Spitting in the face of God

I suppose The Rational Response Squad targeted Christianity because it’s the predominate religion in this country…
I DENY THE EXISTENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, JESUS, GOD/ALLAH, BUDDHA, PURPLE UNICORNS, ZEUS, GHOSTS, BIGFOOT, CORPOREAL MONKEYBOTS, AND ALL OTHER CREATURES OF MYTHOLOGY……
Is that sufficient?
I also suppose the RRS is taking a stand because in this country people belonging to the predominate cult are actively trying to pass laws and push their beliefs on others…if they did not do so, I doubt any Atheists would care enough to challenge their irrational belief system. WE challenge it because it is affecting us in ways that we deem unacceptable.

While I appreciate your bringing the subject to light, your own hedging about the validity of reason reveals much of the state of the debate today. If you got really really sick would you want Jonas Salk on your side, or Pat Robertson?
Furthermore, the degree to which religion poisons the greater good look no further than the fighting going on in the Middle East. It isn’t “sectarian” it’s RELIGIOUS! Ever since there has been religion, there have been religious wars. If, within the article religions offered hope, it would be a different story. Instead all they really offer are elaborate excuses to hate. They do not sell hope, they sell hell.
It’s just too bad there really is no hell because that’s where all the bible thumpers belong!
The only good out of all of this, that the public is on the verge of such revulsion toward Bush and his twisting of science to meet his own political and religious purposes, it is going to be a very, very long time before the US suffers a religious president again. Thanks be to the gods!

I also wanted to point out that Buddha is not considered a God. He was a mortal man. It is not irrational to strive to be as honorable as another living person on the planet. But to make up ridiculous fairy tales and then kill each other over them IS irrational. There is no reason to attack Buddhism, Einstein himself once said that the only religion that could stand up to science would be Buddhism. The judeo-christian branch of religions are particularily harmful but certainly not the only harmful religions. We certainly see fault with the Muslim suicide bombers as well as the Jesus Campers (child abusers.) Faith is the destroyer of reason, and leads to much suffering and death. I can say that for me personally, I am an atheist because I care about peoples lives more than I do about fairy tales. I think killing is wrong, I think refusing to believe in the science that provides us so many wonderful life saving and enhancing products is also harmful. If we put an ounce of the faith we put in a so called god in ourselves we could do amazing things for humanity. I am also very disatisfied with the fact that religion is a tool commonly used to mislead so many naive people, particularily in politics. I have been to RRS website many times and can attest that it is definitely all irrational belief systems that they oppose, not just christianity.

What can’t be changed is that God will always have his people. This is His world and He will save those whom he calls. Some He saves through logic and some thru circumstances. The atheists are denying God because He doesn’t exist, they deny Him because they are spiritually dead and don’t have spiritual eyes to see. http://www.bethinking.org has some great stuff any athiest would love.

In Islam, Jesus is considered just a good man. There is no schizophrenic trinity. God is God, Jesus is Jesus. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space.
Hell in Islam is not neccessarily eternal. It is a place to do time. To account for your wrong-doing. You do time commensurate with your sins, and then you are released into paradise.
Islam also does not advocate the killing of innocent people. Muhammed said: He who saved one life saved all humanity. He who took one life killed all humanity.
It may surprize you that Islam is more rational and scientific than Christianity. Islam is very middle of the road. For example, a marriage is just a social contract, and can be broken of neccesssity. Islam is pro-life, but allows abortion in cases of rape, incest and threat to maternal life.

What a joke these people are. They claim there is no God yet they quote the Bible in order to deny the Holy Spirit (go to their blasphemy site).
That tells me they firstly believe God does exist in order to deny the Holy Spirit. If they are denying the Holy Spirit, then that is a form of acceptance of God’s existence.
Also, they believe this will damn themselves to hell. If God does not exist, then they believe the devil does.
Some form of atheism, they have a complete belief system that makes them a religion.
Could these people actually be Christians bringing God to the forefront in a very different manner? They sure do seem to espouse religion.

