i just want to form my own path, believe what i want to believe.
where is the freedom if you can’t question and form your own opinion???(see basically that’s faith, and that’s what your religion was founded upon) and, i dont like that kind of unquestionable faith especially if you are a seeker of wisdom(i wouldnt die peacefully if someone claims forceful truth without evidence to my questions, much better to tell me those honest words ‘i don’t know’)

i just lost faith in one thing, thats all.
i have faith in alot of things, i have faith that my chair will stand on all four legs with me sitting on it.

We don’t ‘avoid’ god, how will we avoid an all-knowing, all-powerful super-being??? its just stupid on our part to do that..

so just because you are christian and you believe in god and follow this so-called ”only path” does not give u the right to place yourself and your kind at the top of morality and look down upon us as if we were mindless zombies )

AND HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT PRAYER CAN ACTUALLY, REALLY, ACCURATELY DO??????

im no hardcore atheist who is so dangerously certain and believes reason is the only way to go…im just agnostic atheist,”dont care if there is a god cuz there PROBABLY is not”

As I read your comments I see an outstanding display of intelligence from both sides. As science looks further into Darwin’s theories, including that of evolution, there are various discoveries supporting it. However, there is an incredible amount of “holes” so to speak, things that contradict or present problems with these theories (cambrian age for example and several others, but that’s another discussion).

On the other end, the validity of the Bible is questionable. There is no doubt the text has changed over the years, and in fact was edited and re-written by priests and kings (King James Version). And yet the fact that Jesus existed is undeniable. So who was he? I have to agree with CS Lewis on this point; He was either a phenomenal liar, completely insane, or truly the Lord.

My point in all this is that this anger is ridiculous and ineffective. Try listening to what the other is saying, research it, find evidence supporting what they say, and try to see where they’re coming from. THEN present the alternative.

I’m especially confused at the anger displayed by the Christians on the site. Isn’t the point of Christianity the power of love and grace? – most of the complaints presented by the atheists are that Christians are ignorant and judgmental, and you’re proving them right.

Atheists, you also display some ignorance – I would agree with the earlier statement that there is much to be discovered…but why is God so quickly ruled out as an explanation? Perhaps the gaps are filled by equations, perhaps science is responsible for creation, or perhaps we are a result of intelligent design. To completely rule out God as an explanation for creation is an incredible demonstration of lacking objectivity…and is completely against the rules of science.

One last point I would present is that the idea that atheism is the lack of faith is slightly ridiculous. You have faith in nothing? …impossible.

I think we need to stop focusing on criticizing others’ beliefs and start analyzing our own. Complete understanding will never be reached, so listen to the people around you…you don’t have to agree with them, but there’s always something to learn.

How about citing your source? Oh! I imagine you’re just pulling it out of thin air like everything else. Make it up as you go Nick that’s okay we’ll try to keep up. But, just for future reference it is commonly considered to be dishonest to make up facts without citing a source. But, it’s especially hypocritical coming from someone whose entire argument against Christianity is based upon our lack of facts.

Again you said:

“Look it up, there are instances where it says god is omnipotent, and instances where it says he is not.”

You’re citing it. You have the burden of telling us where it can be found. Let’s work togther. Give us chapter & verse & we’ll respond.

Omnipotent
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

Go right ahead and explain how words like infinite and unlimited are really gray areas, they could mean not infinite and not unlimited just as easily. If you stop ignoring the inconsistencies you really might notice how superficial it all really is, but if you really really want to believe it, go ahead, just don’t ask ignorant questions to the world and expect anything less than disappointing answers.”

Nick, as best I can tell from reading the posts in this forum, it is you who has been consistently inconsistent. You have nearly violated every criterion of a good argument; including questionable authority, insufficient sample, fake precision, causal over simplification, question begging, ambiguity, omitting key evidence & so many more.

Don’t feel sorry for us for believing in a book written 2000 years ago it is you I feel sorry for. I guess you don’t believe any historical book written at a time in which you were not around to witness – you are really missing out on alot.

