Alright all you athiests

dude thats a crock of shit they are not the same. how can you be so certian that there is only ONE god, and not many? there is just as much 'proof' for one god as there is for many, so you are just applying your beliefs to other peoples religions and guess what, you're wrong. you don't know shit about greeks, nors, hindu, or egyptian theisms.

honestly if there is this much confusion over what religion is "real" maybe it is just infact something created in your head.

remeber that awsome story of how jehovah was discoverd. i'll give you the clif-notes... something like a guy falls down and hits his head on some rocks, and then a voice starts talking to him, such a solid foundation for your beliefes huh.
 
its is impossible to prove if there is or if there isn't a god. It's just crazy to think like if there wasn;t a god what made everything in the universe. what chall think.
 
its is impossible to prove if there is or if there isn't a god. It's just crazy to think like if there wasn;t a god what made everything in the universe. what chall think.
 
well ive ventured to debase myself with this vulgar abortion of a thread...

ill tell you what though.... if there were still a Golden Wheelchair... youd get it mr thread-starter-guy.... in fact, here:

9313GW.jpg
 
y fossils have been found of spark plugs and stones have been formed in pool filters. That throws your thousands of years to form a fossil FACT.

Most creationists also believe in a flood that covered the whole earth before the ice age .
 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html

When it comes to the geologic evidence, the most stunning claim is that the artifact was discovered in a geode. As Donald Chittick has noted, formation of a geode requires significant amounts of time. But what is often overlooked is that the Coso Artifact possesses no characteristics that would classify it as a geode. It is true that the original discoverers were looking for geodes on the day the artifact was found. But this alone is insufficient evidence that the artifact is a geode.

Geodes consists of a thin outer shell, composed of dense chalcedonic silica, and are filled with a layer of quartz crystals. The Coso Artifact does not possess either feature. Discoverer Virginia Maxey referred to the material covering the artifact as "hardened clay" and noted that it had picked up a miscellaneous collection of pebbles, including a "nail and washer." Analysis of the surface material is noted as having a hardness of Mohs 3, which is not very hard and certainly much softer than chalcedony.

Other arguments regarding the ancient source of the Coso Artifact focus on the alleged fossil shells encrusted on the surface. If, as noted earlier, a nail and washer were also found on the same surface as the fossil shells, then the power of the inference of an ancient age for the artifact is seriously diminished. Even creationist literature notes how surface materials can lead to mistaken assumptions about the true age of individual objects. For example, Creation Ex Nihilo's June-August 1998 issue features fence wire that had become encased by surface materials including "fossil" seashells (quotes in the original article).

The Coso Artifact is a remarkable example of how creation "science" fails when the assumptions of its theory are implemented in a real life archaeological situation. Young-earth creationists commonly assume that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited during the Great Flood. Therefore, any items closely associated with such strata must date back to the time of Noah.

Perhaps the most surprising revelation is the stunningly poor research Dr. Chittick conducted regarding the artifact. Several times he referenced creationist articles that should have cast the original claims in extreme doubt. But somehow, he continued to be fascinated by the artifact. Anti-creationists familiar with Dr. Chittick will remember a previous incident with Dr. Chittick. When confronted about his fallacious statements by Jim Lippard regarding Lucy's knee joint in the mid 1990s, he ignored these warnings and continued to mislead his audiences until confronted in person by Pierre Stromberg at the conclusion of a lecture in Seattle.

The Coso Artifact was indeed a remarkable device. It was a 1920s-era Champion spark plug that likely powered a Ford Model T or Model A engine, modified to possibly serve mining operations in the Coso mountain range of California. To suggest that it was a device belonging to an advanced ancient civilization of the past could be interpreted as true, but is an exaggeration of several thousand years.

you've got to stop reaching for exscuses to not believe in science.
 
well, i recently read a book with something to do with this. In this book, which is fiction, the gods were a highly evolved human from a few million or so years in the future that had evolved beyond the need for physical bodies and somehow gain the ability to travel through time. im not saying this is true, or logical, i just thought that it was related to the conversation at had. id also like to point out that i dont believe in a higher power.
 
as of right now you cant disprove the idea of inteligent design because right now we havent goten rid of the uncertinty principal in quantam theory and shit like that (P.S. by inteligent design i dont mean god)
 
or, its just left over from an earlyer universe. after a few trillion years of excistance, or more, everything would collapse into a single, super-dense mass. then that mass would explode outward, creating life. this would just keep happening, an endless cycle. this has been studied in depth, so if you dont want to take my word for it check out the Scientific American from May of 2004.
 
i don't belive in god simply because it doesn't make sense to me, scientifically.

it doesn't seem real, it seems like something all you religious folk made up to console yourselves when someone you loved died.

i personally don't have any reason to belive in a god yet..
 
good point, though i still think that the meaning of life is to reproduce. same with all animals. the purpose of excistance is to continue excistance. thats why mother animals in the wild will DIE if they have to to save their young. i also recentally heard of a theory that the reason most people (especially women, not being sexist) find young animals cute, almost any animal. because by being "cute", the animal has a better chance of not being killed, at least by humans (and probably higher primates like gorrillas). then they can go on to reproduce. it happens all the time, you can see it on tv. mothers of one species will adopt the young of another who has no mother. this usually only happens with mammals, but dogs and cats will care for each others young if need be. monkeys and gorrillas will care for anothers young as well, they share the care of the young, even if the parent is alive.

yea, so i kinda spun off subject there, oh well, its still almost related...sorta
 
Ok well Adam and Eve lived before Jesus was born. Everyone agree. Well Lucifer became the devil and he lived during the same time as Jesus. Well if Lucifer lived after Adam and Eve how could the “snake’ aka the devil convince Eve to take the apple??? Lucifer aka the devil wasn’t around during the time of Adam and Eve so this disproves everything in my mind about religion .
 
another thing i dont believe in religion is the whole priest/little boy thing. if they're supposed to be so great and tell everyone about god WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY DOING LITTLE KIDS!!!1!!
 
