What is GOD?

Your conclusion is correct, but you are absolutely wrong about how I (as one atheist) came to the conclusion. I was a Christian and upon actually learning about other mythological systems saw Christianity for what it is, a myth that serves the purpose all myths do, in the same way all other myths do. There is simply no reason to believe any one of them. The claim that the Bible is the only "succesfull" religious text is completely spurious, unless one accepts the implied definition of "succesfull" as "The one the writer believes in." The Book of Mormon has many dedicated followers. The Koran does too. In fact, so does Scientology. That would seem to indicate success. Where? Surely you don't mean OT prophecies being fulfilled in the NT. That kind of claim is the single best real world description of a circular argument I can think of. There are no unequivocally fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. I invite you to show otherwise if you can, but it that would likely be best done elsewhere. We know nothing of the kind. Unless one begins with the presupposition of inherent truth of the Bible, one rapidly sees that it is little different from every other mythology. Be careful of making claims about what other people think. You have no idea what is in my mind unless I tell you.The rest of your post is simply your opinion, which you are entitled to.

I am again stunned at the lack of coherence I see in your posts. One hardly knows where to begin.I am amused that you say : and in the very next paragraph: If one is ignoring science and logic in some ill-conceived search for "truth" (as defined by Mike the Wiz) then how do you determine what is evidence and what isn't? Perhaps by taking whatever invalid approach or idea that seems on the surface to support the theistic position? You see, Mike, the "evidence" you cite is not evidence by any standard. It's not science, clearly, and it's not logical argument (You have two claims, both of which are fallacious). What does that make them? Your opinion, which is damned poor support for a position.So, throw out science and logic if you want, but you can't claim anything as evidence once you do. People relate to reality television in a major and overwhelming way. Does that mean it reflects actual reality? Of course not. The sane with Christianity. I don't understand this. You came to think Christianity was true once you started believing in it? Well, of course. Aren't those two concepts pretty much the same thing? Why not exactly? I see no reason why not. The resurrection is not documented anywhere accept in the Bible and we have gone over why that doesn't work. I can document the resurrection of Horus, Balder, and several other mythic figures right along with the mythic resurrection of Christ.Tell us what your opinion is all you want, but don't claim facts unless you can back them up. No, actually natural forces as guided by natural selection and described in the theory of evolution has produced an unfortunate need in many Homo Sapiens to explain things by personalizing them. This tendency has resulted in the formation of many, many fanciful tales of "Gods" to explain the natural world. These "Gods" also serve admirably to assuage fear of death by allowing those who accept the idea to believe they will have some sort of second, or "after", life.These ideas are so powerful and useful that most of the humans in history have accepted them to one degree or another, in spite of the objective fact that there is no evidence of any kind for such ideas.

You called me a chump? A chump? What am I, a bad boxer from a Rocky movie? A guy from an old murder mystery who lets a woman trick him? A chump. Please try and at least do a little better then that.You know what, Mike the Wiz? I simply don't have the patience to deal with you today. I'll reply to you in a few days, maybe. Do not make any claims that I am withdrawing because I can't reply to the very simplistic points you have made. I just don't care for your attitude.Oh, and given the rash of admin reactions lately, if any admins see this, please note that MTW has broken board rules by name calling and that I am withdrawing calmly.

By using the word "other" you applied the same state to us both. I know that English can be a difficult language, but with effort it can be properly learned. So, did you fail to properly communicate using what I am forced to guess is your native language or are you simply telling a lie?Fine. You didn't mean anythign other then a joke when you said "chump". I mean only humor when I say "Arrogant, ignorant, self-important ass".

I can reply.What constitutes evidence in Mike the Wiz's opinion is unimportatnt. Real evidence conforms to the principles of science or, and of less value, logic. How can the Bible be a reliable source for a definition of evidence? No two believers in it can arrive at the same interpertation of it's contents. ID proponets and creationists have been claiming this for a very long time and the argument has proved utterly unconvincing to those that approach it rationally and without the presupposition of a creator. No reasonable person believes it when Michael Behe says it and you're a good deal less persuasive then he is. It isn't, unless the things witnessed is repeatable and observable. I'm sorry Mike, but you don't. That has been clearly shown by pretty much your entire posting career at this forum.

No. The veracity and accuracy of a text is supported by the fact that people believe it if it is their only source of information and then many see it's flaws when they get more information? No, that doesn't make any sense at all. Oh. Then, if there actually wes a man named "Christ", which is entirely unproven, and he actually said what the Bible claims, which is also unproven, then he was wrong about what constitutes evidence in a modern framework. No. I don't see any reason to in your post. That decleration is one I would never make. I never know enough and I never can. That you think you do is indicative of a problem among theists in America, in my opinion.

People who accept the rationality of science and the fact and theory of evolution are not letting it rule their lives. I know it doesn't mine.Since the Bible is the only source of information on God, or so you would seem to claim, why is it not a faulty account if it cannot keep many people's attention when an alternative is provided?I suppose we shall never know, because Ol' MTW is running. Bye Bye. If you can't stand the heat, etc.About the irrefutably unrefuted thing... Your claim is laughable. Again, as has become a commom theme, just because MTW says it doesn't make it so.