There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Agnostic75]

I am not a creationist. Speciation is not evolution. It is just a variation of species. The species remains the same. A Jack Russell and a Great Dane RE both dogs, canine.

You said that you accept common descent.

Wikipedia says:

In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong evidence that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor, called the last universal ancestor or LUA (or last universal common ancestor, LUCA).

Do you agree with that? If not, then you do not accept common descent.

Speciation is a part of evolution.

Wikipedia says:

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

So speciation is obviously evolution.

There are variations within species. For example, there is variation among kinds of dogs, not among species of dogs since all kinds of dogs comprise only a single subspecies of a wolf. Wikipedia says:

The domestic dog was accepted as a species in its own right until overwhelming evidence from behavior, vocalizations, morphology, and molecular biology led to the contemporary scientific understanding that a single species, the gray wolf, is the common ancestor for all breeds of domestic dogs. In recognition of this fact, the domestic dog was reclassified in 1993 as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists. C. l. familiaris is listed as the name for the taxon that is broadly used in the scientific community and recommended by ITIS, although Canis familiaris is a recognised synonym.

Do you claim that all dogs are not a subspecies of the gray wolf? If so, what is your evidence?

As we are today is much younger than what is anticipated.

What do you mean?

Our history can be found in Scripture.......

Which Scriptures are referring to, and why must they be interpreted literally?

.......and we are not primates, we are human, a unique species.

We are primates according to all major scientific organizations, according to all widely accepted dictionaries, and even according to many Christian experts.

We are unique from certain perspectives, but that does not necessarily mean than naturalism, and common descent are false.

 

[Agnostic75]

I may not spend much more time at this forum since it is difficult for me to justify the time that it takes to debate for years with few results as far as people changing their minds about major issues is concerned.

 

[Bunyip]

Evolution occurs between groups of organisms or gene pools. We have not witnessed a transition between two different species because of the time required for it to happen. We have witnessed variation of species, as Darwin called it.

Please, the topic is not me.

You are misinformed, speciation has been observed - many times.

Speciation and variation are both evolution.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, .......

Oh, what a load of .....

Christians are the majority; they are banging on our school doors, they have mega-churches with thousands of members, they have the Oval Office the Supreme Court AND Congress, got God in our Pledge of Allegiance, on our courtroom walls, printed on our money; Taxpayer money goes to erecting chapels for our servicemen, only theists can join our armed forces as a "conscientious objector", Adultery and Sodomy laws in our criminal statutes; hordes of religous organizations capable of raising monetary amounts far and above any Atheist organization ... Christians have the power.

With Christians having the power, how in the WORLD can you believe this irrational, unprovable assertion of "Atheist Brainwashing?" By what power can the Atheist brainwash or control? To brainwash or control someone else, you must have power over that something else. Yet here you stand, stating that Atheists somehow have the power to brainwash an entire society!?

Cripes. That doesn't even make sense, guy. That makes no sense whatsoever. None.

 

[s2a]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn

"Brain washing techniques of Atheists"...

Sure wish I knew what those might actually be... NO, really.

I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not.

Oh? Do proceed Governor Perry. You were saying?

Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe...

Now now, no need to claim utter ignorance ya know...understanding is hard sometimes...

we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence.

Well, of course...

Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

I dunno. Maybe those discomfiting facts and all? Are not counterfeit bills easy enough to identify and disclaim as obvious forgeries? But to be fair, I do not know of any "preaching Atheists" out there. Care to name one?

If a man wants to know the truth, without a need to subscribe to any groups who all think the same and who all point the same condescending fingure[sic], as there is safety in numbers, then the truth is in the stars for all to see. Why do men need to be told what to believe instead of finding out for themselves by looking at our world that simply could not exist without divinity.

Fascinating. A wold lacking any divinely instilled purpose? Impossible! Unfathomable!!!

Look at the vast gap between the intelligence of Man and that of our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom to see how much more intelligent we are to them.

It's vast! Impossible to otherwise explain!

Have we evolved that much faster then they have, and if we have, then why have we?

Um, if you can't explain it, then it can not be possible. Correct? This is your argument? Really?

Something so fundamentally obvious, both scientifically, cosmological and supernaturally has to have a form of intelligence behind it. It is so obviously God who created the universe and set our planet up for habitation.

Well geez....then what are all those other billions of galaxies for? Entertainment? Can't wait for the cable channels to reach out to those few 100's of billions of other planets to make sure...

The "by chance" idea is hugely more improbable then a supernatural being is, yet we readily believe the former.

