Isaiah 6:8

I am closing this topic as it has now only been a target of spam.

Thank you everyone for the prayers! Thanks Isaiah for the recommendation, I will look into the book (a friend had suggested the same book)! Although my wife refuses to see speak, text, email me. There's zero contact so I'm losing hope of reconciliation? Our God has the power to raise the dead, if he will's he will restore my family/marriage.

Hey you never,Know, God is a God of restoration.

Please pray for me! My marriage of some thirty years is all but over. My wife refuses to speak to me, little hope of reconciliation. My counselor tells me to stay away and work on myself ( hers tells her the same) praying for hope and peace, to abide in Christ and remain pure. Thank you !

Jerry,

There is a book I highly suggest you getting.

Its called "If only he knew: What no women can resist Understanding your wife" by Gary Smally.

http://www.amazon.com/If-Only-He-Knew-Resist/dp/0310214785

I have started reading it and it has been pulling my wife and I closer to each other and to God at the same time. I'll be praying for you I know what your going through is not easy.

been a busy weekend, its been to long since I had last.

Good I'll keep praying.

Amen, this is why I no longer discuss this issue, I have my own opinion, but in general I figure that as long as I hold fast to Jesus I'll be okay.

I'd been severely beaten down by my long, ongoing (and new) trials so much that a couple of weeks ago I felt I just could not go on. But God has revealed Himself to me in various ways and has reassured me that He has me in the Palm of His Hand.

I want to glorify the Lord for the prayers and huge outpouring of support from my fellow believers here at Worthy. I really believe this played an important part in my spiritual reviving. (Although things are still very intense and I actually just posted a crisis prayer request a bit earlier ( please check it out, okay? ) I believe that God still loves me and that He won't forsake me.

Amen, praying.

"Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God"

This is the problem--this is the statement that cannot be qualified. There are peoples all over the world who have never heard of God and yet they establish and abide a moral code within their societies. Those codes may differ from our own, but they have them, and every society has standards of decency which dictate murder, lying, cheating, stealing, and rape are wrong. Conversely, there are a lot of professed Christians who do things that are considered immoral even by the tenets of their own faith. There are atheists who know about all the religions and Christian denominations, have chosen to not believe, and who still abide a moral code--they're not running around killing people and eating babies.

Statement one, above, cannot be established as fact. It's been my experience that when a person truly wants to feel good about themselves, they do right. When a person wants to do wrong, regardless of their beliefs, they'll fight tooth and nail to justify what they want to do and then they keep doing it. I've never met an immoral person who couldn't justify what they were doing or speaking, backing every bit of it up by yet another interpretation of the Bible. They don't respond to their conscience. If you're running looking things up, that's clue number one you're thinking about doing wrong. When you're doing something you know is right, you don't go looking up laws and Bible verses to see if it's okay.

First off welcome to worthy.

Second are you a Christian

And third off if a"savage" tribe has a moral code where does it come from? You state that you feel good when you do good in other words you have a conscience where does that come from? Why are you offended if some one cheats you or lies to you or steals from you?

You see you prove the point. There is a universal moral law that every one feels and where does that come from?

A: Well I'm not going to believe no matter how logical or how much evidence you could show me because I don't like the Christian God and I don't what to live by His standards. I want to live my life as I see fit, in my own good way. I am my own best authority. I call the shots. It is me! It is me!

LOL, I had to comment on this because it did make me smile. You're right you now, the life of a Christian has got to be one of the most difficult to lead. I mean the constant sacrifices that are made is staggering, the complete memorization of the Bible, the giving to the poor, the visiting the downtrodden to rebuild homes and lives after disasters etc. Going to church on Sunday, or well, usually every Sunday you know unless it's a big hunting day or whatever...you guys really give the world an example that's hard to follow.

I live work and play with Christians around me, you probably don't have it that bad my friend.

Hmm I don't know many if any Christians like that. Not of that is a requirement only the cross of Christ is. That's the difference only Christianity does not have us work our way in to heaven. The good works flow from a change in our lives.

By the way the above morals are morals that are above all the other morals that are brought up such as murder and rape. These are down to the individual person and every person on the planet does the same and feels the same way when cheated or wronged in some way.

From Mere Christianity, By C.S. Lewis.

1. The Law Of Human Nature

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely

unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to

the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to

you?"—"That's my seat, I was there first"—"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"— "Why

should you shove in first?"—"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"—"Come on, you

promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children

as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying

that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard

of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies:

"To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not

really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some

special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that

things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which

lets him off keeping his promise.