Another one of your erroneous, unsubstantiated assumptions Nick? You certainly have a knack for it. Did you learn this while being indoctrinated in the public school system?

I did not become a Christian until receiving a degree in the science’s from a major university. It was there that I realized . . . I have been indoctrinated since grade school.

Having said this however, I agree with your comment regarding the – “christian fanatacism camp indoctrinating children before they even have the most basic reasoning skills.”

That’s weird.

But, I have to say with all do respect Nick; you don’t appear to hold reason in very high regard. At least your abuse of it in your posts seems to indicate this.

If you’re going to accuse others of being unreasonable, don’t you believe that you carry some responsibility or obligation to set a good example?

Consider your completely absurd attempt to equate what has been attributed to The God of the universe to Santa Clause.

I have never read in a Christmas card . . . Remember kids that on Christmas Eve Santa died for you sins. Or that Santa is the Alpha & the Omega, the creator of heaven & earth. Or that God has a body, wears a red suit, eats milk & cookies, flies around once a year in a sled pulled by eight tiny reign deer & is married. Nor have I ever seen Santa revealed in scripture.

I guess if we are attributing properties & attributes with out any concern for reality. How about this one

I will assume for the same reason as you – that would be – NONE or No reason what so ever – that you are Agent Smith & you are trying to stop Dave & other Christians in their crusade to free humanity by bringing down a tyrannical system of thought created in order to imprison the mind of man within an illusory world of artificial reality known as the Matrix.

Prove that this is not the case. Prove what no thinker sharing your worldview, has done before . . . prove we are not brains in a vat. And that life is not an illusion.

It shouldn’t be hard for you Nick; after all, unlike the rest of us, you need no use reason or logic to make your case. Simply say it & it is so.

In my responses to earlier posts, I believe your God of the gaps has been rebutted as well. Take the time to read the arguments & respond to them. In my responses, I believe I have provided counter argument & a rebuttal to the strongest arguments posted. I believe, I’ve demonstrated where these posts have used ambiguous terms, false premises & logical fallacies. I do not believe you or they have done likewise.

You fail to provide any effective rebuttal to the strongest point presented in my arguments. I believe you incorrectly minimize & divert in order to ignore the counter evidence offered in those points. You are merely denying & ignoring the counter evidence. This is fallacious & worse it stifles any hope of understanding.

I reiterate my earlier points – You reject the Christian world view because it involves certain nonempirical, metaphysical hypothesis, while assuming for yourself a boatload, all of which go as far beyond empiricism as does Christianity.

And this speaks to “proving oneself not guilty of murder.”
Yes! Christian, I like your analogy – “Prove you’re not a murderer, then. Seriously. If you’re not, it should be easy. Right?”

This is an interesting point because, you are actually making our case for us.

During the cold war, a soviet citizen was picked up by the KGB & accused of spying for the United States. All of his property & papers were confiscated & he was thrown into prison to await trial. Now Christian . . . did this man know with all certainty & beyond a shadow of doubt that he was not a spy? Yes! Absolutely! Could he prove it scientifically? Absolutely not! Why? Well, it comes down to who decides what is considered admissible proof . . . what constitutes evidence, belief, knowledge . . . truth.

In the case of our man suspected of spying, it was the Kremlin that determined what constituted evidence. Our suspect had a deep, unquestionably true belief that he did not commit espionage but he could not prove it. Though he had good evidence to establish his innocence, it did not rise to the standard of the court. Friends, loved ones, eye witnesses; expert witnesses & physical evidence, all revealed the states case to be a web of propaganda & deceit; and testifying to the authenticity of the mans basic belief & assertions of innocence. Never the less, it was derided & deemed inadmissable, unjustified superstitious pseudoscience.

The man was subsequently executed for a crime he did not commit, but died knowing, though he did not prove it, he possessed justified true belief . . . Knowledge. The others only error, falsehood & superstition driven by prejudice.

Many years later however, the truth was revealed, that he had been framed to cover up covert actions of the government.

Justice demands that the accused – so called naïve & superstitious Christians – not be disqualified from the court of debate by rules manufactured by their opponents – so called rational Atheists. But rather justice demands that the truth should be determined by the hypothesis which assumptions best account for the totality of reality.

