I guess I've been getting to the sad reality that very few people, even rational thinking atheists, are finding it very hard to shake loose the concept of Religion(man's invention) and the concept of God(something no mortal being could even attempt to create a somewhat accurate representation of, if It even existed) as being anything but two completely seperate matters to be dealt with.

I must accept however, that weeks ago, this frustration towards everyone, was getting very out of control. I have cooled, and will not apologize. I believe my arguments were founded in complete rational thinking, as hot-headed, and as irrational as it may have seemed or sounded.

Two of the thorniest issues for monotheistic thinkers down the centuries have been those of the apparent inconsistencies between, on the one hand, an omniscient and omnipotent god vs. "free will" and, on the other hand, between an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god vs the existence of evil.

If god made everything, and knew exactly how everything would turn out, and had the power to change any detail both before and after the creation, then free will is completely illusory, and we are all nothing more than puppets in god's show, staged for himself.

If god is all powerful and all good, then there should be no evil or suffering in the world.

You seem to try to promote discussion in this forum by allowing others to post their beliefs, and others to come in and refute them.

Why then did you retort against my statement of Pascal's wager, then choose to lock the thread. I would have taken the time to respond to each of your arguments and posed my own in response.

Are you somehow afraid that your viewpoint may be challenged? I'm quite intrigued since you seem to send the message of being a group of rational beings.

Unfortunately, you "rational" people have been disproved about 345 years ago.

Ever hear of Pascal's wager?

Maybe you can "sticky" this too for the Atheist, seeing that you have anti-Theism and anti-Christian posts along the same lines...maybe even it out a little; if you acknowledge freedom of speech and promotion of thought anyway...

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I am not trying to argue. I am not even stating my own beliefs. I am simply giving you some things to think about.

Some Problems with Atheism:

The term G-D.

Atheism= greek: A=no Thesim=god; therefore Atheism is No-G-D, not just No-christian G-D, or No-Islam G-D, etc... it is clearly NO-G-D.

G-D=One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Let me define my terms first; Faith- A belief in something that can not be absolutey concluded. .

Of all of the reasons I have heard, I enjoy this one the most.

1. There is no G-D.

2. But some people believe in G-D.

3. Since there is no G-D, this must be the result of some kind of delusion or wishful thinking.

4. People believe in G-D because they want to. Their faith is just a wish-fulfilment.

5. So faith in G-D is just a human invention, corresponding to a human need.
(People differ over how this need arises: Marx puts it down to social alienation and Freud to psychological forces).

If it was just Adam and Eve and then thay only had 3 kids(all boys), how is it posiable that Cain was able to go find a wife if they where the only 5 people on the earth? (4 since Cain killed Abel)

This is an EXTREMELY important issue.

I have found "spiritual experiences" to be at the heart of many if not ALL of my debates with Christians who did not fit into the "my parents are Christian so I am too" category.

That is to say, many "born again" Christian types become Christians in the face of adversity -- due to spiritual experiences when they are depressed and vulnerable.

I know 2 preachers who have revealed specific experiences to me. I have listened to a number of these experiences through my participation on internet forums and even some of the RRS radio shows. I am fascinated by these experiences.

Please consider the following two narratives. One story is widely believed (with adherents numbering in the billions), while the other has—to my knowledge—no adherents. Analyze each narrative’s plausibility, and think about whether one is more probable than the other is.

Narrative One: Around the year 33 CE, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified for his perceived crimes against the powers of the day. Jesus, being the Son of God, rose bodily from the dead a few dozen hours later. All the crippling effects of death miraculously were reversed. According to the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus appeared to several individuals, in assorted places, during the course of the next 40 days, apparently fully recovered from brain death’s ravages. Eventually, Jesus ascended to Heaven.