Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Neoteny]

Don't take my posts personally. I am presenting arguments that people can take or leave. Making personal attacks isnt going to help anyone.

I only responded in kind. Don't worry about me, I've seen the tripe you've posted a hundred times. You'll be hard-pressed to offend me as the foundation of my worldview is not so fragile as to require such a meager defense.

[Neoteny]

Also, don't take my brusque tone as a defensive one. Take it more along the lines of dismissal.

[MatYahu]

"Sky Tyrants"? well that is dangerously close to a common disease in the atheist community known as "Santa Syndrome"...When was the last time you mocked Santa or the Easter bunny, or the tooth fairy? Who mocks something they don't believe in? They set up straw man arguments comparing belief in a Creator to belief in Santa, but what they fail to realize is that intelligent people stop believing in Santa when they come to the age of reason, yet continue their belief in the Creator for the rest of their lives...

Now, many atheists will try to claim theists are just "stupid" and that's why they believe...I can only reply to such an intelligent comment with a list of some theists who are quite genius. Here is just a little taste of the men being accused by atheists of being "stupid".....Neils Bohr, Louis Pasteur, Franz Boas, Werner Heisenberg, Enrico Fermi, Francis Collins, William Harvey, John von Neumann, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Frank Tipler, and many more..(Here is a few sites for more famous men of science and genius theists http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html - http://www.biblequery.org/Science/Scientists.htm)

Acting arrogant wont get us anywhere...I would just ask that we treat each other the way we would like to be treated...There was a post that asked for evidence, i decided to give some of the reasons why I believe, thats all...

[PLAYER57832]

God didnt need to have a beginning. Humans will never understand this concept because we are created. We can not comprehend infinity because we had a beginning. We then logically can not comprehend something that did not begin.

Which is exactly what I said and you would have realized that, had you bothered to actually read what I wrote, instead of simply trying to criticize every sentence I wrote individually.

As I said before, the real truth is that we just don't know and likely are a very long way from really knowing how our universe began.

If you claim to be a christian then you do know. The bible clearly states how and why the world and man were created.

Not really. Genesis is not a scientific text and was never intended to be one. It is not allegory, no, but look up the word "day" in the dictionary. It can mean a set, 24-hour period. OR, it can mean something far more general. While in this forum, and in many other places, those who wish to claim the words can "only" mean the shorter time frame seem to dominate at times, in the real world most Christians accept that both Evolution and Creation in the Bible can be true.

As a Christian, yes, I "know" God exists and is real and created all. I see "proof" every day. However, I know it is not the kind of proof I can convey readily to other people who disbelieve. In scientific terms, it is not reproducable by an independent source with consistancy, so it is not proof. So, even though I believe in the core of my being that God is here, right here, with me, I cannot say I have proof, not in the scientific sense.

(erg) "for His Glory" The sad thing (and another reason I dislike christians) is they have comformed to the worlds ideas and intergrated versions of creation and science to appear more reasonable and "scientific" and also so they dont appear foolish in believing that childrens fable called creation.

Please, you are referring only to a small (growing, but still the minority) group of Christians, not, by any means all Christians. Most Christians fully accept science.

If you are a christian you CANNOT subscribe to any part of the theory of evolution and its relations to man. We were supposedly created in the IMAGE of God. As such we would need absolutely NO genetic variation or changes. Our advantage would be God gave us "dominion over the beast of the field" and gave us a mind and breathed in us the "breath of life"

This is absolutely not true... at all. This sounds much more like something I have heard espoused by KKK members ... that only one race was created in God's image, not all.

The Bible tells us God created all, it gives a very loose description of the end points and process, but is definitely not a detailed scientific text. I have dealt with this in a lot more detail before, but going through Genesis line by line takes more time than I care to take right now.

2.Helping strangers is sociology/anthropology. In Judaism and Christianity, we are taught to help others "because it is the right thing to do". However, you find that idea within most cultures and religions. Why? because we benefit. If the culture supports helping each other, then we can work together to accomplish goals. This is not possible when everyone else is an "enemy". So, ironically, this trait, while not a "genetic" trait necessarily, is actually a "survival of the fittest" trait.