It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or

decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they

have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human

sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there

would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right

and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless

there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when

we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of

chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they

really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law

of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law—with this

great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a

man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of

law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation

and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling

than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey

any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things;

but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables

or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses...

<snip>

...

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real

Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his

promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can

say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case

by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter,

and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong— in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what

is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and

shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken

about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and

opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next

point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions

among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going

to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

Also I posted this to help with that very issue awhile ago.

Also do not try to pit me against another mod.

LOL, allow me to quote a worthy forum moderator on your question:

For added consideration....

7. Constantly demanding to know from Unbelievers about their intent at being here is also not a very friendly approach...those that have obviously come here to mock and play games do not stay for long anyway, and those that stay happily distance themselves from these fellow Unbelievers. We should recognise this and learn to differentiate.

If you believe I am here to mock and play games, you can lobby to have me banned.

since this thread is about anti theism and why you seem to not just not believe in god but to be openly against the idea it is a pertaint question as if you are only an atheist then you would. Not struggle so hard to disprove god. So I asked why you were hereto see if you were a true atheist or an anti theist.I ask the question and press it as it is rellivent to the thread and I press it because your refuse to answer.this proves to me you are an anti theist .

You don't have to respond to anything you do not feel comfortable discussing.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

I simply will not answer questions that have already been answered before.or where you twist the meaning of words even your own.

Am I? That is certainly news to me.

You are.

1) I do not like or dislike any message of the cross. . '

Do you really understand the one message of the the cross. It is the crux of everything we believe

2) I am perfectly comfortable about the status of my destiny, and the relative level of control I have over it.

That is my point you want control and yo do not want to lose that

3)I am not here to convince anyone of anything.:-)

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Then why are you here?

I did not respond to the rest as you are just playing word games.

I find it interesting that since Christ's crucifixion the world seems to have realized this. Animal sacrifices have largely stopped, when it used to be practiced by pretty much every culture.

It does not look like your claim has any basis. I did not have much time to go back through the 2000 years, so I stopped at 2009 AD (two years ago) and 20 seconds google:). That does not look like it largely stopped at all LOL

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/hindu-sacrifice-gadhimai-festival-nepal

Ciao

- viole

He said largely not completely.

I need to be away for the most part for a while. I do not have the ti e or energy for proper responses also the main reason I started this thread was to state my opinion not so much defend it.

You are on a Christian web site debating the existiance of god. The fact that you are here debating the existiance shows you are trying to disprove his existiance. Here you come in and "warn" another person we are speaking to to not take what we say at face value. That is interfering. I have had to move threads as you have also interfered. You have not answered why you are on a Christian site trying to disprove god. Either you have an agenda to disprove god as you believe that religion is the core problem of society (which I know you believe) or yor are afraid it's true and yor are trying to reassure yourself that it's not or you simply researching some form of paper. The point is this why are you so against the idea of God that you must seek out Christians to debate with?

As for me I know without a shadow of a doubt that the god I serve is the one true God. I know this because of the message of the cross. The message of the cross is this. God so loved the world lost in a debt of sin it could never pay that he paid that debt by giving his son for us on the cross. He wants something that no other religion offers a personal relationship with the creator God of heaven. As for converting people we are to preach the word and answer questions and that is what I meant.

As for what you will tell god.... Well that is almost word for word what I have heard every atheist say. The issue is this you want god on your terms. He wants you on his.

I submit to you that you are rejecting god not because you don't have proof but because there is something about the message of the cross you do not like. Something about the possibility of not being in control of your destiny. I cannot believe you simply disbelieve as one disbelieved in as you say "the flying spegetti monster" if that was the case you would not be here trying to convinces us otherwise.

Atheism didn't bring freedom.

Hi OES,

You are correct. It is the other way around.

Freedom (to think) often results in atheism.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

So if you think this why are you here arguing with us? Why debate with those that disagree with you and why do you try to prove there is no god? If ther is no god as there is no Easter bunny why than do you feel the need to come to our site and try your level best to prove to us that he does not exist and go so far as to try to stop us from converting others? We want to convert others as we see them heading for an eternity without God and we want to save them from those consiquences. If God does not exist than why does it matter if a person converts or not? However if he does exist and he is who we say he is what do you plan to tell him when he asks you why you did not believe? We. He asks you why you rejected the cross?

As the sun burns through its fuel it shrinks at a measurable rate. Using this rate, you can extrapolate the size of the sun. So even 1 Million years ago, the earth would be incinerate. there negating all possibility of life evolving on the planet.

