Arjuous

Why don't you look up where the 'Christmas Tree' came from. It was pagan celebration of the spring. Do research before you make comments like 'Give me a break.' So you just admitted the holiday existed on the same day beforehand, they just changed the name. So, the tradition of Christmas, or whichever name you want to call it, was created before Christianity. That is my point.

I agree, that's the point of the holiday. But the tradition was established long before Christianity, or even Judaism. And involved getting wasted of wine and having sex with each other (yes, even gay sex). Sleep on that.

Of course I can say both things. You're assuming they contradict and they absolutely do not. Let's look at the two statements: 1) A general 'god' could exist just as easily as it could not 2) A Christian God does not exist Explain how these contradict.

Piousness, rhetoric, and a refusal to address the issue....surprising.

Exactly, I never said a general god could not exist, just that the Christian God does not. How can you not understand that.

You are the Dumbest person I think I've ever encountered. Yes, belief that a general god could exist is rational, saying he 'must' or 'does' exist is not. Also, belief in a 'Christian God' is NOT THE SAME THING as thinking that a god created the universe. I DIDN'T SAY THAT, FOR THE TENTH TIME, READ THE POSTS

How dare you. Who do you think you are to tell ME about what I'VE experienced? How can you have the gall to tell me that I was not genuine when I begged to God to save me at 13. That I was not genuine when I wept and begged the Lord after a family tragedy to care for my loved ones. Debate me on the issues, but don't ever speak to me as if you have the authority to determine how strong my faith once was. I was a true Christian and I DID, in fact, renounce my faith. Either two things can be true by this happening. Either, as you have so falsely asserted, I never was a Christian in the first place, or there's a good reason for leaving Christianity. If you think that only the former can be true, then by definition you don't have the capacity to engage in discussion about it.

I felt the need to interject on this "faith" point. We (ideally) act as if life were intrinsically valuable and as if all human lives were of equal worth. Do we have "evidence" of these things we take for truth? Or are we acting without evidence--out of ignorance? Good question. If by 'we' you mean atheists, which is how I read that comment, then no, we aren't acting out of ignorance. Crossing the street without looking both ways would be acting out of ignorance. But if you observe your surroundings and then make a decision, it is not ignorance. Also, and a better point I feel, is that humans are blatently social animals. We care for our families and companions, and do not like to see others in pain. It's a survival mechanism for our species that accounts for our tendancy to help our fellow man, and I think its great. It is a good question though. "Do we have "evidence" of 'human lives' being of 'equal worth?'" Well, you could rationally conclude that all humans are equal, but it isn't something that warrants 'evidence.' It certainly isn't irrational to help your fellow man, humans have prospered for that exact reason (such as the field of medicine). But it is incredibly irrational to observe your environment and then ad hoc a god into it, for no other reason than ancient text and common, religion spanning spiritual experiences.

I understand why you believe that, but you have no evidence for that other than the book of Genesis, which is bunk. Science doesn't 'point' to ANYTHING, it's the study of the world around us, and it certainly has NEVER entailed ANYTHING about God. All science points to observable and verifiable data about our surroundings, you don't need to invoke the supernatural to explain science. Explain. WRONG. Evolution is a fact and a theory. Well you can think that, but it doesn't make it so. If you were to say that evolution is something that the Christian God created, you would have a slightly better, though still unsure, footing on the issue. But to assert that evolution did/does/is not occurring is just stupidity. I'm sorry, it is, EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

You missed the point entirely. We aren't debating the existence of 'God,' we're debating the Christian God. What's the difference? Well, a general God concept doesn't have very many parameters, and the Christian God does. Bringing up the overall 'God' debate within the 'Christian God' debate would not help either side of the argument, and would certainly provide no proof for Christianity. True enough I suppose. Arjuous and TheProcess, I've forgotten your stance on theism in general, were you in favour of a God and simply not a Christian God, or are you just Athiest? It's a difficult question. Firstly, I'd like to address that Atheism is not a belief structure, it's merely a lack of theism (A-Theism). My religion, if you had to describe my worldview that way, is philosophy, not atheism. As for what I'm in favor of? Well, I'd like to think that god exists, and certainly understand the rational argument. How can we have something from nothing, right? The problem is that there is equally rational counter-points to theism. Yet an even bigger problem exists when discussing the god concept because there is no coherent definition of what 'god' is. Now this isn't a debate about that, so I've been trying to focus on the Christian God. And, since the only 'evidence' that can be offered on its behalf is its holy book, I've shown why, if God does exist, he didn't write the bible. Sure, I understand where your coming from, I was a Christian for 20 years, and its easy to ascribe to thinking that 'everyone who doesn't believe in God just doesn't get it,' but you have to realize how many holes are in that logic.