Selfishness is a trait of human nature. You are wrong to claim helping people is. Every child must be TAUGHT to share and to help others. And they must be told WHY. We are not naturally helpful and kind. Any culture in which this "helpfulness" is displayed is actually selfishness not "helping" or "caring" about others. Its selfish because they do it only to ensure their own survival or mayhaps as a bargaining chip but in the end the only reason people do things to help others is cause they see some benefit for themselves in the long run.

Now you make it clear you don't really "get" the distinctions here. I will simply say 2 points. First, while children take, they also do share... and that happens even without direct parental involvement, but not as dependably and certianly not as quickly. Also complex social factors are not absolutely genetic. They have to passed on through socialization. Still, they do help us to survive because we are much, much stronger when we work together than when we don't.

If Evolution WAS true...then as I stated above the only time we would help people was when it help us. such as we would let the poor starving africans starve because it WOULD be counter productive to help them when we can never expect to receive back from them.

It is a fact within the Bible, Christianity. It is not something you can prove to someone who disbelieves the Bible. Therefore it is not really a "fact", not in the scientific context. Sorry.

you are supremely stupid here. Gravity was a fact before it was proven. Christopher Columbus KNEW the world was not flat before it was proven. Facts are Facts where you chose to believe them or not. Some would contest that the very existance of the universe is fact enough of a creator. You may deny it all you want but it doesnt change Fact.

Interesting that you would try to call me "stupid" here.

2. You need to read C.S.Lewis -Mere christianity. He easily proves that morals can only come from a Higher power of some sort. Example-- People obey laws why? Because someone higher made the law and said it must be followed. If they don't there is a punishment

At this, I just had to laugh. I not only read C.S. Lewis, I studied him in a Christian college.

Right now, I am just too tired to deal with this further. However, I am not sure I should anyway. Nothing you say really seems to be what you think... just haphazard attempts at disputing anything I say. In other words, trolling more than any real attempt at discussion.

[Neoteny]

"Sky Tyrants"? well that is dangerously close to a common disease in the atheist community known as "Santa Syndrome"...When was the last time you mocked Santa or the Easter bunny, or the tooth fairy? Who mocks something they don't believe in? They set up straw man arguments comparing belief in a Creator to belief in Santa, but what they fail to realize is that intelligent people stop believing in Santa when they come to the age of reason, yet continue their belief in the Creator for the rest of their lives...

When was the last time you saw a stable adult seriously claiming Santa Claus exists? I don't mock Santa because he is roundly recognized to be a created character. You, I imagine, take your god (whichever one you claim; Baal?) very seriously, as do quite a few others. If you believed in Santa with the same zeal as you believe in a creator god, then I would mock your belief in Santa as well. The evidence for the existence of Santa is just as strong as the evidence for the existence of a god. It's all in your head, it's just socially acceptable for you to hold on to gods past your early teens for some reason.

Now, many atheists will try to claim theists are just "stupid" and that's why they believe...I can only reply to such an intelligent comment with a list of some theists who are quite genius. Here is just a little taste of the men being accused by atheists of being "stupid".....Neils Bohr, Louis Pasteur, Franz Boas, Werner Heisenberg, Enrico Fermi, Francis Collins, William Harvey, John von Neumann, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Frank Tipler, and many more..(Here is a few sites for more famous men of science and genius theists http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html - http://www.biblequery.org/Science/Scientists.htm)

I definitely do not claim that theists are "just stupid." I drunkenly commended you for being capable of putting together coherent sentences, which is a nice break from the usual, but I assume that issue stems more from the internet than from religion. Most of my family and friends are theists, and I do not think they are stupid for believing. I really wish you would stop foisting your prejudices upon me.

Indeed, I am well aware of all those famous theistic scientists as I, too, am a scientist. I could happily add plenty more to your list of 100. The wonderful thing is, though, that I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself. Intelligent men are just as susceptible to being wrong as stupid ones. I don't claim to be better than those scientific greats, but I do feel that their opinions on the issue the existence of a god is flawed. I reckon most of them would not be offended by that.

