Is God real post your thoughts!

[Furah]

Ok, if God is not real can someone explain this for me.

 

 

 

I have a friend who broke his foot last weekend, an went to the hosptial. After getting x-rays he found out that he had broken it (before then he was unsure) the doctor decide to take a few more x-rays, and my friend's foot was completely healed and he could walk normally. Earlier that day I saw him and he had to wait in a lounge for an hour for a frien to come with some crotches so he could walk. He is a devoted christian.

 

 

 

Another friend once broke his collarbone and the x-rays showed up as a brake, the next day his collarbone looked fine in the x-rays. He is also a evoted christian.

 

No of course we cant explain we aren't doctors, havent seen the x rays, and obviously couldnt hazard a guess...

 

 

 

however....

 

 

 

can you explain similarly, if this happened to your friend because hes a devoted christian why god doesnt do that for all christians? why do devout christians get hurt all the time and miraculously NOT get healed?

 

 

 

(Incidentally, id hazard a guess that his foot xray got mixed up with someone elses foot x ray and his foot was never broken in the first place - boring I know but plausible - or possibly a fairy fixed it for him? - or maybe he just has a magic foot?)

 

 

 

I don't know what its like where you live, but where I am there is like never more then 1 person getting an x-ray, so that practically rules out mix ups, also I cannot explain why God does thing, but I trust him anyway. I will have to assume that the breakage was really noticeable, I'll just ask him tomorrow at church (he was shattered when they wouln't even sell him a copy of the x-rays.)

[Shinjula]

I don't know what its like where you live, but where I am there is like never more then 1 person getting an x-ray, so that practically rules out mix ups, also I cannot explain why God does thing, but I trust him anyway. I will have to assume that the breakage was really noticeable, I'll just ask him tomorrow at church (he was shattered when they wouln't even sell him a copy of the x-rays.)

 

 

 

It's not so much a matter of explaining why god does things, as explaining why he doesnt. You cant claim its god mending your friends foot if he doesnt do it for every devout christian, what sort of a god would that make him? One who chooses favourites?

 

I'm sorry but the sort of god who intervenes in one persons life and refuses to do so for others is an abomination.

[Lenticular_J]

[hide=]I open a physics or biology texbook. it has examples based off what I see every day and observable evidence.

 

 

 

I Open the bible. I crazy stories about how I should love an invisible fairy or he'll bully me after I die.

 

 

 

science books speak of gravity, how the body works, and the laws of physics. I can observe these in my everyday life and see their effects. I see thousands of "prayers" go unanswered. I see nothing god has done. and I'm supposed to just believe on a whim that he made everything and is watching in secret. most of the arguments for god tend to be [something unexplainable at the moment], god must have done it. it's a huge freaking gap between those two things though.

 

 

 

I'll be the first to admit I'm not very good at vocalizing my thoughts. I also haven't read the whole 130 pages. I've also grown very tired of defending what I think in the past and I'm a bit disappointed I broke my promise to myself to never get into this stuff again.

 

 

 

the big things comment was directed at the quote above me. the bit about conforming to something greater.

 

 

 

If I ever saw god do something, something that is directly related to god not something unexplainable, I'd believe in him. At the moment it just seems like a way for people to be comfortable with the unknown.

 

 

 

Sorry about sounding childish before, I forget that the discussion doesn't always come down to Darwinism vs. creationism and I was being a bit brief and not really paying attention (was on a slayer task)[/hide]

 

 

 

You, sir, win epicly.

 

Rocco - I don't want to say this, but I have to. Grow up and stop being such an idiot. This isn't your place.

 

 

 

Now, for dear Robert. What the hell kind of bible are you reading that's a hundred and thirty pages? In fact, it's blatantly obvious you've never read a passage out of the Bible.