My parents took me to Sunday School and worship services every time the doors were open at their church for many years. At a certain point in my young life, I felt called into Christian ministry. I attended Baylor University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary as a ministerial student. During this time, I had many occassions to observe that much of organized religion did not make particularly good sense and that there was no small amount of hypocricy among the leadership. Actually, the goofy theology was more offputting than the practical atheism of the “Christians.” Not wanting to be a hypocrite myself, I gradually slipped into a position of profound skepticism regarding all things religious while simultaneously trying to find some reason to hope for spiritual reality. This went on for 14 very long, painful years.
It was while Margie and I were living in a cute little log cabin in the Colorado Rockies that the sheer magnificence of nature in those mountains convinced me that there had to be a thinking, loving, personal Creator behind all of that superabundant, indescribable beauty. I also knew that my only hope of finding reliable information about Him was the Bible since everything else I looked into had proven to be low-level gibberish.
To my great surprise, when I began to understand the Bible without seeing it through the eyeglasses of organized religion, it began to make sense to my reason and also work wonderfully in my life.
I went on to be dismissed from an evangelical seminary for developing a rational biblical theology that totally contradicted their irrational, profoundly unbiblical theology. What I believed then and now made good sense biblically and in every other way. What they believed was and remains ludicrous twaddle, but they concluded, of course, that I was the heretic (or hairy tick, mountain variety if you will). Since then I remain a thoroughly convinced theist and an honestly biblical Christian but am not connected with apostate organized religion in any way, thank you God.
Well, the upshot of it all is that there really is a personal, living, loving God who created the universe, and the proof of that is found in several recent books concerned with Intelligent Design or ID. Dr. Gerald Schroeder has three Ph.d degrees from MIT and is brighter than all of us put together. He has written two excellent books demonstrating the reality of God as discovered by contemporary science. They are: (1) The Science of God, and (2) The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth. I challenge all of you atheists, skeptics, and agnostics to read these books before you manage to accidentally commit the unpardonable sin out of sheer stupidity and stubborn bone headedness. You will not be dissapointed.

“It’s easy to blaspheme the Christian God these days. If Brian “Sapient” and his fellow atheists on-line REALLY wanted to show their commitment to principle, would they be willing to take on other religions and their gods? Would they take on Buddhism? Islam? I doubt it would be anywhere near as popular an idea.”
Certainly Terry Moran realizes that the monotheistic Abrahamic religions (in particular, Judaism, Christianity and Islam) share the same god?
And that there is no ‘god’ in Buddhism?

a-theist = not a theist.
not “anarchist” as it is most frequently confused with.
What is the difference between being a mystic and being religious?
I think it is that a mystic can enjoy a question, but someone religious must ALWAYS have an answer. Such is the path to dogma.
Sometimes maybe there isn’t an “answer”. It takes an adult to accept that not everything is put here by somebody “just for us”.
Some people feel a need for santa claus. Others, a few perhaps, recognise that all the goodness and caring and interpersonal sharing that makes us human doesn’t die just because one day we can accept Santa Claus doesn’t really exist.
What is the difference between a childs belief in Santa Claus and any human’s need to believe that someone/something must have created it all?
oddly, the question rarely comes up: “Where did they come from?”.
Accept it on faith we are so often told in answer. I recall my mom telling me that when I was about 5 and questioned her on christmas day.
Oh yes christmas trees. A pagan symbol of making it through midwinter. And wasn’t that the original purpose of christ’s Mass as well?
Too many need their religion. Good for them. When “they” decide to “save” those who are happy to enjoy unanswered questions without being in fear about it it crosses the line.
Didn’t someone once suggest that the people needed opiates?
Not an anarchist here!

Still the Christians feel persecuted, even by your story on Nightline. “Why would anyone willingly be atheist? They are lying because they quote the Bible. If they quote the Bible they are secretly believers!”
It is precisely this patronizing attitude for which atheists stress our antipathy to Islam and Christianity most strongly. Christianity is the pre-dominant religion in this country and in most of western society, and so this is where we concentrate our objections. Were we to make public statements against Wicca or other pagan religions then the Christians would join us and say “Hear, hear!”
Finally, if I were to be convinced of the existence of the creator by the magnificence and beauty of the Rockies; then what can I say about God when confronted with a tidal wave that kills hundreds of thousands, about the ugliness of a red tide, about the remains from strip-mining in Western Kentucky or the flat plains of the Llano Estacado? Like Francis Collins being convinced of God by a waterfall, it is all well and good to believe in God in the face of beuaty, but what about being faced with ugliness?
The Blasphemy Project is how we say with full commitment that “This is all nonsense.” And targeting teens is not new; after all how old are Catholics when they are Confirmed?

“Militant atheists”? Funny, I didn’t see any weapons in those videos. Why are the Christianists getting their chastity belts in a bunch over a few atheists harmlessly declaring their atheism?

