As a chemist I may have a bit of inherent bias towards biology. Regardless, I've never seen so many "maybe"'s in a scientific text as I have in the evolution portion of my biology text (Campbell, 6th edition). If anything, reading up on evolution has only driven me closer to the Lord. I don't know how any scientist could be comfortable answering every question by throwing a couple million years at it and assuming stuff just worked itself out. I imagine that any event controlled by a sentient being could be explained as to have happened by chance, given enough time.

Mentioning two people backed up by your own secure sources (read: top of head) isn't the best idea directly after asking someone else for credible sources. 

Chances are my words will fall on deaf ears for the most part but that's okay. Christians posting at an obviously non-christian forum are fools if they expect to change anything. It is not in our power to change another person against their will.

The main problem here is that you (general plural) aren't curious as to whether or not God exists, you've already made up your mind and allowed emotion to overcome logic. Logic is a man-made idea and the first thing you have to understand is that if God created this world (as he did), the physical laws that govern its mechanics do not apply to God. Therefore logic cannot be used to prove or disprove his existence. So when you rebuke christianity with fact (or at least what you think is fact) you're missing the point. Similarly, you're not going to win us over because no amount of logic can convince us one way or another when it pertains to a being not constrained by the laws of this universe. 

Some christians come at the issue the wrong way and piss people off, driving them farther (further? I never remember which one to use) from the Lord when what they really want to do is help. Then there are stupid people who were raised wrong in the Lord and tackle non-believers with hatred and anger. They're missing the point just as badly. 

Just know that I love God with all my heart and all my soul, and I'm not alone. I love you guys as well, just as God does, and I will mourn your passing if it you die still in a state of confusion. As long as you live you have a chance to make things right. But don't attempt to use science and the bible in an objective capacity when your words are laced with venom, because they will soon turn subjective. Your ears are selectively deaf if you believe whatever science tells you yet you interpret the bible in a fashion that specifically suits your argument. You can't play both sides of the fence. It makes christians and scientists both look bad.

Listen, The fact is that evolution is FACT, geology is FACT thus proving that your bible is wrong, not one credited scientist that has studied this has said otherwise, maybe this is because it makes so much sense that people have dedicated their liefs to it. So discrediting the time your bible takes place and proves creation isn't true, makes god not true where does that leave us? It leaves us with a huge gap, now your sue-do scientists want to change everything so it fits their needs. Something called intelligent design, you tried to bullshit us by saying some half assed thing about the first organisms on this planet how they were to advanced to be created from random protein collections and lighting. Basically your argument was over the flagella how it rotated 360 degrees for locomotion of the cell, which i do say is an idea but doesn't match up with any real scientific evidence because the organisms they are talking about aren't the ones that came first. The first organisms are called sub-microbes smaller than even bacteria harmless, but important enough to create what yous see today, we even found some on the rock from mars. So does your god work double shifts between earth and mars or is life more abundant in the universe than you want us to believe? The truth is scientists got tired of you questioning them so they set out to find single cellar organisms being created now at this time of the evolution time line, because the life process keeps on going no matter of what level of existence or animal kingdom it belongs to. Guess what, we found it, they recreated the primordial soup in sterile lab conditions simulating earths natural chemicals and processes like salt and lighting that contributed to the creation of the single celled super microbes thus proving it was a natural process not a hand of god.

Now Why bring up Alexander the great? He existed 300 years before Jesus making it alittle harder to prove he existed. Are you jellos that he was more celebrated than Jesus? Is it only because he accomplished a shit load more than most any other human here on earth or is it be because he was a friend of the Jews or better yet that he had homosexual tendencies? Next time pick someone that has accomplished less to compare to your Savior.

You probably dont know that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't the only misia of the time. In fact most other major religions had their Savior around this time to increase credibility among their followers.

I don't understand. This seems to contradict what most christians say. Whatever happened to making a 'leap of faith' and 'opening your heart' and all that nonsense? Are all these people who don't 'know' Jesus like that because God doesn't want them to know it? Is he witholding information from most people or is he only giving it to a few people he chooses? If he's choosing the people who will know Jesus, how does everyone else who is supposed to 'accept him as their lord and saviour' supposed to get to heaven?

Yes. His teacher mentioned him (Arostotle?) who was alive during the same time that Alexander the Great was supposed to be alive.

