that he believes the bible pretty strictly except for genesis. Not because of science, but because, as he points out, God can create entire planets and stars with a snap of His fingers yet needs a rib to create Eve.

He didn't need to...He chose to.

Seems like a laughable choice if you ask me.

That's because you don't even believe in God. I doubt you could get past the Table of Contents without thinking it's laughable.

God creates all of reality with a flick of the wrist, yet he makes woman from a rib? Why?

"Because he wanted to" isn't a viable reason. Kids stop going along with the "because I said so" excuse after age 6.

Hmm, that implies that God is a 6 year old child, which, if he does exist, does not bode well for the universe in general.

It would explain the existence of the snake - just a thing of clay you roll with your hands.

[beezer]

No, I've read the bible through. There is only one part I find funny - God talks to moses in the form of a burning bush. In the immortal words of Jim Gaffigan - "Moses we think you've been burning some bush!"

"Because he wanted to" isn't a viable reason. Kids stop going along with the "because I said so" excuse after age 6.

Hmm, that implies that God is a 6 year old child, which, if he does exist, does not bode well for the universe in general.

Very funny. You can all memorize those lines for the day when you face Him as your judge.

[unriggable]

No, I've read the bible through. There is only one part I find funny - God talks to moses in the form of a burning bush. In the immortal words of Jim Gaffigan - "Moses we think you've been burning some bush!"

"Because he wanted to" isn't a viable reason. Kids stop going along with the "because I said so" excuse after age 6.

Hmm, that implies that God is a 6 year old child, which, if he does exist, does not bode well for the universe in general.

Very funny. You can all memorize those lines for the day when you face Him as your judge.

I expect to see him as much as I expect my heart to be weighed on a balance before the sun god Ra.

[CrazyAnglican]

In the debate between Juggernaut & CrazyAnglican I voted for CrazyAnglican.

Thank you, for the vote and your thoughts.

[MeDeFe]

Very funny. You can all memorize those lines for the day when you face Him as your judge.

So we're back to the old, "just you wait"-argument - again. Really, threatening people into joining your side is NOT a good method of creating a stable and content community. History has showed that repeatedly already.

And yes, I do think it is funny. The contrast between an omnipotent, omniscient being that is beyond all human understanding (despite these definitions being made up by humans) and a 6 year old child is too big for it not to be.

[heavycola]

Very funny. You can all memorize those lines for the day when you face Him as your judge.

So we're back to the old, "just you wait"-argument - again. Really, threatening people into joining your side is NOT a good method of creating a stable and content community. History has showed that repeatedly already.

And yes, I do think it is funny. The contrast between an omnipotent, omniscient being that is beyond all human understanding (despite these definitions being made up by humans) and a 6 year old child is too big for it not to be.

And, as far as i can tell the god of the OT is not above a little petulance and cruelty now and again.

[MeDeFe]

But then, I don't think a book (any book) is a good guide to divining into the nature of a being that supposedly created the universe.

[nunz]

Using one scientific proof to show how arguments against me might be wrong is perfectly valid.

So the scientific method is the best way to learn about the world around us?

Or is the bible the best way?

Or is the scientific method the best way, when you think it's results support the bible?

The bible isn't a science book. It is a history of God's interaction with the world / universe and more particularly human beings. Using the bible as a scientific manual would be very difficult and leave whopping great gaps in your knowledge as that is not what it is designed for.
However, having said that, I have found people who are pushing 'scientific truths' in contrast or opposition to something they see in the bible (normally belief in a creative god) say the bibles science is faulty or try to use science to debunk the bible. In the areas they try to show the bible is wrong I am happy to point out that the bible generally agrees with what 'good science' has shown and where there is disagreement it is normally in the areas of modern scientific theory (e.g. ideas about a concept which are not yet proven).
Most of my posts have used science to disprove or question what is being given as absolute proofs or truths that the bible is wrong. At times I will quote parts of the bible or show how science may backup the bibles claims but I wouldn't say the bible is a scientific text book full of absolute truths about scientific facts.
Is the scientific way the best way to learn about the world around us? Depends. The physical world yes. The spiritual world ...no. The emotional / soulish world. Sometimes.
I have however found that science combined with a belief in a creative God makes much more sense of the world around us than an atheistic point of view. Even Stephen Hawkins, in his rational attempt to calculate the chances of humans happening by chance and evolution, has come to admit that he is much more inclined to believing in a 'higher power' or creative force. He states the odds are just too high to be believable that we are random accidents.

