Lets all become Calvinists! No, really. Think about it. We have predestination, so no matter what we do, we can't influence whether we go to heaven or hell! Want to eat babies? Go right ahead! God determined your eternal future even before you were born, so it doesn't matter. Feel like raping your neighbors wife? Your neighbors dog? Hell, feel like raping your neighbor? Just do it! Because nothing, not a single action you may take, will change the course of your eternal destination.

Don't bother evangelizing, because it is pointless. You cannot possibly change the preordained future, so don't waste breath that can better be spent slaughtering communities, twisting the necks off of kittens, and becoming governor of Alaska. It doesn't matter how evil you are by earthly standards. If god pronounced you fit for heaven at the break of creation, to heaven you will go! Ain't it grand?

There, I just punched my neighbor...for no reason! Will I go to heaven? Who knows! God doesn't bother telling us what his primordial decision on that was, but it doesn't matter. Now that I am a Calvinist, I will either get there or I won't. And absolutely nothing I do will ever change that! Woo Hoo!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. This year I have recently been given something to be thankful for. You see, as a skeptic and an atheist I try to maintain an open mind. I frequently remind myself that I could be wrong about a host of subjects, including my disbelief in alien visitations, the Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, and even gods. I try to stay open to new information that would prove any of these subjects, and many others. The big "What If?" if you will.

But aid in my doubt came from an unexpected source this year, and just before Thanksgiving. Coincidence? Of course it is. But nevertheless, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to that source.

Lee2216, in my moment of doubt you have really came through for me in giving me not one, but two proofs against the existence of god. Now I can sleep well knowing that since everything must have a creator that there is no infinitely powerful god, because that god would have to have a creator more powerful than it, and so on Ad infinitum. And you also showed me that any god would wind down in heat death through the drain of entropy.

You have restored my faithlessness, Lee2216, and I do appreciate it. Now I feel renewed, invigorated, and more confident to carry the message of atheism to even more people.  I can only hope that your Thanksgiving has been as enlightening as my own. 

 IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A THEIST TO BE A HUMAN?

Absolutely not. Consistently theism is inhuman. Now of course, they can be part of a religion that claims that they are human in order to justify their conscious from their sins. But they are extremely inconsistent and are not human, they are aliens. 

Remember in the 2008 election, when American called the republicans on their humanity. The republicans got stuck. Many of them attacked people that asked about humanity, and then they either made is up, or stole it from the humans in the DNC. It was very amazing and funny how they did that.

Because consistently, theists have no ability to comprehend, think or be logical. They have no truth, and hate the truth. They want to run the government, so that it will both justify and allow for the rights of the wicked to do their wicked things.

Now look, a theist can be a human, but this is DESPITE being a theist, not because of it. This would mean that the theist is an inconsistent theist. ALL consistent theists are aliens, hate humans, and evil to the bone.

Respectfully,

Beyond Saving.

 Hello! This is Lucifer the Fallen, and I figured I'd start arguing the theist side since you all seem smug in your answer (and for the record, I'm an atheist. Don't waste your time mud slinging). Now I'm not obligated to argue the Christian perspective (that would be too easy, the bible has waaaaaaay too many holes), I'm instead going to attempt to debate the THEIST perspective (which means I can choose any theistic perspective I want).

So for now, I'll start with a pantheist argument:

Supposing the world is omnipotent, wouldn't the electrons present in the atmosphere give way to the possibility of a consciousness? Supposing that the universe had a consciousness, wouldn't that be considered a god as it is all encompassing of everything we know and therefore perfect?

M - theory argument:

CHRISTIANITY VS. NO-THING

Since Atheism and agnostic and freethinkers believe nothing, they are lacking knowledge in everything. To claim they know anything is inconsistent with their starting points of nothing.

So the question is not about theists vs. atheists. The question has to be Atheists vs. Christians, since a general theists worldview will not do. It has to be one that is within reason, and only Christianity fits this.

I've already made my arguments why elsewhere. So I will not repeat my deductive logic. However, Since I do not believe in Atheism,  then the atheist must provide their type of proof for their position.

etymologically speaking, an atheist is one that claims an epistemology in no God or gods. So then, they must, via an infinite epistemology, provide such evidence within their means of knowing, to claim this is so.

