Chances of an Atheist believing in God

atheist-and-god

I just came across this funny image on Twitter from a friend of mine and I had to post the image here as well.

The caption that he included and image are as follows:

chances of an atheist believing in god ! http://tinyurl.com/7xc8hs

atheist-and-god

Then my altered version for my current state of peace (read pain) is as follows:

atheist-and-god-2

71 Responses to “Chances of an Atheist believing in God”


  • using Internet Explorer 6.0 Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)

    The reality here is sad but true. An atheist does not want to admit there is a God, yet when under pressure or pain there minds begin to tweak. The fact of the matter is there are too many lost souls in the devils world today and God is giving us more resources to reach out to them than ever before. It’s our duty as Christians to spread the word of God and if you will, educate them.

    • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows 7 x64 Edition Windows 7 x64 Edition
      Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; MDDC; .NET4.0C)

      Shawn, are you serious? Atheists don’t not want to admit there is a god, there just isn’t one! It’s all a giant money making/control scheme, propped up by the fact that old people are afraid to die. Keep you “education” (i.e. fantasies) to yourself!

      On a side note, I love this post. Brilliant illumination of the fact that people only abandon reason (atheism) when they are DESPERATE! lol

      • using Firefox 3.6.9 Firefox 3.6.9 on Windows XP Windows XP
        Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100824 Firefox/3.6.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

        Dude this response is retarded. There is tons of archeological, biochemical, and logical evidence for God. I understand agnosticism, but come on. Ill admit that some people twist Christianity, but the people don’t define the philosophy. As far as your whole argument goes Since belief in an all powerful loving God provides peace of mind to believers, atheists claim that religion is caused by a quest for psychological comfort. there are two problems with this challenge. First, it commits the genetic fallacy of faulting the belief based on its supposed origin. There is plenty of evidence for Gods existence . the fact that people seek religion to find comfort does not determine whether is religion is true. You have to engage the evidence for belief, not the benefits of belief. Second, even if we were to grant that people often use Christianity as a crutch, it does not follow that Christianity is not true. so what I believe Christiantiy cause it gives me hope. Only atheists are ignorant enough to theorize that that is the only reason we believe in God.

        • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
          Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; FDM)

          You say there is plenty of evidence of God’s existence but fail to show any. If there is so much – where is it?

        • using Google Chrome 9.0.597.107 Google Chrome 9.0.597.107 on Windows XP Windows XP
          Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/9.0.597.107 Safari/534.13

          For starters, there is absolutely no evidence of god.

          Second, Agnosticism does not mean what you think it means. You can be an agnostic atheist, or you can be an agnostic theist. But you cannot be just agnostic. You are always one or the other, there is no fence sitting when it comes to belief. You either believe it, or you don’t. If I asked you whether you believed in a god, and you didn’t say yes, you are an atheist.

          Atheist = You do not *believe* in any sort of supernatural god

          Theist = You do *believe* in some sort of supernatural god

          Agnostic, or gnostic are something completely different. It’s whether you *know* there is, or isn’t a god. Obviously every single one of us are agnostic regardless of how strong your beliefs are, as you can not *know* anything, since we are just human. But people can still believe that they do know something.

          You can believe in a god, yet still not know if there is a god or not, you just believe there is one. That would make you an agnostic theist.

          You should be able to figure out the rest from there. Just clearing that up.

    • using Google Chrome 12.0.742.122 Google Chrome 12.0.742.122 on Windows 7 x64 Edition Windows 7 x64 Edition
      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/12.0.742.122 Safari/534.30

      Sorry mate, but the only time an Atheist believes in god is NEVER. We are Atheist because we do not believe there is a god. Better yet, it is the knowledge of no god.
      You don’t believe in fairies, do you? God is nothing more; nothing less. A rumour. Desperation. Foolishness. I could keep going.
      But really, I urge you to see the contradictions religion holds before you become too much more the blind follower image you create for yourself. And before you say there are no contradictions, I think I’ll give you an example:
      From the Ten Commandments:
      Thou shalt not kill.
      And the contradictions:
      “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13).
      Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
      Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)
      All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)
      If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
      And one that you yourself are probably guilty of:
      The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15).
      Isn’t it funny? I thought the commandment said not to kill. Quite honestly, Twilight is written better than the bible, which truly is saying something.
      ~Kris.