 

 

 

The majority of the New Testament is a blend between first-person recorded history, parables, and the moral beliefs of the writers. It's mostly a blend of all that, actually, but I think you get what I mean. Of course you can find a handful of passages that will disagree with each other, or claim stupid things. There were dozens of writers of the New Testament. Tell me you can get a dozen science textbooks together right now, go two thousand years into the future, and all the people there will still be using it as some sort of holy book against ignorance. C'mon, you're reading a time capsule, in essence. You're expecting a map to God? Well, expecting physical evidence of Him is similar to me asking you if your mother loves you. You sure like to think so. But I could rant and root about you not having any proof for hours, and we'd be nowhere. Of course, that's what we're doing here, but whaaaatever. (I like to think of my role as helping fight ignorance.)

 

 

 

OK

 

 

 

I'm an Asatruar, which means I honour the gods/goddesses of Northern Europe. I'm a polytheist, so I believe in more than one god. I wouldn't even try to convince you about believing, since we dont proselytise. For me, the Aesir and Vanir live.

 

 

 

Aubergine2c

 

Awesome. You're leaving, but it's good to see other religions in here. But that's the feelings of me concerning God.

 

 

 

Just a question, if the universe is only several thousand years old, how are we able to see light from stars that are hundreds of millions of light-years away?

 

I'm gonna tell you something about me that's kind of embarrassing. I know it isn't true, but I always think about this when stars are brought up. I always think that we get the light from them instantly somehow. I guess just because I can't comprehend the whole distance time thing. I mean, if you went flying in the fastest thing on earth, it would still take you hundreds of years to reach the nearest star.

 

 

 

That's [bleep]ing crazy, so I humanize with the thought that it's all instant. I don't really care if it's wrong, I know that it is, but it really doesn't affect me - plus it's uncommon that I bring this up.

[Roberthree]

 

Now, for dear Robert. What the hell kind of bible are you reading that's a hundred and thirty pages? In fact, it's blatantly obvious you've never read a passage out of the Bible.

 

 

 

 

this thread is approaching 130 pages. I have not read the full 130 pages of this thread. I have read genesis and exodus since thats where a lot of controversy arises. I also do not appreciate the way you ignored the meat of what I said. minuscule details of the bible aren't my point. my point is that just because we don't know something, doesn't mean the only explanation is god.

 

 

 

@mage_man: once again, something unexplainable doesn't mean god did it.

[Quoi_Tu]

I don't know what its like where you live, but where I am there is like never more then 1 person getting an x-ray, so that practically rules out mix ups, also I cannot explain why God does thing, but I trust him anyway. I will have to assume that the breakage was really noticeable, I'll just ask him tomorrow at church (he was shattered when they wouln't even sell him a copy of the x-rays.)

 

 

 

It's not so much a matter of explaining why god does things, as explaining why he doesnt. You cant claim its god mending your friends foot if he doesnt do it for every devout christian, what sort of a god would that make him? One who chooses favourites?

 

I'm sorry but the sort of god who intervenes in one persons life and refuses to do so for others is an abomination.

 

 

 

That's under the assumption that God is benevolent and fair.

[Shinjula]

That's under the assumption that God is benevolent and fair.

 

No its under the assumption that you should only WORSHIP a god who is benevolent and fair.

 

If God is unbenevolent and unfair he should be fought just like any other dictator.

[Quoi_Tu]

That's under the assumption that God is benevolent and fair.

 

No its under the assumption that you should only WORSHIP a god who is benevolent and fair.

 

If God is unbenevolent and unfair he should be fought just like any other dictator.

 

 

 

That's under the assumption God must be unbenevolent and unfair if he is not benevolent and fair. What if God is apathetic or random? What if he cannot be personified by man as so many people do? My point is you're assuming humanlike characteristics of a nonhuman being. You also seek a reason for what God does, when surely he can be without reason.

[Shinjula]

I'm immature and an idiot because I say that belief in the fairy in the sky is a load of [cabbage]? :wall:

 

No because you are offering no constructive critisism, not joining the debate and basically just being rude.