Talk about a fox on the jury ay a gooses trial.

On to your argument:

You propose – “You assume he is saying matter/energy created runs and maintains the universe, just as you suppose a god does. But you’re missing the point, and I can’t speak for every person who believes there are no gods.”

You do not then demonstrate or offer any evidence to prove how I have missed the point or I falsely assumed anything in his post. You simply offer a different incoherent & self refuting explanation of faith – placeholder, which corroborates my original point – Atheists are not that which are without faith. Atheists are that which have faith.

We already know we put our faith in the God of the Bible. Your argument was an attempt to prove that you lack faith in what we believe, but it was simply a repetition of the God of the gap argument you made earlier . . . that “No one [had] dared counter point.

You then, in order to show the superiority of your faith, slyly shift the burden of proof off your failed counter argument onto us by pointing out alleged inconsistencies & contradictions within the Bible.

Here is the point of my earlier arguments. You can point out inconsistencies & contradictions within the Bible all you like. What I’ve asked you to do in my argument was demonstrate, to prove, given your naturalistic explanation for all things, how it is you possess justified true beliefs about these inconsistencies & contradictions about the God of the Bible.
Nick, you said regarding your God of the gaps argument – “No one has dared counter point.” It’s not like the argument has left us trembling & ready to abandon our faith. It’s pretty standard stuff.

Below are several replies. You may recognize the first –

1. “Faith in itself, is a placeholder, it’s used to fill in the gaps in our knowledge as humans.”
2. “An atheist/agnostic completely acknowledges that for every person on the planet, no one understands the world around them to the degree they wish/think they do.”

Elsewhere you say,

3. “Now, as someone with a lack of faith, i’m not saying i have faith in some alternate answer to the many questions we dont know for sure yet, but i’m admitting i dont know, not accepting the easy way out and saying, god did it, especially since everything that has been attributed to a god, was done so out of a lack of knowledge to help fill in gaps until that gap is filled with real knowledge.”

A.
I. If all who do not “understand the world around them to the degree they wish/think they do [are that which] fill in those gaps in knowledge as humans.”
And “atheist/agnostic completely acknowledge that they are that which do not understand the world around them to the degree they wish/think they do.”
Then, “atheists/agnostics are that which fill in those gaps in knowledge as humans.”

II. If that which “fills in those gaps in our knowledge as humans [is that which is] “Faith in itself, a placeholder.”
And “atheism/agnosticism” are that which fill in those gaps in our knowledge as humans.”
Then, “atheism/agnosticism” is that which is “Faith is in itself, a placeholder.”

III. All that which was done out of a lack of knowledge to help fill in gaps until that gap is filled with real knowledge is that which that has been attributed to a god.”
And according to you – “[atheism/agnosticism] are that which fill in those gaps in our knowledge as humans.”
Then, following your logic, – “[atheism/agnosticism] is that which that has been attributed to a god.”

That god, of course, is the holy duality of science & rationality. Though you disagree, there are only so many alternatives.

IV. Conclusion: Nick, When you argue that all members of the class of things which fill in those gaps in our knowledge as humans are that which are not filled with real knowledge, while placing yourself & “atheism/agnosticism in that same class of things which fill in those gaps in our knowledge as humans,” by necessity atheism/agnosticism is that which is not filled with real knowledge; your argument is nothing no more than a self refuting vicious circle.

B.
In your God of the gap, you attempt to argue

All that which is known by men with true & justified belief is that which exists
God is not that which is known by men with true & justified belief
Therefore, God is not that which exists.

If this is true, then so are the following:

I. All that which is known by men with true & justified belief is that which exists
Space/Time is not that which is known by men with true & justified belief
Therefore, Space/Time is not that which exists.

For the son who has never known a father who has been away at war:

II. All that which is known by the son with true & justified belief is that which exists
The father is not that which is known by the son with true & justified belief
Therefore, the father is not that which exists.

