Take the Atheist Challenge!!!

You do realize, Zachariah, that pretty much every single atheist has already done that.You see, atheists are, by and large, raised by theists. They went to church, read the appropriate holy book, did all the rituals, and truly believed.But it didn't take. They eventually came to realize that it was all a load of hooey. The book didn't provide insight, the rituals did nothing, and that "feeling inside" was nothing more than them convincing themselves that they were supposed to be feeling something even though it wasn't there.How absolutely arrogant and obnoxious of you to assume that atheists came to their position because they're lazy.How about this: Why don't you, for a month, give up god. No reading the Bible, no praying, no invoking his name, no thinking about him, no nothing. Just live your life without any reference to supernatural entities.Do you really think you'll come to atheism that way?By the way: If you really think your core values can be changed just by reading a single book in a week, then those really weren't your core values to begin with.And finally, why doesn't god speak in a loud voice? If that's what it takes to convince someone, why not do it? If you truly loved someone and wanted nothing but the best and you knew that the only way to reach that person was to do something big and dramatic, wouldn't you do it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Lam responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And finally, why doesn't god speak in a loud voice? If that's what it takes to convince someone, why not do it? If you truly loved someone and wanted nothing but the best and you knew that the only way to reach that person was to do something big and dramatic, wouldn't you do it?

---

​

You know damn well that there's no "divinity" in a non-mysterious being. That's why God works in mysterious ways. It's like Darth Vader and Darth Sidius. They always covered their faces so they could be mysterious and, somehow, that makes other people have high regards for them.

---

But the Darths were looking to manipulate others. Hardly a loving attitude.Why does god need "high regard"? You can only do well by others by having them think well of you? That doesn't make any sense.Besides, Yoda had high regard and he didn't cover his face.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Cynic1 writes:

quote:

---

You must not have opened your mind enough.

---

Yep...that's why it's such a good bet to make: If you convert, they were right. If you don't convert, it's your own damned fault and not because there wasn't anything to convert to.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge responds to me:

quote:

---

alas, he does speak in a loud voice

---

Then why don't atheists hear it?

quote:

---

it's just not everyone knows it is his.

---

Ah...there we go: It's their own damned fault. It isn't because god isn't there. It isn't because god isn't talking. It's because the atheists are stubborn and obstinate or perhaps just too stupid to hear.How nice it is to know that there's no way to counter your argument. If the atheist converts, that means you were right. If the atheist remains an atheist, it's because the atheist is denying god rather than because god isn't there to recognize.You can see why some people don't buy your argument and laugh at the challenge.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah responds to me:

quote:

---

An atheist actor from California

---

Who said I was an atheist?You would do well to avoid trying to psychoanalyze me over the internet. Nobody has ever managed to get it right.Do not confuse my denial of your god with a denial of any god. I take great pains to keep my religious opinions out of the discussion because, in the end, they are irrelevant. Things are true because they are, not because I do or do not believe in god.Do not confuse my comprehension of atheist's arguments and justifications for their position with agreement. I speak Spanish...does that mean I'm a Spaniard? Mexican?Ask the average Jewish person in the United States how much about Christian theology he might know. Does that mean he's actually a Christian or just that he knows about Christian theology?

quote:

---

This isn't a thread that I wish to discuss disbelief in

---

Unwilling to put your own philosophy on the line, eh? How brave of you to taunt others while safely keeping away from the challenge yourself.

quote:

---

And I'm not being abnoxious or anything else and I never called anyone lazy. If you wish to speak for me then it should be in a believing way (christian). And others already know how I feel about those who say they tried it. I say if you have an open mind and want to find God then he will come to you.

---

You realize you just contradicted yourself.How wonderful that your conclusion cannot be denied...not even by direct contradiction. If an atheist converts, you were right. If the atheist remains convinced there is no god, it's because the atheist was being stubborn and unwilling to be "open to the truth."There's a very simple question: Is there any result of this little "experiment" of yours that would have you conclude that maybe, just maybe, there is no god? That the atheist was being open minded and the reason he didn't hear god is that there wasn't any god to hear?If not, then what is the point of this "challenge" of yours?

quote:

---

As for the others asking me to give up god for a month. You make me laugh. You think I would DARE speak against my LORD.

---

If you had any integrity, you would. You have the audacity to insist that someone else should do what you would not?If you're unwilling to put your own opinions up for grabs, why should anybody else?Fine...don't give up on god...just give up on this Christian conception of god you have. For a month, and with an open mind, read the Koran, submit yourself to the will of Allah, and listen for his voice.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Too feel the Lord and know the truth requires the simplest hardest thing to do.