  • using Safari 5.0.2 Safari 5.0.2 on Mac OS X 10.6.4 Mac OS X 10.6.4
    Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_4; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Safari/533.18.5

    Oh, please. I’ve had all those things and more, and I’m still the foxhole atheist I always was.

    Have you ever heard the expression “God Fearing,” as in “He’s a God fearing Christian?” If fear is the reason that people believe, can it be a good thing? Think about it. I can’t believe that adults actually subscribe to ANYTHING supernatural. Grow up.

    • using Firefox 3.6.12 Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows XP Windows XP
      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12

      Like i said before, no matter how much i argue with you, you wouldnt have faith. Everyday at my school, I answer an atheist’s question about my faith, or I shoot down a claim they make against it. every. single. day. have you visited my site? http://www.faithbloggers.webs.com. but they never share my faith. Im just one fourteen year old.
      Oh yeah, and you might want to take your own advice, and think about a it. In the bible, a ton of symbolism and expression is used. Thats why it must be STUDIED(for complete comprehension) and not just read. The term God fearing doesnt mean you actually need to fear God. To say someone is God fearing is to say they respect God. Get with it dude, your starting to sound stupid!!!!

    • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows Vista Windows Vista
      Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; yie8)

      If you dont subscribe to anything supernatural then how do you explain the start of life? The first law of motion – that objects in motion stay in motion. Second law – objects at rest stay at rest. 1 and 2 Unless acted upon by an outside force right…. Well how can a universe existing at zero degries kelvin (that is the absence of all energy) can suddenly energize and move? Answer it cant. (unless acted upon by an outside force)So in an expanding universe as we live in we have to understand that infinite expansion that the opposite is true and we came from infinite smallness. when we trace a set of lines from infinite big to infinite small we intersect at the absence of all energy thus Zero Kelvin. no life, no movement, no energy, atoms dont move, subatomic mass is still. When this mass started moving it was acted upon by an outside force. That is not natural it is super natural. so you say “Well I dont believe in the big bang”, you dont have to because when you ponder the beginning of the universe you have to understand that no matter what theory you subscribe to you have to get past Zero Kelvin and you cant do it with out an outside force. stack universe ontop of universe and it still comes to that fact. GOD is that outside force. He doesnt say to fear him (that is taken from a translation in to english not the original text)he says to respect him. God the created all the universe and still is enough of a gentleman to give you freedom to choose. Believe or dont its your choice.

      • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
        Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; OfficeLiveConnector.1.4; OfficeLivePatch.1.3)

        This argument comes back to the whole “ultimate cause” dilemma. I don’t know where it all begins, but I don’t believe that you, nor any other human being, knows either. “God did it” seems no more likely to me than “Elvis did it”.

        Even if “God did it” is to be seriously considered, “HOW did God do it?” is a question that must be seriously considered in order to even attempt to be scientific about it. Simply accepting that something happens without asking HOW or WHY it happens is not science.

        • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
          Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

          Glad that you brought “science” into this. I love science. Lets explore the “Scientific Method” for a miniute. First for something to be considered “Science” it must conform to the “scientific method”. For those not familiar with this here is the scientific method
          1.Define the question
          2.Gather information and resources (observe)
          3.Form hypothesis
          4.Perform experiment and collect data
          5.Analyze data
          6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
          7.Publish results
          8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
          Whats the Question? How was the universe formed. Now folow the rest of the method and guess where you get stuck. Thats right step 4 perform experiment. Why is that? Its because no man has ever been able to make the jump from absolute nothing with absolute zero energy to something with energy. If you want to prove me wrong then go get a bucket of nothing and make it something. you cant. Atheist and Agnostics are missing the “mechanism” for all their theories on creation/evolution, And without a mechanism experimentation is impossible. This forces you back to step 3 for revision of your hypothesis.
          Guess what Science is as much religion as it is anything. You must believe and have faith to come to any conclusion concerning either Creation or evolution. you confessed to your beliefs/faith in your reply. Confirming for yourself that it is belief/faith and therefore must be religion.
          Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe (wikipedia)
          But dont take my word for it lets go to the ones that founded the research and see what they say. How about the Originator of the Law of gravity and modern physics Sir Isaac Newton “This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
          Dont be scared, God wont be mad that you didnt believe at first.