Never said that a general god could not exist, just that the Christian God does not. Faith - Noun - "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." No, I do not have 'faith,' nor do I believe snakes or donkeys can talk without proof. I also don't believe that God could produce one contradiction, and since the bible is riddled with them, it furthers my position. But hey, go ahead, keep attacking me with terrible and unexplained quips slapped within atrocious grammar and sentence structure, I'm sure you'll raise another great point... I didn't say that. Furthermore I said it was perfectly rational that a god does exist, but it is completely irrational to assert that he wrote the bible, and THAT is what I have been saying this entire time. READ THE POSTS and try and contribute something to the conversation other than rhetoric. ...you don't even read posts do you? Wow you're wrapped up on this one. I NEVER SAID THAT. Furthermore, it's impossible to prove something like that, you can't examine something like 'God.' What you can examine is the only evidence you have of the Christian diety, which is the bible and the claims it makes. Since it makes extraordinary claims that are completely disproven scientifically, and contains all of the mythic elements that other religions that preceded it, besides containing a terrible idea of morals, I can say with certainty that God didn't write the bible. ...where did I say that? No, I don't have faith, and don't think anyone should, because of what the definition entails, acting without evidence (also known as ignorance) Ignorance - Noun - Lack of knowledge, information, or proof You really just don't read anything people write, it's sad.

What do you mean by 'new information,' and where can you prove that the modern genetic information is the same as the original genetic information from 'Gods creation.' I'm not quite sure what it has to do with evolution. As I've explained, evolution is an observable fact, and by its very nature your proposition cannot be true. If evolution is true, then new genetic information is constantly forming from pressure to adapt, meaning that there is constantly newly emerging genes, therefor new 'genetic information' for evolution. Irrelevant. Evolution, and I cannot assign this more importance, is based in BIOLOGY. The fact of evolution is something observed in Biology. And the theory of evolution is a BIOLOGICAL THEORY. What you're referring to, where life forms from non-life, called ABiogenesis, is something that Christians falsely associate with evolution. ABiogenesis is a bio-chemical theory, not a biological theory. Whatever caused life to emerge is not the concern of evolution, rather the concern is the study of life.

I've obviously provided both evidence and reason. And to say I have nothing for you to 'accept' or to 'reject,' implies that I have made no assetions, which as anyone can see, is false. Again, I've given both reason and evidence. You've just tacitly admitted that you haven't read any of it. You have no evidence of 'creation,' all you have is the fact that things exist, and that's it. Existence does not entail 'God,' nor does it prove Christianity. To say that "things exist, therefor the Bible is true" lacks a connection between existence and the bible, and therefor cannot be used as proof of Christianity I agree somewhat. I rejected it because I am able to accept or reject propositions. I'm able to make the choice on what I've heard and what was offered to me because of my brain, as a cognitive organ, allows me to weigh propositions. I'm not 'given' a choice, I make one because the situation presents itself. Uhhh....what? Once again, that is a false assertion, I have given both evidence and reason for my belief. Aside from the fact that I've obviously presented evidence and reason, I'm still puzzled by your assertion. Look at the top of the page and read the title of this forum. "Apologetics: Defending the Faith." Your in a forum that debates the existence or nonexistence of the Christian diety, if your inept in that regard, which you've consistently shown yourself to be, then stop attempting to debate.

Arjuous, So did the shepherds build makeshift shelters for themselves in winter?LNJ They had homes...it was cold so they were inside. Either way it's a moot point, just thought I'd mention it.

I never discounted that it is a "theory", just that it is not a fact!!! You repeatedly hide behind your frustration and your inconclusive links in avoiding answering my questions...So I'll ask you one more time. My evidence against evolution is as it was stated. "Where are the transitional fossils?, where are the remains of the gradations of lifeforms? Where is your missing link(s)"? THERE ARE NONE !!! So you are left with a "THEORY", not a fact, and until you can show evidence of these things mentioned above, WITH NO EXCUSES. Did you even read my post? I literally JUST explained it. Transitional fossils are not necessary to prove evolution.