The difference between this man and Jesus is that there is no frame of reference in regards to when the biblical texts that mention Jesus where written. This is why me writing a book about Alexander the Great doesn't support him any, while significant people who lived during his time (specifically teachers, politicians, kings, etc) have mentioned him specifically.

The difference here is that we know when these people were alive and it, again, coorelates with when Alexander the Great was said to be alive.

Now, your next question would be "But there IS evidence of Jesus being a real person! It's in the Bible" OR "But there IS evidence of Jesus being a real person! They found his grave!" Both of which aren't true (why would Jesus have a grave?). I won't go into the details of either, since the stories of the Bible where either written hundreds of years before or after Jesus was supposedly born and how the movie that said they found evidence of Jesus is false.

Edit:

Why does it matter?

Atta way to use the straw man to prove...umm...what were you trying to prove?  Anyway.... 

My impression of when people say those things is just describing a personal experience, i.e. what they feel they had to do.  Now when they turn it around at you and tell you that you must do the same that does get a bit arrogant.

I'm not sure I follow.  How can you assume I believe without any evidence?  Because I have experienced God and proven it among others who have had similar experiences, does that mean I don't have evidence because you don't share it?  When someone says they've seen a ghost or a UFO, I'm not going to jump to the judgment they are crazy because they say they have.  Personal experiences I understand are no form of "proof" however without "proof" of the opposite, all you are left with are assumptions and unfortunately those tend to lead to judgments.

As far as how God gives faith to someone else, I can only answer from my own experience and go off of what others tell me how they came to know God.  It is also my experience and my understanding of God that does give me an idea as to when it's questionable.  A lot of that I'm sure isn't going to be acceptable to you but then, I don't expect you to accept it; I'm hoping you'd try to understand it.

Many people here that are identifying themselves with atheism are making the statement they were former Christians themselves or grew up in a Christian home.  Faith coming from someone else, i.e. man, does not last just as people don't last.  As far as inter-faith relationships, they are more common than you think.

You said that your assertion was in the bible, and asked if I would always go with popular opinion. This would suggest you are implying the bible is to be taken as a more reliable source of information about god/heaven/jesus etc than humans. I countered that with an example of the nonsense in the bible which would cause any non-biased person to reject it as a book of reliable facts. It was my intention that the comparison between your statement and mine should have caused you to see how your appeal to the reliability and/or authority of the bible to be worthless in this context.

Am I really really hard to understand or are you having problems with English? I really dislike wasting time explaining myself step by step when I shouldn't have to, but I don't want to be accused of running away from an argument.

1. I didn't assume you believed without evidence, I didn't address the reasons why you believe whatsoever, but your use of the word faith is going against the common definition of the term and that is disturbing the argument.

2. Again, for some reason you are thinking I said something about faith coming 'from man'. I can't find that idea anywhere in what I wrote. 'Faith' doesn't come 'from man' - that's the same as saying love comes 'from man' - it doesn't make any sense. Faith comes from accepting things which people have told you without having any evidence for it. My point was that a person born into a family that follows some belief will almost certainly absorb that same belief because the people around them do - that is incontestable, just look around you! How many Australian aboriginals or Mongolians or Kalahari bushmen do you think would start believing that there is one God, who affects them somehow through Jesus who is his son and at the same time the same person before they ever had any contact with preachers and bibles? Was God giving any of them faith back then, as you claim he does? No! People believe things like this because other people tell them it and/or similar information over and over through their formative years until it becomes entrenched in their minds. Even if they don't fully accept it, when you are vulnerable, like when you are sick and something sad has happened, and something shocking of touching happens to you - some sort of 'personal experience' - it's very easy for them to attribute it to the same thing that other people talk about and what they have been told happens. THAT is your 'being saved' - it's giving in your mental faculties so that you can swallow something there is no evidence for wholeheartedly.

You won't agree with that, you'll maintain that you were truly 'touched' or something, and it's pointless me arguing that with you so please don't try unless you have something truly compelling that hasn't been dealt with a thousand times before on this forum and on others.

P.S. Sorry for being short, I apologise for sounding rude but I've having really crappy day

"The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.... And such is the way of all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgements, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, although this happened much oftener, neglect and pass them by." - 1620 Francis Bacon -A philosopher of some note.