          • using Firefox 3.6.13 Firefox 3.6.13 on Windows 7 Windows 7
            Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13 PBSTB/1.2

            Really?? From what I know, there is a distinct line between faith and belief. Faith is a belief not based on any proof. Scientists believe in the things they do based on evidence, not blind faith; hence, it would not be called science.

            In order to have something with a beginning and an end, something must have already been there. A human brain is indeed convoluted and capable of comprehending many things; however, it doesn’t mean that it can comprehend everything in existence. Just like you can’t teach physics to dogs because their brains aren’t as comprehensive as ours. This is why we can’t comprehend something that always was. Some can’t accept the fact that the Cosmos has always been there.

            Scientists believe in evidence, and so far, there has not been any evidence for the existence of God. In the past, there have been many things that science hasn’t been able to prove, which have been substituted by God: “God did it.” But as we progressed and became more knowledgeable, we began to find the evidence for the the things we were not able to prove before (which had nothing to do with the existence of a deity), thus eliminating God out of the equation. The more we learn about our universe, the less God plays any role in it. There is no doubt that if there was any credible evidence for God, most scientists would accept that fact. However, at this time, there is absolutely nothing to prove that God is real; therefore, I do not believe in such a thing.

            So far, there have been many theories for the beginning of the universe that make plausible sense without the existence of God. The Big Bang Theory happens to be the most cohesive and the one with most evidence. It hints that at the beginning, two massive particles collided to create a large explosion of energy. This caused a shower effect of subatomic particles that decayed into other particles which settled into atoms such as Hydrogen and Helium. These atoms interacted and bonded to create other elements, planets, stars, and various forms of cosmic gasses. This is what high-energy physicists and cosmologists are experimenting on now with particle accelerators such as Fermilab’s Tevatron and CERN’s LHC. Many discoveries have come out of these laboratories, and recently they were even able to recreate a mini-Big Bang, thus providing us a good testable, proven idea of the Universe.

            This is just coming from a scientific point-of-view. I haven’t even begun to mention the inconsistencies in the religious texts and the lack of historical documentation during the periods noted in the books acknowledging characters as important as someone like Jesus Christ.

            I consider myself an atheist, but if you insist that being a scientist makes me religious, then I am comfortable in saying that The Universe is a far greater thing to be religious about than some imaginary man in the sky.

          • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
            Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; OfficeLiveConnector.1.4; OfficeLivePatch.1.3)

            I am not an expert on the Big Bang theory, but from what little I do understand, I don’t think it says that the universe started with absolute zero energy.
            Belief in something does not equal religion or “faith”. The definition of faith includes believing something without evidence. WHY you do or don’t believe something is the big difference. I don’t have “faith” in the Big Bang theory. I don’t understand it well enough to say whether I do or don’t believe in it. I do think I have a pretty good grasp of evolution, though. My belief that evolution is correct is not based in “faith”. It is based in evidence and logic.
            However, just because I, or anyone else, for that matter, doesn’t know the answer to where everything came from does not mean that creation is correct by default.
            And no, Science is most definitely not religion. Science is about adjusting your worldview to fit the facts. Religion often tries to adjust the facts to fit the worldview. They are basically polar opposites.
            As for Sir Isaac Newton, he was a brilliant man, but he was also very religious. The statement you quoted is a reflection on his religious views. It was not a scientific conclusion.
            Scared? It is difficult to fear what you don’t believe exists.