If a son believes his father to be alive because he has the assurance of his mother, unique experiences & other unusual occurrences, which could only be explained as being the work of his father such as numerous gifts & correspondences signed “I will return to you. Love your Father.”

Yet many years later, however, he learns that all these were in fact the work of a man whose life the father had saved during the war.

What I understand you to be arguing Nick is that the son’s belief about his father being alive is not justified & therefore does not constitute knowledge of the actual existence of the father.

However, if there were a relevant truth unknown to the son, such as his father is alive in a Siberian prison then the son would have justified belief.

Additionally, if the son fails to have knowledge of his father’s existence because the belief is not caused directly by the father, then that is true also for those who have knowledge of the earth beneath them but lack any understanding of the causal process involved in their relationship with the earth i.e., gravity, mass, energy, velocity etc. They believe they have good evidence to trust the earth exists, but according to your God of the gaps, their beliefs are unjustified & do not rise to knowledge because they don’t possess suitable belief. That belief, of course, being grounded entirely upon induction, observation, verification & testing which is your criterion for knowledge.

The problem with this is that you offer No, explanation, None, Zero, Zilch, Nata, for why we all must accept your criterion for what constitutes knowledge.

If I were to ask you to explain how you know your implicit propositions . . . ‘Belief (knowledge) is true & rational to hold if & only if it derives from well established scientific belief (knowledge). And that since religious beliefs (knowledge) do not derive from well established scientific beliefs – Religious beliefs (knowledge) are therefore not knowledge.’

What well established scientific beliefs could you offer to support this knowledge?

And, if I were to press you further by asking – How do you know - knowledge is true & rational to hold if & only if it derives from well established scientific belief, you would have to say, if you had integrity, – Because the scientific community says so. To which I might ask – why do you trust the scientific community? To which you might say, if you had integrity, because the precepts of the scientific community are all true. To which I might ask again, But how do you know? To which you must say, if you had integrity, because they are ‘derived from well established scientific beliefs.’

Such circularity!

This not only commits the fallacy of vicious infinite regress (Circularity), as I‘ve just pointed out. But, also the fallacy of contradictory premise similar to: “There are absolutely no absolutes.” “It is a universal truth that there are no universal truths.” “The only thing to fear is fear itself”

Its real incoherence comes, however, from the fact that it violates the law of contradiction. A cannot be both A & non-A. The proposition A – All Belief (knowledge) is true & rational to hold if & only if it derives from well established scientific belief (knowledge), cannot be non A – Not All Belief (knowledge) is true & rational to hold if & only if it derives from well established scientific belief (knowledge).

1. So, if Only belief (knowledge) derived from well established scientific belief (knowledge) is [that which is] true & rational to hold.
2. And the proposition – Only belief (knowledge) derived from well established scientific belief (knowledge) [is itself that which] is not derived from well established scientific belief (knowledge)
3. Then, the proposition – Only belief (knowledge) derived from well established scientific belief (knowledge) is that which is not true & rational to hold.

In other words, Not all belief (knowledge) derived from well established scientific belief (knowledge) [is that which] is true & rational to hold. Some are not true & rational to hold. And some belief (knowledge) not derived from well established scientific belief [is that which] is true & rational to hold.

Therefore, if the logical conclusion – Not all belief (knowledge) derived from well established scientific belief (knowledge) [is that which] is true & rational to hold . . . some scientific belief (knowledge) being that which is not true & rational to hold & some belief (knowledge) not derived from well established scientific belief being that which true & rational to hold.
as demonstrated, then, it fails to rise to its own criterion as a -well established scientific belief. And is therefore self refuting.
The first rule of a coherent system of thought is that all its parts be ordered and related according to the principles fundamental to the systems in question. Fundamental to your system of belief are at least two parts that do not relate well to one another. In fact they can not logically coexist with one another. The first is the denial or rejection of anything transcendent and universal. The second is the use of the transcendent and universal to argue the first.

The fact that ancient people lacked the scientific knowledge to properly explain natural phenomenon & instead attributed it to God does not prove the non existence of God any more than the fact the works of the man saved by the father during the war prove the father does not exist.