​

You must repent in the name of Jesus, and openly ask him into your heart.

---

Again, the absolute arrogance and obnoxiousness to assume that atheists haven't done this.For the umpteenth time: The vast majority of atheists were raised by those who believed. Most atheists were at one time theists themselves who believed with all their heart.But later they came to realize that that "loud voice" was just them making themselves hear it, not because there was anything there to hear.What you must come to realize is that atheists are just as sincere as you are. If you wish to have your religious beliefs respected, then you had better show other people the same respect.

quote:

---

You have studied and preached science your whole life. I think its worth your time to spend a few weeks looking for God(not to say you haven't already, but maybe you were miss guided).

---

See, you prove my point. You have absolutely no respect for someone who contradicts you. Where does this cockiness come from? Why are you incapable of considering the possibility that atheists have done everything you would request of them with no recalcitrance and still came out the other end with the opinion there is no god?How convenient of you to be incapable of being shown wrong. If an atheist went through your little "test" and still retained his atheism, it's because he was "miss guided" [sic].

quote:

---

Try the NIV version, as I find it to be very good.

---

You mean the version where they deliberately mistranslated the text in order to remove contradictions and problematic passages?Why would you suggest someone read a piece of propaganda?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me...I think...he didn't use the correct Reply button so we don't know (hint: It's the red one in the post to which you are responding, not the Reply button at the bottom of the page):

quote:

---

quote:

---

not to say you haven't already, but maybe you were miss guided

---

​

I say all that I have said with the utmost respect and Love.

---

No, you don't. You say that with the arrogance and haughtiness of one who is so sure that he cannot possibly be wrong that he hold utter contempt and disdain for those who disagree.Take me up on the challenge. I'll read your book if you give up your god.

quote:

---

The problem comes when people such as yourself start preaching a religion that takes far more faith than God.

---

And what religion, pray tell, am I preaching? Again, I have been very careful to keep my religious opinions out of this. They are irrelevant. Things are true because they are true, not because I believe or not.Surely you're not about to imply that evolution is a religion, are you?How can it be a religion when we can watch it happen right in front of our eyes? Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.So if we can see evolution happen right before our eyes, by what justification is there to imply that it is a something based on faith?

quote:

---

Were you a born again christian? What religion did you subscribe too?

---

Why does it matter?Would the veracity of my statements change if I was? Would they be any more or less accurate if I weren't? How does my affiliation with any particular sect change the validity of what I say?

quote:

---

There are so many reasons why you would feel that the voice in your head was fake.

---

Indeed. And one of those reasons is that it was just yourself.Unless and until you are willing to accept that, this "challenge" is nothing more than a childish game.Put your money where your mouth is: Give up your god for a month and see what happens.

quote:

---

Why is it that you get so angry when someone trys to share the truth with you?

---

Sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, you have no idea what I am like when I am angry.What I want to know is why you are so resistant to taking the test along with those you dare. Surely your god can live without you for a month.

quote:

---

Have you truely tried to do the things Jesus asks of us?

---

What makes you think I haven't?Now answer me the same question: Have you truly tried to live your life with nobody to turn to except yourself? To be truly responsible for everything that you do right here and now?Hint: If you can answer yes to my quesiton, what makes you think I can't answer yes to yours?We're back to the original point: You seem to think that atheists are simply lazy. What an arrogant statement to put forward.If you cannot respect the integrity of others, then how can you expect them to respect yours?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me...I think...he didn't use the correct Reply button so we don't know (hint: It's the red one in the post to which you are responding, not the Reply button at the bottom of the page):

quote:

---

The entire TOE is propaganda, but you read about it?

---

No, I went into the lab and did it for myself. How can it be propaganda when we can watch it happen right in front of our eyes?Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.So if we can see evolution happen right before our eyes, how can it be propaganda?

quote:

---

I also never assumed anything, but by your defensive reaction, I wonder.

---

(*chuckle*)You're the one refusing to take the challenge and somehow I am the one being defensive?C'mon! Put your money were your mouth is! Give up your god for a month! Why are you hesitating?

quote:

---

Being raised by "thiests" means nothing to me.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Are you seriously trying to tell me that if you were to take a newly born baby and take it into a religious tradition, making that culture and theology omnipresent for 18 years, won't have some sort of an effect upon a person?Have you ever wondered why so many people are Christian in the US? Could it possibly be because most people in this country were raised by other Christians? How many Christians do you know who would raise their child as Muslim?Did it ever occur to you that your opinions about god might have been influenced by the society in which you lived and the people who were teaching you about god?So get over yourself and step up to the plate. If you want others to try your god for a while, you're going to have to be just as willing to give up yours.Why do you hesitate?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me...I think...he didn't use the correct Reply button so we don't know (hint: It's the red one in the post to which you are responding, not the Reply button at the bottom of the page):

quote:

---

Please don't say that I have no respect for anyone, as I respect all man.

