Becuase it doesn't need a "Being" to cause it.

And even then, even if there was a being to cause it's existence, you still have two questions:

1. What caused this being?

2.And where did this being get the matterial to make the universe?

You assume there has to be a point. there doesn't have to be a point, but while we are here, let's make the most of it.

and get myself rejected by my family and freinds. I have to keep straight, or else I'll spend the rest of my life alone.

Just becuasse the earth is pointless, doesn't mean you are. Again, we are here, let's make the most of it.

Nice to see a new fresh face here though. 

Nice to meet you. Just don't take bluntness as a personal attack.

Pray, tell. The irrational part is faith.

You're missing the point. This is a common thing brought up, so read around and you'll find the answers.

We don't believe atoms suddenly appeared. I doubt any serious scientific theories would violate conservation of matter, because they would be thrown out by scientists.

Just because we see cause and effect in the universe doesn't mean the universe itself needs a cause. Once again, this is discussed a lot, so read around and you'll find the answers.

I assume you mean does our existence have some cosmic, god-given purpose. I would say then there's no point of existence more than to exist, and continue existing.

No, that's not our natural inclination, because humans are social animals. The activities you mentioned are anti-social at various levels. Are you saying that if it wasn't for god, you'd do all this things?

I have no thoughts of suicide. Just because there's no divine purpose in life, doesn't mean my life is not worth living.

What we do here is not significance compared to what?

Because we're social animals. Moral code discourage anti-social behavior.

I'd have a problem with someone shooting a close friend, because it's a close friend. I have a social bond with my friend, and I don't want to loose it. Us being a mass of atoms doesn't change that fact.

What's a "true atheist," and exactly how does that lead to nihilism?

I was an Christian for 18 years. If God exists, he's had plenty of chances to open my eyes, and he can do it at any time.

This is just a pedantic point. 0.9999... equals 1. They're two different ways to write the same number. It makes perfect sense if you know about geometric series.

On the same token, people who don't believe in God shoud be looked down upon. Paintings and the universe are apples and oranges. We don't say it all just appeared.

Anyway, if it were shown that the universe has always been, that would rule out a creator God.

You only have morals because God tells you to do or not do things? I feel like your asking loaded questions. I'd rather have sex in a loving, trustful relationship. I don't rob banks for two reason. (1) I don't want to go to prison. (2) I don't like people who steal, because I don't want to be stolen from. I'm sorry but this "you can't be a moral person if your not a theist" thing is wrong.

I get meaning from my life by learning about this wondrous universe we live in, by being with friends and family, by listing to music, by being creative. I live knowing that this is the only life I have and I'm going to enjoy it, now.

First off, let me thank you for your directness, and courtesy, very refreshing.  I will attempt to answer your questions for you in order.

1)  I don't think it's really the point if we "get it" or not.  The point of the blasphemy challenge is to allow people who've felt repressed, surpressed, or dominated by religious indoctrination to relieve themselves of that feeling.  To liberate minds, as it were.  I am by far no bible scholar, but the wording of Mark 3:29 seems pretty straight forward, and i've heard of corroborating passages as well.

2)  There are several theories on the formation of matter as a result of the Big Bang.  I would suggest doing several searches on the subject.  In the end, the real answer to the question is simply, we don't know yet.  Not to say that we will never know, science has merely not been able to explain it yet.  Just as 200 years ago we had no knowledge of things like nuclear power, black holes, or cable television, so too now we haven't progressed far enough on that front.  We atheists, being inquisitive, scientific minded people, aren't willing to dismiss the lack of information with the simple explanation, "god did it".  How many technological and medical advances would never have been if we all thought that way?  None at all.

3)  The point of our exsistance is to procreate.  That is what drives all life forms, and the only real "reason" we are here.  As for the question of morality, the axiom, "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you", is my only answer.  We call it the "social contract", simply put, I don't want you stealing from me, so I won't steal from you.  I don't want you shooting my family or friends, so I won't shoot yours.  I wouldn't like it if you set my pants on fire, so I will reciprocate the favor.  I am a good, kind, caring, and giving person because that's how I was raised to be, even in the absense of religion.  I was raised without any mention of the subject in my house.  In fact, the only times I even remember it coming up during my childhood, was when I brought it up to my parents.  So I am the person I am not because of dogma, or fear of going to hell to be the devils whipping boy, but because my parents instilled in me how to cunduct yourself in society, and how to be a productive member of the community.