  • using Firefox 3.6.12 Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows Vista Windows Vista
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    LOL. Of course, if you read the bible, it’ll say that god exists. You still didn’t show any information which means you’re lying. You’re also contradicting because you’re the one sounding stupid.

    • using Firefox 3.6.12 Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows XP Windows XP
      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12

      Im lying because i didnt show any info? Seriously? Wow, so what if i say “we are breathing air”. Just because i dont show info means im lying? Seriously man. Preacher Man has a point. once again, if you want specific info, and go head ot head about a particular topic concerning god, shoot me up at my site.

      • using Firefox 3.6.12 Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows Vista Windows Vista
        Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

        Perhaps lying wasn’t the right word to use, perhaps I should of used contradicting. Why should I go to your website, when you can give specific information here. Unfortunately Evolution is a theory, gravity, physics, etc. It’s the closest thing we have to “fact” (Your facts are most likely varied from mine). Why should I the magical man in the sky if he punishes us, knowing we will make mistakes. I advise you go to the friendly atheist website. Don’t worry there are Christians there as well, I like that website because nobody bashes each other.

  • using Firefox 3.5.15 Firefox 3.5.15 on Windows Vista Windows Vista
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.5.15 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    Who says im bashing you. Dude if anything I just find atheism unreasonable. Agnosticm I understand completely. And i can better explain things on my site if you will give me the chance. I wont try to bash, or be all “youre going to hell”. Im not catholic or fudamentalist. Plus My site is more like a tempeorary fix. People only use it for the time they need it, then they most likely forget all about it. Im the only person taht permanantly stays on it becuz i am the one who manages it.
    And you’d be suprised at how much your fact and mine are similar. I am about to post a blog later on probably late tonight on the simailraities between atheism and christianity. Or agnosticm anyways. and am i talking to the same person?

  • using Firefox 3.6.12 Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows Vista Windows Vista
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    I wasn’t implying that you were bashing me. It’s just whenever I have debates with Christians, I end up being harassed. I’m sorry but I will always be atheist. I find people who believe in religion to be unreasonable (Excluding Buddhists, Hindus, and all that actual peaceful teachings).Yes, you’re talking to the same person, I’ll bookmark your website.

  • using Firefox 3.6.12 Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows Vista Windows Vista
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    I’m not registering, I’d prefer the website I’m using to debate.

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    First let’s understand that there are scientists that believe in God / Creation. Let’s name a few. Tell me if you recognize any of these names:

    1.Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
    Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution – and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

    2.Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
    Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Of Atheism)

    3.Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
    Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity – well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

    4.Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
    Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo’s telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one “proof” based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope’s favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo’s) was very offended. After the “trial” and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

    5.Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
    Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted – suggesting the famous “I think therefore I am”. Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God – for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences – can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

    6.Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
    In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.”

    7.Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
    One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to “Boyle’s Law” for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, ‘for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels…’ As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty.” Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

    8.Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
    Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

    9.Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
    Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called “Mendelianism”. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and “rediscovered” him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860′s was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of “conflict” between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics – selective breeding among humans to “improve” the stock). He was writing how the “priestly mind” was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton’s contribution.

    10.William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says “Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.” Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth’s age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

    11.Max Planck (1858-1947)
    Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture “Religion and Naturwissenschaft,” Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that “the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols.” Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a “tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition” with the goal “toward God!”

    12.Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
    Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.” This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

    Oh well, now let’s see… We can trust the theory of relativity and rely on the laws of gravity, quote Boyles law and take every other thing that these men published as “SCIENCE” but when it comes to God we are supposed to believe that they suddenly turned into idiots and don’t know anything. Nice try but that dog wont hunt.

    P.S. Regarding the Big Bang theory – you still don’t have the explanation of how exactly two big particles existed from nothing and exactly how they were moving as that would be energy actually a tranference of energy according to the work-energy theorem). See, we are talking about the creation of everything here, not just our universe. No matter how small you make the sub-atomic particles they are still something. Now answer me this: how did nothing become something? Oh and let’s not forget that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (the 1st LAW of Thermodynamics). So now how exactly did these particles move? Ya can’t prove it. You still lack the mechanism. So the experiment is still wrong.

