Creationism vs Evolution, that's the big one:

Everything that exists was created in a matter of days? does that mean that the sun and earth were here before "God" was? How long would a day have been?

The term "day" in this context is something used by "God" to explain the passing of time to a bunch of morons trying to understand things that they'll never be capable of undertanding... like me and grammar.

Why can't the "Big Bang" and days of creation exist simulatneously?
How long is a "day" in eternity? It's a fraction of the smallest fraction of time you could ever imagine. It's so much greater than you that you will NEVER be able to fully understand it.

Evolution and creation are the same thing.

THE BIBLE:

If "God" "talked" to select people through history and the stories written by these people were compiled into a book called THE BIBLE what would you have?

Here's "God" an all knowing being trying to communicate with a HUMAN that not long ago believed the sun was a flaming chariot that was being driven accross the sky.

How does a being of such infinite intelligence communicate with this idiot?
God doesn't use words because words are nothing but noises. Noises that represent thoughts, experience, and emotion... they're not truth.

So these men "listened" to God as he communicated with feeling and experience (much more effective than words). These various individuals attempted to recreate "Gods Words" in their writings. Since words are so ineffective a lot was missed and even more was misinterpreted after being written by the human hand.

Through time much of this was rewritten for various reasons. Men and momen studied these words as truth but ignored the things that just didn't fit in a modern world. (ie: slaughtering a cow to welcome someone to the new neighborhood). They listen to men and women that interpret this words that have been recycled and re-edited a million times and why?

Does "God" not "speak" to anyone anymore? Are the only words ever "spoken" by "God" in books from an undertermined time period?
Oh wait, no! God speaks to the Pope and other HIGH RANKING religous officals but we were "all created in his likeness" why would he only "speak" to certain people?

He "speaks" to everyone everyday and no stupid "religion" is more "right" than the next stupid religion. None are more wrong than one another either. If people would stop expecting others to tell them what "God" is and what "God" says is right they might actually learn to listen to "God" themselves.

Once you listen for yourself you won't need someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's of interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone that might not have understood what was "said" in the first place.

OTHER STUFF:

You can't know God until you stop telling yourself that you already do.
You can't hear God less you stop telling yourself you already have.

You can't hear God until you try to listen.

A prefabricated religion is the easy way out, "Tell me what I have to do to get to heaven and I'll do my best". "Tell me what is right and what is wrong and I'll alwasy do right"

C'mon, mankind is smarter than that and it's time to break that ridiculous pattern of thinking. "God" is real and "God" is not the judgemental overseer that MOST religons make him out to be.

If you're "God" loves you why would he send you to "Hell"?

The fact that your "God" is so powerful yet can't control "evil" says a lot about what you believe. "God" created everything so how is it that "God" created something that can defeat "God"? My point? Hell doesn't exist.

Bible Pounder Alert! Bible Pounder Alert! Scramble the fanatics we have a bogey at www.americasdebate.com!

Religion used to be a genuine attempt at a search for truth but it has become a way to manipulate people and their thoughts. As a child you knew how to listen to God, try and remember.

Roy, I find you’re posting to be absolutely riveting. I will endeavor to take some of the viewpoints that you articulate and share with you some of the beliefs of a person who believes in creationism. Some of the answers you may find lacking in creditability simply because they are based on faith. For that, I apologize in advance. Also – due to the fact that you have obviously spent a great deal of time gathering your thoughts concerning this issue, please allow me the time to deal with them individually.

If you believe in the Big Bang, you believe that something actually existed before God, which goes against the ideology of creationism. In order to believe that God exists, you must first grasp the idea that the universe was void in the very beginning.

They cannot be the same thing. Evolution is the changing of one thing into another, while creation is the building of something from nothing.
It would be easier to explain it as follows: (please bear with me, I am not preaching)
Creation: Snapping your finger, and a car new car appears in front of you.
Evolution: Watching a tornado go through a junkyard in extremely slow motion, and leaving a new car when the tornado dissipates.