If you have anything you would like to expand on, you can do it here or private message me if you wish, and I hope science opens your eyes to it's unimaginable understanding.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Period. It says nothing else, like "we come from nothing." I'm not sure what you even mean by that. Can you clarify?

Our consciousness is not eternal. That's tough, but I deal with it. Human life is worth something to humans. My best friend's life is worth something to me. True I can always get new friends, but there's a lot of time invested in my old ones, and life is short.

Wrong. Humans are social animals. Anything that makes are social bonds stronger is a benefit to our survival. This is in perfect alignment with natural selection.

Once again, would you hate others, not care for the sick, etc. if god/the bible didn't tell you too? I think you're attributing things to god which have natural explanations.

If only there were more like you.

I'll have to wish you luck.

This has been pointed out, probably even in this topic(I haven't looked at responses yet due to lack of time today). The thing is that the blasphemy challenge is two things in priority: An advertisement, and a declaration of freedom from religion. So not many of those who have taken the challenge really think it's an unforgivable sin. If there was one, they'd do that instead(unless it involved hurting people).

It would be. I do not know many atheists who think the universe just appeared out of nowhere however. I personally think it's always been there in some form or another.

If first cause deals with a beginning of everything, no atheist ever will. Unless he can either:
1: Break the laws of physics.
2: Split nothing into postive and negative something(theoretically possible).

Why must everything have a cause?

Going to have to split the next one up.

There isn't a point, beyond that which you make for yourself.

The first would likely lead to you having STD's and a hundred kids. I don't think that would be enjoyable. The second would depend on the drugs and how much of them you took, but could have the same result, plus other significant damage to your body. A drink of beer and a joint every week won't do much of anything; but a crack addict will be in and out of the hospital all his life. I don't think that would be enjoyable either. Killing people will just get you thrown in jail and hated. Loosing freedom would not be enjoyable. Living for yourself isn't necessarily a problem, as long as you don't sacrifice others in the process. But if you do that, they'll return the favour. So it just makes sense to leave well enough alone.

Or you could give it meaning yourself. Make life better for the next generation, in the hope that one day we humans may surpass our stupidity.

No intrinsic point no. That doesn't mean you can't make one though.

Probably not in the long run. But there are no guarantees.

Morality is a societal evolutionary trait. It allows us to exist in societies. Without morals there would be anarchy.

Actually, I'd return the favour. I don't make friends lightly. I value those I end up as friends with. There'd have to be a pretty damn good reason for me to not return the favour.

I believe I did, but if not, let me know what you are unsatisfied with.

No problem. I hope you one day realize that life without a god hanging over your shoulder is more enjoyable and free than life with one.

Wrong.  According to atheism, there is no god.  No statement about where we come from, no statement about where we end.  You added all the stuff about "nothing" yourself. 

Why does something have to have cosmic significance in order to have ANY significance?  Human life is worth something to other humans because humans prefer the company of other humans.  You aren't just as content with a stranger as you are with a friend because you have an established relationship with a friend.  What about this is hard to understand?  What about this requires god? 

Wrong.  The evolution of social behaviour in animals is straight Darwinism.  Simple mathematics and game theory will show that cooperation is often better for the survival of the genome than strict selfishness.  It often makes sense for a creature to sacrifice itself for a mate or close relative.  Read some Dawkins. 

Are you joking?  You get sex, help with money and the home and the chance to reproduce.  What's not to love? 

Minor annoyances in the larger scheme.

As intelligent creatures, we are different than animals in that we can mentally model future events and, to some extent, react to them as if they have already occured.  A pregnant couple is excited about the future birth of their child.  Having that future taken away is, to a lesser extent, emotionally similar to having the child taken away. 

We have relationships with people that creates an emotional bond and makes us want to look after them.  This is basic social behaviour.  Why should the fact that they are weak affect this?

As you can see, you are wrong on every single premise for this position.  Your position reflects a lack of understanding of nature and social behaviour.  You have also totally failed to show any requirement for god in the phenomena you describe.  Think again.

