And why is that?  Why won't god indulge us with incontestable proof of his existence, as you claim he did for the ancients?  Were the first few millennia of biblical "history" part of some publicity campaign by god to get his name out there, followed by the old marketing "switcheroo", where we now have to believe in him without any proof?  Or could it be that as our scientific knowledge advances, we are less impressed by what previously passed for "physical proofs"?

Well let me ask you a question. If you were God and had everything to give would you feel the need to indulge anyone? Especially after you had and people kept backsliding and ignoring your commands.

Lynette: Your posts are great and provide a wealth of information. It's been about 10 years since my last science class and I'm sure these links will be helpful. I've been trying to read more about biology, etc.; unfortunately my knowledge about science is basic at best.

Colby: I believe there is a thread somewhere on this site that gives you a link for a free DVD on evolution. Perhaps that could help you as well.
(Sorry, that didn't add to much to thread.)

Colby, this is another hypothetical, man. It's a pointless question and serves no purpose whatsoever in the discussion of proof of your god(s). When you have to start making excuses for your faith and your deity, there's a problem.

Oh, I don't know about that. If I was able to physically examine somebody who was missing a limb and then the limb spontaneously grew back in front of me I might accept it.

 I think the question is perfectly fine. I am not making excuses I am simply pointing out that God has no need to prove himself to us. If you dont believe thats fine if you do then you most likely see proofs of him. It is right to say that if he did reveal himself to us all that we would still have free will and it is written in the second coming he will be revealed to all.

Why would the evidence of a god who is supposed to objectively exist be so subjective? Shouldn't the evidence be observable by everyone?

So, there's no reason to believe in him now, according to your theory.

Two people look at the same evidence and come away with two different conclusions. There is reason to believe now considering when the second coming is here it will probably be to late.

Here comes one of you hated answers. Thats what the Bible says. It doesnt make sense for people to deny, ridecule, and spit in the face of God and then when he comes back say ohh uhh yeah I believe now after I chose not to believe by faith like you required so please save me. Thats not how it works, I wish it was but its not. Christians are in the same boat.

No I think it is perfectly fair, He has given us the Bible and whether or not you believe what is in it is up to you. I dont see why if there is enough proof for some why there should have to be more for others.

By not believing in God and insulting the people that do you are spitting in his face.

So instead this all powerful/invisible god requires that we follow it blindly without it even showing us what to follow? And that's fair?
We don't spit in gods face. We don't believe god exists to spit in it's face. It's not a matter of spitting in it's face and then expecting to be helped. It's a matter of not having anything concrete to follow, yet being told to follow it anyway.

I also should mention that while some people here may have chosen not to believe in god, it's never been a choice for me. I was born an atheist(I would contend everyone is, but that's a different topic). I've never believed in a god. For me, atheism isn't a choice. It's the way I am, the way I've always been, and the way I'll likely always be.

Okay, I have one question which I'd like to see if you have a reasonable answer to.

Assuming that god exists, assuming he came to earth in the form of jesus two thousand years ago, assuming that the bible is the literally recorded, unaltered word of god... what makes you think god isn't lying to everyone? 

I would say because I dont think it is a game to God. I dont believe he put us here for his amusement. THere is nothing in the Bible that indicates it and that is all we have to go off of Biblicly.

Now before I get the Bible circular answer deal again. I think it is important when asking questions that pertain to salvation or Christianity, I have to refrence the Bible. The Bible is the source of our knowledge of Christianity. Its like anything if I ask a question about Biology nobody is going to refrence a mathmatics book, you will refrence a biology book. The same for Christianity.

Your grasping at straws in an empty room i'm afraid. The bible can not be proof of anything other then it's the proof the book itself exists. One claim even you can understand, their are hundreds of different holy texts. So, you know yours is right? How about the fact all holy texts contridict themselves, have been proven to be impossible or false claims. Also, the bible, the new testament? Whats wrong with the old testament? Does it become false just because some people who were not god voted what should be and should not be in the bible to make the new testament? "They were influenced by god!" prove it. Prove Jesus existed, then if you prove that, prove he was the son of god. It is not our jobs to disprove or prove it for you. If your going to make a fucking claim offer fucking evidence that is evidence, not "grasping at straws evidence".