 

 

 

That's under the assumption that God is benevolent and fair.

 

No its under the assumption that you should only WORSHIP a god who is benevolent and fair.

 

If God is unbenevolent and unfair he should be fought just like any other dictator.

 

 

 

That's under the assumption God must be unbenevolent and unfair if he is not benevolent and fair. What if God is apathetic or random? What if he cannot be personified by man as so many people do? My point is you're assuming humanlike characteristics of a nonhuman being. You also seek a reason for what God does, when surely he can be without reason.

 

Well I was just going with the most obvious possibility. An apathetic or random god shouldnt be worshipped, and even then I'd suggest we fight against it, whats the phrase, with great power comes great responsibility - if a god is not living up to its responsibiity then we should go out and set that god straight. I'm assuming sentient characteristics rather than human ones, because if god isnt sentient at least vaguely then he doesnt really fall under the definition of god (I think - this point could make for an interesting debate if youd like). This kinda correlates to him being with reason, if god is without reason then i dont think hed count as sentient.

 

I'm kinda using sentient to mean able to make choices, in case it needs defining for the sake of the debate.

 

 

 

If god is sentient but not understandable then we cant judge the ethics of his actions, in which case we have to act with extreme care when dealing with him and we certainly shouldnt worship him until we are capable of judging his actions. I'd certainly say that from my point of view the christian god falls under the category "Jugdable and found lacking", he certainly claims do be doing things for reasons i can understand and if I foud any human being doing those actions I would certainly want them locked up as a lunatic and I see no reason this cannot be applied to god. Ethics and morality should be applicable to any being whether human or god.

[Saru Inc]

This thread makes me laugh. You guys are all contradictingeach other. Some say you make a theory then find evidence, others say you fin evidence then make theories. You guys say atheism is unsure of God, then some say it's disbelief of a God. Make up your minds. And besides, no one is debating the points I put up. And most of you don't even know what you're saying, you say if I can't fin evidence to disporve the Oort cloud, then it must exist. Makes sense, I guess? Let's rephrase that: If I can't find evidence to disprove God, then he must exist.

 

 

 

You guys act like it's an insult to your intelligence to be religious. Some of the most intelligent rational people in the world were Christian. Let's name some, Newton comes to mind, wait... what??? Newton? As in the scientist Newton?! What the [bleep]??

 

 

 

http://www.intelligentchristianity.net/

 

 

 

Click on apologetic notes, then Science and Religon comflict one. It was pretty good.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Makes sense, I guess? Let's rephrase that: If I can't find evidence to disprove God, then he must exist.

 

Under that logic, you may as well go and tell someone who's diagnosed as paranoid their perceived threats are very much real. After all, to them, there's no evidence to disprove those threats are there.

 

 

 

You guys act like it's an insult to your intelligence to be religious. Some of the most intelligent rational people in the world were Christian. Let's name some, Newton comes to mind, wait... what??? Newton? As in the scientist Newton?! What the [bleep]??

 

What's your point? Unless you're arguing God told him about gravity (which many scientists thought existed long before Newton came along, just like the Romans realised about germs long before Pasteur and Koch), it's no proof God exists, or that we should all believe in God.

[Saru Inc]

Gw, I know that. I was mocking the line of reasoning they used earlier, I only switched it to God.

 

 

 

 

 

And all I was saying is that not all Christians are science haters and book burners.

[Quoi_Tu]

[hide=]

I'm immature and an idiot because I say that belief in the fairy in the sky is a load of [cabbage]? :wall:

 

No because you are offering no constructive critisism, not joining the debate and basically just being rude.

 

 

 

That's under the assumption that God is benevolent and fair.

 

No its under the assumption that you should only WORSHIP a god who is benevolent and fair.

 

If God is unbenevolent and unfair he should be fought just like any other dictator.

