Well I always assumed I was the biggest Harry Potter fan. I am astounded to learn that historical facts support it. I thought it was the creation of someone's imagination as opposed to Jesus who historically existed whether or not he was the son of God. Emotions run way too high on both side in these kinds of arguments so you end up with one party belittling in not so subtle ways another and vice versa as though it's clever and wins them points. :(

Yes there are many Christians like that. Who approach everything with "It's God's will" But I think that has more to do with the person than the religion. If you're a fighter you'll fight for what you want, for your family, friends, beliefs. rights, due and if not you' won't. One man will see "God Provides" and another "God blesses the hand of the diligent worker"

switch non-empirical with quantitative and we should be good.

No, you said non empirical. I cannot think of a single science that is non empirical. There are fields of science that are not purely quantitative.

Ok. Whatever suits you. I conceded that it was a misuse of terminology. I really don't know what you get from holding on to that. Perhaps you have never erred and you expect the same of me. My responses are so riddled with grammatical inaccuracies that if i bothered I'd be ashamed.

Are we talking scientific theories? The Theory of Evolution has no opposing scientific theory, as far as I am aware. There are plenty of theories not based on science that oppose evolution though.

There is one particularly that proves that if we are going to accept evolution we cannot at the same time accept the current theories of when the world began. Based on calculations relating to the rate at which evolution would have had to occur. If you're interested I'll find the article and upload it in the mean time you can try; http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved.html

Evolutionists admit that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10 to the 113th power, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! Mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probability of occurring of less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power. But far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

For some reason you seem stuck on this issue that we need to disprove god, but we don't.

I'm sorry you seem to think so.

That would be foolish on your part if you truly think that social sciences should be discarded or eliminated. I said no such thing. I said that telling someone your personal experiences as proof of god is not scientific at all.

You misunderstood me in the first place. My personal experiences and those around me; In my society,that is, The churches, the schools, the universities, the work environs. Anywhere where there is a potpourri of people for me to study. Social Sciences rely heavily on sociological studies. I never referred to my experiences alone. But my experience is what fuels my drive to learn about other's people's.

None specifically disprove god as far as I am aware. Although, there are quite a few that disagree with many things that the bible says.

That i am well aware of and have my own qualms with. Trying to make everything fit. But for every theory there is an opposing theory so it's simply a matter of trying to sort through them all and either debunk or acknowledge if they are strong enough to stand on their own.

I don't know what forums you've frequented, but on here I don't think there are any people who disbelieve in god simply for the sake of the argument. I think you'll find that most people where are concerned with the pursuit of the truth. For me, and many other atheists on this site, the pursuit of truth has lead us to atheism as the most logical, reasonable, and evidence based conclusion. Many of us used to be former christians, but in our pursuit of truth we gave up this belief in god because we found it to be baseless and lacking in evidence and logic. I used to be catholic myself up until last year.

So to assert that most of us are all closed minded and not open to the possibility at all, you would be very wrong. I leave the possibility open, I am still actively searching for a strong argument in favor of god's existence but I have yet to find it. I am concerned with the truth, more than I am concerned with verifying a conclusion.

Fair enough it was presumptuous of me to assume everyone is closed minded. But i speak honestly most of the people I have come across are more subjective about their views than objective because they simply regard religious people as individuals who have somehow evicted themselves from the realm of reality and given up all their faculties or have had bad experience with Christian and as such lump us all into to one pile therefore forcing us to be on the offensive all the time instead of just having a good clean argument. I can honestly say I haven't come across anybody of the opposing side who just threw something at me that made me stop in my tracks and say oh. Mostly I've been wondering if people are serious. My problem with is this "Atheists will always triumphed over Theists in God's existence debates here." No one on this site, including you and that is not a put down has been able to show any scientific evidence to indisputably prove your point yet you make a statement like that.The issue is treated as a given. What am i supposed to garner from that

What science relies on non empirical data?

switch non-empirical with quantitative and we should be good.

When it comes to the English Language you seem to be an authority unto yourself therefore my pointing that they are not the same would be pointless as I assume would be my pointing out that the thesis statement also clearly differentiates between the two.

If they believe in an omniscient God then they are fooling themselves.