God, if he existed the average person should be able to read the bible and easily state. Man this "god" fello is a fucking child, a egotistical racist murderous evil 5 year old. "He gave us free-will. He also put things in place to make our decesions different it even shows it in the bible. Ie. "Do not eat of this tree, even though I already know you will you will be put to death" they eat, then he goes "yeah I lied, you'll just be punished.

So hes a lier, in the first chapter he admits it. If a all powerful person can not keep to his fucking claim about killing someone for going against him he is lieing. So your gods a lier. People argue he won't change stuff now a days to be a better world because free will needs to exist. Well if hes all knowing, if free will needed to exist, why did he make the mistake with trying to destroy evil with noah? Was that not interfearing to get rid of evil? If he did it then, god can't change his mind, for he already knows the outcome and no matter what his mind is made up.

Oh well, it won't even get through to you, you'll try and reason to us why the bible is proof to you. Guess what? It's a old, outdated inmoral, and horribly writen. 

This is a forum. If you can't deal with a little bad spelling, bad grammar, and bad language, you shouldn't be here. And the closing insult, which misspelled 'your' makes you look just silly.

This will cover both the historical and supernatural.

For it to make just a little bit of sense. Imagine you are a god and send yourself down to earth. Why are you sending yourself to only one small area of earth? Wouldn't you leave something behind for future generation? A book that made some sense perhaps.

For it to make any sense Jesus would have had to visit all the other civilizations on the planet at the same time and leave behind the same evidence.

What happened to the American Indians(substitute the hundreds of other cultures here at the time of Christ) ? They could not possibly have heard about Jesus until the 1500's. Are they currently being tortured by your god for not believing in someone they didn't even know existed?

Does any of this make any sense to you?

Well, an honest question deserves an honest answer, and it's time I gave my answer.

There are very few things that would make me believe in your god and messiah. From a historical point of view, I really don't care whether a historical Jesus existed or not. I don't dismiss the possibility, because I don't very much care. We know Muhammad or Siddharta were real historical figures, but that doesn't stop the vast majority of people considering their religions, in turn, as false. From this perspective, I don't much care if Jesus was real or not.

From a religious point of view, I have yet to see the Christian religion doing something that puts it above all others. Do we have a miracle worker somewhere? OK, gentlemen... Tape it. Make it public. Call some specialists (depending on what the miracle is). Is the Orthodox Church having a "miracle" every Easter? Well... let people actually see and tape it, don't just make them take your word for it. Anyway, I presume you get my point.

But the Christian religion is, up to now, just the same as any other religions: it's the same "believe, don't search" doctrine, it's the same "this here was a miracle. if you don't believe in J.C., obviously you could not see it, because your mind was darkened by the devil" excuse.

There's something that would make me really believe in your god: a miracle applied on myself. True miracle, taped miracle, proven miracle. Such as removing a small bony protuberance I've got on my leg.

No I think it is perfectly fair, He has given us the Bible and whether or not you believe what is in it is up to you. I dont see why if there is enough proof for some why there should have to be more for others.

By not believing in God and insulting the people that do you are spitting in his face.

There is no more evidence for the validity of the supernatural claims of the Bible then there is for the Quran or the Mormon Doctrine and Covenant, or El Ron Hubbards Dianetics. By continuing to make your assertions and evidence-free rhetoric, you only continue to weaken your position and reason in a never-ending circle.

You know full well that had you been born in Saudi Arabia, you would wake up every day and say ilala illahu Muhammed ur-Rasullah (There is no God but God and Muhammed is his messenger). You would accept this unquestioningly, and you would make the same claims about the Qur'an.

By not believing in Allah and insulting the people who do, you are spitting in his face. On the Yam Al'Qiyaham, Allah will judge you and throw you into the pit of hell.

Or, by not believing in body thetans, you are mocking El Ron Hubbard and his believers. When you die, the lord Xenu will imprison you in his intergalactic jail.

By not believing in the Mormon D&C and insulting those who do, God, with Joseph Smith the Prophet to his right, will judge you and cast you into hell.

I could go on. I could even make up a religion myself, but that would be tiring.

Furthermore, you state "I don't see why there should be proof for some, why there should have to be any more for others". This is ridiculous. The whole concept of religion is wholly detached from evidence, logic, reason, science and proof. A Muslim believes there is proof in Allah just as much as A christian believes there is proof of Yahweh. I am going to ask you three questions now:

First, I will tell you some stories.

