Religious folks, are told consistently to "be fruitful and multiply" Indeed, the muslim population seems to be exploding.

Thus my question, Atheists have always been around, perhaps the percentage has gone up a bit due to tech and more easily accessible scientific knowledge but I doubt it has gone up a lot. But again atheists wont have as many children I think. How long will it take for atheists to really have a say? How long will it be before we don't have to worry about sending troops to iraq with the blessing of "god". They are going to iraq and other countries to die and go to a better place right? Well as an atheist I know better of course, we send them to die and they are dead. Terrible. But I am getting off the subject.

I don't have kids, I am well aware of the self absorbed disease I have, along with many other people in the US. It is more obvious when people have kids of course, they plop them in front of the tv and go do their own thing. Or better yet, let their grandparents raise them. The world of entertainment we have makes it hard for me personally to care much about anything but going to work, getting off work and playing on the computer, watching a movie etc.

Will christians maintain their foothold, simply due to their dogma telling them to have many children to program into religion. I say maintain, because from what I read christians are actually on the decline. Muslims however are on the major upswing.

What qualifies as sufficient evidence to justify a belief in God? And who (or what) makes this determination?

Plato, quoting Socrates said: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods." - Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

Ezekiel 18:4 - Look! All the souls-to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son-to me they belong. The soul that is sinning-it itself will die.

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450 "There is no dichotomy of body and soul in the O T. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N T word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being."

Since I've been around RRS for a while now, I have noticed some patterns.

One of these is the activity of certain "theist" posters who are inviting "discussion" on various issues.

Common to all such endeavours seems to be an agenda of fragmenting, or distorting, philosophical concepts, scientific theories and "logic", in order to establish that particular type of shaky mental ground which requires "faith" in order to make sense. An example of such posters is the notorious Paisley, who is a complete fucknut without even a faint trace of a clue - but he's still brazenly going at it with considerably more ambition than talent.

I suspect that these posters are playing for an audience. What audience? I suspect a third party, perhaps something like young-ish doubters who are naivly asking their religious slave-masters questions about philosophy, science and logic. They will then be directed towards RRS, where they are told they will find proof that theist philosophers can not only hold their own, but even excel whenever confronted with godless atheists who are sporting big words.

This is probably one of the most brought up arguments of all by theists. The variants go "You can't prove or disprove god, so there is no definite answer" or "because there is no proof that god doesn't exist, he exists" etc etc etc.

No matter how many flaws you find in a bible, or qu'ran, or how many times you explain to them, logic, reason, physics, etc etc.

They will always hold faith because "you can't disprove god, therfor he may exist"

How do you argue back against this argument?

P.S.

I think I remember reading an earlier topic where someone had a counter argument to this, but I never could find the article again.

Just kidding...I just wanted to get your attention. Check out these cool photos:

how do these pictures make you feel? Do you feel happy? I know I do. Keep up the good work!

There must be a first cause, aka God.

Your turn.

 Can an atheist believe in the supernatural?

When discussing the abrasive theory of what is known as the "Big Bang" my intellectual mind contacts the interceptors of knowledge to inform the ones living and thinking around my being that over-simplifying origins of enormity is detrimental to the well-being of human kind.

This thinking brings me to an uncontrollable and politically incorrectness that seems to be changing the "rational" thinking of Americans and those tuning in to these conversations. If you would fail to agree with the fact the theory that is so generally and easily accepted as modern science is unacceptable, then it must be unequivocally true that those all in favor of yourself are undoubtedly ignorant and easily moved. Would you assume that the words that I have written are correct, or would you dare to agree with them?