Some people may say, "the law" or "a darn good story book" however I look at it as more of a guide.

In referring to the Holy Bible, I do not know of any major changes made to the content of the Bible before the writing of the King James Version. The KJV was created in a matter that made the translation from its original text so that it could be read by any commoner (the few literate ones that existed in those time), however when compared to ancient text such as the dead sea scrolls, the content remains the same as it was written 2,000 years ago.
I would agree with you concerning editions of the Bible written since the time the KJV was printed. In many aspects it seems to have changed the text from what it originally intended. I believe that this has been done for economic reasons, as well as the need to “dumb” things down for a society such as ours that will only read things if we are able to understand it at a 3rd grade level. Plus pictures are always nice, however this does not make it right!
Additionally – Anything written outside of the content of the Bible, and is stated as being the word of God, or the continuation of the word is “in my opinion” nothing less than slander against God.
Concerning the slaughtering of a cow to welcome new neighbors, I have been to many large roasts (a mid-west hick tradition) as well as BBQ block parties that welcomes new people to the street, however this was not a law set forth in the Bible, and therefore can easily be accepted as a guide to show that you should welcome new neighbors with open arms. In my humble opinion that could be done in many different ways, slaughtering a cow, having a BBQ, or even an invitation to join you for some take-out Chinese food.

I will have to get back to you once again at a later time. The night is becoming short, and I need to get up somewhat early. I look forward to seeing any additional postings.

Roy, what you have written can only be construed as pure speculation on your part. I know a few people who think like this, and my reply is always 'why should we trust YOUR conjecture as opposed to a BOOK that has been tried, tested, and endured since the beginning of time'??


Isn't that what you have just done...created your own religion??

Roy, I have posted evidence on the "Whose Religion is Right?" forum supporting Jesus Christ as God, as well as a challenge. I am interested in what you think of my evidence, and would appreciate it if you would look at my evidence and respond to the challenge.

Now, about your religion. This strikes me as more of an anti-organized religion statement. Your objection to religion is the same as everyone else's: "God could not have done it that way, because I would have done it this way." Do you consider God incapable of making sure at least some humans know and can communicate what He wants us to know?

This method of thinking is logically erroneous, but you also have many assumptions, such as evil is a powerful as good and a superior being would never allow harm to come to an inferior being S/He loves, which are wrong.

Mniknm, well said and I appreciate your well thought out response. Here's mine:

The Bible is a collection of writings that people trying to interpret "the word" of "God" have created. People are people and people make mistakes. God doesn't communicate with words. I know because "God" "speaks" to me every day.

Feelings are the language of the soul and that's how "God" "speaks".
So when someone takes these feelings and tries to put them into words we have the Bible. It is then read a thousand different ways by a billion different people and what do you have?

A diluted, misconstrued, often abused "word of God"

Most people stopped trying to listen and wait for someone in front of an altar to tell them what "God" says. That doesn't always work and I don't listen to those people anymore. I only isten to "God".

Big Bang? Void? So was there nothing BUT "God" or was there nothing at all and then "God" came to be? What would the Bible tell you?

Creation vs evolution... "God" created man in "his" likeness does this mean physically? God walks on two legs and has to shave in the morning? does he have bad posture now? I mean, he's pretty old.

"His likeness" is talking about his level of awareness not his appearance. Why would God be concerned with appearance? Again, creation and evolution are the same thing and I am certain. Just as many people are certain that a man with a gold cross and a robe knows all that is right... even though some of his friends molest children and he knows that this is wrong.

Mr(s) Clue,

Speculation? So my "speculation" is worth less than what a book tells you?
Why? Because "God" "spoke" to the people that wrote this book?
Well God speaks to me because I listen. i know everything in that book but can't remember a single word.