Enlighten us all. What are those odds, exactly?
What are the odds of NO "gods" being "out there"?
"By chance" what are the odds that you have no clue (excepting what you choose to believe).

Why?

Fair question. Your certifiable and unequivocal reply with evidential fact as "proof" is...?

How do atheists reconcile this overwhelming cosmological and intellectual evidence. How is it possible to categorically claim that God does not exist.

Also a fair question, and here is the answer.

From the "impossible" origins of "The Big Bang", to the current state of our Cosmos as we best explain/define/understand it's mechanics and workings today...
...NOTHING and I mean (really) NOTHING even hints at the notion that some supernatural entity, "force", nor "being", need ever "exist" (nor existed) to either "start" nor "end" the cosmos. NOTHING.

If you choose to believe that some "god" was the primal "cause", then no one is stopping you.

But please, do not blame all those "atheist" sciences for challenging what you perceive/believe or evangelize as your concept of "truth".

"Brainwashing" is the utmost epitome of a religious upbringing. A "forced" belief, if you like. Questioning of alternative explanations, ideas, or possible outcomes is "discouraged", and often enough punished.

We can not explain "it". Therefore, it is "god".

Can we explain things absent any "god" causality?

Of course. It's done on a daily basis.

Yet let's blame all those heathen "atheists" instead! They are the conspirators denying the relevance of a "god"! Atheists seek to "turn" believers into...ummm...folks that employ human reason! Heretics!

But, as we know, your mileage may vary.

"God did it".
"I believe it".
"That settles it".

Nice bumper sticker.

Crappy answer to...umm...everything otherwise.

 

[Serenity7855]

Also a fair question, and here is the answer.

From the "impossible" origins of "The Big Bang", to the current state of our Cosmos as we best explain/define/understand it's mechanics and workings today...
...NOTHING and I mean (really) NOTHING even hints at the notion that some supernatural entity, "force", nor "being", need ever "exist" (nor existed) to either "start" nor "end" the cosmos. NOTHING.

I am assuming that that is you opinion. In my opinion God is a very good candidate for causing the big bang. Just saying I that nothing points towards a God does not make it true. You have to provide evidence to substantiate your claim.

If you choose to believe that some "god" was the primal "cause", then no one is stopping you.

Really?

But please, do not blame all those "atheist" sciences for challenging what you perceive/believe or evangelize as your concept of "truth".

Not a problem. As long as you do not blame all of those theists for challenging what you perceive/believe or evangelise your concept of truth.

"Brainwashing" is the utmost epitome of a religious upbringing. A "forced" belief, if you like. Questioning of alternative explanations, ideas, or possible outcomes is "discouraged", and often enough punished.

I do not believe that anyone here has said any different. Religious establishments are guilty of brainwashing, so what does that have to do with atheists guilt of the same crime. You are making it sound like "he can do it so I can do it" well no, two wrongs do not make a right.

We can not explain "it". Therefore, it is "god".

Not quite is it. If it is outside of the realms of naturalistic laws it becomes supernatural. A place where God resides.

Can we explain things absent any "god" causality?

Of course. It's done on a daily basis.

Yet let's blame all those heathen "atheists" instead! They are the conspirators denying the relevance of a "god"! Atheists seek to "turn" believers into...ummm...folks that employ human reason! Heretics!

That is a tad condescending and arrogant, don't you think? Militant Atheists, after all, are void of moral accountability. They have no consequences to their actions, so there is no reason for them to account for them.

To deny the existence of God is not a conspiracy. To actively seek to remove religion from off the face of the earth is conspiracy. That is what militant atheists do. They proselytise their belief in a manner that constitutes brainwashing.

.

 

[ruffen]

I am assuming that that is you opinion. In my opinion God is a very good candidate for causing the big bang. Just saying I that nothing points towards a God does not make it true. You have to provide evidence to substantiate your claim.

Do you feel the need to provide evidence to substantiate that a blue ninja goblin with 3 feet didn't cause the Big Bang?

What makes the God hypothesis as the cause for the Big Bang more likely than any other concept one can dream up?

 

[Agnostic75]

Which brings me to a point that extremely rarely in these exchanges does anyone change their mind regardless of which way the burden of proof progresses.

Regarding most particular Internet forums, few people change their minds about common descent, but worldwide, every year, thousands of people change their minds about common descent, and thousands of people choose a world view, or change their world view.

 

[Serenity7855]

Do you feel the need to provide evidence to substantiate that a blue ninja goblin with 3 feet didn't cause the Big Bang?

What makes the God hypothesis as the cause for the Big Bang more likely than any other concept one can dream up?