 

 

 

That's under the assumption God must be unbenevolent and unfair if he is not benevolent and fair. What if God is apathetic or random? What if he cannot be personified by man as so many people do? My point is you're assuming humanlike characteristics of a nonhuman being. You also seek a reason for what God does, when surely he can be without reason.

[/hide]

 

Well I was just going with the most obvious possibility. An apathetic or random god shouldnt be worshipped, and even then I'd suggest we fight against it, whats the phrase, with great power comes great responsibility - if a god is not living up to its responsibiity then we should go out and set that god straight. I'm assuming sentient characteristics rather than human ones, because if god isnt sentient at least vaguely then he doesnt really fall under the definition of god (I think - this point could make for an interesting debate if youd like). This kinda correlates to him being with reason, if god is without reason then i dont think hed count as sentient.

 

I'm kinda using sentient to mean able to make choices, in case it needs defining for the sake of the debate.

 

 

 

Really, the bolded sentence is what caught my eye because you are claiming that if God does not live up to a responsibility we put on it, then it should not be worshipped. What right do humans have to put such responsibilities on God unless of course, humans created such a God. Unless God is selfish or needy, he does not care whether he is worshipped or fought against. Assuming God is a timeless being, he is also unchanged, so he has no reason to help us. God surely is sentient, but that doesn't mean his actions need reason. (That was what I meant by saying he is without reason)

[NoMoreDead]

This thread makes me laugh. You guys are all contradictingeach other. Some say you make a theory then find evidence, others say you fin evidence then make theories. You guys say atheism is unsure of God, then some say it's disbelief of a God. Make up your minds. And besides, no one is debating the points I put up. And most of you don't even know what you're saying, you say if I can't fin evidence to disporve the Oort cloud, then it must exist. Makes sense, I guess? Let's rephrase that: If I can't find evidence to disprove God, then he must exist.

 

 

 

Atheism is NOT being "unsure" of a god. It isn't by it's very definition. That's agnosticism, buddy.

 

 

 

Nobody debates the points you put up because you never make any logical contribution to the argument, and continue to post biased sources like "http://www.intelligentchristianity.net/"

 

and "www.icr.org", and even "www.talkorigins.com". Can't you do any better than providing blatantly biased sources?

 

 

 

 

You guys act like it's an insult to your intelligence to be religious. Some of the most intelligent rational people in the world were Christian. Let's name some, Newton comes to mind, wait... what??? Newton? As in the scientist Newton?! What the [bleep]??

 

 

 

 

"Some" would imply that you planned on naming more than one.

[Shinjula]

Unless you're arguing God told him about gravity (which many scientists thought existed long before Newton came along, just like the Romans realised about germs long before Pasteur and Koch)

 

Just thought I'd point out was that Newton didnt discover gravity, he experimentally derived the 3 laws of motion.

[Sly_Wizard]

Well I was just going with the most obvious possibility. An apathetic or random god shouldnt be worshipped, and even then I'd suggest we fight against it, whats the phrase, with great power comes great responsibility - if a god is not living up to its responsibiity then we should go out and set that god straight. I'm assuming sentient characteristics rather than human ones, because if god isnt sentient at least vaguely then he doesnt really fall under the definition of god (I think - this point could make for an interesting debate if youd like). This kinda correlates to him being with reason, if god is without reason then i dont think hed count as sentient. I'm kinda using sentient to mean able to make choices, in case it needs defining for the sake of the debate.

 

 

 

If god is sentient but not understandable then we cant judge the ethics of his actions, in which case we have to act with extreme care when dealing with him and we certainly shouldnt worship him until we are capable of judging his actions. I'd certainly say that from my point of view the christian god falls under the category "Jugdable and found lacking", he certainly claims do be doing things for reasons i can understand and if I foud any human being doing those actions I would certainly want them locked up as a lunatic and I see no reason this cannot be applied to god. Ethics and morality should be applicable to any being whether human or god.