Uh, no that doesn't work out correctly. Perhaps if you thought the sun, or any star, produced energy from chemical reactions (say combining two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen atom to produce water + energy) that might be the case. However, stars use nuclear fusion which is a much more efficient process.

Actually the sun is shrinking at a measurable rate. As its nuclear fuel is slowly fused into other denser forms of matter. So yes it works. And yes it is and has been measured.

Dave Ramsey states as much here

LOL, it should have said "speciation" and not "evolution". I was in a rush and it was a slip of the hand, it should read properly now.

You did say "we have never seen them ever evolve from one species to another", which would be a rejection of speciation. For the record, either way, do you accept speciation?

I do not call speciation evolution. You see that then is where the word game goes. You accept speciation, (evolution) so why not the whole deal ( from dino's to birds). You see you are sticking on a word, evolution, and that is why I am saying you speak in word games. Yes I belive in speciation as that is an observed fact. I do not call it evolution as evolution implies changing from one species to an completely different species.

I don't think that is the whole story. Whoever disproves the theory of evolution would be next in line for a Nobel, not to mention fame and fortune along with a good chance of forever being immortalized by the scientific community of professionals and laymen alike; they'd join the ranks of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dalton, Watson-Crick, Faraday, and others. Not to mention it is in governments best interest to create environments where good science flourishes, as that translates into increased discovery of new inventions to exploit; you're just not going to get the best results possible working under a heavily flawed model. So I think there is more than enough reason for someone to blow the whistle on the evolutionary hoax. As a general rule, the bigger the conspiracy the harder it is to cover it up, and if evolution is a conspiracy then it's a big one.

I don't think its 100% considered. Its taken an idea and presented it so much that it is simply taken as a fact, and if you fight against that you are presented as crazy. For instance. People believe that you HAVE to have a credit card to rent a car. This is a myth taken as fact. I have had people argue with me over this over and over and yet I have rented multiple cars with out a credit card. You see people have been told a story so often, they simply accept it as true and refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary. Tell me have you ever really looked at all the creation information, with an open mind, or have you done like I have with evolution, looked at it only to disprove the points?

You see I was taught, evolution in school growing up, its on TV all day long, in one way shape or form, its in cartoons etc. You see it has been so ingrained into our culture that to fight against it seems that you may be off the deep end or ignoring the facts.

I started looking at all the evidence as I was wondering if it fit into Genesis, yes, to see how it worked with the Bible, and when it did not I started taking a better closer look. I found the evidence did not fit, the idea's at even a basic level doe not work.

The question is, can you look at the evidence objectively?

I really don't know what you are talking about. Why would the Earth be close to or inside the Sun a million years ago because of the way the Sun gets its energy?

As the sun burns through its fuel it shrinks at a measurable rate. Using this rate, you can extrapolate the size of the sun. So even 1 Million years ago, the earth would be incinerate. there negating all possibility of life evolving on the planet.

I am really at a loss as to where you are coming from. I've obviously said some things in the past that pushed your buttons, but I honestly am drawing a blank on these conversations. I said from the very beginning with the Sun thing that I don't know what you're talking about. I need more than 'because the way the Sun burns it's fuel, a million years ago the Earth would be in the center of the Sun', to me that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I just cannot connect how fusion in the Sun would make it so that the Earth was near or inside the Sun a million years ago.

Sorry I did miss that I was not clear about that, I am sorry about that. However I have seen you state minimal evidence to ascertain something that we have never seen is possible. A lack of one gas on a moon or a planet I can not remember which. You stated that just because one gas was not found that it was evidence of silicon based lifeforms.

If I said a much stronger thing about evolution being wrong, you would tell me the evidence was too weak. Such the fact that it would only have taken Niagara falls 6,000 years to wear down to its current shape from water erosion was evidence of the earth being young. You would state that it was only evidence of the fall themselves being only 6000 years old. you see there are many options to why this is true however if I state that as evidence you would say it was not based on other possible explanations. So yes it is evidence but not a fact. You have shown you choose to belive what evidence you will and ignore other possibility.

I'm still curious to see the evidence against evolution, and why evolution isn't science. In a nutshell all I have is the assertion that it is faith based and overtly biased, vague notions of twisting and ignoring facts, there is no evidence of evolution, possibly that speciation is a lie (you have contradictory statements here, so I don't know what you believe), with some sun thing that eludes my comprehension. What are some of the things that evolutionists are ignoring and/or twisting? What are some of the biases that you see?

Many people have presented these facts over the forums. You have looked at them and rejected them. For instance, I have brought up where did sexual reproduction come from. You have stated you do not know. The odds against this happening and working perfectly are next to impossible, and yet you accept that evolution made it possible somehow.