IF THERE IS A GOD
If there is a God,
Not everything is permitted to man.
He is still his brother’s keeper
And he is not permitted to sadden his brother,
By saying there is a God.

I don’t believe in atheism…
All kidding aside. I am a believer, and I am 100% sure that Jesus is coming back again. This is written in God’s word. I believe in God and believe that he sent his son to conquer death and give life to all people. God is real. He has been in my life since I was born and has proved himself to me day after day. Everyone has the opportunity to choose him freely. I challenge anyone who is not a believer to ask God into thier life. You may be surprised in what you find. God is Love.
May God Bless all Atheists

Just a couple of points to add, and a few to reiterate regarding this Nightline segment.
1) As a physicist and an atheist I would never claim to have the means to disprove the existence of God. However, there is simply NO evidence for the existence of an all powerful supreme being, so why waste your time worrying about one. You should be skeptical of any group that promotes supernatural beings or ideas to explain or justify our world if all the evidence they can provide is the dogma of a religious text. By the way, what criteria will you employ to determine which text is the TRUE text? If you haven’t noticed, they don’t agree. Would you be just as accepting of those individuals who claim they’ve been abducted and experimented on by aliens? Wouldn’t you demand some concrete proof that this actually happened, or are you content to simply agree with them because they “know in their heart” that they had this experience? Belief in God, Jesus, Kali whatever is no different. There are simply NO facts to substantiate any religious deity.
2) Furthermore, the very belief in these deities and the laws they’ve decreed by fiat can lead to very worrisome problems. Take for example slavery. No where in the New Testament is there any statement saying that slavery is a sin and should not be allowed, since this would contradict the Old Testament where it is perfectly acceptable under certain conditions. In fact the bible was used extensively to justify slavery in the South prior to the civil war. What about homosexuality? The bible calls this a sin, thereby blanketly condemning millions of individuals who were genetically predisposed to be gay (there is very strong evidence that homosexuality is primarily genetic in origin). The discrimination and outright condemnation of this group of people primarily in the past, and still today, is completely deplorable and you have Christianity, among other religions, to thank for this. What about stem cell research? How ridiculous to compare a group of less than 100 cells to a fully developed human being. Incidentally, what evidence is there for a soul? If you claim there is one, then prove it. The list goes on and on. So, do you really what a moral system based on the dogma of religion? Or should you instead examine moral questions by using the tools of science to make conclusions based on observable facts?
3) The Blasphemy challenge is targeting Christianity simply because roughly 90% of the people in this country consider themselves Christian. This point has been noted previously.
4) Finally, I think that the Blasphemy challenge is just one example of atheists coming out of the closet because we are very, very worried and concerned by the drift of this country towards religious fundamentalism as reflected in our unbelievably incompetent president. Christian fundamentalism has permeated the White House guiding many of its decisions and policies, e.g. the promotion of faith base initiatives and outright opposition to abortion and stem cell research to name a few. This also entails the basic disregard, and often contempt, for science as exemplified by the very long standing denial of global warming which was only recently acknowledged.