[nunz]

nunz, this might be difficult for you to grasp, but there are more dating methods than just going by C-14.

Why have you presumed I am thick? I never said there were not other dating methods. I just said that all those who keep pushing C-14 at me have no basis to stand on as it is not able to be substantiated beyond about 50k years and even then is standing on flawed ground in many cases.
I am not dumb, although many people believe Christians to have some how turned in their brains at the door. I graduated top 2% or less of my country in the country wide exams in the areas of physical sciences and biology. And this is a country known for producing some great scientists.

All my discussions / arguments have been strictly towards the topic presented to me. As a student of the sciences / art of behaviourism and educational developmental processes I know that the best way to teach is to make peoples brains itch by disturbing their current thought patterns (by positively disproving a 'known fact') and then only starting the process of educating when they come thirsting to have that disturbance in their thoughts filled or slaked in some way.

You are the first to mention or bring up other dating methods in a serious manner. So now .. let us debate


quote="MeDeFe"]

Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

....
The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. ..

....[/quote]
Scientists have refined their earlier estimates.... two words. Refined (ie changed) and estimates (a best guess based on current knowledge).
What would happen if they refined their estimates again given a new piece of knowledge, say the knowledge that the ratios of elements are not steady over time?
Current estimates of radioactive ratios are not based on hard fact but on best guess estimates, which are based on extrapolations of data, which are based on current observations of the state of the world around us, and also on the belief that there are some static ratios / variables over time. They are a theory, and as such must be treated like a theory. My theory involves creation - others theory's involve random chance. However neither of us has a 'truth' or absolute fact to stand on, just best guesses supported by what we know.

As with carbon dating, the ratios of radioactive isotopes need to be steady across time in order to be used as a measure of age. What if, like C14, the ratios in the atmosphere were not steady? That would stuff up all estimates. At best, radioactive isotope comparison is an educated guess based on hypothesis based on current levels of isotope and also based on a previous assumption about the age of the world.
Many of the hypothesis about dating using methods similar to C14 are also founded in the circular logic of ... look - this dinosaur bone has these ratios of elements, and it is evident that these ratios have been achieved because the bone is x years old because it is a dinosaur, and they only lived x years ago. Therefore other things with this ratio must also have been around at the time of the dinosaur and so they are as old as the dinosaurs so the ratio shows they are x years old too.

.....

A species having to adapt to new circumstances and changing in the process is commonly called "evolution".
How have you debunked that? Not at all as I see it. ....

No it is called adaptation and mistakenly called evolution by people brain washed in our flawed educational systems.
Have I debunked adaptation? No. It exists. Is it evolution. No.

There is no fossil proof (slow change over time is not shown in fossil records) of adaptation leading to new species. Same species with slightly different characteristics, YES!!. Different species .. No!!

If you believe adaptation is evolution coz animals of the same species have differing characteristics then you will have to call Asians, Negros, Caucasians and Americans different species. Should I now treat them as different species to me because they have different characteristics to me? Of course not. We are one species, differing characteristics, caused by an adaptation to our environment. We are however not differently evolved species. Adaptation does not equal evolution.

.....
You say that "evolutionists" have no proof and that creationism has all the proof.

Did I? Please quote me as I cant recall saying that ... ever.

Yet you don't care to bring up any coherent argument against the theory of evolution, nor do you bring up any coherent arguments for creationism, you said somewhere that "creation" is the proof that god exists. But you didn't care to explain what you mean.

I have bought up many coherent arguments against the theory of evolution by slow change. Read my previous posts. There must be at least one coherent argument in all my ramblings
I have also given many possible proofs for creationism (dust levels on the moon, possibility of there being a flood as there is evidence which can be interpreted as flood damage, the evidence of the impossibility that random chance produced humanity, disproofs of unsound evolutionary theory ....). As I said previously, I don't have all the answers, but so far have argued against the so called 'proofs of evolution' on mostly scientific grounds. I am not some bible toting nut job who expects you to believe the bible just coz I say its true. However where it is congruent with scientific fact and relevant to the debate at hand I have used it to provoke some thought.

If you want me to delve into philosophy about why God must exists, I am happy to do that. However, so far I have just answered creationisms critics by debunking scientific in-accuracy. If you want to move onto my playing field and discuss metaphysical ideas and theories about why God must exist I am happy to do that. However this is a creation thread if I remember correctly

Is it really so hard to imagine that gradual changes over a long enough period of time in different groups that were originally one species can lead to different species?