Do I feel the need to provide evidence, no, not at all. Do you understand the precepts of a debating forum? After listening to
People like William Lane Craig I have determined that there is evidentiary data available to substantiate the very real possibility that a God exists. I have then written an OP and posted it on here to get opinions on it. That was my sole purpose for posting it, that is, to test the hypothesis. Let me just say though that evidence is no substitute for faith. Faith brings with it personal knowledge that God lives and loves each and every one of use. Evidence is merely cold hard facts that are void of emotion.

Let's flip the coin. What makes atheists so determined to prove to Christians that they are wrong in there beliefs, to the point where they have convinced a dying man that when his life has expired there will be nothing, making his death terrifying. What was the need for that? Even if there is nothing, surely by allowing him to believe that there is something, and making his death more bearable, would have been better than what they did to him.

 

[Magic Man]

I am assuming that that is you opinion. In my opinion God is a very good candidate for causing the big bang. Just saying I that nothing points towards a God does not make it true. You have to provide evidence to substantiate your claim.

No, you have to provide the evidence for your claim. When you do that, we can show (and have shown) you why it's not actually pointing towards a god.

Really?

Yes, really. No one is stopping you from believing in your god. People may tell you they don't believe in your god or that your god isn't real. They may even explain the problems with your "evidence" for your god. But no one is stopping you from believing it.

Not quite is it. If it is outside of the realms of naturalistic laws it becomes supernatural. A place where God resides.

Now all you have to do is show something that is supernatural and show why we should assume God resides there.

That is a tad condescending and arrogant, don't you think.

Heaven forbid someone on this thread be condescending and arrogant!

To deny the existence of God is not a conspiracy. To actively seeking to remove religious from off the face of the earth is conspiracy. That is what militant atheists do. The proselytise their belief in a manner that constitutes brainwashing.

.

There is no conspiracy to actively remove religion from the face of the earth. Religion is still dominant across the world. Proselytizing does not consitute brainwashing. Brainwashing is when you have the power over someone that you can force ideas into their head. Proselytizing, while annoying, is merely expressing your views in an effort to get people to believe them.

Anyway, so you have rude atheists who you don't like, and we have rude theists we don't like. In other words, rude people are rude, and we don't like it. The difference is I don't like rude people of any kind, whether they be atheists, theists, white people, Asians, men, women, etc.

But the main thing is your argument against militant atheists doesn't hold up. If you just want them to stop being rude and condescending, then you should stop stooping to their level. If you want to try to refute their arguments concerning God, you'll have to do a lot better than you've done here.

 

[Magic Man]

Do I feel the need to provide evidence, no, not at all. Do you understand the precepts of a debating forum?

Yes, generally in a debate when you make a claim, you provide evidence. If you don't feel the need to do that, why would you expect anyone to want to debate with you?

After listening to
People like William Lane Craig I have determined that there is evidentiary data available to substantiate the very real possibility that a God exists. I have then written an OP and posted it on here to get opinions on it. That was my sole purpose for posting it, that is, to test the hypothesis. Let me just say though that evidence is no substitute for faith. Faith brings with it personal knowledge that God lives and loves each and every one of use. Evidence is merely cold hard facts that are void of emotion.

Indeed, evidence and faith are opposite ideas. Faith is believing in something without evidence (as you do). Evidence can be cold hard facts or something else, but it's what everyone bases their beliefs on. Some of you just accept a lesser level of evidence for your god than you do for almost everything else. I simply apply the same level to everything.

Let's flip the coin. What makes atheists so determined to prove to Christians that they are wrong in there beliefs, to the point where they have convinced a dying man that when his life has expired there will be nothing, making his death terrifying. What was the need for that? Even if there is nothing, surely by allowing him to believe that there is something, and making his death more bearable, would have been better than what they did to him.

You keep bringing up a specific case that none of us has the details of. First, maybe that particular atheist was just a jerk. Some atheists are jerks, as are some members of every group. Second, maybe you just misconstrued the situation. Judging from your bias against atheists, I'd say this is a real possibility.

 

[ruffen]

Do I feel the need to provide evidence, no, not at all. Do you understand the precepts of a debating forum? After listening to
People like William Lane Craig I have determined that there is evidentiary data available to substantiate the very real possibility that a God exists. I have then written an OP and posted it on here to get opinions on it. That was my sole purpose for posting it, that is, to test the hypothesis. Let me just say though that evidence is no substitute for faith. Faith brings with it personal knowledge that God lives and loves each and every one of use. Evidence is merely cold hard facts that are void of emotion.