I did not want to list a bunch of fact, however since I have time let me go over a few.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

source

Then there is this...

http://www.biblelife.org/creation.htm

Just to start. I ask you to really think of this logic, really look a the evidence weigh it and tell me if you can take it as science or faith.

I have no problem applying it to other fields, doesn't mean I accept what you're saying is accurate though. I have seen many creationists before talk about the big bang and biological evolution and so on as if they are all dependent on each other or part of the same scientific theory, so I wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page.

I know you only accept the biological theory of evolution, and ignore how the rest must tie together. I will not dispute that here. You have already shown you believe in all theories that exclude Genesis as the creation of everything.

On that here is a thought, if one, only one of those things, such as the cosmological origins of the universe were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false would that effect your view on the other fields?

Personal experience is usually such a small sample size that you cannot extrapolate it to the general population; my personal experience is close to the opposite of yours, probably because of where we live. I don't actually recall making this claim before, I've claimed that most clergy accept evolution, and most scientists that are religious accept evolution, but never the general public that I recall. But if you want to contain it to those who've studied it, I suggest you look at scientists that are theistic evolutionists, which is folds greater than scientists who reject evolution. As far as clergy, they would be most knowledgeable regarding the religious side of the question, and most of them (along with a lot of big denominations) accept evolution as seen in the Clergy Letter Project and it's antithesis the Creation Letter Project.

Again, there is no facts backing this up, just observation. That was my point.

I'm not playing word games, I just expressed the view of the scientific consensus. Perhaps what is throwing you off is that biologists don't really distinguish between micro and macro evolution beyond convenience; they are the same thing just on different scales. I understand that creationists make a big deal out of micro and macro, and I'm willing to discuss the two and how they're related and such. In fact, using creationist definitions, I agree that just observing microevolution doesn't confirm macroevolution, other evidence is required to support such a hypothesis - i.e. the fossil record and genetics. Evolution doesn't state that breeds are due to random chance; randomness plays a part but there are very salient non-random parts in the process too. In addition, evolution states that offspring must be similar to their parents, otherwise the whole notion of heredity is thrown out the window. So evolution wouldn't work any other way than having dogs produce dogs. Over many successive generations eventually the original generation and the final generation would be so different that you could say they aren't the same "kind" (whatever that means). Depending on the parameters you employ this could take a few years to a few billion years.

We have observed speciation in the wild and in lab, we've observed it so much that scientistis have been able to classify different types of speciation. If Worthy doesn't take this down it is a great source on speciation: Observed instances of speciation

There is also a lot of evidence to support it beyond direct observation, island species are a good start. Another good one is ring species like the Ensatina Salamanders.

Are you familiar with the creationist concept of "baramin"? For example, are coyotes and wolves the same kind? Are all the species of zebra the same kind? Horses and donkeys? Camels and llamas? Out of the hundreds of thousands of beetle species how many are in separate kinds? The point here being if you say that a "kind" includes two or more species, speciation must have taken place to produce two distinct species from a single ancestral kind. Even Answers in Genesis accepts speceiation and is under their list of arguments creationists shouldn't use : AiG AiG quote 2

"Speciation has been observed to occur in as little as a few years as seen in guppies, lizards, fruit flies, mosquitoes, finches, and mice." .... "Speciation was necessary for the animals to survive in a very different post-Flood world. This is especially well illustrated in the dog kind in which current members (e.g., coyotes, dingoes, and domestic dogs) are confirmed to be descended from an ancestral type of wolf."

Other creationist sites that accept evolution are creation wiki and biblicalcreation.org.

No they do not accept evolution, they accept Speciation. With no chance of evolving. You are putting words in there mouths, and playing word games. I agree with speciation I have already said that. You say that it can go from reptiles to birds. Again with the word games.

From creation wiki

With cases of speciation the conclusion is clear if following observational science. Speciation will not produce radical biological structure dissimilarity resulting in a different animal, such is needed to support molecules-to-man evolution, but rather deeply unique and wide-ranging phenotype diversity of structures that constitute specific kinds of animals.

Beyond phenotype expression, any other conclusion will not suffice but rely on extrapolation that assumes deep time.

There is always going to be avocation of ideas, but ultimately it comes down to the evidence. Eventually the theory/model will break down as it can't produce accurate predictions and/or new evidence disproves it.

Unless someone has a vested intrest in keeping the model going. If you really think about it there are millions of dollars and reputations at stake. There is very clear motive to hid and skew the truth.