---

Obviously you don't or you wouldn't so something as assinine as imply that if an atheist simply tried believing in god, he'd understand.If you had a single ounce of integrity, you would recognize that atheists are just as sincere as you are. If you spent even the tiniest amount of effort trying to understand atheists and where they come from, you would know that most of them did believe. They really did. With all their hearts.But they got over it.

quote:

---

I have yet to meet an ahteist who believed in God at one point in thier life

---

I dare say you've never met an atheist, then.

quote:

---

God does not have to look for you.

---

Then why does god care if anybody prostrates himself before him? Surely god knows the soul of an individual. Surely god isn't such an egomaniac that he needs to be told constantly.

quote:

---

I found it to work, just like he said.

---

Most atheists found it didn't work.Why should anybody believe you over them?And why should any atheist do what you are unwilling to do? Why do you demand that they follow your whims when you are unwilling to turn around and do what they do?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to Lam...I think...he didn't use the correct Reply button so we don't know (hint: It's the red one in the post to which you are responding, not the Reply button at the bottom of the page):

quote:

---

If an Atheist tells me not to read or suggest reading the Bible because he "feels" its proaganda

---

That isn't what I said.I said your particular translation of the Bible was propaganda.And how can it not be? If the Bible is supposed to be the word of god and you go and change the text in order to remove things that are known to be false and contradictory, is that not pushing forward a piece of propaganda?Fine, it isn't propaganda.But it isn't the Bible, either.

quote:

---

we shouldn't read anything that requires faith or has been changed a few thousand times, such as the TOE.

---

You seem to think that admitting you were wrong and changing your stance in order to accomodate a more accurate position is something to be ashamed of.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

You can't tell me that science hasn't revised its stance on every subject that has come from it, at least 2 or 3 times.

---

You act like that's a bad thing. Are you saying that it is better to maintain a slavish devotion to an incorrect answer than to admit that you're wrong and correct yourself, even if you have to do it over and over again?One of the things you seem to misunderstand is that while the theories of science may be altered over time, the foundational observations don't.For example, take the shift from Newtonian to Einsteinian mechanics. While Newtonian mechanics is wrong, we can understand why it was wrong. Einsteinian mechanics explains why we came to the conclusions that we did. The observations weren't wrong, but we didn't have enough observations to be as accurate as we could be.That is, Newtonian physics is based upon a linear model of the universe. That is, if I am on a train moving at 20 miles an hour and I throw a ball in the direction of travel such that, with respect to the train, it would be moving 20 miles an hour, then the ball would be moving 40 miles an hour with respect to the ground.But Einsteinian mechanics is a relativistic model. Instead of moving at 40 mph with respect the ground, it's actually moving slightly slower. Specifically, if A is moving with velocity V₁ with respect to C and B is moving with velocity V₂ with respect to A (where both V₁ and V₂ are expressed as fractions of the speed of light), the observed velocity of B with respect to C is given by:V = (V₁ + V₂)/(1 + V₁V₂)In our case, the ball would be moving at about 5 ten-millionths of a mile slower than 40 mph.You'd never detect that with 17th-century equipment and even today you'd need extremely sensitive equipment to detect it.Notice what we've done: Even though we've switched to a relativistic model of kinematics, that new theory explains everything we saw before. When we shifted from a geocentric model of the solar system to a heliocentric model, that new model had to explain everything we saw before. It has to explain why it looks like, from the perspective of the earth, that the sun moves around the earth.Evolutionary theory explains everything we have seen before. It has to or it wouldn't be of any use. What is the point of using a theory that we know cannot explain things we know to be true?

quote:

---

The Bible tells me that after Jesus died, and rose to heaven, that God wrote his laws on the minds and hearts of everyone after that.

---

And yet, the mere existence of atheists and every other non-Christian religion proves that claim wrong.

quote:

---

When you follow his word, you then can recieve the Holy Spirit(the bible says).

---

And yet, the typical experience of atheists raised in Christian environments shows that claim to be wrong. They followed the word but they didn't receive the Holy Spirit.Now are you willing to accept that those who don't believe in Jesus are just as sincere as you are?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

You have no clue at all about me.

---

And you dare to think that you have a clue about me?You're the one calling the other "defensive."You can see why I say that you have no respect. You certainly don't show it. You are so intent on preaching your own version of how the world works that you cannot consider reversing the process.

quote:

---

You are only saying the things you are saying to try and get to me and my beliefs.