Acting arrogant wont get us anywhere...I would just ask that we treat each other the way we would like to be treated...There was a post that asked for evidence, i decided to give some of the reasons why I believe, thats all...

That's fine. I am fully capable of toning it down for you if you'd like. It turns out, though, that what you were posting as "evidence" was really fairly blatant, and may I say uneducated, as there are certain keywords that will clue a scientist in that a person might not fully understand what is being discussed, attacks on very basic tenets of science, as well as on the intelligence of atheists. You request less arrogance, but the post that I responded to was chock full of it (even ignoring the inherent arrogance of belief). As I said, I feel I was only responding in kind.

[BigBallinStalin]

Undeniable proof

This is the closest we'll get in this thread's topic.

[MeDeFe]

Undeniable proof

This is the closest we'll get in this thread's topic.

That was... oddly satisfying.

[Lionz]

BBS,

How am I running in circles if that's the case?

PLAYER,

The Father Himself is not bound by things called the first and second law of thermodynamics and the heavens themselves are in a natural sense at least maybe.

How many die-offs has earth had if scripture traces the Son all the way to Adam and Adam was created from earth?

And are you meaning to argue in favor of universal common descent and macroevolution? If you are meaning to and yet claim to be a Christian at the same time, did death bring man into existance and man bring death into existance?

There are certain kinds of animals and they naturally bring forth variety after their kinds perhaps. I'm not sure anyone's ever meant to argue that wolves and coyotes don't share common ancestory maybe, but would seeing different dog breeds and then jumping to a conclusion that dogs and bananas have common ancestory not be taking a leap of logic and faith?

How many mutations have occured that are overall beneficial for survival and passing on genes? Being born without feet might help you avoid getting athelete's foot, but would that help someone survive or pick up ladies and would that not actually be the result of a loss of genetic information regardless? How many are there that you can list?

And what about survival of the fittest would explain someone from the States trying to send an anonymous monetary donation to strangers in Africa? Has that not occured?

And then you claim something is why Creationist have no credibility amongst scientists like there are not scientists who believe in Creation? Maybe we should spend more time poking at statements of ourselves and less time poking at statements of others. What are we doing for Him?

Jones,

Are watches and the heavens naturally bound by scientific laws? Is the Father?

Imaweasel,

Some charts found online that back you perhaps...









Who wants to see a chart concerning teen suicides or divorces or SAT scores?

Neoteny,

If entropy decreased on earth without something on earth capable on converting sunlight into usable energy, then what happened? Did usable energy come to earth from something that was not the sun?

Do you theorize that universal common descent is true and that all life stems from one single celled organism?

You say that everything the religionist says to back up his claims of there being a creator is nothing more than statements that have no evidence to support them, and sometimes they have to deny what we do know about the universe to accept them? And say that while holding that spontaneous generation has occured and while suggesting the second law of thermodynamics has been overcome on earth specifically and the universe in general? What do you claim has been denied?

And am I supposed to take you seriously if you are meaning to claim that there is a level of evidence for Him and a level of evidence for Santa that are equal? Do you have an explanation for Bode's Law?

NY2,

Are the Dead Sea scrolls not at least 1,900 years old and can we not personally study Dead Sea scrolls ourselves? Then there is the LXX and more you should consider maybe. What's really been changed?

[stahrgazer]

Proof:
A child's smile
Heather and other flora blooming
The sound of the ocean
The rhythm of the sunrise
That, at the very smallest essence of our being, there is only "empty space" holding together our bodies; working in ways it should not, defying gravity and even magnetism

When science truly figures out why all these things do what they do, "science" will have discovered "God"
Until then, it's like Newton's law of gravity: You accept that there is a law for what is observed, even when you don't understand precisely what that law is; all you can do for 'evidence' is observe that things are occurring, and try to figure out the pattern for it.