Why hasn't "God" made any profound statements to anyone since this time period? Did he stop talking or are there only CERTAIN people that are worthy of hearing him "speak"?

My prefab religion comment was about "You're bad you go to hell" and "You're good, you go up in the sky with the angels and the invisible "man" we call "God".

You juuust have to listen to these rules and everything will be fine.

I see your point, and credit you for your candor. I would agree with you that the word of God is often misrepresented by people who are looking for glory, fame, and power. As we look throughout history we see many times where the word of God was used to manipulate the hearts and minds of people, however there are numerous segments of the Bible that remain the same and never change throughout the centuries, or even millenniums. An exemplar of this is the Ten Commandments. I think you would concur that most civilized nations that exist hold fast to these “convictions” as a foundation for their laws and moral perspective within society. Furthermore – I believe it would be difficult to deceive anyone on the true significance of law prescribed by God. They are very lucid and comprehensible.

This is where faith comes into play. All I know is that everything came from God. The question of where he come from, or if he always existed is irrelevant; meaning it really doesn’t matter.

You don’t have to be a Christian, or even someone who believes in God whatsoever to be a receiver of his word, or to hear the voice of God. (Have you ever had an inspiration, or “just knew” something? Or ever been concerned about something that consumed your mind only to have it resolved without any earthly explanation? Example: money problems, relationship problems, etc.)
Is it possible that the Bible is the voice that can be heard? After all, it was not written to be a combination of good, or even interesting stories. It is the “law”, or “guide” handed to man from which he/she is directed in the “godly” manner by which to lead their lives?
If a question is asked of God, he will ALWAYS answer. However – Beware!!!! Sometimes the answer may not be what you want to hear.

Basically, yes. As I said earlier, this BOOK has endured since the beginning of time. The things you have said have not. People were willing to fight and die for this BOOK. Are you willing to die for your own speculations??


I never wrote that He stopped making 'any profound statements to anyone'. But I do believe 'there are only certain people who are worthy to hear him speak' (e.g. the people who sincerely and humbly seek after Him).


What about "If you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell"? Is that a 'prefab religion'?

Numerous indeed. The collection of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek works presently referred to as the Bible is entirely unchanged. It is with translations from the original language that problems arise.

I am also very skeptical of people who claim that God speaks to them and yet deny the validity of the Bible.

Mnikmm, This "Big Bang", why couldn't it have been the "birth" of "God"?
Of course everything came from "God" but that depends on what one's definition of "God" is.

Clue,

People have died "for this book"? People have died for science, art, and the erradication of America and all of it's supporters. This fact means nothing to me. People have also died fighting against "this book".

I'VE NEVER denied the Bible's validity. The fact that you think I have further proves the fact that words are the most widely used, ineffective manner of communication.

What I was trying to say was this... God "spoke" to the wirters of the Bible and he DID NOT use words. These people tried to convey what "God" "said" as best they could. They were far less than flawless. I'll give examples if you need.

The question if I would die for knowing what "God" has told me? I believe you called it "your speculation"... What I think I want doesn't matter, what my "God" wants does.

If the question is: If "God" gave me the option would I choose death over saying that what "God" has "told" me was wrong? Yes, I would choose death but "God" would NEVER do that.

The fact that you believe "God" only "speaks" to people that he deems "worthy" is funny to me. So "God" holds other people higher than you? "God" cares for and respects us all EQUALLY and no one is more "worthy" than the next.

We are "God". "God" is the sum of all things which is why Bible pounders often say "God is everywhere and sees everything".

Since "God" speaks to me I guess you would think that I'm more worthy than you. No, you would say I'm lying... but then again you believe a book over what "God" "tells" you personally.

There will never come a day that you would listen to me. That's fine.

God speaks to all who will listen. We can NEVER be worthy of God, but we must strive to be worthy. God speaks to the lowest of the low, if he listens and repents.

M.T.

