Can you imagine Bob Spence falling in love?

I've decided that God does not exist.

Thanks to the RRS for converting me.

I was recently was presented an argument defending deism:

"? > existence > spacial movement > time > big bang > life. We can safely assume that a system that exists outside of our existance exists."

Can anybody comeback this?

Hi folks.  I'm going to copy in part of a response I got from AiN in another thread that I'd like to use as the springboard for a discussion:

This is an argument that comes up time and time again.  Evolution isn't proven scientifically, it's not science and is therefore a religion.  There's nothing that atheists have to prove that this world view is more accurate than philosophy X.  For the time being I'm going to be kind enough to ignore the suggestions that evolution is non-scientific.  I'm going to take this argument at face value.

AiN and other theists, do you accept that the following is an accurate description of your position? - Evolution does not follow scientific principles and as such cannot claim to proven or true, and should be regarded as a religion because it is based solely on philosophical principles.  If you do not accept this statement could you please provide a more accurate definition of your position?

Just wondering what all of you think about this scenario.  In a life or death situation, do you believe it is it possible that having faith in something beyond our puny ideas could save us if we were put into a situation that demanded trust in something behond ourselves?  Could this belief have anything to do with the end result which is survival? 

If you could blame any single thing for most of the problems in he world, who would it be?

Proof for anything is not required here. This is just stating your own opinion.

If it can be demonstrated scientifically how Christ was able to resurrect from the dead, then it would no longer be a miracle.  It would just be a scientific phenomenon which could have conceivably happened to anyone.

If it can't be demonstrated scientifically how Christ was able to resurrect from the dead, then atheists will not accept that it happened.

If we have legitimate accounts of the resurrection written by eye witnesses, atheists will say that historical documents are not sufficient evidence for miracles.  See the following:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXCARLJ7qMU

So what would be acceptable evidence? 

I hope we can continue to conversation here.  My thread would not open up, and I couldn't read the posts.  I hope this works.

I searched the site but could not find this subject, so I'm posting it here.

As the story goes, "god" is Omnipotent. Perfect. Flawless. Almighty. All knowing. etc. We all know where this usually leads the believer, "god" can do any thing.

So here is my observation:

If I wrote a document and saved it, the process of writing the document and saving it can not undone. People who believe in a creator would say that "god could undo any thing and god could make it so you have never written the document in the first place. God could format the hard drive or delete your document."

OK, fine, but it still happened at some time, some place.

But then the believer would say, "Then god would erase every mind so that know one would remember it". Well, that's really powerful stuff, but if "god" had to erase every mind, then "god" is covering up the fact that "god" can't undo what has happened. Even if "god" would erase its own mind, some time, some place, some dimension, what I wrote in a document can not be undone. It has happened and nothing can undo it."

I know this is a similar fallacy with "god" as the unmovable/too heavy/stone, but I thought I'd post it any way.

Thanks.

DISCLAIMER TO THE F.B.I WHO MIGHT BE READING THIS: 100% hypothetical, I love mankind, America, and the F.B.I. ;o

I can see only three possible outcomes for out future in regards to theism:

1. Religion slowly dies away.

2. We kill each other. Boom.

3. THROUGH killing each other, we unite and reshape humanity without religion.

I would hope number 1 is the most likely outcome, but I was wondering if people sped up the process for number 3, if that might save us from number 2. Now, you could say it might speed up number 2, but I think that depends on how you do it. Let's consider the details:

- NO ACTS OF TERRORISM would be in the name of ATHEISM. In fact, they would be masked as one of the major religions. The last thing Atheism needs is religious people uniting against it.

- Limiting human casualities would be a priority. Now of course, people would have to die to send forth a message, but (as bad as this sounds) keeping the number high enough for outrage, but low enough to avoid retribution would be the goal.