Are ANY of the arguments convincing?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeh but u know most creations cant rear themselves....

So?

and anyway can u athiests please explain to me what ur trying to gain by ur cause

How is this relevant to this thread?

 

[never say never]

Uncle Sally.

See U have no answers....just arrogant fools...u all need to cling together...cant make an argument whatsoever

 

[never say never]

So?


How is this relevant to this thread?

just want to know what u guys expect to achieve by ur cause

 

[angellous_evangellous]

just want to know what u guys expect to achieve by ur cause

Live in reality.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

See U have no answers....just arrogant fools...u all need to cling together...cant make an argument whatsoever

No, Uncle Sally did it. See his article in wikipedia.

 

[waitasec]

just want to know what u guys expect to achieve by ur cause

to make informed decisions...

 

[jmvizanko]

If you dont believe in God....then please explain the chicken and the egg.....No baby could possibly ever be able to rear itself.....thus a CReator....God

Clearly you have no comprehension of evolution. Complex biological mechanisms don't just appear; they emerge through gradual change over painfully long periods of time. There was no first egg, an eggshell appeared over a continuum of harder and thicker materials that provided survival benefits to the fetus.

Get a basic understanding of evolution before you try to pass off the most ignorant objections to evolution as actually illustrating any problem with probably our most successful scientific theory, as evidenced by its multitudes of disparate and congruent supporting observations. I'd suggest a biology textbook used by high schoolers, as you obviously never opened one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

just want to know what u guys expect to achieve by ur cause

I don't have a cause as an atheist.

I certainly have a cause as a secularist: to keep church and state separate.

And I've got a cause as a humanist: to exercise respect and value for people when making my decisions.

And I've got a cause as a freethinker: to base my beliefs and opinions on logic and reason as much as possible.

But nope - no atheist causes.

 

[never say never]

Just explain the chicken and the egg....try convincing me....reason?!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just explain the chicken and the egg....try convincing me....reason?!

Sure... once you tell us whether God is a "chicken" or an "egg".

 

[waitasec]

Just explain the chicken and the egg....try convincing me....reason?!

Science answers the question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? - thestar.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just explain the chicken and the egg....try convincing me....reason?!

It's not a reasonable question!

The only thing suitable is just to give you something to think about like - Daffy Duck.

Maybe you prefer Woody the Woodpecker.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Science answers the question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? - thestar.com

Told you it was the chicken!!!!

It's perfectly obvious.

I'm going to go bask in my indelible awesomeness.

 

[Willamena]

I don't have a cause as an atheist.

I certainly have a cause as a secularist: to keep church and state separate.

And I've got a cause as a humanist: to exercise respect and value for people when making my decisions.

And I've got a cause as a freethinker: to base my beliefs and opinions on logic and reason as much as possible.

But nope - no atheist causes.

Then why be an atheist?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Then why be an atheist?

Why be a human?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

why be a secular? I just blew all y'all minds.

 

[Willamena]

Why be a human?

Can you be not human? Can you be not atheist?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can you be not human?

Only if I come up with some way to alter my DNA.

 

[Futile Crush]

Many claim the Bible contradicts itself, but a closer examination reveals those claims are untrue. What absurdities are you referring to?

There are countless examples listed in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and you can find them as early on as Genesis:
The two contradictory creation accounts.
Other examples are listed here. It's a long list.
SAB Contradictions
I don't need the SAB here, most of the absurdities in the Bible are pretty famous; e.g. walking on water, parting of the red sea, talking snakes, 6-day creation, the Sun and the stars being created after light, resurrecting the dead... etc. Science tells us that these things are impossible.

What sort of corroboration are you seeking? There were over 500 eyewitnesses that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. Many of these were willing to give up life and treasure rather than deny what they had been eyewitnesses to.

Reliable, factual, verifiable corroboration. One of the most famous historians to write about Jesus, Josephus, lived after Jesus purportedly died. The other great name given to Jesus' historicity was Suetonius. His only "mention" of Jesus was in fact of "Chrestus", the true meaning of which is actually debated, and the word could mean "Useful" as opposed to "Christ".

And it's all very well saying that there were over 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection, but until you tell me who you are and give some factual evidence to supplement that, it's not really of any use to me.

Bible critics have attacked the Bible record relentlessly, claiming persons mentioned in the Scriptures never existed. Time and again, archeologists have uncovered evidence substantiating the Bible as historical fact, and it's critics wrong.

Funny that, I've only ever heard the opposite. And you seem to be missing the point someone; the people in the Bible may well have existed, it's what they did that people are debating about. We could argue til the cows come home about whether King Herod was a real king and for all we know he was, but do we have any evidence that he slaughtered children in fear of a child called Jesus? We don't even have any evidence that he slaughtered children.

And please, if evidence exists, don't just tell me about it, show it to me.

As might be expected, the further back in history one goes, the less reliable and more fragmented the physical evidence becomes for historical events. And like today, the historians of the past often allowed personal or nationistic pressure dictate what they recorded. In other words, they lied about events or omitted them entirely if these events were not favorable. For example, how many ancient monarchs recorded their defeats in battle?

Is that supposed to make your account more or less believable? You're telling me now that the evidence is unreliable.

For a single example taken from it-1 p. 155 Archaeology As an illustration, the Bible record states that King Sennacherib of Assyria was killed by his two sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, and was succeeded to the throne by another son, Esar-haddon. (2Ki 19:36, 37) Yet, a Babylonian chronicle stated that, on the 20th of Tebeth, Sennacherib was killed by his son in a revolt. Both Berossus, Babylonian priest of the third century B.C.E., and Nabonidus, Babylonian king of the sixth century B.C.E., gave the same account, to the effect that Sennacherib was assassinated by only one of his sons. However, in a more recently discovered fragment of the Prism of Esar-haddon, the son who succeeded Sennacherib, Esar-haddon clearly states that his brothers (plural) revolted and killed their father and then took flight. Commenting on this, Philip Biberfeld, in Universal Jewish History (1948, Vol. I, p. 27), says: “The Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonid, and Berossus were mistaken; only the Biblical account proved to be correct. It was confirmed in all the minor details by the inscription of Esarhaddon and proved to be more accurate regarding this event of Babylonian-Assyrian history than the Babylonian sources themselves. This is a fact of utmost importance for the evaluation of even contemporary sources not in accord with Biblical tradition.”

Sure, this could indicate that the Bible got one thing right, but what else does it indicate? This is just evidence for one event; completely irrelevant to the bigger picture. It's not really a useful indicator of anything.

 

[Futile Crush]

Just a thought...
Perhaps some people have an ability to sense God or may be some people are more sensitive to God's presence. so if we all live in "Flatland", none of us can successfully bring forth evidence from dimensions outside of our perspective.

But some of us can either practice or are naturally inclined to sense the presence outside of our confine.

And perhaps this sensitivity is necessary to acquire before moving on, into another plaine of existence. So as to let this sensitivity grow naturally, we are given a means to develop it, to develop faith. If we were just given the whole thing, completely acceptable, indisputable evidence then the step of living within this paradigm would no longer be necessary, just skip to step 2.

This is not a valid way of gaining knowledge. Knowledge available only to a certain few is not knowledge, it is conjecture. Knowledge should be demonstratable, i.e. backed up with empirical and rational evidence.