You seem to be using an anthropomorphized version of God. God is a being not only of infinite intelligence and knowledge, but of infinite ability. There is every reason to believe that He could communicate anything to anyone by any means He chooses. Saying He cannot communicate with anyone accept through their own emotions imposes unneccessary limits on God's power.




Please do.

I tend to shy away from religion debate, but I'd like to point out a flaw in your logic, Shild.

You comment that Roy is using an anthropomorphized version of God. You then continue your post by referring to God as He. You also attribute human actions God ("He could communicate" and "He chooses"). In essence, doing the same thing you claim of Roy.

Jamie's smart and I had too look up anthropomorphized... seems like I should've already known that one.

I've never said that "God" is UNABLE to communicate with people. "God" is perfectly able and does with complete effeciency. OUR language limits "God's" use of words because WE have our limits. "God" uses emotion (among other things) to communicate because it is a far more advanced and detailed than our restrictive language of words.

Words can help you understand something but EXPERIENCE allows you to know it. "God" communicates through experience.

The problem with the Bible is MAN not getting "God's" word exactly right. Not "God's" failure to accurately communicate.

The example you asked for? The 10 commandments:

"God" is all powerful correct? Why would "God" create what he does not want? Whatever "God" wants IS.

"God" wants so bad for this message to be followed that he issues COMMANDMENTS? He COMMANDS this of these people? If he wanted it why would it not already be? Why would he have to COMMAND anything?

The "word" of "God' is not a commandment it is a covenant. Should I go forward and give you greater detail or is this good enough?

Jaime, making a choice and communicating are not specific to humans; they are specific to intelligence. My assumption is that God is intelligent and, therefore, does not involve anthropomorphism. I used "He" for convenience. I will try to use She/He/It hence



God can create whatever She/He/It chooses. If it does not make sense to a human that She/He/It would do things a certain way, that does not mean She/He/It could not have done things thay way. Honestly, I cannot hope to analyze God's motives, so I will give my opinion (which is only an opinion):

God wants us to choose Her/Him/It. If there were no challenge to Her/His/Its authority, following Her/Him/It would not involve a choice, so our advanced human conciousness would be meaningless.

So "God" the creator, the all knowing "Being" (by your definition) would open the door to these choices and condemn an individual for making the wrong one?

"God" created EVERYTHING that influenced this person to tmake the wrong choice.

Back to the topic. "God" was misunderstood by mankind and that's why the Bible is not exactly "God's" "word". "God" never issued Commandments and never will. This portion of history (as many know it) is not correct.

Whatever "God" wishes IS. "God" has no use for Commandments.

Here again, you are assuming God could not have done this because it makes no sense to you. As I stated earlier, if something makes no sense to a human, it does not mean that God does not have a good reason to do things that way.




Do you believe God is all-powerful? If you do, then the only way She/He/It could be "misunderstood" by humans is by choosing to let them misunderstand Her/Him/It. The fact that people misunderstand God shows that, if God is all-powerful, She/He/It chooses not to let humans understand. You seem to be saying that God could use Her/His/Its power to force people to follow Her/Him/It, but She/He/It cannot use Her/His/Its power to make people understand Her/Him/It.

Can I use "He" again? This She/He/It stuff is getting a little confusing.

Shild - PLEASE use "he" again!

Like I said, I shy away from religion debate, so don't change on my account.

"Here again, you are assuming God could not have done this because it makes no sense to you."

I understand everything "God" does. I know that this logic is wrong not because it "doesn't make sense to me" but because "God" has told me so.

If "God" demanded that "God's" people lived a certain way or did certain things it would be so. "God" does not need to "Command" people and "God" never has.

I don't believe that "God" is a single supreme being that oversees everything in existence so by your definition NO, I do not believe "God" is all powerful.

"God" is the sum of everything that is. Everything that is IS "God".