Of course they cannot do this. So then, by definition they cannot be atheist. So then, these past 50 years, they've come up with a solution to the problem. Let's redefine our terms so that way they fit into what we are trying to say.

And you came up with George Smith type atheists (soft atheists) that say, oh no, we believe in a lack of faith. This is fun.

However, they do this without defining faith. Nobody knows what they are talking about. (You on here who are educated in this can help define what they mean via documentation).

Hi,

I am a n00b to this forum but am looking forwards to some positive discussion.

Firstly I just wanted to say openly that I am a Christian (Which is a Very misused term > so more specifically I am a believer of the God who has revealed himself in the Bible). I am also a believer in science – I am a Mechanical and Electrical Engineer by trade.

I am here because I am seeking to understand what exactly atheists believe/don’t believe and how they have come to this conclusion.

It seems to me that it is generally accepted that the existence of God cannot be disproven - assuming that the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Invisible Pink Unicorn arguments hold true (Please correct me if this is not the case). Therefore I have 2 questions that I wish to ask, If these questions have been asked elsewhere please point me in the right direction, however I have been unable to find sufficient discussion on them so far. My questions are as follows:

1)                Could Science Prove that the God of the Bible Exists?

If science is unable to prove that the God of the Bible exists, then my second question is:

This question is aimed more towards Christians and others with a reward/punishment system for an afterlife. One thing that bothers me about it is the question of how a divine entity or law would punish those who are mentally deficient or have mental conditions that would have them classified as 'not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect' within the judicial system. If they are held to the same standards as a normal person, note that the 10 commandments alone aren't the whole guideline, then this God seems frankly cruel. These people would be considered by a human system to be worthy of lesser punishment or providing them with aid instead of torment. If they are judged differently then instead the question of culpability becomes a necessary one, what is required for one to be 'culpable' to the law of a divinity, and to what degrees? If the Messiah is the only way in whatsoever, and if so then what of those who die before their minds could even comprehend the gospel, or those who die before childbirth? For that matter what of someone with amnesia or Alzhiemers disease, they can't confess sins they don't remember, and in some cases their personalities change radically. In the latter case their mental faculties begin to slip faster and faster, I could point out the cruelty of such a disease but I'll leave it to the question of forgiveness, are the culpable for their actions in this state? Are they as culpable as they would be a fully functioning human being? And if so then how is your divinity worth worshipping?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kD_bqmaX-Q

We've got another Benny Hinn in training here.  Thoughts?  What do you say to individuals who believe that your religious views can do spontaneous healing of back / neck injuries and asthma and other various conditions?  Could there be some kind of massive placebo effect here where people genuinely think they are healed, and that genuine belief translates into a more powerful placebo effect for the watchers.

Salem was an very bold move for a revival.  When I think of Salem I think of witch trials.  I think these guys know full well what they are doing, peddling Jesus as a career path.  Is it so wrong if they generate good feelings?  So what if they prevent people from getting scientific treatment or these people tell their doctor they've been healed by faith and no longer need the doctor recommended treatments. 

These people seem genuinely happy.  Is it wrong to have science rain on their parade?  Thoughts?

(1) The universe had a beginning

(2) Life only comes from life - this is a scientific fact that is observable and testable.

(3) Life has never been proven to come from non-living matter. No one has ever observed the spontaneous generation of life drom non-living matter in nature, nor has any laboratory experiment replicated it. It is just as unscientific to say that life naturally arose from dead matter as to say men naturally rise from the dead.

(4) Since 1, 2 and 3 are true, life itself could have no baginning, and must have predated the physical universe which we do know from the current astronomical data/ big bang cosmology did have a beginning.

(5) Any being that lived outside the universe or lived before the universe existed, must be God, for no natural being could survivie without an invironment in which to live. This must be a self-sustaining, self-suffient being. Since there is no such thing in nature, it must be supernatural.

Now, I'd like to see who will prove any of the premises upon which this conclusion is drawn to be wrong.

I mean, I kept reading theist opinions on atheism being a religion and I have to step on my pride and say that some of their arguments did make sense. I like to call it the belief of not believing, but I don't know how much sense does this make, either. -_-

Am I just a little confused?