We hear trotted out again and again that tired cliche’ about how many people have died in the name of religion. This view demonstrates a profound ignorance of even RECENT history. Secularism or atheism has killed far more. For proof look no futher then the bloody 20th century. Hitler was no friend of Christians, or any religion for that matter. Neither were Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Yet they killed tens of millions.
Even wars between “religious” nations were not always fought for reasons involving religion. The Iran/Iraq war is a prime example.
Christians have often committed terrible, sinful acts, as have atheists, because none of us are perfect. We are prone to sin because of our very nature. Yet, when the Christian sins he does so DESPITE the teachings of Christ, not because of them. Scripture can be twisted to justify a sinful act. This does not reveal a flaw in the scripture, but rather flaws in the one who twists it.
To the atheists I say, God bless you with a long life so you may have many opportunites to open your eyes to the truth. God loves us, so much so that Christ died in our place. He won’t hold your questions against you. Only keep an open mind. Explore the scriptures for yourself. Listen to wise council. In the end you, like many other atheists before you, may very well come to know the hope and love found only in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hello Nate,
As a believer I think your logic and science is wrong. There is proof of God. You may have heard of this guy named Jesus. He was born on December 25, 0000. All joking aside, he is a true historical figure. He claimed to be the Son of God and backed it with performing miracles. Now, I know your thinking that the Bible is a book of fairy tales. I am here to tell you that this book is the truth. What makes Jesus different is that he had actual eye witnesses. In some cases, he had thousands of witnesses. Additionally, he performed his miracles in front of strangers, as well as friends, relatives, and in some cases, his own enemies. Using this logic, if we discount the Bible then we must discount any other historical texts or documents, and we must challenge the existance of all historical figures and facts. For example did George Washington exist, was ancient Egypt an actual empire, or was there ever a Rome. If we throw out Jesus, then we must throw it all out.
On your second point, people will use the Bible to advance any point and this is wrong. You are absolutely right when you point out that people used the bible to justify slavery. However, this is absolutely wrong. You can’t pick and choose some parts of the Bible while ignoring the others. That’s not how it works. In God’s word it says, “All scripture is profitable.” This means that the whole book is right and since Jesus was a Rabbi and the New Testament is based on the Old Testament, this holds true. The same goes for your argument about homosexuality. The bible does say, “A man will not lay with man and a woman will not lay with a woman.” Alcoholics are predisposed to drink, so should they drink themselves silly? Of course not! People must choose the right path and the path that pleases God. If that path requires you to stop drinking, smoking, having casual sex, or exercising more, then choose. The point being is that those that are homosexual can choose not to be. In addition, for all you christians out there, homosexuality is no more or no less hurtfull than any other sin. For example glutany, adultary, lying, stealing, and so on. All sin grieves God.
Nate, I have to challenge you on stem cell research. There is so much debate about this but what people don’t realize is that stem cells have not been scientifically proven to do anything. Scientists believe the cells may have applications dealing with certain neurological disorders but nothing is proven as of yet. Scientists did cure labratory mice from an artificial or clinical Alzhiemers. However, tumors developed at the injection sites as a result of introducing the stem cells. Why is this a moral issue? I am sure most or all believers don’t want anyone to suffer from these horrible diseases, where I have a problem is that people will create thier 100 cell organism to sell off for profit. I find that a little disturbing, and I ask you a question, how cells do you consider life? One hundred cells, a 1000 cells, a 1,000,000 cells. I feel that life begins at conception, this is not a fully formed human being but still life none the less. Let me re-emphasize and ask you, would you donate 100 of your own cells for research? What if I told you that I could take those hundred cells (let’s call them liver cells) and harvest them and grow 100 new livers. What if I told you that I would then sell them to patients for $10,000 dollars each. I would make a million bucks. How would you feel about that? What if I took 100 of your sperm cells and made 100 human beings from them and took 100 more cells from your off spring and made 100 livers each. I would have 10,000 more livers to sell or cell. Oh boy, I am confused now. You see, we cannot just fling embyos or zygotes or 100 dividing cells without thinking of the consequences. We need more research. The president never said no to stem cell research, he just is not funding anymore. In essence, he is saying to work with the lines you have now.
Finally, I am glad that the President humbles himself and seeks gudance from God on matters of the state. You see, God is real and Jesus is coming back to the world. I don’t know when and I don’t care. All I know is that it is going to happen. You are a scientist and i say to you research and discover God.
God Bless You Nate

I find it funny that both the atheists and the Christians feel persecuted. What’s up with that?
And, if we really want to get scientific about things, lets look at the track record of atheist governments versus theist.
Communism, great idea, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” In practice however, something else entirely happened; gulags, Stalin killing 60 million people, etc.
And a profound dearth of basic human needs experienced by all but the elite.
Democracy too has it’s drawbacks, when we see the military industrial complex feeding the war machine purely for profit, irregardless of the “collateral damage”. The middle class disappearing, and democracy already hijacked by the kings of industry.
It seems to me that ideals are one thing, words are cheap, and in the end it’s not what you say but what you do that counts.
Atheists, Agnostics, and Theists,
lets cripple the economy to stop this crazy war. Don’t shop. Stop consuming. Maybe we can agree on something after all.

This comment from one of the delusional really got me, ” Let me re-emphasize and ask you, would you donate 100 of your own cells for research? What if I told you that I could take those 100 cells (let’s call them liver cells) and harvest them and grow 100 new livers. What if I told you that I would then sell them to patients for $10,000 dollars each. I would make a million bucks. How would you feel about that? ”
Although not addressed to me, I must respond because I have found that peoples superstitions control a lot of the limitations on the availability of donor organs.
My Response – How do I feel?
I want my 10%, I would never have “given” your the cells for free but I would have invested them in your research project for a participation in the profits.
My cells, my organs are MINE to sell as I see fit. That everyone expects you to DONATE for free is beyond stupid. Mexicans in Texas donate very few organs at death, family wants traditional in the dirt funeral. I bet you offer a couple thousand dollars and a free cremation and the supply of livers, eyes, skin tissue would dramatically increase. But NOOOOO – medical ethicists [religion burdening science again] say buying organs is bad. WHY?
Superstition – what you call faith is the worst habit in the world. I say give them all free heroin – I like junkies better.