Now we get to the heart of it. Here I sit with simple materialistic evidence, incomplete information, and imperfect thought processes. How could I possibly argue against you, Roy, when the lips of God are at your ear (metaphorically)? However, to accept your contention that you understand God because God told you the Truth, we must make three assumptions:

1) You actually believe God speaks to you (I believe this, but it is still an assumption).

2) God is actually speaking to you (there is a possibility that you are decieved).

3) You are not misunderstanding God, as you believe so many others have.

I admire you, for you do not need external evidence that God exists and communicates with humans. However, I will not accept your take on God until my evidence is refuted and you provide at least some evidence of your own.

I understand. I wil elaborate begining with the "Ten Commandments" since I find this to be a major "misunderstanding" that has been taken as truth.

Please allow me today and some of tomorrow to put it into the best words I know how. I will post it then.

If I AM being decieved by whom?... and what is to say that some of the Biblical authors weren't?

There is no Devil and no Hell. These are 2 things we've invented in order to understand the grand power of "God" and control people. There is no Good without evil so we create this illusion so that we may know what good is.

Love is all that is real. Fear is what we've created to help us understand love. Everything we've ever done, are doing, or will do is motivated by love or fear.

The human psyche has, since the beginning of time, needed three things,among others, to satisfy and comfort it.

To be an accepted member of a tribe.
To believe life has no end.
An answer to where we came from.

Concerning the first point.

A tribe can mean anything concerning a group of people with a leader and having mutual beliefs and rules, namely a club.
Religion falls fair and square into this bracket.
Mankind has become so diverse that one religious club, and rules, covering all of the human races is unsatisfactory hence the creation of other clubs with more suitable rules.
The CEO of these clubs is referred to as God and his board members as priests etc who administer, and modify, the rules.
Now because no one has ever proved to have seen the CEO the board members refer to a manual alleged to have been compiled by him.
No matter, belonging to the club is comforting.

Concerning the second point.

Fairly common throughout these clubs is the promise of everlasting life, as long as the rules are abided by.
Not a bad incentive.

Concerning the final point.

Firstly the one attribute common to all human beings is the inabilty to imagine infinity.

Our minds work in the comfortable area of the finite, a closed loop where a start and finish, beginning and end etc soothes us.
It is the balance we crave.
We are basically digital by nature.....plus and minus, negative and positive, on and off etc.....balance.
Religion supplies us with comforting starts, finishes and rules then throws in the enigmatic 'everlasting life' just to keep the loop open.

The theory of evolution, of life being created in the primordial soup, goes only so far back and no further.
The 'Big Bang' theory explains, theoretically, how the World got here.
Were the primitive life forms that incubated in the soup carried here by the 'Big Bang"?.

The theory that God, whichever one it was, created the world in 7 days is fanciful to say the least if taken literally.
As was pointed out in another post whats a day?...a thousand years to an amoeba?....A micro second to the Universe.

The God theory is far more comfortable, it gives us a finite start.

Regards.Alan

Alan--I usually read through these threads and avoid most because of a predictable inability to initiate questions regarding any rebuttal. This is not an attempt to initiate because apologists for the insanity of religion cannot and usually do not ask questions that are either relavent or even answerable.

Your approach to the question of religion, gods and ghosts, the human psyche, everlasting life, and big bangs are conventional to say the very least. I can only suggest to you something that predictably you probably won't do and that is to contact American Atheist at www.atheists.org and ask them for guidance in explaining to you many sources of information, which I'm sure you are unaware of, regarding the nonsense and impossibility of gods and devils.

Relieving yourself of the nonsense of ghosts and developing answers to questions regarding the real world can be inspiring, enlightening and very productive both intellectually and emotionally.

Good Luck!

Joemailman.

I made the point about everlasting life, big bangs, etc in an attempt to convey the 'unknowingness' of it all.

I conduct my life following certain principles.

1...I personally see the best in everyone I meet, it is up to them to prove me wrong.
2...My life and the way I think is mine and mine alone.