Let's flip the coin. What makes atheists so determined to prove to Christians that they are wrong in there beliefs, to the point where they have convinced a dying man that when his life has expired there will be nothing, making his death terrifying. What was the need for that? Even if there is nothing, surely by allowing him to believe that there is something, and making his death more bearable, would have been better than what they did to him.

The point is that anything you can say in defense of the probability of the existence of God, can be said in defense of the probability of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other creature you can think of.

And yes, evidence is cold hard facts, but as long as religious people keep claiming that they know how an important key aspect of the Universe works, that is a question of reality, not one of emotions. It is a scientific question, and no scientific data supports the God hypothesis, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster hypothesis or any other such ideas. Therefore the null hypothesis must be that none of those ideas are more credible than any other until scientifically proven otherwise, and therefore the null hypothesis is that no God exists. The burden of proof is for those who claim that God exists.

 

[Agnostic75]

Do I feel the need to provide evidence, no, not at all. Do you understand the precepts of a debating forum? After listening to People like William Lane Craig I have determined that there is evidentiary data available to substantiate the very real possibility that a God exists.

Maybe a God exists, but science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God, and it certainly cannot reasonably prove the existence of a particular God.

The National Academy of Sciences is the most prestigious scientific organization in the U.S. It says that science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God.

George Lemaitre was a brilliant physicist, and a Roman Catholic priest. He was one of the founders of the Big Bang theory. Albert Einstein had some discussions with Lemaitre, and said that Lemaitre's theory was the most beautiful theory that he had ever read. Consider the following:

Georges Lemaitre, Father of the Big Bang

It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:

“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is a well-known biologist, and testified at the Dover trial. Miller is a Christian, and a theistic evolutionist. Consider the following:

NOVA | In Defense of Evolution

Question: What's wrong with bringing God into the picture as an explanation?

Miller: Supernatural causes for natural phenomena are always possible. What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

If you close off investigation, you don't look for natural causes. If we had done that 100 years ago in biology, think of what we wouldn't have discovered because we would have said, "Well, the designer did it. End of story. Let's go do something else." It would have been a terrible day for science.

Question: Does science have limits to what it can tell us?

Miller: If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science.

Question: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a creator, of God?

Miller: Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.

Please note:

"Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question."

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.

On December 20, 2005, [judge] Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory....... ID is not science.......ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.......ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.......

Judge Jones is a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president, but he knew that intelligent design is religion, not science.

Alexander Vilenkin is a famous physicist, and college professor, who along with Arvind Borde, and Alan Guth, wrote a well-known paper on the inflation of the universe. William Lane Craig has referred to them in order to try to support some of his opinions, but Vilenkin said:

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not.

But I just showed you that even some very distinguished Christian experts disagree with you. You are asking science to do what it cannot do.

I have then written an OP and posted it on here to get opinions on it. That was my sole purpose for posting it, that is, to test the hypothesis. Let me just say though that evidence is no substitute for faith. Faith brings with it personal knowledge that God lives and loves each and every one of use. Evidence is merely cold hard facts that are void of emotion.

Then stop discussing science.

What makes atheists so determined to prove to Christians that they are wrong in their beliefs, to the point where they have convinced a dying man that when his life has expired there will be nothing, making his death terrifying? What was the need for that? Even if there is nothing, surely by allowing him to believe that there is something, and making his death more bearable, would have been better than what they did to him.

Many Christians have made similar arguments, and some of the answers should be obvious to you. If all Christians were very liberal, and never tried to wrongly interfere with the civil rights of other groups of people, I would not object to religion, but that is not the case, as it proven by the facts that
same-sex marriage is not legal in any American state that has higher percentages of conservative Christians, and the chief opponents of physician assisted suicide by far are conservative Christians, and the chief opponents of allowing openly homosexual people to join the military by far are conservative Christians.

Some people are better off believing in God, but no one should try to wrongfully limit the civil rights of other people based solely, or partly on religion.

If religion should run the government, which religion, and which sect of that religion? Famous early American statesman, president, and large contributor to the U.S. Constitution James Madison warned about religion running the government since if one religion ran the government, a sect of that religion could try to control other sects, and everyone else.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

That is a tad condescending and arrogant, don't you think? Militant Atheists, after all, are void of moral accountability. They have no consequences to their actions, so there is no reason for them to account for them.

Where do you people come up with that stupid statement? This comes from the same people who say that the Concience is God-given, thus everyone knows right from wrong, including the Atheist; then conveniently decide that Atheists don't know right from wrong and are intrinsically immoral.

There are moral atheists. There are immoral atheists. There are moral "Christians". There are immoral "Christians".

LIfe, cursory observation and common sense shows you that we can NOT judge a person's character or morality by which group they belong to.