Hello Theresa,
First off, I was just being a smart ass lady. Let me begin with the first part of your comment. I am not delusional. What I am is a commissioned officer in the United States Air Force, a devoted Husband, a devoted Father, a tax payer, a believer in Christ, beer drinker, and an all around nice guy. I don’t appreciate being called delusional. In my post, I attacked no one personally. I just attacked what I feel was limited thinking. The second point I am trying to make is how many cells constitute human life? Nate put a number on what he thinks is a good stem cell base, and that number is 100 cells. My response to that was: What constitutes life, 100 cell, 1,000 cells, or 1,000,000 cells? You see, you took my information out of context. The whole 1,000 cell, selling liver stuff was just hot air. The point I was trying to make was how many cells make life. Is life one cell or an enire baby in the womb? Furthermore, before we start harvesting cells, babies, or what have you, we need to know more about what we are doing in the lab. We should not create more splitting cells, organisms, embryos, or what have you, that’s all.
On you second point, my whole blog is not about selling organs at all. As a matter of fact, I support organ donations, organ transplants, and legally selling organs. As for you and your organs, I am happy for you.
Point number three, ethics is not religion. As a matter of fact, ethics is taught in any business school, and even in medical school. As a matter of fact, you can get a degree in ethics if you so choose. So in answer to your response, ethics is not religion and has less to do with faith. However, ethics does have to do with integrity, and having things decent and in good order.
Finally, we are all God’s creatures. Junkies, Christians, Theresa, Adrian, and Sinners. I glad you like Junkies better than Christians but I seriously dought you hang out and are friends with one. Jesus on the other hand did hang out with anyone, rich or poor, righteous or sinner, or Jew or Gentile. In conclusion Theresa, before you go insulting someone, read through all the information first and get your facts straight. Faith is no superstition, it is real as God is real.
May God Bless You Theresa
P.S. Christ Kicks Ass!

First, I am Buddhist and an ex-Christian. I consider myself one of the faithful. I could not care any less what Einstein has said about Buddhism. He is irrelevant, Using him is a fallacy: appeal to authority.
My point is that a great many atheists who have posted seem like very angry and bitter people. Some come across as having “Daddy problems”, and want to rebel against Daddy. This isnt and ad-hominem (no names are mentioned), just an observation.

Hi,
The one that said Theresa I never said anything about any one… So please dont use me as anything…. We are so upset that everyone thinks and the names are getting mixed up… I know JESUS IS LORD….. or as you would say kicks you know what… Its all good I can understand all of our fustration.. I watched the xxx church tonight Well I use to be one of those that showed up to those shows… I was into some stuff but I am delivered by Christ… Because he loved me first… I believe what they are doing is good… But… I dont know after watching the show it kinda scares me… You are suppose to be in the world and not of the world. I dont know i have to watch that one again and again… I think it was to conteract the atheism to be honest but again it was in the wierdest way to shot done Christianity… I am really scared what this world is going to… We need a God to save this dying world…

i don’t know why people make such a big deal of religion, i never had one and never will. religion is simply a manifestation of illogical thinking. religion is the second greatest disaster, the first being illogical thinking. people tell me i should not say that society is the worse off for religion, look at the good religion does for people, such as shelters for homeless people. i answer that that is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, which is saying that the end justifies the means, which is a position that i disagree with.