Most certainly I will have a look at the website you posted but may I suggest you dont predict what I will or will not do.
Everything I read is knowledge and adds to experience.

Regards.....Alan

Alan--I never meant to suggest that you take my advice or that you change any of the principles with which you conduct your life. Your first principle of life is a noble and honorable one and yur second is an obvious conclusion with regards to all humans and other animals on this planet....plant life as well.

The "unknowingness of it all" is a language and value system construct that is an impossibility anyway since all physical phenomena is undergoing change at all times . It can be likened to ideas and cultural constructs such as beginnings and endings, the "universe" (as if it had parameters), nothingness, and other such metaphysical ideas.

As for predictability.....it is an unavoidable part of communication and the exchange of ideas. Even the expression of an idea with the intention of not expecting any reaction is a form of predictability. You may have been offended by your thinking that I was being presumptuous but that in it self is only a word that carries with it a culturally negative connotation.

P.S. Having a look at a suggested idea carries with it the implication that you are being defensive and do not wish to become involved in anything that may "threaten" your point of view. However, understand that there isn't a human being alive that does not grow intellectually without intellectual transformation. In order to learn anything new one cannot merely look and decide. One must inquire and investigate. Atheism is far more complex than the popular notions have established. It is religion. and that means all of them, that carries with it simplistic and childish explanations of the world in which you live.

Joemailman, I see that you are a reasonable individual, and that you have clearly investigated the question of the truth or falsehood of religions. For this question, I ask you for what I have been asking from almost everyone else: evidence. I believe that there are forums in the religion section of this web site allowing you to explain the support for your opinion fully.

The proof that "God" exists is everywhere. All of this came from something and that something was "God".

I've never seen proof of a supreme being that oversees everything and judges us and what we do.

These recent posts by Alan Wood and Joemailman are very interesting. However, I think I will continue the previous discussion in this post.



I used the word "decieved" recklessly. I should have said "mistaken." As for the Biblical authors, my answer is that there was more than one Biblical author (there were around forty, as a matter of fact), and all of the Biblical authors were in agreement. If approximately forty different individuals who wrote over a time period of roughly 1400 years agree about the nature of God, it does not make them right, but it does decrease the probability that they all made the same mistake.



I agree that God exists, but for a different reason. I do not believe the presence of anything is proof of God in itself (although I do believe God is the ultimate source of everything), but I do believe that there had to be an Intelligent Designer to arrange the Universe as we observe it.

Shild--It is very difficult to convince anyone verbally the negative side of any argument. That is why formal debates always propose the affirmative side of the subject of concern. It seems as though only the subject of proof of non-ecistence of gods is acceptable to the religious. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything in any argument. Thus it is impossible to prove the non-existence of unicorns, leprechauns, water fairies, mermaids and an infinite number of abstract, imaginative constructs. et god and devils are acceptable to billions of people based upon the argument "what else could it be?". This has proven to be the mainstay of kings, monarchs, queens, pharohs and other elitist classes of persons throughout the history of mankind. This is why you'll find, if you investigate, that the "unholy three", as we atheists sometimes refer to them as, are the banks, the military and the church. In every country throughout history the story is the same....with, of course, variations.

I refer you to a book that easily shows the bible to be a book of many contradictions both in the old and in the new testaaments. 144 theological contradictions and hundreds of absurdities, immoralities, indecencies, and obscenities. It is a book that, if written in any other language and presentation other than the the context in which it was written, would be rejected by any mother or father as a disgusting tale not to be told to their kids. The book is called The Bible Handbook and it can be obtained through The American Atheist at www.atheists.org.

Your last paragraph refers to this universe as the work of an intelligent designer. Yet if you were to merely look under the lens of a microscope you would find that everything is eating every thing else until there is nothing left but stagnation and no life forms at all. Look into the lens of a telescope and you'll find there are implosions, explosions, collisions, entire galaxies that have been torn apart, and other orbs of matters that spin endlessly with nothing of any consequense to their position. An intelligent designer would not create such non-directional and nonsensical structure as the universe that you seem to feel is orderly. It is just the opposite. The measurable structures of the known universe behave according to physical law...not according to the dictates of a ghost.