You are yet to explain why that is.

Why do you ask?

I ask because if you want free will for yourself. Then you should want it for others. And with free will comes both ends of the spectrum; that is good and evil.

Baseless assertion.

So you tell me how with everyone being free to chose and do as they like can there be a perfect world.

I believe I am, the Jews would have been eradicated eventually were it not for God's discriminate choice/

And you see that as just. You don't seem to have anything against the rampant cruelty of man just the perceived cruelty of God.

Unless you can Go back in time. It would probably be best for us to work with the figures we have at hand.

How did God not see that coming?

Perhaps he did but he saw the other potentials of man and all his other creations

Sanctimonious? I have simply stated a fact. Did I say I have never done any wrong? Never. I acknowledge that I have sinned like any other man. I am just not one of those people who will say whatever goes goes and take no stand simply to make myself feel better about my own wrongs. if you want to assert that all women are responsible when it comes to their bodies, BC and pregnancy go ahead.

I have a feeling that If i told you God says the sky is blue because the word God was mentioned you'd pronounce it red. And that's not what I'm here for. I'm here to hear about other people's objective and logical argument against religion simply because though my belief in a God is absolute. I have a lot of questions. And sometimes the best ways to find answers is to look at the other side of the coin.

Thanks for your time. It was really nice to talk to you. Bye. Be Good.

Then Social Sciences as a whole should be discarded. Every University I know of has a Social Sciences Faculty. Only physics and Biology and Chemistry should matter if the general world of academia agreed with you.

All I am saying is that I do not need to disprove your theories. You can refuse scientific theories if you'd like.

What scientific theories disprove the existence of God? You haven't provided any so I can't disagree even if I wanted to. My favorite cousin is an atheist, though i'm still trying , much to her annoyance, to baptize her yet the difference between her and most people on forums like these and that she isn't hung up on her disbelief for the sake of argument she opens her mind to possibility and then every time she leaves me with something to ruminate on. when I said you I wasn't saying you needed to come up with evidence to disprove me just evidence regardless of the source; especially scientific. Anything that makes you think differently than me. Simply Because the human mind and way of thinking is the most fascinating science to me

Evidently, however, you and I can't debate on something like this since you respect no science that relies on non-empirical data.

Do People Intervene? More importantly do you intervene? The world would be a much better place if people asked themselves that question? Instead of blaming God for everything as though they are mindless dummies who have no power to shape the world they live in whether they do it in a classroom, their homes, their neighborhoods, or even at a national level. Perhaps people should stop having million dollar weddings for their puppies and comparing the cost of their child's slippers while others don't have potable water. Of course it's their democratic right to do as they please but a little humanity could co a long way. to the average person; stop buying every color of one top in one style and help someone else. Of course, however, you can do as you see fit. Who am I to say?

See I'm pretty sure you value you free will and you prefer to have it versus being controlled and having every decision made for you. I do. The problem is that free will is ubiquitous; it's everybody's gift and right. The other more pressing problem is that every action or word said affects another human being. We all know that but not many of us care. People seem to equate lack of perfection in the world with the non-existence of a God. Why does understanding the mechanics behind the solar system or reproduction more specifically human reproduction make it any less of a miracle especially in light of all the knowledge we have yet to acquire as it regards the utter perfection in which the earth functions; the sheer synchronicity of it all.

People may think me silly for believing in a God or see it as a surrender of my intellectual abilities but hey if you think a big bang or theories of that ilk can account for all that you see around you ; if that is more plausible to you who am I to say nay?

just copied and pasted an old argument. applicable in a lot of ways

Furthermore African is the riches continent on the earth when it comes to natural resources. It's corruption at the highest echelons of society that leads to the situations you have cited. If those resources were properly harnessed more could be done to negate the effects of changing seasons in Africa. Funny enough people don't seem much to care when they buy their blood diamonds and gold. And when just waste what others are so desperately in need of.