No, it is not hard to imagine that at all. It is however impossible to prove as a fact using fossil evidence. Darwin imagined it and used it as a way to explain how God may have gone about creating stuff (Darwin was a theist incidentally). Since then scientists have corrected Darwinian evolution (survival of the fittest via slow adaptation over time) and are now kicking around the idea of sudden changes / mutations. Reading my previous posts you will see why I do not believe that can work either. Mostly to do with incompatibility for breeding purposes across divergent but similar species and the sheer astronomical impossibility of the chances of that happening (which Stephen Hawkins now says is almost impossible too).

As for your question about why dinosaurs went extinct, I had a brief look using google and wikipedia, theories are that either one massive asteroid (Chicxulub Crater) or several smaller asteroids hit earth and threw so much dust into the atmosphere that there was a massive global cooldown and change in the climate causing the dinosaurs to die out.
Other theories include an ice age, disease or a gradual climate change.

Two interesting thoughts for the day ...
1) If there were meteors ( or small meteors) that threw up that much dust that dinosaurs carked it ... wouldn't that also completely bugger up radioactive isotope ratios as a form of dating. Why? Coz the isotope ratios would have changed during that period and without consistent levels of isotopes in the atmosphere then radioactive ratios cannot be used with any accuracy for dating purposes.
2) Why two different theories? Well .. because there is no proof to prove either theory beyond any form of the most tenuous reasonable doubt. Both theories are just another form of FUD designed to support a presupposed theory about evolution versus creation. At least there is more physical proof for a flood than there are for meteorites which may or may not have existed and may or may not have caused dust clouds which may or may not have killed the dinosaurs.

I think that's also what unriggable meant when he spoke of "surges in complexity", not complexity of individual animals, but complexity in the pattern of existing animals. A sudden change in other words. And by "sudden" I mean like 10M years.

If it took 10M years then where is the fossil evidence? All fossil evidence shows are either sudden (and I mean 1 generation) jumps between species by mutation or else two totally different but similar species (e.g. Goats and sheep).

[nunz]

Careful nunz,

The more you try to explain Christianity to these guys the more of a risk you run of having backglass use the word "magic" in many different forms. He also likes to use the phrase "red pill". He uses the word "magic" more than the Lucky Charms leprechaun!

yeah but I am not only the rational one (if you compare me to backglass) but I am also winning most of these arguments .. having just debunked apes being closer to us than pigs, polished off C14 dating and debunked the myth of the age of the universe as shown by a constantly expanding universe.
.....
However the evolution farce is far more non-sensical than spacie freeker theory and as a rational scientist I just cant swallow it. It is far too unbelievable. Unfortunately it a theory which has obtained religious cult status as it is a convenient way to avoid the possibility there is a God.

BTW - backglass and I are very similar I suspect. I brew my own beer, wine and cider. I am getting a still soon. Maybe enough alcohol poisoning will allow me to become an evolutionist

Nunz - you are not a rational scientist. You throw things out there like, 'how about dinosaur fossils buried shallower than human fossils?' without citing anyone.

Good call. I'll try to cite more often.
However, I do believe I am a rational scientist. My arguments are logical and my science has been pretty sound in most aspects to do with C14 dating, adaptation versus evolution and fossil evidence of slow change. It has also been quite diverse quoting everything from Hubble to Hawkins.
In general I have not used the bible to prove creationism but have used science to debunk common evolutionary science. I think I am Scientient in my arguments, lack of cites aside

You have decided evolution is false not because your 'rational scientific' faculties have sieved the evidence but because yoru religious beliefs forbid it. You state that creationism is actually more valid because it is older! You haven't debunked a single thing - you have used the usual creationist sophistry and disingenuousness to try and poke holes in evolutionary theory. That's all. And you have failed.

My religious beliefs DO NOT preclude evolution. I have poked holes in the science given as proof of evolution but not by being disingenuous as far as I can see. C14 is no proof of fossils being millions of years old, fossil evidence does not support slow change over time and sudden jumps via mutation is an unsupportable theory for many reasons.

Sometimes I will dump in a random idea to provoke discussion and thought. The idea that creation is more valid as it is older is one such example. However put that comment back in context. I was debunking the idea that evolution is a better theory because it is newer and also debunking the claim that it is older than creationism as a theory so it must be more valid. Maybe I should have added irony quotes around that statement.