Shild--I apologise for the error in the second paragraph in which I stated that the book written in any other language was the book I refered you to. I actually meant that the bible was the immoral book that mothers and fathers would not let their kids read.

Roy--I got your message and I think your approach is far more sane than the approach taken by the billions of humans on this planet who are preoccupied with a father figure. Still I must take issue with the concept of a higher consciousness. That would mean an entity with design and intentions which, of course, means predictability. Such is the education and practice of human engineers, archetects, and other such persons with useful tools for the physical development of their societies.

A consciousness without power is useless and a consciousness without concern is equally useless. I submit to you that this consciousness which you may call a higher power, if it exists, is both unconcerned with this planet and is powerless to do anything for it much less for it's most sophisticated of central nevous systems. Therefore, to be concerned with that which has no value to you and your future or the future of the human animal is useless and ought not be even considered worthy of interest. Besides all of that, the idea of a ghost with substance is a contradiction in terms. A ghost or anything invisible cannot, by definition, have substance and therefore fall outside the realm of every law of physics that governs everything that humans and other animalsand plants are subjected to.

Joemailman: Yeah, the notion of a divine architect of the world has always really unnerved me. If the universe is anything to go by - from the "fortuitous concourse of atoms" to the deranged chaos of nature to the whirling turmoil of the cosmos - then this "architect" is not only seriously psychotic, s/he's also mentally retarded. Even worse is the terrifying idea that man was created in the creator's image. Yikes! That means that the prime mover of the universe is also vicious, petty, mean-spirited, greedy, and self-involved? Anyone who thinks I'm going to adhere to a religion which espouses either of the above is - well, very much the image of the Divine Architect.

Joemailman, as I do not have the Bible Handbook, I will try to acquire it through American Atheists. Until then, however, I would appreciate it if you would post some of the Biblical objections therein.



If you cursorily glanced through the microscope, you might reasonably assume that such is the case. However, upon deeper investigation, you would find that, in each minute life form, there are multitudes of irreducibly complex processes occurring every minute. You claim the universe is without order, yet you claim it is governed by physical law, establishing that there is a basic order to the universe. The way you write, there should be no organisms or structures in the universe of any kind; yet this is the opposite of what we see.

Besides the inaccuracy of your observations, the problem I see with your argument is that it is purely subjective. I have said it before and I will repeat: if something does not seem to make sense to a human, it does not mean God could not, or "would not," do it.

Shild--I tell you what.....forget the book and save yourself a few bucks. In all probability you wouldn't be able to accept anything in it. Many religionists would rather go down in flames before admitting to anyone the errors of their interpretations.

The contradictions in both testaments are listed side by side.
The absurdities and other forms of nonsense are in print and obvious if you are able to read AND comprehend.

I don't think believe that there is a "Sumpreme Being" that makes concious decisions on which way the ball rolls in this case and that. The "supreme conciousness" is the sum of all concious thought.

I think the universe is very balanced. For every ounce of depression, opression, destruction and evil there is an ounce of hapiness, freedom, construction and good. One can't exist without the other. You MUST HAVE evil to know good.

Now I'm off to start a new thread ono how Moses PROBABLY meant well but got it all wrong.

The above quotes are very similar. Each is a judgement of an intelligent being separate from Joemailman. The second quote is reasonable, because Joemailman is judging a human and , as Joemailman is human, he would naturally know very much about humans. Further, Joemailman (I assume) has interracted with religious people and, therefore, can make a logical prediction about how a religious human would react.