Sure, but the point is can you show me who is and who isn't explaining the facts through their theory/model? You said in the OP, correct me if I'm wrong, that if facts were explained through the theory instead of creating the theory than it isn't science. I'm showing you two examples where science has a model, and used that model to explain the facts within that model.

Yes but they took facts to build the original model. If the original model is wrong people often try to force the facts to fit rather then throw away the model.

So you started a thread about how evolution isn't science, but you aren't even going to attempt to give me any examples of how it isn't science? How have I played word games or tried to move the line of evidence and proof? I'd like to have a discussion on the issues raised in the thread so far, but it is kind of hard to do so when you refuse to discuss the issues and accuse me of playing games.

I did make a statment and a link to some. I used the links as my wife wanted me to finish up. Sorry for the shortcut.

Yes, I remember that thread, I participated in it. From what I remember, we talked a little on how ERV's support evolution, and someone came back with a creationist article refuting ERV's, however the creationist article didn't address anything salient about the subject at hand.

You missed the point. The point is that there are two viewpoints on the same evidence. It fits two theories. As you have stated you need to choose the best one.

It is my understanding that the point of the thread is to show that evolution isn't science, and possibly disprove evolution. Anyways, what evidence has been ignored that flies in the face of the theory? I'm not sure what you are talking about with the Sun; originally it was thought that the Sun got its energy via chemical burning which wouldn't last very long, but now we know that it is done via fusion via the proton-proton chain and that makes the Sun last much longer, somewhere around 8-9 billion years which about half of it has been spent so far.

That fact was taken based on a atomic fueled sun and therefore the point stands. Only one million years ago the earth would be close to or inside the sun itself.

I just thought that it would be critical to the discussion to talk about what science is and what it involves as a process, if nothing else to ensure that everyone is on the same page, given that the title of the thread is "Is evolution or creation science?" Once we establish an acceptable definition or working understanding of science, answering the OP question would be much easier and straightforward, IMHO.

You have shown before that how you define science is completely subjective to your point of view. If it lines up with your beliefs you will take facts as evidence at face value. If the facts do not line up with your world view you will attempt to change it or point out the flaws in it. As evidenced with you trying to change the evidence of the sun. The evidence is there you can not handle it so you tried to change the terms of he evidence rather then think that there may be something there.

This would be the question I am bringing you back to, that has remained unanswered.

I don't try to disprove God, there's nothing to disprove.

Then why are you here debating about the existence of god? If there was nothing to disprove, why go to a christian website and purposely try to debate the validity off a belief in God?

It is my personal opinion that belief in the supernatural can have terrible consequences, the potential for problems is directly proportional to how deeply a society/culture embraces a supernatural worldview.

You might want to consider what it's like to be a non-believer in a Country that heavily embraces a revealed religion [exclusivist in nature]. People will post billboards and signs everywhere proclaiming this that or the other about God, but the second an atheist pays to have a billboard or sign stating "You can be good without God" the world comes to an end. Our culture is geared towards automatically giving religious belief preference and special treatment. Speaking of the world coming to an end, what group of folks was it that gave all their money to an old man who proclaimed that the earth was coming to an end? Were these people healthy skeptics? No. Real tangible damage was done to these peoples lives. There are children that have perished because the parents believed that God would heal their child if they just prayed hard enough. I know these people may be in the minority, but it's the principle issue that worries me.

And yet consider North Korea. Christians are killed and tortured for being Christians, done in the name of atheism. You see, your trying to divert the issue. The real issue is not religion, it is peoples own pride. You see evil people will use what ever they can to justify there own personal gain. Stating that just having religion, is a cause or even a potential cause for people to be evil does not make any sense. I have met many very nice atheists. Really good people. However I know many evil atheists, Joseph Stalin comes to mind. You see there are many criminal evil atheists. Does that mean that being an atheists makes you a criminal?

Again. your argument is hollow, You are obviously arguing against the existence of god as you came to our forum, knowing full well it was a christian forum, and started debating with us about the existence of God. You have tried to state that being religious equals automatically a dangerous slope to fanaticism.

So again. why are you here trying to convince us that there is no god. Or the other side of this question, why are you here asking us to convince you there is a god?

By the way, Christians in general, want people to become Christians, not because they do not like non Christians, but because they want to save there souls which we believe exists.

I answered my own question, did a search on Google for "submit to truth" and it is very much "faith speak".

Are you going to answer my questions?

Hi Isaiah,

It may be that Stargaze is interpreting your question as a rhetorical one, or even an assertion, neither of which require an answer.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

actually that was not my question, I forgot to clear the quote tags.