After all, we have ZERO direct proof of Newton's Law of Gravity. None. Whatsoever. All we have is proof that "some force" is operating on apples, making them fall to the ground instead of toward the clouds. Newton called that, "gravity," and defined a pattern for it which is now called a law.

I observe the ocean, the heather, the ocean, the sunrise, and call that "God" and define the pattern for it as "love." No one knows what "gravity" looks like. Neither do I know what "God" looks like. I can only observe how it operates. And just as birds fly, defying gravity due to other factors, I can observe other things and see that they defy how God operates.

If it was good enough "science" for textbooks to accept Newton, it should be good enough "science" for this. In other words, if Newton can do it, so can I, and so can the rest of us.

[jonesthecurl]

There is a difference between the rigorous working out of a natural law (Newton didn't just say "apples fall- I'll call that the law of gravity") and some airy-brained mouthing about love and god.

[PLAYER57832]

"Sky Tyrants"? well that is dangerously close to a common disease in the atheist community known as "Santa Syndrome"...When was the last time you mocked Santa or the Easter bunny, or the tooth fairy? Who mocks something they don't believe in? They set up straw man arguments comparing belief in a Creator to belief in Santa, but what they fail to realize is that intelligent people stop believing in Santa when they come to the age of reason, yet continue their belief in the Creator for the rest of their lives...

When was the last time you saw a stable adult seriously claiming Santa Claus exists? I don't mock Santa because he is roundly recognized to be a created character. You, I imagine, take your god (whichever one you claim; Baal?) very seriously, as do quite a few others. If you believed in Santa with the same zeal as you believe in a creator god, then I would mock your belief in Santa as well. The evidence for the existence of Santa is just as strong as the evidence for the existence of a god. It's all in your head, it's just socially acceptable for you to hold on to gods past your early teens for some reason.

Neoteny, I respect you, but this post shows a lack of reason, not reason. We are no more foolish for believing in God than you are for disbelieving.

I fully agree that Matyahu has not come forth with the best of reasoning, but when you implicate a fundamental believe in God, as opposed to specific arguments voice, you implicate all who believe.

[BigBallinStalin]

Lionz, show evidence for God.

[Snorri1234]

Lionz, show evidence for God.

[BigBallinStalin]

Lionz, show evidence for God.

I STAND CORRECTED!!

I'M A NEW STALIN NOW!! Never will I justify my actions with complete disregard to its moral consequences. For every time I take a step, I will now take caution, for I might squish an innocent bug and cause unforgettable misfortune and regret.

[Lionz]

BBS,

Is there not love that is? What about survival of the fittest would explain someone from the States trying to send an anonymous monetary donation to strangers in Africa? Has that not occured?

Is there not something called Bode's Law that is? Is there not a distance relationship between bodies in the solar system that suggests planets were placed in a certain way by Someone intelligent?

Is there not a lack of observed abiogenesis that is? Should we assume spontaneous generation has occured?

Is there not fulfilled prophecy that is? Did Daniel not prophetically predict rising and falling of a number of empires? Is there not prophecy concerning Yahushua (sp?) that's older than Mary and that has to do with Name and family line and place of birth and places of growing up and being betrayed for a certain amount of money and being betrayed by a friend and being abandoned by friends and way of death and timing of death and having garments parted and being offered vinegar and sky being darkened during day and being resurrected and timing between death and resurrection and more?

Are there not sexual organs that are? Would RNA transcription errors at individual levels explain penises and vaginas? Maybe it seems as though they were made for eachother or at least one for the other. Was there a first of each that happened to come about at about same moment in time and they happened to meet up? Would that not be evidence for a Creator? Did more than one of each come to be at about the same moment in time and two or more of them met up after that? Would that not be even more evidence for a Creator? Were there individuals with male organs and female organs who later evolved offspring with one or the other? Is there anything in the fossil record that suggests that's the case?

Are there not personal testimonies concerning individuals claiming to have seen and heard spirits that is?

Are there not eyeballs that are? What are the odds that light sensitive photon recepting forerunning pigments happened to appear in a general area where noses and mouths and ears would later branch from?