Most atheists, myself included, hold ourselves accountable of right and wrong as we know them; we just don't hold ourselves accountable to a divinity we don't believe exists. We hold ourselves accountable to the laws of the land, those we may have wronged, and ourselves.

Morality was not "invented" by the Christian. Morality was "discovered" by the Christian. It exists simply because it exists.

 

[Agnostic75]

Militant Atheists, after all, are void of moral accountability. They have no consequences to their actions, so there is no reason for them to account for them.

"Militant Atheists"? What does how some atheists act have to do with the truth? Many atheists are peaceful, moral people. Many Christians are not peaceful, moral people.

Most atheists certainly do have consequences to their actions since they have a conscience which compels them to think, and act in certain ways.

Research has shown that many countries that have higher percentages of atheists enjoy excellent societal health, including low crime rates.

In the Western world, I would not be surprised if the percentage of atheists who commit murder, and theft, is not much different from the percentage of professing theists who commit murder, and theft.

Why are you so interested in atheists since the Bible indicates that ultimately, billions of non-Christian theists will end up in the same boat with atheists?

 

[ruffen]

Depends on what one defines as "militant atheists". This is a term that has many meanings. I've come to define myself as a militant atheist. I truly and firmly believe that any question about the nature of the Universe is a scientific question, and I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any deity of any form. Therefore I am an atheist. Not only do I doubt the existence of deities (agnostic) but I am completely convinced that there is no grounds to believe in any God.

Then there's the militant part. I believe that religion is one of the main reasons for conflict and suffering in the world today. People are in my opinion fooled by religions into doing things they would otherwise not do. If people truly believed that the life they live is the only life they have, they would take better care of their own and other people's lives, I believe.

So, the weapons of choice for a militant atheist? Not Boeing 767's. Not threatening of ostracising one's own children if they do not agree. Not threatening small chilrden with eternal suffering in Hell if they do not obey. Not claiming that a certain piece of land is one's own land by divine right, and defending that right by violence. All these are weapons of choice for militant religious groups.

In my case, a militant atheist uses reason and science as his or her weapons of choice. The fact that we know many religious claims to be false. And the fact that something isn't necessarily true just because it says so in some several millennia old text, or because a religious authority has said so.

And another weapon of choice is to show other atheists how horrible a religious world view can be and that the world would be a better place without religion, at least without militant and fundamentalist religion, and thereby converting more atheists into militant atheists, who sincerely believe that humanity should have gotten further in their world view than old myth, and that it is worth fighting for a world where such myth is interesting only in a historical perspective.

Even militant atheists do have a moral accountability. But instead of being good because the mighty creator of the universe wants us to and we want to obey, or because we fear punishment and want reward, one can be good just to be good. It feels better and is in many ways more sincere. Most religious people are also good just to be good, but those who believe that the only reason for being good is divine command, seem to do this only to improve their own chances of reward.

As Agnostic75 says, if you look at statistics showing how happy people are and how free they are in the country in which they live, and compare that with rates of religiosity and those with religious leaders as political leaders, there is a clear correlation between the two. An atheistic society is not one of no morality and only greed and personal gain. An atheistic society can function well and help people be free and happy.

 

[outhouse]

People like William Lane .

Is a known quack.


He carries no scientific or historical credibility what so ever.


But you choose him, because every credible college and professor teaches something you don't want to accept, Education and knowledge. So somehow an apologetic nut job WLC is now your magic man with all the answers

 

[outhouse]

Militant Atheists, after all, are void of moral accountability.
.

Not only have you not defined what a militant atheist is.


NOW you make MORE statements you cannot substantiate.


Atheist have more moral accountability then theist, its just not to some mythological character in our view.

They have no consequences to their actions, so there is no reason for them to account for them.

WE have our families and friends and co workers and everyone else living that accounts for our behavior.


I will take that of an atheist over someone forced into it, by your own methodology

To actively seek to remove religion from off the face of the earth is conspiracy. That is what militant atheists do. They proselytise their belief in a manner that constitutes brainwashing.

So embarrassing when people are so lost.


Who is attacking your religion? The truth?

 

[ruffen]

I believe that to attempt to remove religion from the face of the Earth is a noble and worthy thing to do, but it is only so as long as an atheistic world view is the truth. The moment I receive evidence that God exists, I will actively try to spread that message instead, because it is important that as many as possible know the actual real phsyical objective reality about the nature of our Universe.

 

[outhouse]

I believe that to attempt to remove religion from the face of the Earth is a noble and worthy thing to do, .

No one at all is doing this.

OP is fighting education and knowledge the truth. And has confused atheist for the truth.