However, the first post is not so simple. It is a judgement of a being which is completely separate from Joemailman's frame of reference. To accept the assertion that Joemailman can tell what any diety would or would not do, one has to accept several assumptions.
1) Joemailman is as knowledgeable as God.
2) Joemailman is as intelligent as God.
3) Joemailman is as experienced as God.
4) Joemailman is as wise as God.

Considering that no intelligent human could accept any of the above statements, Joemailman, I hope you will humor my "childish" intellect by providing something along the lines of actual evidence.

Shild--I'm as knowledgable, intelligent, experienced, and wise as any ghost that ever "lived". And I won't humor your "childish" intellect. It is not for me to prove the non-existence of anything. It is for the religious to prove the existence of their assertions. For several thousand years the religious have controled culture through the use of force and violence. To this day if their point of view is challenged they still resort to violence....which, incidently, is the reason for present day unrest among millions of people.
I never could understand why women cling to such an anti-woman philosophy. It is so utterly degrading to women that I honestly feel sorry for those women who defend this idiotic mythology.
I suggest that if you will not investigate the evidence that the American Atheists have to offer then you only have to turn to your bible. There are dozens of degrading stories and assertions throughout that disgusting book. AA will just make it a little easier for you to seek them out.

It is for you to provide some kind of substantive support for your claims. If you use baseless subjective assertions as your reason for something then you are practicing anti-logic. You are especially obligated if your claims involve insulting ninety-plus percent of the earth's population by referring to religion as "childish," "absurd," "obscene," and "idiotic."

You earlier referred to the enlightening effects of using reason and logic, yet you have given no reason for anyone to believe you use objective analysis.

By the way, I visited www.atheists.org briefly. While there, I looked over the list of reasons why the constituents of American Atheists are atheist. Among them, I found the claim that diety is useless. While a person obviously cannot disprove something, one can at least attempt to establish that that something is not neccessary. I suggest you attempt to support this claim by providing evidence.

I'm not about to even consider trying to provide evidence to prove that something is both non-existent and mythological. It is up to you and the religionists on this planet to prove this ghost's existence before I can accept a ghost or a demon as reality.

You really should read a great deal more than you do. Almost all those who are involved in this myth of ghosts and goblins, fairies and angels cannot and do not read the about the possibility that they have been fed pap and nonsense all of their lives. Those who are involved in this kind of investigation are most assuredly well paid for their efforts at pushing that nonsense. You really should read more than you do.

Shild, your suggestion of Jesus as God is a very bold statement. Could you tell me in the Bible where it mentions this, and for that matter the Trinity all together. They are human concepts and that is why they are wrong. Here is a question, does Jesus know all things God knows? Because in the Bible he doesn't.

"Jesus answered... 'I and My Father are one.' Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?' The Jews answered Him, saying, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.'" -John 10:25-33

This passage, and many others, make it clear that Jesus considered Himself equal with God, and stated it in a way that left no doubt in the listeners' minds that He was equating Himself with God.

I admit that the the Trinity doctrine, as we see it today, was inferred rather than outright stated, but Jesus' Diety is definite.

John 11: 25-26
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Matthew 26: 63-65
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied....
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

Matthew 16: 16
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

John 1:41
The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah"...

Clearly Jesus said that He was God and His disciples understood that. Even others understood what Jesus was saying because they called it blasphemy. The terms for 'Christ', 'Son of God', 'Messiah' in its original language that are used in these passages had a very specific meaning. NO ONE at that time could mistake it to mean anything else.

I think I know where you are leading to here. Are you writing about how Jesus didn't know the time and hour of the 2nd coming?

A person once explained to me that when Jesus took human form, some things were kept from him (all of his Godly powers, knowledge, etc.). So, this could be an example of knowledge that was kept from him. I don't know if I totally believe this explanation. But, it is reasonable enough.

As far as using Jesus' not knowing the time of the 2nd coming to 'prove' that He wasn't God vs the many, many other passages that outright STATE that He is God, I will believe in the latter.