I think these statements sell ourselves short. Why must I have an objective authority to ascribe value to certain 'things' in my life such as a friendship? Sure my existence might mean nothing to you but why should that matter to me? It's subjective but no less meaningful to me. Because I have no religious faith does not mean that I am not in awe of the mystery that life is. That I don't appreciate things that I perceive to be beautiful. You choose to derive meaning for your life from a book written by over 40 unknown authors that claims authority. But without your faith in this book, your beleifs are just as much of 'nothing' as my own.

I'm not very knowledgable on Darwin. I don't see why every atheist under the sun is assumed to be or is required to be. But judging your comments you hold that by being atheist that we suddenly are incapable of emotion. That our own life experiences are somehow removed of feelings. If I were to just try to fancy why love might be important for the human race in darwinian terms I'd posit that the support of two parents is far more beneficial to our species than one. Love being the glue that binds us together. Just a thought.

So are you telling me that without your christian leash that you would be out somewhere killing and raping people? I think this might be due to the christian belief that deep inside we are a bunch of no good evil doers. Something that I and my boy socrates reject. Hell I wonder how could all the cultures who have had no contact or outright rejected christianity ever even survived, right? Cause surely without some sort of book to define morality for us and since we are incapable of abstracting it ourselves. That all of society would be reduced to some all out carnal blood fest. 

This is a flaw in your character caused by your religious upbringing.  I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it.  People who are not saddled with faith from a young age can see many, many reasons to respect others without being told to by anyone, including god. 

Why?  Why must we be connected to an all-powerful creator in order to have worth?  I find worth in lots of people and I don't believe in a creator at all! 

The fact is, you are free to do that and many people do.  However, simple rationality would dictate that living by "might makes right" is a dangerous approach, since everyone will sooner or later meet someone who has more might than they have. 

I might also point out that refraining from killing people because you fear eternal torment is not morality - it is pure self-preservation.  From everything you have said on this thread so far I would come to the conclusion that you are a deeply immoral person.

No one can show that cigarettes cause lung cancer.  Science has been unable to find a causal link, and cannot explain exactly why it occurs.  Yet everyone believes that smoking causes lung cancer.  Why?  Because studies show that people who smoke get lung cancer at much higher rates than everyone else.  

People who blow themselves up in markets and shoot abortion doctors are always religious.  We can't prove that this is why they do it, because we can't read their minds or figure out how they made their decisions.  We do know that they aren't always insane.  We also know that many insane people never do these things.  The only common element linking the people who commit these crimes is their belief in a god.  

So we know that religion causes suicide bombing and abortion-doctor-shooting in the same way that we know cigarettes cause cancer.

The following is not an insult and should not be taken as one. It is a blunt criticism of the claim you made and should not be taken as a personal attack on you............ 

"A painting has a painter?"

So if a intwined pile of kelp washes up on shore does that mean Posiden did it?  Or could it be uncognitive ocean currents and natural uncoginative errosion of the seabed floor?

You dont really believe that the ocean has a brain and said, "Hey I am going to pull that kelp out of the seabed and plant it on the beach"

You are allowing your feelings of "awe" to rule you and dont take into account the awsome distructive forces of nature along with it.

If everything has a disigner then Aids and anthrax and ecoli and cancer and skitzophrenia and earthquakes, black holes all are created by the same thing. You want to atribute all these distructive things to your sky daddy?

I think it is absurd to stick an invisable puppetmaster into the mix when science mesures the world just fine. Atoms are not tiny magical lepricons nor is the universe a giant brain.

All sticking a diety into the equation does is dumb down society and sets them up to become blind to possible answers. What we dont know does not default to Allah/Yahwey/Jesus or Superman. We simply dont know and using ancient fairy tales to explain modern life  when we have science is not only unusefull but dangerous to progress.

Meteorologist, not buddhist monks, meteorologists, not Clerics, metorologists, not preists....are the ones who know this planet is warming up. 

They allerted society to the problem and insted it seems more important to vote a theocrat into office than it is to solve that problem that will effect everyone. It is more important that a zeolot blow up civilians than it is to worry about world polition. It is more important religios people to say, "This is mine because daddy said so" than it is to realize that humans are humans and in the end all want the same things. 

Would you find it credible to call that "painter" Vishnu? Would you find it credible to call that "Painter" Allah? Of course not and you'd be right. Now apply that logic in rejecting the other claims to your claim as well.