    The question is “How did ALL of this come to exist?” not “How do particles react when slammed together?” I could have saved them lots of $ and given them the answer. The harder you slam them, the more adverse the reaction. (Equal and opposite to be exact).

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    Oh yeah, about those “inconsistencies in the religious texts and the lack of historical documentation during the periods noted in the books acknowledging characters as important as someone like Jesus Christ”. Let’s see some of them, shall we? (I will be willing to say that you were just repeating something that you heard someone else say and will now have to Google it.) This is not the first time that this claim has been made and will not be the last. It’s been debated time and time again, by far greater people than we, and no one has disproven the text. It is the immutable word of God and cannot be disproven any more than you can prove any of the rhetoric that you have spouted. Science has more inconsistancies than we could ever name and you are still a disciple of it. Take the Grand Canyon, for instance.
    The Grand Canyon seems to be fixed in time, but it is hardly permanent, and lately, neither are geologists’ estimates for its age, sparking what one scientist calls “the Grand Canyon Wars.” (Live Science 18 Nov. 2008)

    I thought Science was exact. I mean, that’s what science is, isn’t it? Exact? They cant even agree on the age of the Grand Canyon. Some say six million, others say 17 million, still others say 50 million. Wow, that’s quite a range there, don’t you think? Some might even say inconsistant…. Yet you believe them. Wow….

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows Vista Windows Vista
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618)

    Still Waiting……

  • using Firefox 3.6.13 Firefox 3.6.13 on Windows 7 Windows 7
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

    Funny post bud.

    I’ve read through a lot of the comments and I relate it all back to a “mommy” or “daddy” feeling really.

    When people are in trouble, they don’t like the feeling of not having control.
    When younger.. mommy and daddy are basically omnipotent.
    It’s a great discovery when children find out their parents aren’t “God” (all children find this out- and I dont mean GOD as in the Christian God, I mean it as a blanket “all powerful being”)

    But that security which is no longer there in the scary world still needs to be held.

    I’ve found myself, like back in the army for instance, going “Come on God give me a hand”- and I did it without realizing it.
    I then would take pause and THINK, and tell my self, “no dummy.. YOU can get yourself through this.. focus.”

    I don’t equate it to our “souls knowing there’s a god” at all. A person NOT RAISED as a Christian would not have had that reflex that I did. It’s all about up bringing. A person raised to worship Odin will look to Odin in that time, a person raised to worship a big tree will call upon the tree. A person who is raised with NOTHING in that spot will not have that supernatural longing. It’s not your SOUL looking… it’s your childhood.
    A small part of us, when we revert to that defensive helpless stance- remembers that time when we were MOST vulnerable- as children.

  • using Firefox 3.6.12 Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    I strongly disagree, and agree with certain aspects of your statements there. Truth is, me and Preacher Man can argue with you, but its all pointless. If you’ve made your choice not to believe than a ok with me. you can take that up with God later. But I’ve recently had a revelation. arguing with atheists, defending my faith, all that is a waste of my time. the Bible says faith without works is dead. I am not gonna sit here idle trying to move a rock I have not the strength to move. Especially since it is not, and ever will be in my way. Preacher man, dude, we have got to be out living by the philosophy that was set before us. We need to be out there, helping and aiding people, and if a door ever opens for us to minister, then we do it, you knowz?

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E)

    I am a disabled 36 year old man who very much believes in the existence of God. Without him, I would NOT have lived past the 24 hours I was expected to live. I see the existence of God every singe day of my life. I look outside and HAVE to believe their is a God. I’m not saying that I’ve never faltered, but as soon as I’ve not believed, God has proven me wrong, and has never left my side.

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows 7 Windows 7
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; InfoPath.2; .NET4.0C)

    if there is god the evidences dont relate much to Him. I mean people dont even know whether God is male or female or both( like an earthworm). So you just cant be sure if He exists.