Now as too creationist sohpistry ... a sophist is generally a philosopher and most of the 'usual creationist' arguments are based on people blindly believing what the bible says we say it came from God. I have neither claimed the world was created in six literal days, nor have I used philosophy as the main stays of my arguments. Instead I have normally stuck to scientific fact. In fact if I remember correctly it was me that got this thread to accept C14 as an invalid argument for dating fossils. There is one common evolutionary myth debunked for starters. I also have been consistent in running with the modern evolutions theory that slow change via adaptation is not valid, thus agreeing with that line of evolutionary thought when they say that fossil records don't support the slow change camp.

I would have to say my responses have been far from the normal creationist tack, which is why there have been a couple of posts aimed at my methods of attack rather than the arguments I have used.

Now to clear up a couple of points.
1 - I am a creationist / theist. I believe in a creative God who created all things
2 - I am not a strict six day creationist. It is not strictly supportable from the bible as a scientific fact and in fact is mentioned in the first three chapters of Genesis which have a different literary type to the rest of Genesis thus creating the need to not necessarily take it as the strict literal truth.
3 - If anyone can point out why my Christian beliefs preclude evolution then I would be interested to hear from them. At present I don't think they do.
4 - As stated previously, I have debunked bad science, mostly using science and logic. As far as I am aware I haven't used the bible as any form of scientific proof what so ever.

Please be careful before you stereo type me. You are claiming I believe things that I do not believe. In fact, if you wanted a good argument for and against evolution then common redundancies in DNA chains belonging to hominids and humans would be an excellent start. It is at least scientifically provable and consistent with evolution rather than a theory pretending to be an absolutely, completely proven (or even semi provable) fact.

How about, instead of 'proving' that apes are not closer to humans than pigs, or whatever, you set out the arguments FOR creationism. NOT why evolution is wrong, but why creationism is right. And as a rational scientist you won't be referring to the bible as a source.

I never proved that pigs are closer to humans than apes, but did throw it in as an idea because the organs and structures are often more compatible than apes structures. Therefore is it proof we came from pigs? It uses the same logic as believing we come from apes but relies on a better science, namely genetics rather than external similarities such as body shape. Again put it back in context. It was just pointing out the fallacy of saying we come from apes coz we look like them.


I am happy to look at the proofs for creationism. It will get done, it just might take a little bit of time as three small kids and my own business keep me pretty busy. The bible can prove nothing about creationism(unless you have faith) so it is not a basis I would use with you to start with. However, it can prove a lot about God and that too is a mainstay of this whole discussion.

The Evolution by chance versus Creationism is about two things:
1 - Is there a God?
2 - Is there scientific proof either way?
Philosophically I can make a good case for a god or creative force. Logically I can too. However, like all scientific evidence physical 'proofs' can be interpreted in multiple ways. You might say any proof I give can also be interpreted for evolution or is not physically provable. Any discussion we had about a pro creationist standpoint would have to accept that evidence is often interpreted and it is eventually the weight of evidence which decides for one camp or another with a single proof often not standing on its own but the weight deciding.

So which is most important to you?
A) Looking at scientific evidence to see if it can support creation
or B) looking at whether or not there is a God?

Which tack should be take?

[nunz]

.....
You haven't proved anything BTW...you have not shown sources, you have not disproved anyhting really.
....
Christians are just as much scientists as anybody else.

It seems people want evidence for creation, not just debunking of evolution from me. Cool . I will try to oblige over the next week or so.

I will also cite more often, something I have been crap at previously. (Ooops .. did I say crap? Funnily enough it is a word found in the bible too ... Jesus used the Aramaic form of it in at least one of his parables. )

I will attempt to show how scientific evidence can be used to prove a creationist view point and hopefully contrast it to the evolutionary line of thought. But bear with me, it might take time owing to 3 small boys, a wife and a business.

CU Soon.

[nunz]

However evolution is able to be debunked where as creation theory in all its historical glory is quite provable, as long as you accept the possibility of a supreme being that we Christians call God.

And therein lies the rub.

backglass and I are very similar I suspect. I brew my own beer, wine and cider. I am getting a still soon. Maybe enough alcohol poisoning will allow me to become an evolutionist

Woohoo Homebrew! BTW, distilling is illegal in the US (not sure where you are) so be careful...not to mention dangerous. As a law abiding right-wing christian I am sure you wouldn't do anything against the law.

And having a beer or two (or three) hasn't turned me into an evolutionist yet so I think your safe.