You assume too much. If ever I am trying to convince someone that there is a God I will not sit them down and tell them that a new god-meter invented has picked up sufficient static to proof that god hovered over Manhattan today. It would be in the context of my own life and the lives of those around me; a more nominal form, sociological form of science. All I am saying is that you cannot disprove my theories with ever-changing thesis of your own imply that because you can tell me there are nine planets, that the heart pumps blood to the body, that you can use cells to clone life forms that there isn't a god. Because for me understanding, and i have said this before , the mechanics does not change what is and that fact it is a miracle and make me believe that it just happened. That it was not created. If general science was approached in that manner. A always being proof of b then Science would be riddled with fallacies. I like hearing other people's views and thought and of course i like to give my own for the purpose of critical analysis. I don't endeavor to change anyone's mind. If I do I'll consider myself lucky.

Show me solid proof that there isn't a God; something that without dispute proves that God does not exist and then yes you will win. All these explanations atheist site will change in about ten years or so just as they have changed from the ones given ten years ago because new theories that seem very plausible are introduced every decade or so. And as scientist realize that they may understand something on a holistic or individual level but never completely so they have to rewind and come gain. Explain all the mysteries of the universe. Recreate life. Not from a cell which is just the simplest form of life. But life. Create it from nothing. And you would have won me over.

Don't get me wrong I think in a lot of ways the abilities of the human mind are untapped and somewhat infinite. However for the most part all we do is discover and attempt to recreate mediocre versions of what was from the beginning of time and use that as proof that there isn't a god. Basically as long as we can tell you how it works we prove that there isn't a God modus operandi.

Alas there is no consensus on the definition of a religion. However, if i were to work with your argument you'd be contradicting yourself.

These would only be a body of texts and not a religion without followers, and those texts wouldn't even exist without people. Religion would not exist without people.

Therefore it is not Religion that is responsible for wars but people. Is that not a logical argument of causation?

Conceivably, in a world where there is a just God, this scenario wouldn't happen in the first place, and as such the war would not have happened.

Why in a world with a God wouldn't that happen? All religions on this earth agree on one thing; God gave us free will. Therefore the state of our world is our doing and not his. Would you prefer to give up your free will and have every decision made for you in favor of a perfect world. Alas that is the only way you would have a perfect world because as long as there is free will some will chose good and some evil. simple as that.

What did the Israelite' children do to deserve death?

I can't promise that if you slaughter my children in front of me I would turn the other cheek. Because killing you could never cause you the amount of pain that seeing my children die in that way caused me. Karma is a female dog.

Seems they can't really do much for themselves.

You are not being very logical are you? Let's talk statistics. What is the probability of an army of 400 defeating an army of 400,000 and that's an underestimation because i have no desire to consult Exodus at the moment? Let's put you in battle against those odds and see how you fare?

Omniscience precludes free will.

How so? I may know that you are going to pelt Uncle Tom with an apple before you do it. But because I told you have free will I let you do it anyway to see for yourself that one you have free will, two to see who you truly are and three give you the opportunity to chose differently next time from experience. And then reasonably, if i were your parent some form of punishment should be in order for you.Because free will does not mean there are no consequences.

Extrapolate back and ask, why did he create all of this in the first place, to condemn evil as well as make it is in every essence hypocritical.

To what source does a man look when struggling with his morality? God?

Well that would be all well and good if God was just, but he is not.

If we go by the Bible's version of history. God created the angels epochs before man. Lucifer, angel of light was first to rebel saying God was a dictator. So God said look if you want you can leave my home and do as you please and all those who want to follow you can. Many chose to follow. So to avoid being accused of being a tyrant God gave Adam an Eve a choice. He could simply not have planted the proverbial tree in the first place. well it's proverbial in my opinion. I won't have any child of mine raping anyone or murdering anyone in my house It's mine. I worked hard to build it. Similarly God simply said hey if you can't play by my rules mi case no es tu casa.

Let's take the pill for example, contraceptive pill that is. I assume, i may be wrong that is was created for preventive purposes to reduced the state of impoverished families yet women all over the world use it simply because they time and again chose to be irresponsible and then to simply discard their responsibilities. Should we just abolish the use of the pill then? No because then we'll have many children growing up in homes that either are not ready or don't want them or cannot afford them the lives they deserve.Not to mention the women that use if for medical purposes. should we blame the creators of the pill for what someone women chose to do with it?

Maybe you think you have no power to shape your life. I certainly do.