---

And you're not doing the same thing?I think you're finally figuring it out: If you find it in poor taste when I do it to you, haven't you considered the possibility that maybe it's in poor taste for you to do it to me?How many times do I have to say it before you hear it? If you expect others to respect your experience, then you have to return that respect to others...especially when they contradict you.

quote:

---

Live without God for a month? Ha, I lived without him for 38 years, got you on that one.

---

So what's one month gonna do? Kill you? You're so quick to dare me to follow your religion, but you're so hesitant to turn around and give up yours.Why should anybody do what you're unwilling to?

quote:

---

T4 phage? I am not a biologist.

---

Does it matter? Even if I called the floognikkels and climpertics, the point would be the same:The colony is descended from a single ancestor. Therefore, if there is no such thing as evolution, they should all behave in the exact same manner. If one is susceptible to the infective agent, then they should all be susceptible. If one dies, they all die.The fact that not all die, the fact that a few survive indicates that evolution does happen.

quote:

---

I read that whole statement in another thread from you, and investegated it already. I investegated many "forced evolutionary changes in bacteria in a lab" papers.

---

Where is the forcing? You don't provide any selective pressure at all until the time you infect the lawn.And since the lawn is all descended from a single ancestor, they should all behave the same way.The fact that they don't indicates that it has to be evolution.That said, you are behaving as if "forced" evolution is somehow not legitimately evolution. What difference does it make?

quote:

---

Too me the bacteria are only doing what they are designed to do.

---

But the experiment clearly and in no uncertain terms contradicts you.If they were "designed" to do that, then they should all do the exact same thing. They're all descended from a single ancestor and thus if one is susceptible, then all are susceptible.The fact that some are not susceptible means that it was not a question of "design" but a result of evolution. There is no other conclusion possible.

quote:

---

They use the tools that are in them already to survive thier surroundings

---

But if one could do it, why couldn't all the rest? They're all descended from a single ancestor. With no evolution, they're all identical and have the exact same abilities.If one could live, why didn't all of them do so? Are you saying the vast majority of the lawn was suicidal? Bacteria have a conscious will to die?There's no other conclusion except that some of the bacteria evolved. And, in fact, if you do a genetic analysis of the bacteria that survived and compare it to the original genome, you will find discrepancies.

quote:

---

Call me when one of your bacteria walks out of the dish and kisses you on the cheek, and makes you breakfast.

---

But that would actually disprove evolution. There's no way for a single, prokaryotic cell to evolve into a multi-cellular, eukaryotic organism with the requisite consciousness and intelligence to interact with me in my own lifetime. Evolution doesn't happen that fast.

quote:

---

Listen, if you fall in Love with a chick, and she Loves you back forever, isn't that felt in your heart?

---

So why is it the vast majority of the world's population is incapable of seeing this "chick" that you love?Who are you to tell them that they were "miss guided" [sic]?

quote:

---

I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic.

---

But I have. The topic is for you to have the courage of your convictions and to do what you are daring others to do.Why do you hesitate? I'll read your book and do your rituals if you give up your god.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me...I think...he didn't use the correct Reply button so we don't know (hint: It's the red one in the post to which you are responding, not the Reply button at the bottom of the page):

quote:

---

And yes, if you put your faith in TOE, then it is your religion.

---

But I don't have any faith in evolution. I accept it because it is something that can be physically demonstrated by any person on earth. I've given you an example of an experiment that you can do yourself that shows evolution happening right before your eyes. So if you and I both do the same thing, even though we have completely different agendas, and we come up with the same result, by what criteria can we claim it didn't happen?

quote:

---

You believe in it by faith, and preach it by faith. Tell me the difference?

---

Um, the difference is that I don't believe in it by faith nor do I preach by anything.Instead, I accept it by evidence and I demonstrate it by experiments that don't depend upon my being there.Don't take my word for it...run the experiment for yourself and see what happens.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to Lam:

quote:

---

The fact that science is constantly changing, and many facets of it are always being proved wrong, then why preach it in schools to little children like it was fact.

