The more I learn about the theory of evolution, and particularly human development, the more I question the validity of god belief. I say "god belief" but what I should say, to be more clear, is the urge to believe in god.

In Denial of Death by Ernest Becker, he asserts that humans have a natural defense from the terror of the world around them. That, if we were allowed to actually contemplate the day to day risk of our environment and particularly our imminent death, we would not be able to function. He suggests that our mind has a natural tendency toward putting up symbolic buffers between ourselves and what could become all consuming fears of the cold world around us. Our obsession with "purpose" and ideas like the afterlife are shining examples of this idea. They give us something to focus on; something to keep us from obsessing on the purposeless of our species existence.

The theory of evolution describes that the reason we seem to have such a strong drive to imagine our way safely through day to day life and ignore our inevitable demise is because those of us who had this drive (historically speaking) were able to survive and reproduce. So, the reason we function this way is because that's how the original survivors functioned. Maybe this is part of the reason they survived, I couldn't say, but it certainly causes me to pause on the subject.

CNN's Piers Morgan Debates Atheist Ricky Gervais, Declares America a 'Very Christian Nation'

This is an article I found discussing the brief conversation between the comedian Ricky Gervais and a CNN news personality Piers Morgan. Take a look at the link to get the background, there is a transcript toward the bottom.

This is one one of the comments I found interesting:

Some creationist troll on another forum just posted this link - http://www.secular-humanism.com/ - to "prove" a point with a quote purportedly by Sir Arthur Keith, being "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." The troll showed it claiming that it was a "real" quote on a "secular-humanist" site. So, I ckicked on the home button at the bottom of the page and found this - http://www.allaboutgod.com/ . Apparently some christians decided they could pretend to be humanists and post whatever they want.

The troll, when this was pointed out, then sent a link to the wikipedia page on Sir Arthur Keith to show that the quote was "real" without reading the footnote (#4.)

Right.

Essentially, yes. Billions of years.

Okay then, I have a few more easy questions for you.

Are you a heliocentrist or a geocentrist?

Do you believe that the Earth is roughly spherical or that it is a flat disk?

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Should a woman ever be punished for adultery i.e. sex outside of marriage? If so, what might the punishment be?

Continued from here.

To Caposkia especially, but to other believers as well, in other threads I my tactic is to attack the starting point before you get to any holy book.

The recent shooting in Az which left a 9 year old girl dead, inspired me to post this, but it is also an example of WHY the "all loving" concept and "all powerful" concept is a broken idea, REGARDLESS OF THE NAME OF THIS ALLEGED DEITY,

Here is my challenge. DO NOT SPEAK FOR YOUR ALLEGED GOD, speak for yourself as to what you would do yourself if in a position to stop such an event with the power to do so.

IF YOU...........not your god, not someone elses god, not even your neighbor. IF YOU KNEW you could stop that girl from dying, would you?

JUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION, nothing more, nothing less. Do not tell me what your alleged god would do, or the "mystery" of his alleged "plan". I am asking YOU what you would do yourself.

This is a terribly written article, now tear it to pieces!!!

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html

I keep  trying to debate people on another forum by bringing up biblical inconsistencies or various things within the bible that are unsavory such as child abuse and how women are subjugated.

Their reply is always, "where in the bible does it say that?"

I always roll my eyes and post the link to the skeptics annotated bible site in which you can actually read the passages containing the unsavory stuff.

A response to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

The SAB is right in saying that the answer to the question of Is Jesus Peaceful? Is both yes and no. Depending upon various factors which can be seen by a careful examination of the verses given.

[SAB] Is Jesus Peaceful? Yes.

Luke 2:14 From this verse is derived the term 'Peace on Earth and goodwill toward, or to all men' during the pagan celebration of Christmas. It is interesting in the context of this response to point out a few more accurate translations than the KJV, which read: NIV; "Peace to men on whom his favor rests." NASB; "Peace among men with whom He is pleased." Amplified; "Peace among men with whom He is well pleased [men of goodwill, of His favor." NLT; "Peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased." ESV; "Peace among those with whom he is pleased!" CEV: "Peace on earth to everyone who pleases God." ASV; "Peace among men in whom he is well pleased."

The point being that Jesus' birth was an indication of peace in the distant future for some, but not all. This good will from God to men with whom He is pleased is none other than the salvation through Christ Jesus of those who would accept it. The meek inherit the earth once sin is removed and they live forever in peace only then. For those who would continue in sin and reject Jehovah God and his standards there can be no peace. Only destruction.

A response to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

There are two important things to understanding regarding the question of whether Jesus judges people or not. First, what is judgment and second when he would and would not judge. It is not often well understood that since the wages of sin are death, once a person dies they are acquitted of their sins. (Romans 6:7) It is also not often well understood that there will be a resurrection of the righteous as well as the unrighteous. (Acts 24:15)

At John 5:22 it is clear that Jesus was appointed as judge. But a few verses later, at John 5:23-29 Jesus points out that those who took his message to heart would not be judged but would pass over from death to life. He was talking about the spiritually dead - those who would become spiritually alive upon hearing his message. (1 Peter 4:3-6) In other words the faithful had, in a sense, already been judged, released from God's condemnation. They only had to suffer eventual physical death thus receiving in full the wages of sin, which they inherited. They are not judged in the sense that it is their actions upon hearing the message of Christ that condemns or saves them. They judge for themselves whether or not to act accordingly.

One question raised by atheists all the time is this: "if there is a God, why does he allow suffering?"

The Christian answer to this is "sometimes god creates suffering so that we can value what we have."

This is also the answer most commonly given when people ask "why god won't heal amputees?" So, what happens if I find out I am going blind? Should I pray to God or should I just go blind so that others value their ability to see? Wouldn't it better if we all lived in a world of cats and rainbows where lions eat alongside zebras, and bad things are just fantasies that fill theaters? It'd convince me more that there is a God.