Unfortunately many don't see this as hard evidence. Many people want physical material evidence of a God not just that people worship one, but ya if a God doesn't exist why are there so many religions? Also if you look really close at religions some have similarities even though they were seperated by distance.

Yeah which is dumb because these deities are not physical. The assumption that they are is just human stupidity.

I honestly haven't seen a single person here do that, so I don't really understand why you're focusing on this point so much. I just don't see the relevance.

Yes, we already established this. It's actually good practice to define key words in your original post, as to avoid annoying misunderstandings.

I'd say the problem is that there are so many people, that the chances of them all getting along are very small. A group of two people, both with opposing or differing beliefs, can easily be at peace with one another. When you change the circumstances to millions of people, the chances of them all not getting angry at one another are unrealistically small.

If we can't combine both creationism and evolution, then the only happy medium you're going to ever get is cold hard tolerance from one group to another, as without a combination the two beliefs will remain separate.

Okay let me try to be alittle more clear alot of people use Genesis to generalize creationism to just christianity. Then try to say there can't be a God because of details in Genesis that are contradicted by evolutionism. My point is that you can't base the existence of God on just Genesis being Genesis is limited to only 3 religious groups not all of them. Also there is also Diesm which deals with God as well so using only Theistic belief to discuss the existence of God is only one view point.

Also from my perspective trying to understand God is like an ant trying to understand the intentions and motivations of a child holding a magnifing glass. If God is really a being that dwells outside the realm of human understanding then we have no way of knowing his motivations and intentions and that also means we won't understand God as a whole either. "He who knows nothing can understand nothing." Basicly you can't understand something if you have no knowledge of it, but thats only my viewpoint so take it as you will.

In my opinion when dealing with arguements and discussions someone's point is all in how you percieve and understand it. Just because I read something and believe and understand it to be one thing doesn't always mean thats what the person ment by his statement.
The same can be said about the bible its all in how you percieve it and how you translate what the bible means to you. The bible in my belief is left up for the reader to decide the meaning of what is said. You can either take what is said word for word or try to find a hidden meaning behind what is said its all in how you view it. Thats why there are so many branches of christanity each branch believes in the bible but each has a different interpertation of the bible.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/who-wrote-the-bible.htm
From what I've read of this it tells that the bible was written by men but the word was given to man by god.
Basicly God authored it but left it to man to write it down on paper.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Sep 20 2010, 6:13 pm by Kemuel.

The reason people generalize Creationism to Christianity, is because the Christian version is the relevant version that we (as americans) are concerned with, because people want it to be taught in schools instead of evolution. The major issue is not the simple compatibility of a general creationism with the theory of evolution as you suggest we should focus on. In southern U.S. schools there are groups of parents and teachers who are pressing the legal system to be allowed to teach the christian religious theory instead of the secular evolution theory in science classes. No one cares about the rest of the issue (the "general" creationism), when it comes to this particular debate.

The secondary argument is between Atheism and any Supreme Being. Atheists claim to know for certain that Supreme Beings do not exist, and since Christianity is a particular, and very widely supported, case of a religion with a Supreme Being, many Atheists concern themselves with disproving the Supreme Being as described by Christianity. The idea is somewhat like this:

God is perfect, as defined by Christianity.
God created the bible/genesis.
We have found evidence to conclude that genesis is wrong.
Since God created an imperfection, God cannot exist as described by the Christian faith.

That isn't the perfect argument, just a general outline. My main point is that no one cares about "Creationism v. Evolution" as a general topic, there are myriad ways that someone could fiddle with either one to make them compatible (there's an episode of Futurama for example that I particularly enjoyed which concerns this issue). Rather, the real problems lie within two specific sub-arguments of two larger debates that use this issue to further their stance: Atheism vs. Christianity, and Christian Creationism vs. Evolution in the context of school teachings. As such, all this rambling about the two being compatible is pointless in the context of either of the two real debates which matter.

IMO, neither God nor Jesus are perfect in Christianity, unless you think of it in a roundabout way.
Example for God:
God had to make a second covenant with humans (Jesus) to replace the first, because it was old.
Example for Jesus:
Jesus called some woman (gentile) a dog, then she said that even dogs get scraps from their masters table, and he cried afterwards, or at least felt bad about it and healed her.

The roundabout way to think about it is that God and Jesus wanted to do it that way, and meant to do so. I don't think it matters either way.

Back to my opinion on science vs. religion:
The world was created in 6 days, according to the Bible. The Bible does not define how long a day is, nor did the sun and earth even exist for some of that time for there to exist a concept as a "day". A day in Genesis could be trillions of years for all we know. I see no reason that God couldn't have set up the rules of physics for us to discover. Gravity points down because the gravitational force of the earth attracts us, because God set it up that way. In one "day", we evolved from the tiniest of creatures created by something that I don't recall (big bang maybe?). The very idea of taking the Bible literally is stupid. It's like that game where you whisper a message into someone's ear, then they pass it along. Somewhere along the way, someone's going to hear it wrong. They may have tried their best to translate it from the old text (I have a feeling the stories were spoken for a long time before they were finally written down somewhere). Also like translationparty.

Since the only real religions with a significant population other than Hinduism is Abrahamic in origin, (the east asian religions I see as more of a philosophy of life than a true religion) so most suffer from the same translation/misquoting problem.

Incorrect, there has always been two covenants. The covenant of works, eg you have to be perfect to get to heaven, and the covenant of grace, eg Jesus chooses you and you go to heaven (roughly).

He didn't call her a dog, he used an analogy where he called the Jews children, and the Gentiles dogs. He then went on to say that children should be fed before dogs. He didn't say YOU GENTILE DOG, and then cried about how mean He was.