Right wing? What is that? I think my lecturer in comparitive religions tried to put me in that camp too. He was an ex-catholic priest, marxist leninist, atheist. However he frustrated with me because I A) had brains and could use them and B) didn't stay in the nice square (pun intended) box he kept trying to cage me in.
If right wing means deintological rather than hedonist .. then yes I am. However as a kolbergian level seven thinker I don't fit the deintological model either.

Also as a Christian shouldn't I be left wing? Wasn't Jesus a radical hippy (vis a vis the beard and robe and sandals) who lashed out at the hierarchy of the day, promoted civil disobedience and was incited as leading a popularist revolt on behalf of the poor and down trodden (almost marxist one would say).

I am not in the USA and here we can brew and distill. <troll>The petrol companies haven't killed our freedom here yet </troll>

Petrol companies you say? Yep ... prohibition was about oil, not drunkeness if you look at history in a certain light. Now isn't that an interesting theory? I believe you should assert your freedom to distill and over throw the shackles of capitalist interventionist oppression. If child porners and nazis can have freedom to express themselves then how about drunks and methonal driven cars? And tax .. revolt against tax. It is slavery in disguise, an illegal bondage foisted by the upperclass on the middle class and used to keep the lower class poor.

right wing enough for you :-b

[nunz]

If God does exist and it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt, then what are the ramifications of that to you personally?

If God does not exist and it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that life arose by random chance/natural processes, what are the ramifications of that to you personally?

First one - makes me uneasy to think that I cannot control my life. Also, I hate being judged.

[/quote]
Doesn't God give you more control not less? If you are truly the product of randomness then you have no choice. Free thought is not possible if we are just random electrons. Free thought requires the direction of a force beyond the influence of its environment in order to make a self determined action (including thought) possible.

One of the strongest tennants of Christianity (and Judaism, Islam, Bhuddism ...) is the ability to choose our actions and take responsibility for them. More control not less. However with great power comes great responsibility (to quote spiderman).

Second one - I am feeling secure knowing I control my life. When you die, you die, there is no second life.

But in all honestly, I'm starting to think that I see the planet that way. Think about it, it sets the conditions of life and life changes in accordance to it. It's the decider. At any given point the planet can screw up and we could all die.

My friend .. if you truly think you are in control of your life you are deluded. We have free choice and the ability to react as we see fit but control is an illusion. True security comes only through knowing there is something / someone bigger than any thing that can be thrown at you waiting to help you if you need help.

[nunz]

Luns, only a few people preach that way. Most atheists just don't do religion. I've been atheist my entire life, it's not like I quit a curch and looked for a replacement. Those are unitarians.

Atheism is a belief or religion. It is a belief there is no god or gods. To be an atheist you have come to the point of saying, 'there is no god!!'.

However, an agnostic / agnosticism on the other hand is not a religion or belief. It is an understanding that a person doesn't know whether or not there is a god and so is undecided. Agnostics have no belief either way.

A - No , theis - God = Atheist

To be an Atheist you must state, "There is no god / gods". You make a statement of belief. Is atheism a belief? Yes it is. The only person who can know for sure there is no god is a person who knows everything about every corner of every universe or state of being there is. If you do not know everything (being omniscient) then there is the possibility God is sitting in the corner of some room, on a planet circling another star somewhere or maybe is out to lunch in another universe or plane of being.

Just because an atheist states there is no god does not make it true. It only makes it a statement of belief.

[nunz]

does it matter if a god exsists it should only matter how u live your life, and if one or many do exsist and when you die the entity(s) is standing/floating or whateva it is that entities do, should it/they make a judgement based on whether u believed in them or whether you where a decent person? the point is, regardless of higher being(s) you just need to be a good person, thats all.

What is a good or decent person? Whose measure do we use?

In the same way a ruler cannot define how tall it is without an external measure of accuracy, so a person or society (or humanity) cannot decide whether they are decent or not without an external measure of decency. For humans we use our familys, friends, society etc to define decency. Those in turn need a higher authority. Eventually a god is needed.

You need both faith / and works to be a truely decent person.
Faith or belief in an external morality (God) allows you to have an external measure to live up to or decide your decency against. Works are the outworking of that belief or faith in decency in practical terms as you try to attain a 'real' (not varying) measure of decency.

You therefore find yourself also in need of forgiveness or in threat of punishment as no human is perfect and we all fail at some point. I know of no person who 100% lives up to their own sense of decency little less anybody else's ideal of decency.

I think it does matter if a god exists. Without one we have anarchy and no sense of decency.