I Believe In God

@Notmesam Well Someone had to create Science and put everything in motion.

@Cloud7593 People created science.
As for physics, there's no reason anything would have to be set in motion and not just innately how our universe works.

@Cloud7593 Lets Me SEEz
science Puts GoDs There?

@Aresdotexe Because even if the world was created from the Big Bang Someone had to start that off.

@Cloud7593 The BIG BanG (NOTS the porno movie) creates yeh PeoPles NoT the Others waY arounD

@Cloud7593 No, they didn't. There's no reason the universe couldn't just begin ex nihilo.

@Notmesam Really? Can science explain the Resurrection? No... it can't. There are whole books written on this topic.

@SW-User Can anyone demonstrate that the Resurrection actually happened? No, they can't. It's only mentioned in 2,000 year old book of fairy tales.

It's one of the best documented books in history, it's mentioned in at least one other book of well-known historians... and other texts at the time treated it as a real event. Needless to say, since the Bible has been proven time and again as a good historical record, it doesn't need outside collaborative sources. Your lack of understanding is a knock on your intelligence, probably deliberate.
... one can choose to not believe- but at least engage the issues. You speak like a non-thinking lemming. -- which, btw, won't work as an excuse at Judgment.

@SW-User The Bible has never once been "proven" as anything remotely close to a historical record, and many things it claims are true are demonstrably false. It's almost like it isn't the word of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent deity, but a cobbled together collection of stories written by ignorant (though understandably ignorant) goat-herders.

Yes it has. You're in denial dude. You can always find a fake histories and "experts" claiming they have proven otherwise. Oh... so you buy the goat-herder story huh? Someone's believe in fairy tales.
... There are not things in the Bible that have been proven demonstrably false, regardless of what you read. I can answer most of those charges - cause I'm educated, in addition... I actually know people who can answer any of those claims.
... you need new sources... and then a new life.

@SW-User It's also hilarious that Christianity is supposed to be all about peace and love and turning the other cheek, but most of the Christians I come across are snide assholes.
And three very basic things the bible gets wrong are the age of the earth, the ability to fit "two" of every animal on the ark (in quotes because at least some translations have had inconsistent numbers of animals, not just two), and the existence of the firmament.

No.. it doesn't discuss the age of the earth. That's one group called YEC's, and they're not wrong on everything, just on this. Typical... atheists always try to argue straw men.
Yes... the ark can fit the world's animals... or at least the ones in Noah's region. That's been mathematically proven - hmm... but you didn't know that. The "firmament"? - did you mistake that for the "ether"? 19th century misapprehension. Silly you - the firmament is used to refer to the heavens ... or to the bedrock of the world.

Both exist. Your argument doesn't.

Sorry about the snide assholes, but christians are sinners too. In our case we get mercy... which is better than the justice you're headed to. I've also become wary of when non-christians claim christians are rude - I've learned it's often not true.

Finally... christianity is not about peace and love - who told you that? Probably uneducated christians. It has its place mind you - but that's not what it's about. Turn the other cheek - of course - (which we are doing more and more).. but that has its context. A concept even christians could use when they read the Bible.

Any more softballs...? You don't even know enough to challenge a Bible amateur such as myself. I may go to bed though... it's late.

@SW-User If nothing else, the bible does explicitly state that we went from nothing at all to having humans within 7 days, and that's demonstrably false.
And no, I meant the firmament.
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. No such division of any sort of waters exists.
And the bible says god created a flood over all the earth, so not just Noah's region, and no, no such math has been done that even all species from that region could fit in the ark.

And what ever happened to "Love they neighbor?"

Those are metaphorical words... and though I'm not the expert, I actually have seen books designed specifically to explain the meaning of those words - and how they are consistent with modern science. Google or Amazon it - not hard to find.

It's long been understood that the Hebrew word used means an indeterminate amount of time. That argument is as false as can be - I can't believe you actually used it. You don't know how long ago that was debunked. Why should you - you don't actually know the topic you are arguing against. You're making up arguments that even atheist intellectuals don't use (cause they'd be laughed at).

There's a good argument in the lexicon to show that "all the world" was meant for the known world. Again, another argument easily answered by scholars long ago... and the math has been done to show that all the pairs of land animals could make it on the Ark. You don't know - again, I won't do it for you - it's easy to find in the library or on Amazon.

Love thy Neighbor? - yeah, Christians are its best practitioners. Just look at who does the charity, who does the most evangelism, who's the least judgmental.

Any more softballs? You're down 10-0 in the first inning, and you haven't scored an out yet. You might want to learn something, rather than use old, disproven cliche's. You haven't proven anything, and I've easily swatted all your arguments.

@SW-User Christians are its best practitioners. Just look at who does the charity, who does the most evangelism, who's the least judgmental.
Yeah, fuck you, buddy. Christians are the most judgemental, least compassionate people I've had the displeasure of meeting, evangelism isn't a good thing, and plenty of non-christians do charity.

Ran off scared didja? That's ok... maybe this is just one more experience on the way to your enlightenment.

@SW-User [quote]Can science explain the Resurrection?
[/quote]

Science is not required to explain the so-called resurrection, and has no interest in doing so

The same applies to the magical events written about in the many Harry Potter books

@SW-User [quote]look at who does the charity[/quote]


Atheists

Care to argue that?
Please do

@newjaninev2 We've gone over this before. The Resurrection is one of the best recorded events in human history. You could choose not to believe, but it's not smart to do so, and you don't have the preponderance of evidence on your side.
... if you are actually arguing that atheists give more to the charity, or participate more, then you are so averse to actual facts that reasoning with you is a waste of time. Actually, you've proven that before...
... Now I will say this... atheists and christians give for different reasons. Christians give out of gratitude for what the Lord did for them... atheists give because like other secularists, deep down, they know they will be held accountable, and are trying to earn their salvation. Not surprising really...
... Atheism is in a slow death spiral anyways... so... cya...