Story #1:

Several thousand years ago, one of the ancient tribes of Jeruselam was massacred by another tribe of Israel, and the victors fled from Jeruslam and somehow managed to arrive in America, where they buried Gold plates in Jacksonville Missouri. As ounishment God turned their skin red. These plates were revealed by an angel called Moroni who was a native American with white skin to a man who dug them up several hundred years ago. They were the Gospels of the Nephites. These writings were translated by ancient rocks called seer stones, and compiled into a book.

Now may I ask you a question: Do you have faith that this story is not true?

Next story:

Praying alone in a cave, a man suddenly found an angel standing before him. This angel commanded to the man to recite written words which he presented. The man protested, being illiterate, but eventually he realized that through God's glory he must recite. So he fell to his knees and did so. Over the next ten years he receieved many more revelations, and in fact, he journeyed to heaven on a winged horse to discuss prayer with Jesus, Moses, David and Adam. At first, almost no-one believed him, but eventually, they realized he was so sincere and intent, and of such accurate recollection, that they decided he was a man of truth. Thus they wrote down his words, messages and revelations.

Now: Do you have faith that this story is false.

OK.

The first story was the story of Mormonism, the second was the story of Islam.

Whenever I ask this question, almost everyone replies that they do not have faith that these are false. This is because they are ridiculous stories. The default position for an unsubstantiated assertion without evidence and disbelief. The only reason you say we have faith is because so many people are Christian. Do you have faith that cultists are lunatics?

 Interestingly enough, sometimes what I do is not tell the stories. Instead I ask people if they have faith that Mormonism is false. They almost always respond no. This is because it is so ridiculous and almost no-one believes it.

However, when I ask people if they have faith that Islam is false, they respond yes. This is because Islam is older, has many more followers, and is much more respected. There is no rational basis for any of the claims. The judgement, no matter how you construe it, is extremely subjective.

Religion has this bizarre formula whereby things become more accepted as time passes that were once myths. Nobody here believes the Greek myths of Athena or Medusa, nor does anyone in Greece. But stories that were simply made up over the centuries that seem like nothing more than good fiction, like Immaculate Conception and six day creation, or the idea of God, for some reason, because they were made up along time ago, are accepted as true. This explains why many regard Mormonism as insane. Joseph Smith received his revelations in the early 1800s...but Catholicism, which believes equally ridiculous things, is somehow more credible to the point where it has one billion followers. Every religion has concepts that seem to be pulled from thin air, that were simply meshed into truth by nothing but time with no evidence whatsoever. In Christianity, there is the Trinity and the ascension of St Mary, In Judaism the strange obsession with the Demiurge verses the High God.

I would like to hear more comments on this post.

I have already replied to this! Read the posts, Colby. Science is based on fact, religion is based on philosophy. Simply because science can not explain something in the manner that particular people can understand is not an excuse to believe in man-made philosophy to fill in the blanks. A philosopher has no place to state views on science, period. If a scientist has a religious view and it affects their scientific view then absolutely not will I accept that...nor would most other scientists. There's a reason there are so few theists in science, Colby. Having a handful of theist scientists in a field of science where most are not is like having a handful of rapists in a room of thousands...it's inevitable but it doesn't mean they're credible.

And PS...the difference between atheist and theist talking points is that we use facts, theists use hypotheticals and an unproveable book to make their claims. It's pretty easy to see which one is more credible.  

Lynette I know you did respond and I enjoyed your answer. I am not calling the kettle black I am, just like everyone else I have specific proof it would take to convince other that my beliefs. I dont expect science to create the evidence just for me, there is evidence at hand and if it does not convince me then I dont see the problem.

Of course. Although you must admit that the level of faith among the intellectual elite is far lower than the population, and the intellectual elite who have faith have a much more intelligent faith. They obviously do not believe in Genesis or Second Coming or any nonsense as such.

I would say if they have a Christian faith not believing in a second coming would almost be a pointless faith. The second coming is the salvation of the world. But I would agree with you in general sense of your statement, from what I have seen of intellectual elite.

 I appreciate that you acknowledge that science can not prove God to exist or not to exist. When you say that it is not the purpose of science to disprove God, I believe you but I would say that many athiests look at science for that very reason. I have no problem with you questioning the Bible, I have said many times I have questions and could list them we probably question similar items.