Is there not evidence for there being anti-Him secret societies that ironically is? What do you know about freemasonry? It's quite related to goat images and upside down stars in pentagons and one or more degree system and also called the Craft perhaps. What does it not have in common with witchcraft and how many so called presidents and supreme court justices and astronauts have there been who have not been masons? Seen an upside down star like image in streets north of the whitehouse pointing at the whitehouse or a giant obelisk south of the whitehouse? Know what the so called statue of liberty represents? Seen novus ordo seclorum on the back of one dollar bills? I might not be a fan of Notre Dame or so called Catholicism, but is this not a link to a Notre Dame site with a Latin translator that has that translated regardless of what the History channel says and does not say?

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin ... o+seclorum

Does Novus Ordo Seclorum not mean New Secular World Order or at least something like that? Are we living in one? Can you not even get images that point to M and A and S and O and N by placing masonic square and compass images over dollar bill pyramids and turning one dollar bill pyramids into six pointed stars?

2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against YHWH, and against his anointed, saying,

2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: YHWH shall have them in derision.

Is there not evidence for mass demonic possession having occured that ironically is? You might want to search Loudun demonic possession in a search engine.

Is there not symbiosis that is? Are there not sophisticated relationships among diverse creatures that show underlying intelligent design and forethought at work? Does fungi not provide vital protection and moisture to algae and does algae not nourish fungi with photosynthetic nutrients? And what does pollination not help keep alive? Do you theorize that there's no plant on earth that both carries on with the help of pollination and that existed before pollinating insects?

And were there not followers of Yahushua (sp?) who saw Him after dying and who were later martyred that are? Were there followers of Him who had mass hallucinations of seeing Him perform miracles and of seeing Him resurrected who were later being martyred because of their faith?

And are there not laws of thermodynamics that are? If entropy decreased on earth without something on earth capable on converting sunlight into usable energy, then what happened?

[Snorri1234]

BBS,

Is there not love that is? What about survival of the fittest would explain someone from the States trying to send an anonymous monetary donation to strangers in Africa?

Gullibility.

[jonesthecurl]

Bode's Law is not "Proof of the existence of God".
It may be admissible as proof of the existence of Bode.
I'm not sure if we've determined if it applies to panets around other suns yet, I don't think we have the evidence. It doesn't work very well for some of the planets, and it was pretty much a coincidence that Pluto was found where it was. Bode's Law may simply be coincidence. If not, it is something we don't know the reason for yet.

If you are willing to throw your hands up and cry "Lo! Undeniable proof of God!" every time you don't understand something, it's no wonder you're such a firm believer.

[jonesthecurl]

And were there not followers of Yahushua (sp?) who saw Him after dying and who were later martyred that are? Were there followers of Him who had mass hallucinations of seeing Him perform miracles and of seeing Him resurrected who were later being martyred because of their faith?

The only eviodence for any of this was written by believers, decades at least after the death of Jesus, if there ever were a Jesus. We have gone over this before - there is NO contemporary account of Jesus or of his miracles.

And this is where your circular logic surfaces again.

"There must be a God. Therefore the Bible must be true. The Bible is therefore evidence of God."

[jonesthecurl]

The pyramid timeline:
Bah humbug.
Do you think God is so obviously there that he needs no proof, and yet he gives a bunch of people who don't believe in him an explicit timeline of the future? Seriously?

[jonesthecurl]

As for blah blah demonic possession blah blah freemasons, blah blah people saw spirits (how does that one fit in with the bible anyhow? aren't they all in heaven or hell or purgatory or simply awaiting the resurrection according to which sect you're in?) blah blah here's some more stuff I don't understand therefore there's a God, give it a rest.

[MeDeFe]

Sorry to have to tell you this Lionz, but you're providing those who consider religiosity to be a disease of the mind with fodder as you write. Just a few points where you can improve:

Trying to drown the opposition with irrelevant open-ended questions is not a good way of winning a debate, the opposition will usually just tell you that you're full of bullshit. In this case you are full of it.