But you never bother to ask yourself, "Does there need to be a painter"? 

Some one sold you the idea that there had to be a creator. You baught it because you'd never been exposed to the reasons and science that points to the oposite.

Basically you are allowing your natural non-magical emotions allow you to believe this because you want to believe it because it makes you feel good.

BringOnYourChallenge, the challenge is to make a video of you denying the Holy Spirit and then post it on youtube.com. So are you going to take the challenge up like your handle suggests?

You're distorting what I said.

The theist claims that the universe must have a cause because of certain properties the universe has, e.g. order, complexity, intelligent & creative life, etc. God also holds these properties, but the theist never finds any problem believing God just existed. When we ask "Who created God?" we're trying to point this fact out. We're asking you why don't you take your argument further.

I was saying we see cause and effect inside the universe, but claiming that that the entire universe need a cause is a different sort of claim, mainly because the cause is outside the universe. I'm not saying that the universe has always existed, just that that line of reasoning, i.e. extrapolating cause and effect in the universe to saying the universe had a cause, is needs justification.

But then you act morally because you expect a reward from God. This is not morality, it's kissing ass. Anyway, if you don't think hell is eternal punishment, then you're ignoring what the Bible states. A lake of fire sounds a little more intense than just separation from God.

Why?

Hmm, too bad for identical twins.

To glorify God, serve Him in all that we do and to do His will.

To use the words of Jesus

 Your turn.

Response to Tilberian

You merely assume that I have not questioned. While I was raised in a Christian home I was not indoctrinated with tyrannical teachings and threats of being sent to hell if I was a bad boy. I went to church most sundays, was read bible stories as a child and did other normal every day average American child things. I honestly didnt think much of God until middle school and high school. I went to a public school where I was taugh the theory of evolution. I found it interesting and decided to check the facts myself. The more I learned about biology, and chemistry, and physics pointed me more and more toward some sort of designer.

The evidence that brought me to the conclusion of a creator consisted of Aquinas' theories for the existence of God, the fact of irreducible complexity (which shatter's darwin's theory), and an overall thought of intelligent design. I absolutely cannot believe in something so out of this world that purely by mere randomness life (in a fine tuned environment) was created and is sustained. Inconceivable.

And do not assume that I am a literal 6 day creationist. Ill point that out right now.

You seem to not have much knowledge of Christianity. I wont even go into how selfless Christ (whom Christians are called to be reflections of) was. If you want to know, go read the Gospels and tell me Christ was a selfish man. (Whether he existed or not)

Much like the "documentary" The God Who Wasn't There, you take things out of context and make them say what you want them to say.

I said: "I see intrinsic value in humans given to us by God."

What part of that looks like: "I see intrinsic value in humans given to them by other humans"???

Once again, you assume too much. God is the author of all matter, and thus is the author of DNA.

I believe the topic at hand was the value of human life. It directly relates to it.

The fact that you believe in something does not make it exist not does it make it cease to exist. My niece believes in Santa Clause, does that mean he exists? If I choose not to believe in the existence of the planet Mars, does that mean it doesn't exist?

I believe that the fact that you have a moral intuition is that God has made it an intrinsic part of humanity. Otherwise, please answer your own question for me, where does your moral intuition come from? And what happens if someone violates it? What happens if someone else's moral intuition is incompatible with yours???

Maybe I shall work on putting a case for the existence and the diety of Christ. But in order for that to work I would have to get you to agree on the existence of a God, then on the existence of the God of the Old Testament. I have a life outside of this forum and schoolwork to be done in the mean time.

I apologize if any of this sounded like a personal attack, that is by no means what I am trying to do.

I did read your post, but took your bit about hell the wrong way.

I have stated earlier that I think it is determined by society. I'm not a sociologist, but it's pretty evident that different societies hold to different values.

I don't really think morals very drastically from person to person within a society that much, at least locally. Yes, differing moral beliefs lead to conflict. If I knew how to resolve the conflicts, I'd tell everyone. That's a tough question.

That's why morals work on the level of a society not at a personal level. The reason murder is wrong because it's a detriment to the survival of a society. The sort of subjective morality you're writing about is irrational, but your talking about antisocial, psychopath sort of behavior.

