Satenza

Lets remember theres 300Million people in America, it has some harsh climates and every country in the world hates them. How difficult do you really think it is with that amount of people and that amount of diversity?

Thank-you for the generalized insult.

So, if we didn't have free will whats the point in creating some humans to follow God and some humans to not follow God?

You agree that your beliefs are contrdictory? Contraditions means that they don't work and that you need to rethink them.

Are you sure you wish to go down that line. It implies the universe has no order and is chaos if both science and logic are wrong, which is contrary to the idea of a creator.

Thats not the point, the point is God has predetermined who will and who will not go to hell. What is the point of creating people who are predetermined to go to hell? Are we supposed to be thankful for that supposed free will and live the rest of our life burning and being tourtured? It's like a parent letting a child run out into a road of busy traffic because they have the free will to do that.

What do you mean "prove it"? the only way you can prove it is with circular reasoning, Example: The Bible says it is written by man with divine inspiration from God therefore thats proof that the Bible is true. Thats not proof at all, it still requires faith for you to prove it. Nothing can be proved through faith because faith is all about not having proof.

To learn and progress. If we just hand over an end product it would have les value than if we did it ourselves and learn't why it is so valuable to progress. Superhumans wouldn't value their progression because they went through nothing to get it.

They can put their views across, talk and reason with them. They can'tforce them to do anything they don't want too. This is assuming they are of a rational mind and over an age of consent.

I think the point he was making was that since God knows what will happen, and every decision we make. He knows who is going to hell and who is not. So what can anyone do to stop it? You could argue that will God knows what decisions we will make, and doesn't enforce us to make them. The problem with that is that he still has predetermined what we will end up doing. Be that going to heaven or to hell. So how could any christian save anyone else from going to hell? He knows if we will accept him or not at birth, and he knows that we are going to heaven or to hell. The fact is that if we don't accept Jesus, we are going to hell and if we are predetermied to go to hell there is nothing we can do about it at all. So Gods just creating us to not follow him and to end up burning in hell for all eternity. Thanks God.

Yeah, and I've never heard a human being say "Wow, science has brought me so much fulfillment in life! I'm so glad I've spent my life acquiring knowledge that neither affected my heart nor helped me love the people around me". When you're on your deathbed, are you going to say "Gee, I just wish I had studied science more!"? Of course not, I don't study science. I don't think it is the most important thing in the world, however it's the best tool we have for discovering truth. I know when I'm lying on my deathbed hopefully i can be proud of helping change society for the better for it is the only world and life we are sure about. I will certainly not be thinking about whether I have impressed a God enough to get into heaven.

It's just the opposite. God becomes more personal the more we realize science can't fill the relationship-shaped void in our lives. Do you honestly think science is going to bring you fulfillment in life? God doesn't bring fulfillment in life, correct me if I am wrong but every human on this planet religious or not wants something more. Whether that be material or spiritual we are all searching for felicity and thats human nature. Science brings truth, and truth brings some fulfillment as oppose to religion which just attempts to cloud it.

As science advances the need for God decreases. He will become less personal and become more of an event, and only more of an event because we can't explain the start of the universe and an infinite regression is impossible. God has and will always be something mysterious to fill in the gaps, he was once personal and jealous and very much like a tyrant, as society progresses God becomes less and less personal until the majority of the gaps we have in science are filled. When we get to the point of pinpointing what started the universe, that event will be God. A trancendant God is all well and good, but if you beleive all of the Bible to be correct, it doesn't work out. If you beleive in absolute morality, it doesn't work either.

People beleive that a few people control the nations of the world, and banks have a massive influence on who gets elected. And why do you keep saying "noone"?

Blind faith has absolutley no value. It's just like me beleiving in anything because it's my opinion and then taking it be be fact. Faith is nothing, arguing against an atheist with an intrinsic argument is worthless. The only things we have as humans is experimentation and reason, blindly following something because you have faith which goes against those two things is illogical. Blind faith is illogical and worthless. It doesn't activley do anything, it leads to people who back their opinion up with faith making them beleive that it is fact, which is dangerous as proved throughout history.