Relegion is there to help calm ourselves with dying, Also I support all relegions and not one, I am atheist because of that.
 
you guys are idiots.

ok, call me stupid because i don't have the same religion or beliefs as you. i don't fucking care.
 
the bible is a book of what powerful people in the past believed. just think about it. kings in the past took parts and pieces of other theories and beliefs, and MANY people contributed to writing the bible over time... putting things in it THEY wanted to hear.

anywho, primoridial soup is legit.
 
you are half retarded. Lucifer was not alive during the time of jesus. he was never human, he was an angel of heaven that rebelled against god and brought 1/3 of the angels in heaven to there own place called "hell".
 
Just stop this thread right now, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. I believe in God and I am not going to explain why in this thread. If any serious person wants to discuss it pls pm me but this thread will take us nowhere.
 
are you sure it was 1/3rd... i would say more like 0.3 repeating.

this thread is awesome... if people even read it they would see i shut down all thier religious beliefs and answered all thier questions well before the end of page 4.

do you all also realize why the guy who started this thread didnt have any good arguaments.... its because he needed arguaments for both sides to write a paper for school, i didnt find that out untill we started to PM.

i love the same arguaments over and over and over, and then over again just for kicks. if people on this site knew how to read and actually read it all they would not repost the same shit over and over again. come to think of it, the only people who dont read other posts and dont care about if an arguament has already been made or not are all the religious types... it seems at though they are paniking to not loose.

oh well, have fun debating this, as much as i agree with the atheists i think we should all give up because after reading this thread i realized most of the people arguing for religion are too dumb to even debate properly.
 
God is wholly good

God is omnipotent

Evil exists

Only 2 of these premises can exist, not all 3. Either Evil exist and god is not omnipotent or wholly good or evil doesn't exist. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
 
im not typing it again... get off your lazy emo ass and read back a few pages where i already answered it.
 
dude, you find the answer and and paste it. part of that post was about how these threads are full of people who make themselves look stupid by no reading the whole thread before they post. and if you are to lazy to read i quite frankly dont care because i have aleady answered your question and im not wasting more time to do it again. good day to you sir.
 
I would deffinetly go with 0.3 repeating.....

I agree with the fact that people do need to read the entire thread before saying the same thing again and again. And that this thread should just be left alone so that it can die (no one will change their mind based of this thread).

Although, I read what you have written and I wouldn't call it shutting down my religious beliefs. You make good points but the fact still remains that alot of science hasn't answered all the questions yet. And this is what is still holding the door open for other possibilities. By even saying that you "shut down all their religious beliefs" is a very narrow minded attitude. And by coming at this debate with that attitude it will always be impossible to see the other argument (even though not many good arguments were given in this thread). I'll admit that its also hard for me to try keep an open mind with the opposing reasons but I'm still giving it a shot. By not having a firm grasp of the entire argument from both sides it makes for a pathetic debate. Thats probably why this thread is quite pathetic. LET IT DIE!
 
one question to all the scientists on this site. why do all the science teachers and proffesors from my city go to my chruch. I would think they are athiest but no they go to the church, why is that?
 
One last comment I have is that it is quite sad that many of the people arguing intelligent design or creationism don't have much information to back their thoughts up. While people who at least attended high school can push the point of evolution. If they want to really provide some good debate pick up a book and read something.
 
Many leading scientist are leaving the idea of evolution. The reason is called ireducable complexity, basicly at some point things dont get any more simple. Even the most simple single cell organism is too complex to have evolved. But Darwin in his time did not have the proper technology to see this, so its not all his fault.
 
because god is not an emotion first of all. emotions are created by hormones and our brain.

second, why one god? other religions have two, even more...why would there only be one god? because monotheistic religions say so?

lastly, take religion for its values, not the principals they are founded on.
 
are you being closed minded, or just a dumbass?

who said people that are interested in science are automatically atheists? what your saying is that there is a definite division of science and religion. sorry bro, doesnt work like that

people are allowed to have their own ideas and still be part of a church.

i garuantee you have some of your own ideas... but oh wait, that might make you an athiest!
 
Here is the first and primal argument,

1.Something cannot be created by nothing, therefore, God cannot have created himself.

2.Anything that is created by an intelligent being is flawed. Math and physics are flawless. So God did not created the Universe, making God powerless.

But, there are alternatives: Berkley believed that God is a thinker, we are only fragments of his imagination, like dreams. God could be a primairy force, the Big Bang for example.

The answer is yes, there is a God.But no, God is not a person with feelings and human default as mentionned in the Bible. I belive that God is energy. It can be in many forms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top