I wish I could provide more cogent arguments, but I haven't studied this systematically. Yet another thing to research.

hi, i hope you don't take my comments above about the possible consequences of Christianity as hostile. This is one of the aspects of Christianity which scares me, the fact that people interpret the Bible in such a way that ending the lives of one's own children seems to be a rational conclusion if one wants to prevent them from suffering on earth and eternal suffering in hell.

My perspective:

1) Whether or not people who believe that are irrational, that is NOT a rebuttal to the claim that Christians are irrational.

2) Why do you think we believe atoms suddenly appeared? Do you actually know the scientific theory of how atoms formed? I wonder if you do. 

Ah ha, I was right; you don't know the theory. You are arguing against a straw man. Find out our positions BEFORE you start criticizing your misunderstandings of them.

BTW, it is not one of Newton's laws, it's one of the laws of thermodynamics. Again, educate yourself.

You may not have seen it destroyed, or you may not have understood the logic of its counterarguments, but I assure you it has been destroyed over and over and over.

You claim it is a fact. In this forum, you must back claims with sound and valid logic or evidence if you expect anyone to agree with you. Prove that the universe must have a cause. There is no such logical proof or evidence.

By 'point' I assume you mean purpose. Let me ask you this: What is YOUR explanation for the point of existence on earth? Next: What is the point of God's existence?

The fact is, you do not know the ultimate point of existence, and neither do I. You claim it has something to do with God, but you don't know God's purposes either, so ultimately you just don't know (not to mention that you'd have to prove God exists in the first place). Why do you feel compelled to make up esoteric reasons for existence? Can't you be satisfied with 'I don't know?'

More specifically, we here can choose our own purpose on this planet, so why should we need some fantasy 'ultimate' purpose? Another question: There are countless planets that humans will NEVER be able to visit due to the expansion of the universe. What is the purpose of those planets? Really, think about this and try to answer it. If you can't answer it, then you clearly don't know the point of existence either, so asking an atheist to answer it is ... pointless.

Really? So how come the 4 billion people on the planet who are NOT Christian do NOT do these things you CLAIM (without evidence I might add) are human nature?

The only reason you think this is human nature is because you've been BRAINWASHED by your religion to believe that humans are depraved by original sin. There is no evidence to support the notion that humans are naturally antisocial. In fact, there are mountains of evidence that humans are naturally social. We evolved that way because of the natural advantages it gave us in our ecological niche.

Why should I do that? Just because there is no pre-existing 'ultimate' meaning for my life does not mean that there is NO meaning for my life. That's a False Dichotomy.

Incorrect. Again, you are looking through your blurry Christ-goggles and see the world through the filter of biblical dogma. The point to my life is the point I choose for it and the point I strive for it. I have NO need for anyone outside of myself to choose/set/force me to take on their purpose. I choose freely what the purpose of my life is. What is the purpose of your life? What is the purpose of God's life?

Maybe not to you, with your Christ-goggles on, but what I do here is definitely significant to myself, my family, friends, colleagues, etc.

Moral codes are useful. Some moreso than others.

Straw man. A true atheist need not be a nihilist. In fact, the number of nihilists in the entire world is very close to 0. Atheists simply do not believe in god. That is all. ANYTHING ELSE you assume an atheist to be is because of your religious brainwashing.

Another false dichotomy. We are not JUST a mass of atoms, we are ALSO human beings. Human beings have evolved to be social and have social emotions. There is your answer.

As others have pointed out, your reasoning is fallacious. More of your propagandist brainwashing.

But I'd like to address something here. The foundation of my worldview is pragmatism, the belief that we should accept as true those things which are most useful. Pragmatism is opposed to nihilism, which is the belief that nothing can be known. Nearly everyone on the planet is inherently a pragmatist, even if they only hold it as a hidden assumption. Since my entire worldview is well-supported by pragmatism, why should I bother with Christian faithism? (Hint, to convince me, you'll have to show that faith is useful.)

Nope. Life is useful. 

Even if it is, so what? The fact that life exists makes this perpetual machine the most amazing and wonderful thing imaginable. To think, from such simple beginnings such incredible wonder has emerged. This is a far more exciting vision than your petty god of the bible.