I dont know what about Genisis you have the biggest issue with. Could you give me a small list or what is your biggest issue. I think I have a idea but I dont want to comment until you say.

Correct me if I am wrong but I have read either here or somewhere else that evolution is not the science of how life started but how it has advanced. If that is true isnt why life started a very valid question. When police investigate crimes they always ask why and I would assume in the scientific community it would be the same. If your studying something in my mind one of the most imprtant questions in why.

I appreciate that you acknowledge that science can not prove God to exist or not to exist. When you say that it is not the purpose of science to disprove God, I believe you but I would say that many athiests look at science for that very reason.

Thank you.

I dont know what about Genisis you have the biggest issue with. Could you give me a small list or what is your biggest issue. I think I have a idea but I dont want to comment until you say.

Genesis explictly states nonsense. I will give a very small list. Genesis states that the universe was created in six days. Genesis states that life and Earth were created before stars which is impossible because it is the nuclear fusion of stars that gives us the chemistry of life and rocks. Genesis states that plant life came after sea creatures which is impossible because phototropes are absolutely necesssary for any life to flourish (Even if God smothered the Earth in plants pumping out oxygen, everything would die because it takes millions of years for oxygen shift to occur). Skipping a lot of nonsense, Genesis 11 states that all people once spoke the same language, which is ridiculous. Genesis obviously ignores the fact that there were civilizations that existed long before the Hebrews.

Genesis is clearly mythology, it is no different that Inca myths (they also thought they were the first civilization and they also thought they were Gods people), and Aztec creationism (they also thought they were Gods people and the first civilization)

Correct me if I am wrong but I have read either here or somewhere else that evolution is not the science of how life started but how it has advanced. If that is true isnt why life started a very valid question. When police investigate crimes they always ask why and I would assume in the scientific community it would be the same. If your studying something in my mind one of the most imprtant questions in why.

Correct. How life started is primordial chemistry. The answer to the abiogenesis paradox (at present molecular biologists cannot recreate nucleotide assemblage) is that we do not know.

I was referring to "why" in the teleological sense of "purpose". This is meaningless to science. 

I appreciate the civilized manner that this discussion has become. One of your previous comments "By ignoring God and insulting those who do, you are spitting in his face" (I posted a long response to that which you may wish to look at), will make most atheists very, very angry.

First of all, it is what we call HTT  (Holier than Thou syndrome). Second, it fails to acknowledge that there are civilizations who for thousands of years got along peacefully, and extremely successfuly, without religion.

 Thirdly, it fails to acknowledge that the atheists you meet on this site will have given very deep thought to their beliefs. Many of us are scientists, philosphers or logicians. we cannot spit in the face of that which we do not believe exists!

Oh, come on, Lynette, if I were you I'd not waste much time dismissing a claim that's pure speculation and nothing more.

When a person enters this world of free critical thought, it's impossible to miss certain arguments. Arguments such as Pascal's wager, the "God of the Gaps" (as seems to be the case here), Anselm's definition, and many many more. People start studying these arguments, and initially they sound as solid proof, but the more they advance, the more they learn that such arguments are fundamentally flawed. Indeed, this does not necessarily disprove a higher being, but by taking apart each argument one by one, theism is left with practically nothing. Ironically, Christianity is left with a greater nothing (excuse the term) than Buddhism, Islamsim, Confucianism, etc., since we know that the persons that started those religions actually were historical figures beyond any doubt. We cannot say that with 100% certainty about J.C.

It's a path that anyone must take: discover, study and conclude. Most people are really lacking when it comes to the second part. It's not necessarily their fault for that, but that doesn't grant them any extra right. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Colby R here makes no exception from this rule. After studying as much as some people here (deludedgod is one very good example, whose work on these forums I admire), he will come to realize that some things just aren't valid. Just like many other threads (as todangst noticed very well), all theists come here with an argument that they think is smashing, but that we've all refuted hundreds of times before. Once they learn and accept that truth isn'tsimply a presto-change-o thing, perhaps a non-repetitive, fruitful discussion will be possible.

It was interesting but I just used it as part of the point I was making. I suppose it is fruitless to someone who, even when presented with facts of provable things, says "that's not good enough for me..."