Your understanding of natural selection appears to be even more flawed than john9blue's. Natural selection says nothing about morality, your implication that it should shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Some of those questions demonstrate that you either do not read what others post or that your whole post is nothing more than stale copypasta. Natural selection has been discussed thoroughly in this thread already, Neoteny told you a few things about abiogenesis which you apparently failed to notice, I think watchmaker arguments have already been torn apart as well.

Your understanding of what constitutes evidence appears to be on the level with conspiracy theories, everything is evidence for what you already knew before, and if things appear to be otherwise they're obviously just a clever ploy by those who would obfuscate the truth. Some of the things you consider evidence utterly lack any relation to what you're trying to prove. Bode's Law is a crock of shit which, even if correct, would prove nothing. "Proving" that prophecy has been fulfilled by pointing to what is essentially a copy of the prophecy is easy, anyone could do that. And god is indeed very clever to have made our faces just so that our ears, eyes and noses fit for glasses. Do you want me to make up my own timeline over an image of a pyramid? You've got to be kidding with that one.

[Imaweasel]

Well ...no one has ever observed evolution...you believe it simply because some people claim to have discovered it through science and wrote books about it.

how is this different and less credible than a man writing a biography about what he witnessed jesus do

[Frigidus]

Well ...no one has ever observed evolution...

Not true. How do you think insects slowly become immune to pesticides or diseases can become immune to medication if a proper dosage is not taken? How can we explain away all of the intermediate species between us and the old world apes (to use the example most close to home)? How is it that a donkey (an animal with 62 chromosomes) and a horse (an animal with 64 chromosomes) can have a mule (an animal with 63 chromosomes), something that isn't really a unique species given that all the males are impotent and almost all the females are impotent? We haven't seen the fabled crocoduck, no, but the evidence is all around us.

how is this different and less credible than a man writing a biography about what he witnessed jesus do

Well, for one, the majority of the New Testament was almost certainly not written by someone that knew Jesus.

[Neoteny]

Lionz, show evidence for God.

Baaawwwwww...

Neoteny,

If entropy decreased on earth without something on earth capable on converting sunlight into usable energy, then what happened? Did usable energy come to earth from something that was not the sun?

Energy can be harnessed from heat from other sources, geothermal vents for example, as well as breaking down other molecules. Either of these could have been the initial source of energy that was used until the sun's energy production could be tapped.

Do you theorize that universal common descent is true and that all life stems from one single celled organism?

You keep asking me this, so I imagine you have something interesting to impart about it. I do not think the first replicator, and very probably the first living thing, was a single-celled organism. But, as all life as we know it today is cell-based, the logical deduction from an evolutionary standpoint is that all known life on this planet share a common, single-celled ancestor.

You say that everything the religionist says to back up his claims of there being a creator is nothing more than statements that have no evidence to support them, and sometimes they have to deny what we do know about the universe to accept them?

I used the exact phrase, with a few substitutions, that MatYahu used as both a comedic and a point-making tool. Anyone can declare all the evidences for a particular thing to be void in one fell swoop all they want, but it very obviously isn't going to convince anyone of anything. Atheists generally have distinct reasons for disbelief in god, particularly since very few of them were "raised as atheists," so they have had to actively shed certain beliefs. I do feel this is more than can be said for a good number of religionists, but I don't claim that it supports the non-existence of god. I do think that saying atheists just aren't thinking things through is incorrect though.

And say that while holding that spontaneous generation has occured and while suggesting the second law of thermodynamics has been overcome on earth specifically and the universe in general? What do you claim has been denied?

I've never said the second law of thermodynamics has been overcome. I'm saying that abiogenesis simply does not violate the second law (or any other thermodynamic law). You have yet to demonstrate why abiogenesis might violate the second law of thermodynamics. As far as theist (not representative of all theists, obv) denials, the denial of evolution as well related things like radiometric dating and plate tectonics, are very prominent ones. There is far more evidence for each of those things than for a creator god (particularly one of any single religion). "Look around you" is not an evidence for god. Looking around us only provides evidence for what is around us (evolution, plate tectonics, radiometric dating). Any extension to the realms of the supernatural would obviously require evidence that cannot be explained via natural causes. This has not occurred yet, and this is the main thing that is being denied.