 

 

 

This post is full of contradictions. Either you understand why God does what he does, meaning you rival God is both wisdom and understanding, or you don't, in which case you can offer no value judgment concerns His actions as you're speaking of things you don't know nor understand.

 

 

 

Know what you know, but admit to knowing what you don't know.

[LP]

*Insert random [cabbage] about how god is or isn't real here*

 

 

 

*insert more random [cabbage] about how god is or isn't real here*

 

*Also insert an attempt to contradict previous post*

 

 

Rinse and Repeat.

[warri0r45]

This thread makes me laugh. You guys are all contradictingeach other. Some say you make a theory then find evidence, others say you fin evidence then make theories. You guys say atheism is unsure of God, then some say it's disbelief of a God. Make up your minds. And besides, no one is debating the points I put up. And most of you don't even know what you're saying, you say if I can't fin evidence to disporve the Oort cloud, then it must exist. Makes sense, I guess? Let's rephrase that: If I can't find evidence to disprove God, then he must exist.

 

 

 

Atheism is NOT being "unsure" of a god. It isn't by it's very definition. That's agnosticism, buddy.

 

 

 

Nobody debates the points you put up because you never make any logical contribution to the argument, and continue to post biased sources like "http://www.intelligentchristianity.net/"

 

and "www.icr.org", and even "www.talkorigins.com". Can't you do any better than providing blatantly biased sources?

 

 

 

 

You guys act like it's an insult to your intelligence to be religious. Some of the most intelligent rational people in the world were Christian. Let's name some, Newton comes to mind, wait... what??? Newton? As in the scientist Newton?! What the [bleep]??

 

 

 

 

"Some" would imply that you planned on naming more than one.

 

 

 

I just thought I'd say that talkorigins is the pro-evolution one.

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/

 

 

 

At least it gives the reader actual links to scientific journals from time to time.

 

 

 

As for Saruman, you can't expect to post biased christian fundamentalist sources and have everyone agree with you. The only real unbiased sources as a whole are the scientific literature, i.e. the collection of work which makes up the consensus position which says that evolution happened. It's so mechanised by that stage that the body of work as a whole has virtually no bias to it. That's not to say that it's perfect, because it is a human endeavour, but it's the best science as of now and it tells a pretty definitive story.

[Shinjula]

Really, the bolded sentence is what caught my eye because you are claiming that if God does not live up to a responsibility we put on it, then it should not be worshipped. What right do humans have to put such responsibilities on God unless of course, humans created such a God. Unless God is selfish or needy, he does not care whether he is worshipped or fought against. Assuming God is a timeless being, he is also unchanged, so he has no reason to help us. God surely is sentient, but that doesn't mean his actions need reason. (That was what I meant by saying he is without reason)

I would think it fair to say that the same applies to god as to any parent. Parenting is generally accepted to bring responsibilities, creating a universe of sentient beings should bring the same responsibilities as creating a child.

 

I am, I will willingly admit always fazed by the idea of things without a reason and am quite dubious about the existence of such things. I dont deny their existence but I've yet to find anything I'm convinced is actually without reason. However, I dont think that would count as sentient, if he has reasons I cannot understand, that is one thing but I think without reason is without choice and without choice is without sentience. Does that make sense?

This post is full of contradictions. Either you understand why God does what he does, meaning you rival God is both wisdom and understanding, or you don't, in which case you can offer no value judgment concerns His actions as you're speaking of things you don't know nor understand.

 

 

 

Know what you know, but admit to knowing what you don't know.

It is an interesting point, its a bit like, if we have a king (say) who claims that his populace dont understand him but he works for the good of the people but the people look at his works and say "That looks unethical to us". There is one difference though, the king could be forced to justify his actions to the people.

 

In some religeons we have religeous texts to go on as justification, and so far from all the texts I have read which have claimed in some way to be directly from God, I would find them all wanting. Neither have I heard any theories (not directly attributable to a god) from philosophers or the like which can in any way justify an omnipotent god (I have little problem with non omnipotent gods).