Actually, that remains up to us. Our cultures already 'echo' beyond the lifetime of a single individual. The contribution I make to society today could conceivably last for eternity if we ascend out of the solar system to explore the rest of the universe.

It is worth something to me, so your claim has been disproved.

It does to me.

It matters to me because it is part of me and my emotional life.

WRONG. Find anywhere that Darwin or evolution teaches that nonsense. You are exhibiting your brainwashing again. Why don't you actually study evolution before you try to debunk it?

Like I said, study evolution. One obvious advantage of marriage is to have and raise children, a prerequisite for the survival of the species. If you don't see that, you are as hopeless as Todd Friel.

Why should we accept God's purpose, even if he does exist? Again, what is god's purpose? If you don't know what god's purpose is, then you CANNOT know your own ultimate purpose.

Let me ask you this: How do you know that God is not evil? What if there is no god and only Satan. Satan wrote the bible and invented a good God-character in order to deceive people into worshipping Satan's bible. You believe that Satan is the ultimate deceiver, right? So how do you know you haven't been deceived by Satan? What if that feeling in your heart that you think is Jesus or the holy spirit is actually Satan just tugging at your heart strings. What if everything you think you know about God is a big lie. How can you even tell the difference?

The only way to KNOW something is to be able to demonstrate it. You FEEL that you know the truth, but you do not actually KNOW the truth. If you KNEW it, you would be able to demonstrate it. In science, we know things because we can demonstrate them with evidence and logical lines of reasoning. All of this is justified by pragmatism. But faith is NOT justified by pragmatism, because faith leads to disagreement, not agreement. If faith were a useful method of determining the truth, then there would not be thousands of religions around the world, let alone the 30,000 sects of Christianity alone.

I have an interesting tidbit for you: Faith is just intuition. Jesus is just intuition. When you 'trust' Jesus, you are just trusting your intuition. The Bible uses this to trick you into thinking it is true. When you FEEL the truth, that is intuition, and intuition is FALLIBLE. The Bible uses stories and parables to make INTUITIVE arguments, i.e. ones that FEEL correct, not ones that can be demonstrated to be correct. It taps into the natural fallibility of human intuition to make you believe things that are not demonstrable. Intuition is a powerful feeling. It is the feeling that makes revelations bring tears to your eyes, but it is a fallible thing. Only evidence is able to find out when intuition is right or wrong.

It is intuitively obvious that the sun moves across the sky, but this intuition is false. In fact, the Earth spins, and we know this because we have evidence. It is intuitively obvious that complex things require a designer, but this intuition is false. In fact, life evolved without a conscious designer, and we know this because we have evidence.

Trust your intuition, but do not blindly trust it, because it is often (yes, often) wrong. When it comes to important questions, rely on evidence instead of intuition, because evidence is a more pragmatic way of determining the truth.

Why are we called to do this? What is the true purpose behind this?

You find NO meaning in life. You already said that you believe that without god, there would be no meaning in life. Therefore, you find meaning in god. But again, what is that meaning? What is the meaning of the universe, assuming god does exist? Please, I would love to know.

Myself, I DO find meaning in life, and it is the meaning that I choose for it. For example, part of the meaning of my life is to help bring stable peace to the world and to help humanity ascend to the stars.

Let me ask you one last thing: What is your vision for the future of the world? Do you see it as ending according to Revelations? If so, then is it true that you do not care about the long term future of the world (e.g. environment, wars, etc.)?

Why is God's rejection eternal? Why can't I change my mind after I find out that hell is real? Why doesn't god just show himself so no one has to take a blind leap of faith?

Humans give value to human life. There is no need for a god that no one can prove.

What is his will? Your only sources are the bible (literally a 2000+ year old book) and your personal intuition.

So essentially, the purpose of your life is to glorify a fictional character, obey a book you don't even know who wrote, and when things aren't so clear, just trust your gut.

Thanks, I'll stick to my superior morality that includes caring for the future of this planet and the human race. I don't trust your book, I don't think gut intuition is the be-all end-all of reason, and I certainly don't care about glorifying a fictional character like Yahweh or Jesus, whose teachings are spotty at best. 

Irreducible complexity is a dead argument. See Kenneth Miller (a Christian) tear it apart here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Please watch this video before trying to argue ID. Educate yourself. You clearly do not understand the theory of evolution. That's okay, but if you are going to argue against it, you should know it first.