    • using Safari 5.0.4 Safari 5.0.4 on Mac OS X 10.6.7 Mac OS X 10.6.7
      Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_7; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.20.25 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.4 Safari/533.20.27

      God is not confined to a gender. He is a supernatural force, or a supreme conciousness that exists beyonds thee borders of our reality. He cannot have a gender. Dude. Get with it.

  • using Firefox 3.6.16 Firefox 3.6.16 on Windows 7 Windows 7
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 AskTbBT4/3.11.3.15590 Firefox/3.6.16

    This is the question I have with religion and those who want to preach about it with the ONLY proof that they can come up with, faith, prayer and the bible-

    Why would a GOD need a MAN to speak for him?

    I could understand if we’re talking Zeus, Odin, Ra or any other mythological being that has been conjured up from the time man learned to speak, draw images and write words (of which, I don’t believe in THOSE myths ether), because it was DEMANDED that they believe. It’s a FACT that there were people who were willing to allow someone to take a hot poker, stick it up their nose to remove part of their brain, then proceed to remove vital organs to be placed in jars and then to be rapped and placed in a Pyramid. People SEEN it happen and KNEW it happening, and yet,was willing to go through with it….why? Because of the PROMISE of an afterlife. People made sacrifices (human and animal) to the sun, moon and stars in the hope of everlasting life. So why did those Gods fail? Maybe because the people began to see the sacrifice being made, but no God or Gods to show their appreciation for it.

    I can understand WHY people believe in these things, because of the fear that their lives would end and then…nothing. So they want to believe there’s a place where they will exist forever. That wouldn’t be bad, if it wasn’t the dozen versions of heaven, and even worst, the belief of a place where you will go if you DON’T believe….hell. Fear and intimidation are the tools used to badger people into believing, because who in their right mind would want to go to a place where they will BURN forever, demons rip at their flesh, locked in a hell that will never end? NO ONE would choose that existence….if it were real.

    All I can do is speak for myself. I CANNOT follow a belief that says I must take the word of the FOLLOWER of ANY religion, whose only proof is a book (that IS written by man), faith and prayer…or the small voice in the back of their mind. It was a small voice that said “KILL THE WITCH”, “KILL THE HERETIC THAT BELIEVES THE WORLD IS NOT FLAT”, “KILL THE JEWS”. FLY PLANES INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER.” These were people that BELIEVED that God told them to do these things, and guess what, IT HAPPENED. How many died in the name of a righteous cause? It isn’t a matter of ‘I think’ but ‘I KNOW’ there are no Gods.

    If you preach to me, I will not listen. If you pray for me, I WILL welcome it. But if nothing happens, would you begin to see that MAYBE there is NO GOD of any kind? Proof to me comes from a God itself, in a way that I KNOW it’s not me hearing voices, that I drank too much or that I’m having a brain embolism. Until then, your words are empty, and so is your mind.

    There are no Gods, no devils, no monsters under the bed or in the closet. No Santa, no Jesus, no Horus or Osiris (from where the Jesus myth originated some 1280 years before him). Just a bunch of stupid humans passing the responsibility of making this world better for ourselves onto our children, and so on and so forth.

    • using Firefox 3.6.16 Firefox 3.6.16 on Windows XP Windows XP
      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

      Your basis is solid, but your just not catching the point. And your wrong about hte whole Jesus springing form osiris thing . . .Believe me, I would not invest my life into something if I didnt have proof of it my self. I’m obviously not the one to convince you. I’ll pray for you man.

    • using Firefox 3.6.16 Firefox 3.6.16 on Windows XP Windows XP
      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

      and its more like a big voice in your head . .lol :). Ill point you in the direction of pascals wager, and let it be. look up pascals wager man. Look it up.

  • using Firefox 3.6.16 Firefox 3.6.16 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    Your basis is solid, but your just not catching the point. And your wrong about hte whole Jesus springing form osiris thing . . .Believe me, I would not invest my life into something if I didnt have proof of it my self. I’m obviously not the one to convince you. I’ll pray for you man.

