http://onetruegod.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/the-unpardonable-sin/

http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/the-blasphemy-c.php

Someone should inform the first guy that he needs to increase his level of dishonest argumentation if he's ever gonna fit in with the best Christianity has to offer.

__________________

I've seen the notion that some Theists don't actually believe and are 'culture Theists' or 'believe in a belief' or something similar.

So how do you tell the difference between these and the Theists that actually believe?

*poke, poke.. oh look I still exist, I haven't been discommunicated by lord pissant “Deluded God” who injects new rules to the forums and declare himself “Thy petty e-peen Lord”, Bleeeat!

They Deluded God commands:

I bring to thee a hypothesis I fancy over all others. Believe in what I say if not you are lost! I will banish thee from these Forums if thy are a unbeliever.

Thanks Deludedgod I rather listen to the scientific community who favors other more plausible hypothesis.

To the point at hoof. Is there any evidence to material origin? I hear many times atheism is a lack of belief. This is true but not full truth because to not believe in god created universe then the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe. Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?

We don't know what caused the BB so you can assume material or immaterial creation so it's a leap of faith you have to make because there isn't any physical evidence for either one. This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.

In 1967, a large migration occurred from Kashmir to Bradford in England.  Among the migrants were a large number of people who had married close cousins.  Several of them were microcephalics -- they had small, but otherwise normal brains.  Because the family pedigrees were so well documented, scientists were able to pin down the exact gene and the exact mutations (four of them, to be precise) that caused the condition.  (If you're interested, it's the ASPM gene on chromosome 1.)  In recent years, with our advances in genetics, we've learned that this is a particularly large gene, 10,434 letters long, split into 28 paragraphs (exons).  Paragraphs 16 through 25 are basically just repeats of the same "sentence," which refers specifically to the amino acids isoleucine and glutamine.

The significance of this is that these amino acid repetitions apparently correlate directly to the number of neurons in the adult brain.  In humans, there are 74 repetitions.  The mouse has 61, the fruit fly 24, and the nematode worm only 2.  In layman's terms, this gene apparently directly influences how smart the creature will be.

Last night, i was thinking: why would (the christian) god give us all these animals to us for the purpose of our food? why would he not give us something else to feed upon with the same nutritional value? pigs, chickens, and cows can feel the same pain humans do, so why would he make us kill them?

and please, don't give the bullshit response "we cannot judge god by our simple human minds". that's complete shit. god could have easily found an alternative to it when he created the world, but he decides to watch the entertainment of death instead. or, maybe, he doesn't exist and this came to be by nature. that would make much more sense.

I have been thinking alot about this lately - if the Christian God's omniscience includes 100% knowledge of all future events, does this not render us unable to make our own choices?  Think about it this way - I cannot choose to do something contrary to what God knows will happen.  I could try or want to do something that is contrary to what God knows will happen, but I will fail because I cannot contradict what God knows for sure will happen - thoughts anybody, especially Christians?

I'm writing an article dealing with the merits of science vs. religion, and I've stumped myself.  I can't think of a single instance in history where science and religion clashed and religion had the better scientific answer.  I don't even mean the ultimately correct answer -- I mean the more correct answer at the time.  (For example, many of the observations of the cosmos were incorrect, but were closer to being correct than the church's view that the earth was the center of the universe.)

I'm not trying to make any sort of point here.  I really want to know if there has ever been an instance of the church being more correct than scientists on any empirical issue.

What's the harm in letting some people believe that magical 'fields' will do all kinds of wonderful things?

Watch this Christian apologist's conflation and understand: