The book, called the Bible, is filled with passages equally horrible, unjust and atrocious. This is the book to be read in schools in order to make our children loving, kind and gentle! This is the book they wish to be recognized in our Constitution as the source of all authority and justice! -- Robert Green Ingersoll, The Gods, (1872)

1. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -- 3:16

    

Just so Christians dont think we solely pick on them, let me make this clear. If ANYONE wants to understand why we view all polytheism and monotheism as myth a simple experiment can be done by the believer.

First, if it would make no sense that a human is capable of having 6 arms, why would it make sense to believe in a deity that does?

The believer merely has "faith" that the things that dont make sense dont have to make sense.

OK, so here is what you should do to ask yourself why you believe what you believe.

Take a copy of Harry Potter and a yellow highlighter. Every time you hit a sequence of words discribing the impossible, ask yourself why you rightfully reject it.

I was just wondering what arguments there are for being against the idea of a soul that contains your consciousness when you die. I have a rough idea of why one probably couldn’t exist as your consciousness is a manifestation of your brain process and without the brain there would be no consciousness and also we are able to effect the mind with drugs and such things.

So yea would be great if someone could explain other reasons for being against souls and maybe post links to other articles or even explain if what I have said it wrong.

Brian and Kelly have claimed that theism is irrational. I’ve asked them to clarify what they mean by this claim. Now, they don’t have to explain the very nature of rationality itself; that would be an unfair demand. My request is modest. Just provide the rough definition of rationality that you’re working with when you claim that theism is irrational. You can do this by filling in the blank of the following schema:

A person’s belief in some proposition is rational if and only if, roughly, _________________________________________________________________.

This is a question to the theists out there.

What is the significance of accepting the word of god?

Apparently you think it would make me a better person.

And to me a better person must be someone with better moral values.

I'm not talking about making me better at doing some practical task or improving my social skills, I'm talking about what makes us good.

And in this context a better person is someone with better moral values, I'm sure you agree.

So if accepting the word of god makes you a better person it has to improve your moral values.

But as an atheist i don't accept the word of god, or at least not all of it.

There is a lot of talk around here about rationality, being rational or irrational in relation to certain positions, etc.  In other words, rationality seems to be the standard by which what people say is judged.  However, how does this focus on rationality as the (seemingly) sole condition of the viability of one's position square with the developments of a good portion of 20th and 21st century thought?  I am thinking here of criticism leveled against rationality in disciplines such as psychoanalysis, literary theory, critical theory, continental philosophy, and so on.  I do not want t

Well, this is just a little rant regarding the amount of money spent to build a temple of lies.  The creation museum costs about an average of 27 million dollars to build.  What irks me about this is the simple fact that religious leaders and churches have waaaay too much disposable income.  First off, churches are tax exempt so any money made, well...is money made.  Now, this leads me to the issue of altruism and church's morality.  It seems a bit peculiar that religious leaders would rather spend money on a "museum" rather than, say, feed the homeless.  What this does is put in question the very morality of the church and its religious leaders, in this case the evangelical fundamentalists.  It seems as if the goal of evangelicals is not, in fact, help other people, but persuade other people to join them.  Well...seems cultish? Well it is...a cult with a bit more disposable income. 

Jon James (Youtube)

You say that God can't create a rule that He can't break. All this means is that God can't go against His nature. God is the definition of holy, He defines right and wrong, so anything He does will be in agreement with His own nature. Besides, the rules He gives us are a description of His nature. If we obey God's Law, we will be emulating Him. So no, God can't give a rule He can't break, bc the rules themselves are a description of His nature, and God can't go against His nature. This is logically impossible, and God is a logical being.

Creating something while not existing may be more impressive, but since it's logically impossible, it's irrelevant. God isn't in a contest to prove how amazing He is, He is amazing bc of the attributes He has, such as holiness.

You say that the Big Bang did happen, however, you weren't there, neither was I. No one was. Whether this explanation is accepted by no one or everyone has no bearing on its truthfulness. When you deal with events in the past, you must always make assumptions about what happened, and these are unprovable assumptions. I have an assumption, too, being that God exists and the Bible is His Word, however, proving our assumptions is impossible. They're axioms, something you assume to be true. Without them, we couldn't get anything done in science. Also, the expansion of the universe is not proof of the Big Bang, it may be consistent with it, but it is not proof. Science can't prove anything, the only way to prove something is to observe it, and then it becomes an observation. Proofs only exist in math.

You say you support the membrane theory. I haven't read about this, but I wonder where did the membranes come from?

You seem to have a bias against the Bible's account of Christ's resurrection bc it's described in the Bible. Why? Sir William Ramsay called Luke a historian of the first rank, after setting out to disprove him. The Bible has been shown to be accurate in such matters as archaeology, so why doubt it when it speaks of the resurrection? I'd like to talk more specifically on the resurrection if you're willing, but there's too much to say here.

You say that we're born atheists and taught religion. I ask something C.S. Lewis pondered before converting, which is “if the world is so bad, how did we come to attribute it to a loving Creator?” You didn't mention the argument of evil and pain in the video, however, the question is a valid one. How do you think we came up with the idea of a loving God, when all of these other beliefs, like those of the Mayans or Aztecs, typically portrayed angry gods who had to be pacified by sacrifice? If we did invent God, how did we invent a loving God, when the world is so obviously hard?

You say theists ignore the evidence, what evidence specifically does this refer to?

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8365780578032579777&hl=en-GB" flashvars=""> </embed>