How can any logical person be an atheist?

Neither is the opposite. Atheists don't believe in God. Their logic is flawed imo because they use emotionalism instead of thinking that maybe man is wrong not to believe they can prove the big bang theory may not have happend just because physicists and scientists say so.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...9oCIDw&usg=AFQjCNEnqNUpJ3wd8JFrf53kZecY1GYGAw

 

lol! a guy cant do something and rather than admit he is less than he hoped he would be, he decides that if he cant do it, no one else ever could so it must be the work of the gods!! lol

 

You are all wrong, there is a god. The one and only true god.

 

You can spare the trolling please. Who is a guy? Who needs to admit he is less than he hoped he would be?

I didn't claim there is a God, did I? I said "maybe".

- - - Updated - - -

Haha, you've seen this god? Quit trolling.

 

You've been reported for trolling.

 

An atheist doesn't automatically believe the big bang is true. And if the big bang turned out to be false, that wouldn't be evidence for a god. Filling in gaps doesn't do anything to disprove god since "god of the gaps" isn't evidence to begin with.

And I fail to see the emotionalism involved in the idea of withholding belief in the absence of evidence. Emotionalism is what leads to a belief in god in the first place. Emotions like loneliness and fear lead people to god, not away from it.

 

IMO the burden of proof lies with us believers. Asking an atheist to prove me wrong on the point of God is akin to asking me to prove to you that the tooth fairy is not real. But this is why I think the whole existence of God argument is an exercise in futility.

 

most, if not all, discussion and debate on internet forums is an exercise in futility.

 

Well, It sounds like he's young, so at this point he's not pondering the deeper things, give him time. It may actually take till he's about 24.

 

That sentence was a bit hard to fathom tbh. I assume you're saying "instead of thinking that big bang theory can be proven wrong"? If that's the case, I think you'll find it exceptionally hard to find an atheist who thinks that big bang theory could never possibly be proven wrong.

BTW, what makes you think we use emotionalism?

What a blatantly biased website. "All about science"? My butt cheeks. It should be called "all about trying to make god fit with science". The ulterior motive in it is so massively transparent. They don't give two hoots about promoting actual science unless it helps their case for god.

 

I really don't care what you call it. But the fact that a God exists in almost every culture lends some credibility to something being out there. You don't have to agree. Your agreement doesn't negate the conclusion, anymore than my opinion validates the conclusion.

 

Oh yeah, we're born in rebellion, scripture attests to that, but that doesn't mean you don't worship something. I've found most people worship something whether they realize it or not.

 

I believe its innate, and the reason I used "almost" is because to say everybody would have acknowledged myself as being omniscient which I'm not prepared to do just yet. Your acknowledgment of different Gods lends credibility to my arguement. do you know what a "God" is? Your arguements actually prove what I'm saying, that we're hard-wired for worship. What would you call this "pattern seeking reality"?

 

I think that the whole debate is in the wrong track , what religion does is to cover a need.
Religious people need to believe in a god while atheists do not , debating why some people have this need lies in the fields of psychology and sociology .
As in physics for every action there is a counter action in societies for every belief there is an amount of disbelief that keeps the equilibrium and we don't end up like Afghanistan .

 

just checking thanks. Does that mean we're really not very evolved?

 

We are evolved just as much as we should be.....and will be so a thousand years from now (if we are still here).

Evolution is a process, an has no true beginning or end state.

 

Atheists think that because they pretend to be engaged in imperical evidence based proofs that scientific discoveries can only mean that there is no God and that the bible is wrong. And that all things Christian (because you never hear them attack any other religion) from creation to the resurection is nothing but fiction. Science reveals the work of the Living God. There is of coarse the faith element to Christianity, but Atheism is no less faith based, as the OP suggests. The most profound scripture in the Bible (well, at least one of them) is Genesis 1:1. There is evidence that animals existed before man was here. Formless and void could mean so many things and what we suppose to be true could possibly not be true as well. Genesis 1:2 is where God directly acts on the earth and from there we beleve what God says. And how long Adam and Eve lived in the garden is unknown and how many children they had before the fall is also unknown, which also tells us where Cain got his wife. Cain and Able are the children born after the fall and are significant because that is where they story of ultimate redemption begins.

 

kapow! Take that, straw man!

 

It seems a bit obvious you do not understand Atheism, nor the concept of generalization. It also looks as if you have developed "Christian Persecution Complex B", which is the inability to note the reason Christianity faces more critique in areas where it is widespread and the misinterpretation of debate.

 

I understand the "no end" portion of the statement, but I can't grasp the "no beginning" portion. To me it seems illogical that something can have "no beginning". I can't think of anything currently, but is there anything else that we know definitively that has "no beginning"?

 

All that needs to be known about Atheism is that they wrongly say that there is no God. I have never heard of 'Christian Complex B', but at least you have, congratulations. The rest of what you said needs gretaer context, feel free to do so. I note that you failed to engage on the plentiful fodder I provided.

 

Life most certainly had a beginning, but Abiogenesis, Creation, Tholins interacting with electricity, of whatever stirred the pot is not considered an Evolutionary process....what transpired afterward is.

As far as I am aware, Mathematics, Warfare, Matter, and many other aspects of this reality have no defined beginnings. It is not so much that we "Know" there are no defined beginnings as much as "Not" knowing where or what it might be.

 

Got nothing eh? Well, what can I say.

 

Heh.....I understand you see Atheists as wrong, as well as the reasons you feel that way (pretty much). I neglected to "Engage" your fodder because it is a clearly pointless venture to debate a deeply held belief with someone who clearly has no intention of participating in the actual debate process.

That you think 'Christian Complex B' is a real disorder rather than something I made up for humor also indicates a very low likely hood of worthwhile debate.

 

For as long as there is no solid proof that a god like thing exists atheists will always be right and theists will always be wrong.