How do you prove there is a God much less a Triune God as traditional Christianity teaches? This is like going into a candy store and having a hard time what to choose. I think possibly using a rational argument since this group calls itself “The Rational Response Squad.
One of the most common is Pascal’s Wager. I AM BEING TOTALLY PLAGIARISTIC HERE. THIS ARGUMENT HAS BEEN USED FOR SO LONG WITH SO MANY IT IS NEXT IMPOSSIBLE TO BE ORIGINAL, THEN WE MUST UNDERSTAND THAT TRUTH IS CONSISTENT, DOES NOT DISAGREE WITH ITSELF, AND CORRESPONDS TO REALITY. Truth often has the tendency to not be original.
While not providing empirical evidence of God, it appeals to the sensibilities or “rationality” if you have it. Pascal’s Wager is an attempt to justify belief in God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest. It is in our interests to believe in the God of Christianity, the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for us to do so.
Frenchman Blaise Pascal was a mathematician and physicist as well as a philosopher and theologian. Pascal made contributions both to science, working on the barometer, and an early calculator, and inventing the syringe, and also to mathematics, influencing the development of modern probability theory.
The argument is attributed to Blaise Pascal on the basis of a section of his book “Pensées” entitled “Infini-rien”. Some defenders of Pascal insist that in his argument there is both more subtle and more defensible than the argument that we now call “Pascal’s Wager”. However, Pascal’s Wager has achieved sufficient popularity to warrant discussion irrespective of whether it is what Pascal intended in Infini-rien.
Pascal’s Wager seeks to justify Christian faith by considering the various possible consequences of belief and disbelief in the God of Christianity. If we believe in the Christian God, the argument runs, then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great reward in heaven while if he does not then we will have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe in the Christian God, the argument continues, and then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great punishment in hell while if he does not then we will have gained little or nothing. The possible outcomes of belief in the Christian God, then, are on balance better than the possible outcomes of disbelief in the Christian God. It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward in heaven or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment in hell or gain little or nothing.
The conclusion that Pascal’s Wager draws from this is that belief in the Christian God is the rational course of action, even if there is no evidence that he exists. If the Christian God does not exist then it is of little importance whether we believe or disbelieve in him. If the Christian God does exist then it is of great importance that we do believe in him. In order to cover ourselves in all circumstances, therefore, we ought to believe that the Christian God exists. A formal statement of this argument might be constructed as follows:
Pascal’s Wager
(1) It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
(2) If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
(3) If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
(4) It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
(5) It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
(6) If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
(7) It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.
I know there are what could be called “rational” argument refuting Pascal’s Wager, but one must admit the stakes are really high here. Eternity is at stake and we must remember eternity is timeless, never ending. Is it a gamble a person is willing to lose?

Re: drakunis
You wrote:
“I challenge you to look through your good book, and all of your “evidence” and come up with something that is measurable by science. Welcome to the new world, science is your king. Science can answer almost all of your questions yet you turn a blind eye simply because you are afraid of the truth, there is no god, when you die, that is it. It’s the same as before you were born, nothingness, yet you wont know it, so don’t fear it.”
I think I will take you up on that challenge if this blog remains open long enough. I actually do have a job other that writing in blogs.

ebbarn,
I humbly submit to you that the arguments you present are secondary, unprovable without something more.(Perhaps you have noted that.) The truest logic is that of love.(Yes, I refer to that old emotion.) It is available to all and has itself been seen as secondary in our history. However it is the only real proof of God. The open mind can see the reason behind all that comes our way. That comes with tolerance… any signifying words you wish to add. That, is logic and the only seed for understanding.

I thought that there would be atheists that would challenge me more. Of course it would be prudent to read the whole blog.

The differance in God..is the liklihood that science would die-off w/o the excistance of God…science can only excist in books and test tubes…yet..they are the product of the hands..Lest we cast our seed upon a rock(stone)..the beginning and the end are all about there being a God..just as Jesus brought forth the alpha/omeaga in God..I think its wise to have a word about God that is not really a connecting point///God is the Creator that was Him..things started out of Him..the mind of us(out of Him)was in the likness of God..His image..not some guy down the road.but the future of family and Man…Science is some guy—>>down the road…Science is neither alpha/omeaga more than a fire burns un-attended…science needs a pile to excist..Man is made in the image of God…and is everlasting..yet..science seems obliged to halt its fire-building…only at the bequest of science..never man or some image even close..there-by…science is a heathen and a vandal…most lately even a cannabal…I’d hate to halt my favorite past-time of electronics so as to be persuaded it was not a Past-Time but my DESTINY…and the mere fact that this argument “stinks” of destiny rivals only a pile of polluted waste…the other part of science that ican not even take part in..science–by its very excistance is a pollution…Not Even a natural act…its place in the halls of thought need to be recycled..and it refuses like a “spoiled” child…reaching more towards the age of disfigurement mre than to be an IMAGE..the thought that God is not our Creator..is a animalistic approach to having the feet caught in a trap…hoping only “biting one off will suffice.”