@SW-User [quote]We've gone over this before

[/quote]

We most certainly have not done any such thing. It's not one of the topics I've discussed with you in the past (only to have you suddenly disappear when reason and evidence become too uncomfortable for you
[quote] you don't have the preponderance of evidence on your side[/quote]

There is no 'preponderance of evidence'... [i]because there is no evidence
[/i]
[quote]


if you are actually arguing that atheists give more to the charity, or participate more, then you are so averse to actual facts... [/quote]

Let's look at some actual facts...

The not-for-profit micro-lending organisation Kiva reports that the group A+ (atheists, PLUS, sceptics, freethinkers, secular humanists, and non-religious members) has made more than 1 million such loans all over the world to those struggling to overcome poverty, hardship, and despair. Those interest-free loans total over $35,000,000. The largest religion-based Kiva group doesn't even come near that figure.

Around 75% of charitable giving by all Americans… benefits their own places of worship and faith-based charities. A lot of the money isn’t helping the poor and less fortunate. It’s going to the churches... which already enjoy unjustifiable tax exemptions). It's self-serving, self-benefiting, [i]and used for self-promotion[/i]

Congregation members feed money back into the very organisation in which they have a vested interest... an organisation which is exempted from financially supporting its own society... money which then pops up as 'rice-bowl Christianity' (Always that same self-promotion).

Shouldn't all churches sell everything they possess and use the funds to unconditionally help the needy of the world? And shouldn't that particularly apply to the really big corporations? [i]And why doesn't it ever happen?[/i]

Oh, wait, it [i]will [/i]happen before too long (for sad reasons, unfortunately).
In 2008, Warren Buffett (now 87 years old) was ranked by Forbes as the richest person in the world with an estimated net worth of approximately $US62 billion. In 2009, even after donating tens of billions of dollars to charity, Buffett was ranked as the second richest man in the United States with a net worth of US$37 billion with only Bill Gates ranked higher than Buffett. His net worth had risen to $58.5 billion as of September 2013.
(Note that he didn't use those donated billion for self-promotion of his own business)


Buffett had long stated his intention to give away his fortune to charity, and in June 2006, he announced a plan to give 83% of it to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, making it [quote]the largest charitable donation in history[/quote].

Those huge religious corporation could easily dwarf Buffett's donation... [i]why don't they?[/i]
On December 9, 2010, Buffett, Bill Gates signed a promise they called the "Gates-Buffett Giving Pledge", in which they promise to donate to charity at least half of their wealth

Warren Buffett is an atheist

Bill Gates is an atheist


May I draw your attention to my fellow New Zealander Fred Hollows?
He was an ophthalmologist who became known for his work in restoring eyesight (for free) for countless thousands of people in Australia and many other countries. It has been estimated that more than one million people in the world can see today because of initiatives instigated by Hollows, the most notable example being The Fred Hollows Foundation.
He worked tirelessly, and for little reward within Australia's aboriginal communities, and throughout the impoverished regions of the South Pacific.

Fred Hollows was an atheist

This must have really annoyed your magical entity, because Fred Hollows died in 1993 (aged 63) after a 6-year battle with metastatic renal cancer. It's a pity your magical entity is just a fantasy figure, because I'll never have a chance to spit in its face.

I note that, just in case you again encountered actual facts, evidence, and reason in this discussion (you obviously remember the several occasions in the past when that has happened), you tried to write yourself an insurance policy by claiming, apparently on the basis of nothing whatsoever that:
"atheists give because like other secularists, deep down, they know they will be held accountable, and are trying to earn their salvation. Not surprising really..."

You seem not to have seen that this baseless claim is self-defeating, because if that were the reason [i]they would not be atheists.[/i]


It seems not to have crossed your mind that the true motive might be

[c=#002673]empathy[/c]

the basis of morality

@SW-User [quote]Atheism is in a slow death spiral anyways[/quote]

Care to argue that?
Please do

@newjaninev2 Seems like athiesm is becoming more and more common to me.

@Aresdotexe In a feature article in the 22 April, 2016 issue of National Geographic, Gabe Bullard writes that:
You don’t usually think of churches as going out of business, but it happens. In March, driven by parishioner deaths and lack of interest, the U.K. Mennonites held their last collective service.
It might seem easy to predict that plain-dressing Anabaptists — who follow a faith related to the Amish — would become irrelevant in the age of smartphones, [i]but this is part of a larger trend[/i]. Around the world, when asked about their feelings on religion, more and more people are responding with a 'meh'.
The religiously unaffiliated, called "nones," are growing significantly. [i]They’re the second largest religious group in North America [/i]and most of Europe. In the United States, nones make up almost a quarter of the population. In the past decade, U.S. nones have overtaken Catholics, mainline protestants, and all followers of non-Christian faiths.


There have long been predictions that religion would fade from relevancy as the world modernizes, but all the recent surveys are finding that it’s happening startlingly fast. France will have a majority secular population soon. So will the Netherlands and New Zealand (Here in New Zealand our recent national census showed that it has already happened). Religion is rapidly becoming less important than it’s ever been, even to people who live in countries where faith has affected everything from rulers to borders to architecture