Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)

Evidence is not a problem. This is like saying that gravity was a problem before Newton proposed the idea. We weren't floating around before Newton came along.

The courts are full of cases which due to a "lack of evidence" are unsuccessfully prosecuted. More usually however, there is overwhelming evidence for a successful legal challenge but the perpetrator still goes acquitted due to technicalities, poor lawyers, costs, or a failure to interpret the evidence.I wonder which of those applies in this case?

Who is trying to smear who? Here is your evidence that it is evolutionists who are trying to smear creationists.

1) My name is ....
2) I am rarely asked for evidence of my name. If anyone does ask I would only provide proof if I felt there was a legitimate reason to give them proof.
3) If you can't prove that my name isn't .... then shouldn't you assume that I am telling the truth until such time as you have evidence that I am lying. Innocent until proven guilty and all that etc.I would suggest that it is your debating technique that is flawed.

This is where legitimate reasons come into play. Clearly your brain seems to have difficulty comprehending legitimate reasons. A condition called autism springs to mind.Anway, until you can prove you shouldn't send me two million dollars every minute, I guess the balance is a cheque in my favour.

Yes, you are right. I did miss the entire point of your post. What was the point of your post again?

Thanks for the advice. If I claimed my name was Humpty Dumpty Haddock-Floss Wufflepuff T. Bone Steak then indeed you might be skeptical. More than skeptical I should imagine. You might even call me a liar point blank. Or you might find the funny side of this and allow it to become acceptable fraud. A mentality where "we all know this is a fake but who cares" might set in.Are you suggesting that my claim that "the courts are full of cases which....." falls in the same category as the ridiculous name you give above! Some might agree but I would disagree.If I claimed my name was Peter Jenkins then this sounds plausible but could be the bigger lie due to its convincing appeal. It's too easy to fake names like this. John Smith would be another. Are you suggesting the my claim falls into the second category of more convincing but more fraudulent?I reject both these possibilities. My point is that if you make the assertion that an opinion is false then you should supply evidence of this as you are accusing the contributor of lying.People are entitled to an opinion whether they have evidence or not for that opinion. Haven't you heard about Old Wives Tales? If you are suggesting that I might be suffering from illusory inferiority....hmm you might have a point.

If you wish to dismiss my claims you are welcome to do so. You should say this to someone who gives a damn.Where is the debate coming from if you are going to dismiss all opinions/ideas. I don't really see anyone providing proof of anything here. And I certainly am not about to start.

This bullshit....erm....evidence supports my claim! I don't expect you to understand that mind.

No, I don't have to explain this because apart from anything else it is off topic. I want to know what are your problems with being an atheist/evolutionist?

No problems with being an athiest/evolutionist then?Moderator can we close this thread down?

....but this is a great opportunity to get back on topic. Let's do this now. Moderators...where are you?

I don't think I will be posting on this particular thread further as it's clearly for evolutionists. Furthermore, those points particularly about repeating yourself apply more to other members than myself.

The second NIV passage makes no mention of whether they were in agreement or not. They may or may not have been. So your conclusion above is incorrect.Agreement over what anyway? The KJV gives no indication. As followers of 'the way' they are likely to have agreed over some things and disagreed over other things like we all do and therefore the word accord is redundant. The translators of the KJV have adopted an overkill strategy that doesn't read or translate as nicely as the NIV.