These ancient believers, like modern believers, believe God exists because he has revealed himself through the orderly nature of the universe, the knowability of the universe, the existence of the truth, the existence of numbers, categories & sets. And if they, in their naiveté, attributed directly to God, phenomenon which is better explained by nature, then their belief in God would still count as knowledge. How many true beliefs must one have to constitute knowledge?

In regards to “My infinite wisdom being like that of people of 2000 years ago,” I can only say pick up a history book. Maybe you’ll learn something about the “wisdom” of people 2000 years ago. People like Pythagoras, Democritus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Thales, Archimedes, Hero, Philolaus, Aristarchus, Eratosthenes& Hipparchus I guess I could go on, but come on, I thought it was us Christians who ‘lacked knowledge.’ Hey, if you don’t care for books at least visit Wikipedia.

Finally, Suffering/Evil should not be an issue for one who holds that man is nothing more than one of many manifestations of the universe & of no hierarchical importance from the point of view of the universe. The actions of men, though perhaps more complex, are not in any way different then that of the lower species. The human ethical situation is grounded in natural phenomena, motion of atoms, basic needs & drives. There is no difference in kind between man & any of the lower species, he exists on a continuum somewhere between bacteria & and what ever the gradual changes of natural selection has in store for us.

Does suffering/evil exist in nature? Do you shake your fist at God outside a particle accelerator . . . Oh cruel God? When crab grass, slugs, mildew leaf disease or the longhorn beetle destroys a stand of trees? Surely, the process of evolution itself cannot cause suffering & cruelty. If you are not bothered by realities such as scores of animals slowly dying of disease & overpopulation, or the African lion devouring the newborn Thompson’s Gazelle, then why would the reality of cancer & AIDS patients slowly dying in a hospital bed, & the brutalization of a defenseless child be any different.

Yes, all feel pain. But, as Spencer said ” The ill fitted must suffer the evils of unfittness, & the well-fitted profit by their fitness.” Man is either, in nature, subject to & determined by its dictates, or he is outside & above. If he is inside, as you believe, then it is not appropriate to use normative terms.

Nature is what nature does.

According to atheism, your view, we are all just blind instruments of nature; mere characters in a drama over which we have no control. The plot is survival. And it’s every species . . . every organism for itself.

The theme is the purposeless, rhythmic principle of the material universe . . . the ebb and flow of evolution & dissolution; nonexistence to existence; death to life & life to death.

I see no room for freedom in such a determinative universe . . . where every change & every event must have a material cause & a material explanation.

And where there is no freedom there can be no moral evil, that which causes pain, suffering &/or impedes the good, because moral actions require free moral agents.

All moral evil therefore, from your view, is no different form natural evils like disease, famine, tsunamis, & earthquakes which cause “suffering” through natural random occurrences. And, as instruments of nature, a marauding army of murderers, rapists & thieves & the suffering they cause, is really in no way different from any other natural random occurrences . . . say a tornado or an outbreak of infectious disease.

So if you are consistent, you should not be concerned with suffering/evil. Evil & suffering are terms reserved for ethics & morality. When the atoms in iron heat up & begin to bang into one another, they don’t beg pardon.

As Christians however, we believe that man as the image bearer of God, is significant & not a mere accident. He is both in & above nature; flesh & spirit.

So, I have never really understood the argument from suffering/evil, for they are normative concepts, referring implicitly to non scientific questions such as . . . what ought to be or should be done? – And ought not God end suffering, if he is able? Oh! But perhaps he is unable?

I will be direct. It is my opinion that He is unable. Yes, God is unable to do all things – He cannot contradict His own nature & attributes. And if God is perfect reason, then even He cannot make a square circle or create a world where suffering & libertarian freedom coexist. As a parent, I have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the kinds of suffering my daughter experiences, discipline, intellectual & emotional development just to name a few. Consider frustration tolerance. If this is true for me why should it be any different for God? You have not demonstrated how Omnipotence/omnibenevolence & morality are mutually exclusive. You have merely assumed it

So, Christians, take very serious the issue of suffering. See my earlier post regarding Christian charity & social involvement.