 

If however we talk about a god not related to any religious text, my response would still be that it was its responsibility to make sure its creations understood it, and if it hadn't done that it would also be failing in its responsibilities.

 

Lastly the more tricky potential situation, that of it being impossibile to understand god. To me that would be akin to having a pet such as a cat, on fireworks night we keep our cat inside when he wants to go out, theres no way of explaining to the cat that he must stay in, but we must control his actions. However, whenever I do this I am always there to cuddle him, and care for him and provide him with entertainment and diversion and make sure that his needs are met. I'm not at all convinced we see that from god.

 

And I certainly wouldnt expect the cat to worship me unconditionally at this time, nor would I expect his respect. I would not be cross if he scratched me during this time nor would I punish him or allow him to be punished for it in any way. This is a directly opposite position from that of the christian god takes.

 

I'd also question the purpose and ethics of creating a race of people incapable of understanding him, OK at this point you may say that is because I dont undertand him, but ethics are ethics and independant from god (easily seen by the number of moral athiests) if god does not follow ethics hes no god of mine.

[Quoi_Tu]

Really, the bolded sentence is what caught my eye because you are claiming that if God does not live up to a responsibility we put on it, then it should not be worshipped. What right do humans have to put such responsibilities on God unless of course, humans created such a God. Unless God is selfish or needy, he does not care whether he is worshipped or fought against. Assuming God is a timeless being, he is also unchanged, so he has no reason to help us. God surely is sentient, but that doesn't mean his actions need reason. (That was what I meant by saying he is without reason)

 

I would think it fair to say that the same applies to god as to any parent. Parenting is generally accepted to bring responsibilities, creating a universe of sentient beings should bring the same responsibilities as creating a child.

 

I am, I will willingly admit always fazed by the idea of things without a reason and am quite dubious about the existence of such things. I dont deny their existence but I've yet to find anything I'm convinced is actually without reason. However, I dont think that would count as sentient, if he has reasons I cannot understand, that is one thing but I think without reason is without choice and without choice is without sentience. Does that make sense?

 

 

 

A choice can be made without reason, but that would be more along the lines of chance then. I guess I'm thinking along the lines of God's actions not needing explantion, not needing a reason behind them. God could just act upon the universe apathetic towards the consequences of his actions (he ramains unaffected no matter what he does). There could easily be no reason for this action other than because God could. I think the whole "God works in mysterious ways" comes into play here.

[Shinjula]

A choice can be made without reason, but that would be more along the lines of chance then. I guess I'm thinking along the lines of God's actions not needing explantion, not needing a reason behind them. God could just act upon the universe apathetic towards the consequences of his actions (he ramains unaffected no matter what he does). There could easily be no reason for this action other than because God could. I think the whole "God works in mysterious ways" comes into play here.

I'm sorry, I dont understand your idea of god not needing to explain, this is not a happy and peaceful world, full of content people with no problems. If there is a god he has a *LOT* of explaining to do.

[Quoi_Tu]

A choice can be made without reason, but that would be more along the lines of chance then. I guess I'm thinking along the lines of God's actions not needing explantion, not needing a reason behind them. God could just act upon the universe apathetic towards the consequences of his actions (he ramains unaffected no matter what he does). There could easily be no reason for this action other than because God could. I think the whole "God works in mysterious ways" comes into play here.

I'm sorry, I dont understand your idea of god not needing to explain, this is not a happy and peaceful world, full of content people with no problems. If there is a god he has a *LOT* of explaining to do.

 

 

 

Why does he have to explain for what we've done? Shouldn't we be responsible for ourselves?