Argument From Personal Incredulity, a logical fallacy. You FEEL that design is true, but you have no reason or evidence to support your view. You ignore the evidence of evolution.

Just because something defies intuition, does not mean it is false.

Think about this: Anything that is obvious and true, everyone will know it intuitively. But some things which are true are NOT intuitive. For example, that the Earth spins, rather than the intuitive idea that the sun moves across the sky. In fact, the MOST important facts of science are the ones which are NOT intuitive. It is intuitive that a baseball would fall slower than a bowling ball, but in fact they fall at the same speed. Evolution is not intuitive. If it WAS intuitive, everybody would know it as common sense. That's why we have science, to find out those things which are true, but which are also not intuitive.

Intelligent Design is intuitive, but false.

You do not SEE intrinsic value, you FEEL that there is intrinsic value. What evidence do you have that human value is intrinsic? The bible is not evidence.

That's an unsubstantiated claim. You don't KNOW that. 

You believe that, but you don't know it. Scientist DO know that human moral intuition is an evolved trait. It has obvious biological advantage to be moral in a highly social species. 

Evolution.

We punish or condemn them, if we have the power to do so.

We have a system of objective law to take care of these kinds of disputes. We choose to have laws because they are useful to supporting a stable and prosperous society. 

All of which amounts to a thorough religious indoctrination, occuring at ages when you are literally programmed to believe everything your parents tell you. 

Of course not!  You already thought you had all the answers.

Then you didn't understand what you were being taught.  Or you had really bad teachers.  Or both.

Aquinas says that thought and reason are incompatible with faith.  Basically, it's the same old saw:  believe because you want to believe and don't let facts get in the way.

"Irreducible complexity" is a piece of fake scientific-sounding jargon coined by creationists to dress up a completely erroneous and non-scientific principle.  You cannot give me an example of an organ or organism that could not have evolved through the process described bv Darwin.  I dare you to try.

Inconceivable because you don't understand it.  Evolution is not random.  At all.

I don't care what kind of creationist you are, you're still wrong.

We aren't talking about christ.  We are talking about you.  You have attempted to dodge the point, but remain fully skewered.  You have said that the only reason you refrain from immoral action is because god commands you to.  You have further said that you believe god will punish you for ignoring his will.  I have pointed out that avoiding immoral action out of fear of punishment is not morality - it's self-interest.  Now admit that I am more moral than you because I behave morally with NO fear that I will be punished for immoral action.

I understand that you see no value in humans unless it is given to them by an imaginary higher being.  This is a rather sick view of humanity, if I may say so.  My point was, and is, that humans have value independent of god - value that is assigned to them by other humans.  I see no reason why this isn't fully valid and real value, especially since the god who is supposedly meting out value is imaginary and this measure of value is really coming from other humans anyway. 

Once again, you are incapable of understanding arguments from science.  You were trying to say that god is necessary to explain diversity in living things.  I am pointing out that this is not so, since we can see that DNA can create diversity in living things through mutation and sexual reproduction.  Now, if you wish to admit that god is not necessary to explain life's diversity, we'll chalk up another one for Darwin and move on to discussing whether god created DNA or not.

Let's start with you presenting your evidence that god created DNA.

No it doesn't.  It relates to your ad hoc decree that a fetus is a human life.  Your statement is a matter of definition and does not address the value/lack of value of human life at all.

Now hold on a second.  Before you were saying that it is our awareness of god and his laws that causes us to behave in a moral manner because we fear his punishment.  Now you are saying that  god has instilled a moral instinct in us.  What is your real position on this?

BTW, you might want to be careful about using the god-has-made-us-moral argument.   Because if god did that, then he violated our free will to choose between right and wrong.  And if he did THAT, then the test in the garden of Eden was rigged, original sin does not exist, and christ's sacrifice was meaningless.  So we can go there if you want, but your theology is going to get pretty messed up.

I have told you where I think moral intuition comes from:  a combination of rational choice and hardwired social behaviours.  In other words, our brains.  What happens if someone doesn't agree with us?  Um, well, we disagree.  And if we are thick-skulled theists making rules based on faith, we fight.

Nothing personal at all, of course.  I'd be very interested to see your case for the existence of god.