But understand you want to believe the bible, which I never even started posting on this forum to argue what you do and don’t do in life. If you wish to accept something written so long ago as accurate, so be it. Understand though if you wish to have an argument about reality, you’re going to need more than something that you simply wish to be true, compared to things that are true.

You speak of something that happened 2000 years ago like you yourself were there. I’m sorry I know you want to believe what you read in the bible, but I don’t. I’ve seen more than enough to convince me the bible is just a book and a poorly constructed one at that.

Don’t throw your double standard for what passes as fact as a rebuttal for what I said.

And I’m sorry you went through a childhood of what you describe as bad.

“Trash mouth” isn’t anything other than a societal system of preferences as to how you speak. If you choose to accept the consequences of how people view you by the language you use, then so be it, but don’t act like it is some sort of sin to use certain words.

And a person existing does not provide any proof for anything other than the fact the they lived. With that, anybody who lived, who at one time or another was called a god or son of god in a book, is credible.

If you want I can start a list of alternate religions (cults) that fit these same standards as your christianity.

In the same way people in the middle east who are living negative lives, turn it around and become fervent muslims or jews. Are you going to say you don’t live in North America or Europe and that being the major factor in you becoming christian? Whether you were from the start was not my point, my point was if you were in India you would be touting hinduism just as strongly.

And maybe it’s the circles you run in, but the majority of at least suburbia I know, you have people born into christian families, some on off again church goers, some fervent goers, and some who never go. Yet at the very minimum 95% of those born into christian families are still christian to my knowledge under one denomination or another.

This is simply because (IN MY OPINION), peer pressure and no truer form of it. And I need a little more than peer pressure to base my whole life on a bible written 2000 years ago. A bible that has countless contradictions that allow it to be interpreted by the user. Look it up, there are instances where it says god is omnipotent, and instances where it says he is not.

Omnipotent
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

Go right ahead and explain how words like infinite and unlimited are really gray areas, they could mean not infinite and not unlimited just as easily. If you stop ignoring the inconsistencies you really might notice how superficial it all really is, but if you really really want to believe it, go ahead, just don’t ask ignorant questions to the world and expect anything less than disappointing answers.

Romans 3:10-12 reads -

10.As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11. there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12.All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

So I am not claiming or indicating that there are “good” Christians and “bad” ones. I was simply using the word “bad” to describe negative experiences Christians may have had with either a person, pastor, lay leader or even a church itself.

You said, “Unfortunately there is no one to tell you Jesus is long gone and dead 2000 years ago.”

That is not the case at all and if you will see my first comment in this post, you will clearly see that there were plenty of witnesses to the fact that Jesus Christ did rise from the dead and was very much alive after He had been killed in a most brutal way.

As a reminder, I said the following:

“Furthermore, your statement that “there is no physical evidence to support the claim of any god, or gods” is not entirely true, at least with respect to Christianity. Jesus Christ was a real historical figure, in the same way that Napoleon, Abraham Lincoln, Christopher Columbus or any other person that is no longer with us was real. He really was crucified and really did rise from the dead. In fact, something like 500 or so people witnessed Jesus being crucified and then being alive after he had died.

If you were to put Jesus on trial as to whether He rose from the dead or not and listen to testimony for everyone who witnessed this historical fact, that would amount to more testimony than any court case in history that I am aware of. “

Finally your assumption that I was a Christian since birth is wrong. In fact, I was quite a heathen up to the age of 21 years of age. Prior to becoming a Christian, I was involved with the use and sale of illegal drugs, was an alcoholic, a thief, a liar, disobedient to parents, had a trash mouth and many other things I won’t go into detail here. Main point is that I was far from being a “follower of Christ.”

I have always believed there was a supreme God and that the Bible was His Word but that was the extent of it. I certainly did not know God, was not trying to pursue Him in any way and wanted nothing to do with organized religion.

In fact, of all the Christians I personally know, very few were “brought up” that way. Most come from very “colorful” lives if you will accept the expression.

“Garstang’s excavation techniques unfortunately were quite crude by today’s standards and are thought to be only partially circumstantial.”