---

Because you are confusing observation with theory.Evolution is a fact. It is also a theory. One cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon.Take gravity. If I take a ball and let it go, it falls to the ground. We call the force that pulls it to the ground "gravity." That's an observed fact. Thus, gravity is a fact.Gravitational "theory," on the other hand, seeks to explain why we see the gravitational "fact." Is gravity a warpage of space-time? Is it carried on quantum particles? Maybe it's a bunch of tiny, invisible rubber bands. Or maybe it's angels pushing things around. No matter what gravitational theory says, it needs to explain the gravitational fact:When I drop a ball, it falls to the ground.Evolution is identical. When we observe organisms over time, they change. We call this change "evolution." That's an observed fact. Thus, evolution is a fact.Evolutionary theory seeks to explain why we see the evolutionary fact. Is evolution a response to direct environmental stimuli (Lamarckian evolution) or the result of random changes acted upon by natural selection (Darwinian evolution)? No matter what evolutionary theory says, it needs to explain the evolutionary fact:When we observe organisms over time, they change.And here's the thing: Evolution is more solidly grounded than gravity. We still have no idea what gravity actually is. We can see its effects, measure it across the universe, but we have no idea what it is or what is causing it.Evolution, on the other hand, has a mechanism: Mutation and selection. We have found the chromosome. We can directly observe it as it mutates. We can see the selective forces at work. We can directly manipulate them.So why are you behaving as if evolution is somehow in question when it's one of the most heavily backed aspects of science that exists?

quote:

---

Thats how it was presented to me. God never had a chance.

---

That's because evolution doesn't depend upon god just as it doesn't depend upon you. You may recall that you weren't taught that you had a hand in causing mutations.Does that mean you don't exist?Did I have anything to do with what you had for breakfast? Did I plant the food? Raise it? Harvest it? Transport it? Process it? Package it? Ship it? Advertise it? Market it? Select it? Purchase it? Prepare it? Serve it? Feed it?No?Does that mean I don't exist?You seem to be of the opinion that if evolution is true, then god doesn't exist. Whence does this come from? Even the Pope agrees that evolution is the only scientific explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet. Are you calling the Pope an atheist?

quote:

---

Creation never had a chance.

---

Since it isn't science, why should it?As I have asked you straight out multiple times, are you seriously suggesting that we should lie to people simply because some people would get upset that their pet fantasy wasn't addressed?

quote:

---

They been trying to prove TOE for 135 years. Don't you think you should start looking for another explaination?

---

But evolution wouldn't be a theory unless it had evidence to back it up. That's what a theory is: An analysis of a set of facts.Why should we look for "another explanation" when the explanation we have works so well? As Dobzhansky put it, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.Why on earth would you want us to discard the most powerful and effective paradigm we have for explaining what is going on?

quote:

---

At least explore the possibilitys?

---

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.Do you have any evidence that there is something wrong? Be specific.

quote:

---

Instead of just getting mad a "religious" people?

---

Who is mad?You seem to have this silly notion that if someone tells you that you're wrong, he has some sort of emotional vendetta against you.I don't know you from Adam. How could I possibly have any emotional attachment to you?

quote:

---

Science will never explain why we are here?

---

Define "why we are here."If one means "the process by which humans came into existence," that question has already been answered:We evolved.If one means "the philosophical purpose for the existence of humans," then you're right: Science will never answer that.But then again, science doesn't try to answer that question. That's a philosophical question and science is not philosophy.Science can tell you quite a lot about an acoustical waveform such as its frequency, amplitude, power, how far it would travel in various media, etc.What it cannot do is tell you if it is music and nothing in science even attempts such a thing. That's a subjective, philosophical question and science is not philosophy.

quote:

---

Theres no way it happened all by chance

---

Why not? Everything about the world we live in points to it being exactly that.Think about it. You exist precisely because your parents met and had a specific sperm match with a specific ovum. Your parents exist because their parents had the exact same thing happen. The number of specific events that had to happen in the great chain of geneology that led to you is astronomical.And yet, it wasn't planned. It was all chance.So if your existence was a random event, why deny that to the rest of existence?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:[regarding science]

quote:

---

I will not put my faith in it period.

---

Nobody else here does, either.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And yet, the mere existence of atheists and every other non-Christian religion proves that claim wrong.

---

​

No it doesn't, I won't even tell you what I really think of that statement. It doesn't prove sqaut.

---

Ah, the arrogance arises again. You're the only one with any answers. Everybody else is just stubborn and recalcitrant. They know that you're right, but they're too prideful to admit it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now are you willing to accept that those who don't believe in Jesus are just as sincere as you are?

---

​

I cannot accept any of that either

---

Then there really is nothing more to discuss.If you cannot show the common courtesy to respect other people as being sincere, then there is no point in discussing anything with you. What is the point when you don't have the decency to treat others with integrity?

quote:

---

If God came down and smacked you in the face, would you then believe?

---

What makes you think he hasn't?Oh, that's right...you think I'm an atheist. I keep forgetting...If I don't believe in your god, then that must mean that I don't believe in any god. It couldn't possibly be because I follow another religious tradition entirely. No...your god is the only god out there and anybody who doesn't believe is an atheist.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!