Actually, I think those religious guys have got their heads screwed on. They take money and spend it on misguided humanitarianism, while all the time advertising themselves!! They got that money from poor suckers, and passed by the grasping fist of the tax authorities, only to spend it on self-aggrandisement and self-promotion.

Am I alone in thinking that if they receive tax-free status, their charity work should be thoroughly selfless and not some cynical recruiting drive?

Theists, atheists, everybody : give your spare cash to oxfam and other nonreligious charities. They spend it all on helping people.

Browsing the boards I see similar arguments popping up again and again. While I'm all for debate, I'm not for butchering the laws of physics.

First Law of Thermodynamics: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Brian and Kelly refered to this as the third law during the debate. Anyway, it was used to imply that the universe could be infinite. That matter/energy always existed and only took on several forms.This is still up for debate, as their are several theories (multiverse for example) that could indicate that matter can be created ex nilho (see vaccum flucutations)(These theories may have their own problems)

I would just like to offer my heart-felt thanks to the RRS for reaffirming my faith in the living God. The more I read on this site, the more I am convinced that atheists are not fighting against thesim, but rather, they are fighting their conscience in hopes that their refusal to accept God will surpress the responsibility that one bares when they accept God and his expectations of our lives here on earth. Why would we try so hard to deny something that does not exist? Do humans fight over the existance of Santa? Do we fight to prove that the easter bunny exixts? Why then must we fight what we hold to be true in our minds and our hearts? The Definition of Atheism should be "the refusal to execpt God", rather than "a disbelief in God".

I want to address a very common question on these forums. After Pascal’s wager, questions about the Blasphemy Challenge, and threats of eternal punishment in hell, usually comes the question “Why do you focus so much on Christianity? I don’t see you going after Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.”

I can see why Christians think we’re only against Christianity. We do address many religions, but at a superficial glance it does look like Christianity gets the majority of the attention. Also, the Blasphemy Challenge is specifically anti-Christian.

But there is one thing our Christian friends overlook. Most of the regulars on the board hold to naturalism. Personally, I became an atheist after becoming a naturalist. Naturalism responds to any and all religions. For further reading, try these essays from todangst: ”God” is an incoherent term and ’Supernatural’ (and ‘immaterial’) are broken concepts.

One of the considerations of an atheist is that he/she seems to base their belief on the science. And one of the basis of science is that, it is 'revisable' (changeable). This makes their “facts/truths” 'relativistic' too. So even the seemingly scientific, provable and "settled facts" of the Law of conservation of energy or Law of conservation of mass for example, are based on a relativistic concept. In other words what is considered true today may be changed or revised tomorrow. So these so called "proven and settled facts" may change at a future date based on new facts that may be discovered. This BREAKS the rational-responders' final argument that GOD needs a creator, as they were using current science as their basis and the conservation laws as examples. So Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron's statement that GOD doesn't need a creator as He exists OUTSIDE the TIME as He himself CREATED the TIME, still stands.

FACT: There is NO Physical/Tangible "Evidence" that God exists.

Question: "How can you Disprove something that does not exist?"

Is not the argument of Atheist vs. Theist a moot point, since neither side  can produce evidence because the fact in question states that there is no argument? 

 Hi guys, this is my first post here, please be kind...My names charles, im kind-of a non-practicing-catholic-agnostic? well here goes:

My Argument is this: The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created not destroyed, therefore logically theres a beginning, and an end to the universe (in the sense that nothing can no-longer be created, and can never be destroyed, only transformed or changed), therefore theres a predetermined mass of the universe.

Let's assume for a minute that RRS succeeds in their stated purpose and expunges the world of theism. What would this world be like?  I don't want answers like "it would be great". I'm looking for how it might change  things like politics, law, and social institutions.

Christians and atheists start a calmer dialogue

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070510/ts_csm/cbelief_1 

By Jane Lampman, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Thu May 10, 4:00 AM ET

Salem, Mass. - Wednesday night on ABC-TV, two televangelists took on nonbelievers from the Rational Response Squad in a bid to prove the existence of God (see "Nightline Face Off" on ABCNews.com).