I always thought God created a new covenant not because it was old but because we broke it the first time. Also there was two convenants one with Abraham and one with moses. The 3rd didn't come along till after Jesus died on the cross and through his blood our sins forgiven.

Do you know how crazy you sound when you say that? I'm serious.

And Jesus has always existed, just like God, right? So all the people who died at soddom and gomorrah were chosen by Jesus, and everyone who died in Noah's flood were chosen by Jesus? No, the new covenant IS Jesus, and he was born 2000 years ago, much later than Abraham (when the first covenant was made).
You can read up more on the new covenant that I'm talking about here.
Maybe there are three covenants, I don't know. But still, the existence of more than one covenant proves my point that God is not infallible.

Matthew 15:21-28 is the passage I'm talking about. It's more like: "He then went on to say that dogs shouldn't be fed human food". He explains that he's not supposed to heal gentiles, then she convinces him to. He was wrong at first.

Atheists can't sin (in their own eyes), so I don't understand how that's crazy. "Through his blood" is just a euphemism for dying an excruciatingly painful death.

hmmm that does sound less crazy. I read things too literally sometimes.

First two sentences are right. The new covenant was created right after man's fall in the garden of eden, when God says to satan: "And I will put enmity
between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers; he will crush [b] your head, and you will strike his heel.""
It was expanded upon further at Abraham's time, and continued till today.
How? God decided before the world was created that He would make man and one covenant, then man would fall and He'd make a second covenant. Not infallible that I can see.

The funny thing is in my catholic school (I, myself am not catholic) they teach us that believing in the idea that God created what eventually evolved to be man is totally reasonable. Case closed. (Some) Christians already believe in this happy medium.

I have my own beliefs about this.
-First of all if God is a supreme being who can do anything he want's what's to stop him from leaving no evidence of his existence.

-That's one of the great things about Theism is that it basically fits into anything science can prove. What's to say God didn't have a little fun by making a tiny speck explode into everything thus creating the universe?

-I like the idea of a God who cares about me and my life If you don't want the most powerful being on your side go right ahead.

-Atheism wouldn't exist if it weren't for theism HAH!

-But on a slightly serious note, I am a Christian and you might not be; That's your choice. If you can't get along so be it. If we can, great.

-I would never agree with anyone who wants to force their opinion on you. Just keep in mind that in the case of a Christian; I'm doing it because I care enough about you that I'm spending my time trying to get you out of an eternal hell.

-That is all.

They may teach it but it isn't totally reasonable, and the case is far from closed.

They can exist together, however, since science is based upon reason, rationality, observation, testing, and evidence, and there is none of that in favor of religions or the existence of god, religion continues to be an unscientific and essentially arbitrary belief.


There is a variety of religions because primitive human beings failed to understand natural concepts rain, lightning, and volcanoes. This is especially obvious over here in Hawaii, the native Hawaiian religion is essentially a primitive means of explaining nature (now replaced with science), there is Pele as an explanation of volcanoes, Kanaloa as an explanation for the oceans, etc, etc.

The fact that there is millions of different contradictory religions is evidence that religion is man-made. Additionally, the diversity of religions indicates that your choice to believe in any one of them is essentially as arbitrary and subjective as your favorite color.

And you are just grasping at straws here. Atheists have already gone over all of your arguments hundreds of times, if you had some new revolutionary argument for religion you would rich and famous.

What you are doing is looking around for reasons to support a belief you already have. A belief you probably got from your parents and not from scientific research.


Do you have any evidence that fairies don't exist?


This is a pointless exercise. Scientists don't go around looking for evidence for the impossibility of anything, fairies or gods.

However, I will indulge you with some evidence. First of all, there is strong evidence from history, sociology, and religious studies that religion and god (at least 99% of religions) are things made up by human beings.

So there is fairly strong evidence from the humanities and social studies that religion and god are man-made concepts.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 18 2010, 9:38 am by jhuni.

My brothers an ass and goes up to my dad and asks him 'if adam and eve were the first humans, what are black people, ect?'.

I was raised Lutheran christian, although in recent years I've turned from my beliefs a lot. I like the idea of a god, but not the idea of religion. I recently thought to myself there should really be sins cause if there is a gods he's all knowing so he can't call what we do a sin since he made us and knows we'll do it. Though i don't know. I don't like the idea of evolution either 100% either.

There is a lot of evidence in favor of specific religions, and by extension evidence towards the god(s) of that particular religion. Try not to use such wide sweeping claims like this one, to avoid making false claims.

Actually, no. Just because a lot of religions contradict one another, doesn't mean that religion in general is man-made. If two religions are mutually exclusive in some way, then one is right (on the specific matter), and one is wrong. If two religions just plain contradict one another, then either one or both can be wrong -not necessarily both.

Who cares. This is the serious discussion, where we discuss things. Most things thought have already been thought of before, oh well.


When you buy a puppy, do you expect it to be properly trained? Or do you buy with the knowledge that it will do wrong, and require additional training? If people buy puppies with the knowledge that it will require additional training, why don't they just buy a robotic dog that is without "sin"? Well, who wants a puppy that doesn't have free will -it's boring and meaningless. The same goes with God. What's the point of creating humans if they don't have free will? Free will means that humans have the choice to sin or not.

So, why can't God create us and call certain things we do sin? Imagine that god creates a being, and gives it free will. Next, he tells that being not to do Action: A. The being goes and does Action A. Why can't this god call what the being did a sin?

Terrible analogy. One difference is that when we buy a puppy, we don't know if it will eventually be obedient or not. God knows exactly how we will react to, or choose, everything that will ever happen to us the moment he creates us. Scratch that, he fucking has that knowledge even BEFORE we're made. Then he just goes right along making some of us in a certain way, knowing we are doomed.

Fair enough, but my main point was the part about free will. Plus, I don't think any puppy is potty trained by genetics.