Then I have no choice but to believe what our current proven techniques are telling us.a And these are people who know what they are talking about, unlike you and me. I don’t claim to know much more about archaeology than the average person, and I’m sure you don’t either. That is why the best I can do, is take the word of the people who DO know what they are talking about. You are also more than welcome to take the word of the anonymous writers and compilers who more often than not contradict themselves in their own book.

Like I said though, when people want to believe something, they will often make their findings explain what they want to believe, much as I expect Garstang was doing, but if people are going to ask why I’m not christian because of bad christians, well, it’s often the easiest thing to point out, that religion doesn’t make you a good person. But as we find less and less reason to believe religion is just a state of mind that is easier for people to deal with compared to just accepting that you get one life on this earth, and it’s worth making the most of, though not still not at the expense of others.

Most religions certainly claim this to be their goal, the whole point is to be a good christian, which often a good thing. People though give up their own responsibility to dertimine what is right and wrong,and let whoever is in power(in the religion) tell them what is right and wrong.

We saw it with the crusades, well the pope said this killing was ok, even though killing is never ok unless in self defense, and the arabs were not exactly in england. So even though we have this well intentioned religion, it gets mis-used and misinterpreted. I’m sure though God knowingly gave man religion to believe in though so we could all slaughter each other over who has the better imaginary friend.

Even now with global terrorism we have religion fueling crazy people, on both sides, there is a documentary about a christian fanatacism camp in the united states, indoctrinating children before they even have the most basic reasoning skills.

To me personally, Jesus is the santa claus my parents never actually told me was imaginary, with santa it’s a little easier once you catch your parents doing it for you, and kids literally believe he exists when they are young. Unfortunately there is no one to tell you jesus is long gone and dead 2000 years ago. I would find it much more interesting if kids were not taught anything about religion until at least the 18, when they could make the decision for themselves, to believe in religion or not. And if they choose to, which one they want to believe in.

I guarantee that you (David), were born a christian, just like the other 3 billion people who are not christian were born into their religion. I’m sure, just as I’m sure you are, think oh well I got lucky to be born into the correct religion.

If you want to hear every single reason I find religion just so unbelievable, I’ll go into more detail, but some people just see things differently, and you should probably worry more about your own life, and less about other people’s often informed choices. Remember, you only get one.

I will still talk to people about Jesus as much or little as they want, or as little as they want. I will always try to do right to people for the rest of my life. When a person knows something good, it is natural to try and share it, but not to force it. If you truly try to seek God you will find him. If you make a half hearted attempt you will be rewarded with a half hearted earthly feeling. If you try with all your heart, you will get out of God what you put into him.

If you are one of these people that don’t believe in Jesus then please do not try and quote any scripture and or analyze any part of the Bible to use against Christians.

It’s like trying to fix a car using a manual for a washing machine – it just will not work. Your heart is not in it because you do not understand it. Not because it is complicated, it was made very simple, but because people make it complicated. If you want to read the Bible, don’t start at the beginning, it is not one book.The Bible is a compilation of several books.

Start in Romans and go from there, and yes it is very historically accurate. If you were to try and prove it as hard as you try to disprove it you will be amazed at all of the documentation.There are writings from the 1st century that could reproduce over 95% of the Bible that we have today. That is just the tip of that iceberg!

Please make the effort, it’s worth it.

The system of law wouldn’t allow such a burden, so why do you put that upon us? Proving some victim is dead, is easy though. So is proving its murderer. Relatively. But to prove one is not the murderer is impossible.

Therefore: stop asking atheists to prove there are no gods. The burden of proof is on you.

About Jericho, I think the point is: which is more likely? God did it, or something else happened? When archeological findings contradicts the story in the Bible, one should take story with a grain of salt. At best.

And the Bible is full of these: genesis, the flood and the exodus are all contradicted by science.

As for your question why atheists are angry at christians, I cannot say we are. We’re more annoyed that the world around us are shaped by superstition and not knowledge. And that when we point this out, christians, muslims, jews and the likes screams their lungs out, invoking blasphemy.