And am I supposed to take you seriously if you are meaning to claim that there is a level of evidence for Him and a level of evidence for Santa that are equal?

Well, they are both the products of myth passed down through the generations by verbal stories and writings. They are both attributed with abilities that are naturally impossible and are never demonstrated to the inquiring eye. The only way to reap their rewards is if you truly believe (preferably without evidence). I'm only being slightly facetious. The things that are usually attributed to god with regards to what is around us can, in every case, be explained by natural means. The things that are attributed to god that affect what we do not know are merely conjecture and wishful thinking. None of it is very convincing to me (though I will admit to believing in both Santa and some form of a god in my childhood).

Do you have an explanation for Bode's Law?

My area of expertise lies in a narrow range between the higher levels of biochemistry and the upper echelons of ecology and geology. Any comment on Bode's law would be based on inadequate knowledge, but if I were to go with my slight knowledge on the topic, I would agree with previous posters that the phenomenon is a coincidence, and not a very impressive one.

"Sky Tyrants"? well that is dangerously close to a common disease in the atheist community known as "Santa Syndrome"...When was the last time you mocked Santa or the Easter bunny, or the tooth fairy? Who mocks something they don't believe in? They set up straw man arguments comparing belief in a Creator to belief in Santa, but what they fail to realize is that intelligent people stop believing in Santa when they come to the age of reason, yet continue their belief in the Creator for the rest of their lives...

When was the last time you saw a stable adult seriously claiming Santa Claus exists? I don't mock Santa because he is roundly recognized to be a created character. You, I imagine, take your god (whichever one you claim; Baal?) very seriously, as do quite a few others. If you believed in Santa with the same zeal as you believe in a creator god, then I would mock your belief in Santa as well. The evidence for the existence of Santa is just as strong as the evidence for the existence of a god. It's all in your head, it's just socially acceptable for you to hold on to gods past your early teens for some reason.

Neoteny, I respect you, but this post shows a lack of reason, not reason. We are no more foolish for believing in God than you are for disbelieving.

I fully agree that Matyahu has not come forth with the best of reasoning, but when you implicate a fundamental believe in God, as opposed to specific arguments voice, you implicate all who believe.

I would like to point out, again, that my post to Matyahu was a measure response to the tone, as well as the content of his or her argument. My contempt and mockery are reserved for those whose opinions are ridiculous enough to deserve it. There is a continuous scale of believe that goes from blind faith to reasoned agnosticism to blind disbelief. I try to save the vitriol for those on the blind ends of the spectrum (and sometimes the fence-sitting agnostics). Sometimes the generalities get thrown into the fray, but they are to be taken with a grain of salt. I, of course, disagree with all theists, but some hold much more tenable beliefs than others. Besides, when an individual makes such broad assertions about atheists, it seems only fair to strike back in kind. Especially when it's only internet banter.

Well ... I have never observed evolution...you believe it simply because you have read the books, articles, and experiments, as well as performed some experiments yourself, and have witnessed the veracity of it.

how does this compare to a man writing a biography about what he heard jesus did

I rarely go this route, but I found it appropriate. I fixed this for ya.

[Imaweasel]

Well, for one, the majority of the New Testament was almost certainly not written by someone that knew Jesus.

Actually....if you believe the bible...

Matthew Mark John we all written by the men who lived with jesus during his three year ministry...

LUke& Acts is a history complied of what Luke had heard and observed ikn the lives of those who knew jesus

The 13 pauline epistles were written by paul who saw jesus after his resurection (road to damascus, 3 years of teaching by jesus in a desert)

1,2 peter written by the disciple peter.

123 John written by jesus brother john

James written by a disciple

Revelation written by john jesus disciple


so anyways thats most of the new testament but I am sure you will find some way to over look that...