[Shinjula]

Oh he doesnt have to justify the things we've done of course we are responsible for our own actions, but he does have to justify the stuff hes done, let me use a for example, how about creating a form of life that is vampiric in nature, thats a pretty big one on my list of greivances with god. We have to feed on each other to survive as a basic tenet of life on this planet, that is not the actions of a benevolent god. (Incidentally id better note that this is explained in genesis, however i have other gripes with the christian god - its more of a general question to gods)

[Saru Inc]

Oh he doesnt have to justify the things we've done of course we are responsible for our own actions, but he does have to justify the stuff hes done, let me use a for example, how about creating a form of life that is vampiric in nature, thats a pretty big one on my list of greivances with god. We have to feed on each other to survive as a basic tenet of life on this planet, that is not the actions of a benevolent god. (Incidentally id better note that this is explained in genesis, however i have other gripes with the christian god - its more of a general question to gods)

 

 

 

 

 

That's not true at all. Sure, it may be competitive, but we made is so parasitic.

 

 

 

And NoMoreDead, you really are dull. You can't have anything in religion be unbiased. It's the one thing where it all is biased. Obviously, all sites for Creation will be biased towards it, but do you even know the meaning of bias? Did you read the articles? First off, while a site may be biased towards Creration, that doesn't mean it would show up. What if I were to call all your sites biased, and thus unuseful? And NoMoreDead, GW says atheism is unsure, and there's no such thing as agnosticism. And just so you know, I never posted from TalkOrigins. And lastly, whether I put up logical facts or not, is irrelevant, but the site does put up some good ones. So debate those, and would you like me to re post the points, or do you think you could find themn on your own?

 

 

 

And Warri0r, I stay away from the fundamentalist ones. But, just because someone believes in Creation, does not make them a raving lunatic. ;) So, after we've established that, I see no reason we should throw out what they're saying, you don't have to agree with it, just read it and say what you think about it.

[Lenticular_J]

this thread is approaching 130 pages. I have not read the full 130 pages of this thread. I have read genesis and exodus since thats where a lot of controversy arises.

 

Thought you were meaning the Bible is 130 pages. Carrying on.

 

 

 

I also do not appreciate the way you ignored the meat of what I said.

 

I don't care about your appreciation. I had nothing to say, so I said nothing.

 

 

 

my point is that just because we don't know something, doesn't mean the only explanation is god.

 

Never said it was, darlin'. Just because some people like to have the anchor rope that is God, doesn't make you any better or worse than them. Blatant ignorance of their beliefs, however, will.

 

 

 

*Insert random [cabbage] about how god is or isn't real here*

 

 

 

*insert more random [cabbage] about how god is or isn't real here*

 

*Also insert an attempt to contradict previous post*

 

 

Rinse and Repeat.

 

Heeey, you've been paying attention. :

[NoMoreDead]

 

And NoMoreDead, you really are dull. You can't have anything in religion be unbiased. It's the one thing where it all is biased. Obviously, all sites for Creation will be biased towards it, but do you even know the meaning of bias? Did you read the articles? First off, while a site may be biased towards Creration, that doesn't mean it would show up. What if I were to call all your sites biased, and thus unuseful? And NoMoreDead, GW says atheism is unsure, and there's no such thing as agnosticism. And just so you know, I never posted from TalkOrigins. And lastly, whether I put up logical facts or not, is irrelevant, but the site does put up some good ones. So debate those, and would you like me to re post the points, or do you think you could find themn on your own?

 

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

Please look up "agnosticism". Calling me dull and then stating that there is no such thing as agnosticism is laughable. Just because I know you won't, I'll post several links. Read up, junior.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

 

 

 

Atheism is NOT being unsure. How many times do we have to tell you this? Three definitions from three different sites.

 

 

 

Atheism: Belief in no God, or no belief in God. (There is a difference) (www.religioustolerance.com)

 

Atheism: A disbelief in the existence of deity(http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/atheism)

 

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism)

 

 

 

You CAN have information given from an unbiased source. This is what's called a "third party" or "outside" source. Do some research on James Randi's million dollar challenge and you'll understand.