What do you mean by "my faith is strong"? You beleive in something because you have faith in something. Faith is nothing, i don't see why anyone would see it as a credible reason for anything at all.

I'd have to say I am against it, we should develop on our own we don't need any genetic help to speed up the process. As some people have pointed out - people can abuse this. We don't need this, all we need is liberty to progress.

The Bible teaches absolute morality, and since you take Gods word to be law. I would say the majority of christians beleive in moral absolutes. If you don't how can you ever condem anyone to have sinned, when what you deem is a sin changes? You can't hence moral absolutes.

The rule against incest would have been established after the time of Adam and Eve wouldnt it? If that where the case the Bible's morality would not be absolute as it's subject to change at any time. Therefore holding any form of society on the basis that the Bible is absolute you are infact holding it on subjective and deeply conservative morals. Possibly, but from what I've read it seems like God made a moral code for humans to follow after the Earth was populated. There still subjective then, God could therefore change them at any time in the future. Absolute means morals stay the same throughout ALL time.

It's a very interesting find, but obviously no proof either way. It's obvious, Christians where going to put this 100% down too a coincidence or a hoax, were as athiests are generally more understanding of the situation and while we don't beleive he acended to heaven we don't 100% beleive that these are his bones and body. Could be hoax, coincidence or real. Do they have any possible date as to when they died? Also for the people who keep saying "Well it's obviously false, the bible says Jesus acended" you're arguments are intrinsic and have no value.

The rule against incest would have been established after the time of Adam and Eve wouldnt it? If that where the case the Bible's morality would not be absolute as it's subject to change at any time. Therefore holding any form of society on the basis that the Bible is absolute you are infact holding it on subjective and deeply conservative morals.

Sorry, 2 days late. Had a powercut yesterday. The point I was making is that the contents of the bible where decided by man. Yet people put 100% faith into something they know little of who wrote? We don't know for sure that Matthew, Mark, Luke Or John wrote anything. Since we don't even have the scriptures they where written on. On the matter of "How did Judas die?" - Matthew 27:5 - And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Acts 1:18 - Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. It's not so much an argument, than it is a list. And the list is very, very long. He can do as he wishes with his creation? So a father and mother can do whatever they like to their children. They created their children, so who are you to question them?

I will reply tommorow, sorry about saying infalliable instead of falliable. I put it down to it being 1:20AM :)

Proof? [source] So? Most of the stories in the New Testament are said to be written around 60-100 years after Jesus' death. However who's to say that the Gnostic Gospels where only written down when they needed to be written down? Point? Showing the writing are therefore not 100% accurate and don't represent Gods word. Which version of the event do you beleive? I did a search and here's the first result that came out Knock yourself out. So you agree that it's fine that the God you love, respect, admire and follow murders and wipes out entire races and the actual entire human race save Noah and a few others? Drowning women and children? Frankly if your God was real and did such things i would never worship him. Ever. That by the men writing the Bible being infalliable you can't be sure that they didn't write to interpret their own opinion or that they didn't get them wrong. Therefore not 100% wold of God, but 100% the opinion of a man. The eye witnesses are dead, remember they where written 60-100 years after the initial events. And a mans lifespan was on average i think 30 years old.

I can't see how anyone would take it as 100% word of God. 1. It's known to have been edited a lot over time. 2. Gospels have been thrown out. 3. It has different 'recounts' of events from the authors. 4. It contradicts itself. 5. An all loving and perfect God commits at least 4 acts of genocide and over 100 murders. 6. By assuming the bible is infalliable you are assuming humans are infalliable when writing it. 7. You are relying on people telling a 100% exact recount of an event that happened years before going off their recollection. How can you put trust into something despite all of that. Is it even logical to do so?