sorry for being out for so long , i was working on my hardwood floor and it too longer than i expected, however i came to deliver the good news , jesus chrst has risen and that whoever believes in him wont die but have eternal life (john 3:16) hope that helps.. pat

I have always wondered why when talking about Darwin, many religious folks believe he was an atheist. From everything I have read and learned about him, even at the exhibition at the ROM, he was at best an agnostic, although a christian for most of his early life until his voyage on the Beagle, but he never stopped believing in a god, although it wasn't the god of the bible for the most part. I mean I get the fact that he is considered the father of evolution, well the one who it is given credit to, but at no point was he said to be an atheist. So what's the confusion? When talking about evolution and if one believes in the facts of it or not, it does not automatically mean someone is an atheist, nor that Darwin was an atheist, just that they believe in the scientific theory of evolution.

There is no need for complexity in the universe if a God created it, surely his infinate power can very easily overcome the reason as to why complexity would be required for life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MBT0sz_12c

This video (though rather unprofessional) explains exactly what I mean

Again this is another "omnipotence paradox" but we can never have too many

Check this out.  I'm going to deductively prove that atheism has nothing to do with Stalin, Communism, Marxism, or any other -ism.

Basic Syllogistic Logic:

Atheism: The belief that God does not exist.

P: God is a being that does not exist.

C: Therefore:  ???????

******

See?  You need another premise before any conclusion can be drawn.  There are no other premises in the definition of atheism.  So....

P: Atheism has only one inherent premise.

P: One inherent premise is insufficient to reach a conclusion in a syllogism.

C: Therefore, Atheism is insufficient to reach a conclusion in a syllogism.

QED

to a debate.

Lets consider , god is claming according to theists to not worship hire gods.
Actually most theists insist that god knows there are no more powerful gods then their god and that there are no other gods.
The question is “is god a atheist ”?
If god is not worshiping other gods is this making him godless ?
 

See, here's my problem with Paul having this 'physical encounter with Jesus': Paul doesn't describe it the same way twice. Ever. In one telling, he sees Christ. In another, he sees a bright light. In a third, he sees nothing, but hears a voice. Once, his companions are witness to everything. Then they're not. At first, he's told to go seek another, who will tell him what he must do. Then later, everything is his own idea.

Moderate Christians: No doubt you shake your hands and claim to disagree from disgusting maniacs like Phelps here.

I want to ask though - do you? I mean, Carlin was an atheistic comedian who made fun of your religion. So you think Phelps is correct in his assertion that Carlin is in hell right now, correct?

(1) Is there an objective "right" and "wrong," "good" and "evil"? In the moral sense, of course.

If yes, what is the standard? i.e., what is the "precept" that distinguishes one from the other?

(2) If no, can an individual still act against another who he views as "subjectively wrong"?

If yes, what is the standard? i.e., upon what grounds?

If no, okay.

Just wondering.

since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?  it makes no logical sense.  prescribing to a certain set of viewpoints, weather supported by scientific evidence or not, is a belief system.  pure and simple.   "i believe that the sun is a star" "i believe god exists" i believe god does not exist" "i believe nobody knows weather god exists or not" how are ALL of these things not BELIEFS?