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    Pascal’s Wager you say, sounds fun, lets break down how it fails shall we?

    FLAW 1: The “believe” option in Pascal’s wager can be interpreted in two ways.

    One is that the wagerer genuinely has to believe, deep down, that God exists; in other words, it is not enough to mouth a creed, or merely act as if God exists. According to this interpretation, God, if He exists, can peer into a person’s soul and discern the person’s actual convictions. If so, the kind of “belief” that Pascal’s wager advises — a purely pragmatic strategy, chosen because the expected benefits exceed the expected costs — would not be enough. Indeed, it’s not even clear that this option is coherent: if one chooses to believe something because of the consequences of holding that belief, rather than being intuitively convinced of it, is it really a belief, or just an empty vow?

    The other interpretation is that it is enough to act in the way that traditional believers act: say prayers, go to services, recite the appropriate creed, and go through the other motions of religion.

    The problem is that Pascal’s wager offers no guidance as to which prayers, which services, which creed, to live by. Say I chose to believe in the Zoroastrian cosmic war between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu to avoid the wrath of the former, while the real fact of the matter is that God gave the Torah to the Jews, and I am thereby inviting the wrath of Yahweh (or vice-versa). Given all the things I could “believe” in, I am in constant danger of incurring the negative consequences of disbelief even though I choose the “belief” option. The fact that Blaise Pascal stated his wager as two stark choices, putting the outcomes in blatantly Christian terms — eternal salvation and eternal damnation — reveals more about his own upbringing than they do about the logic of belief. The wager simply codifies his particular “live options,” to use William James’s term, for the only choices that seem possible to a given believer.

    FLAW 2: Pascal’s wager assumes a petty, egotistical, and vindictive God who punishes anyone who does not believe in him. But the great monotheistic religions all declare that “mercy” is one of God’s essential traits. A merciful God would surely have some understanding of why a person may not believe in him (if the evidence for God were obvious, the fancy reasoning of Pascal’s wager would not be necessary), and so would extend compassion to a nonbeliever. (Bertrand Russell, when asked what he would have to say to God if, despite his philosophical atheism, he were to die and face his Creator, responded, “Oh, Lord, why did you not provide more evidence?’) The nonbeliever therefore should have nothing to worry about — falsifying the negative payoff in the lower-left-hand cell of the matrix.

    FLAW 3: The calculations of expected value in Pascal’s wager omit a crucial part of the mathematics: the probabilities of each of the two columns, which have to be multiplied with the payoff in each cell to determine the expected value of each cell. If the probability of God’s existence (ascertained by other means) is infinitesimal, then even if the cost of not believing in him is high, the overall expectation may not make it worthwhile to choose the “believe” row (after all, we take many other risks in life with severe possible costs but low probabilities, such as boarding an airplane). One can see how this invalidates Pascal’s Wager by considering similar wagers. Say I told you that a fire-breathing dragon has moved into the next apartment and that unless you set out a bowl of marshmallows for him every night he will force his way into your apartment and roast you to a crisp. According to Pascal’s wager, you should leave out the marshmallows. Of course you don’t, even though you are taking a terrible risk in choosing not to believe in the dragon, because you don’t assign a high enough probability to the dragon’s existence to justify even the small inconvenience.

    • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

      You unforutanately(like many atheists) misconcieve the notion. Id explain, but trying to teach close minded atheists is tiring me. Just visit my site

      • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
        Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

        Also, please try to keep an open mind, and another thing: Christianity is not about the rituals, and going to church and singing kumbaya. Its about loving people. And yes, I recognize that many Christians are hipocrites because all they do is judge others and go to church, but you cant judge the container(religion) to the dirty water it holds(christians). I for one, TRY to be a Christian of change, I want to spend more time loving people. Thats why I hardly go to church.

    • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

      And I would assign a high probabability to the dragons existence. you obviously dont know me sir!!! Im a little insane, on my mothers side, but then again, arent we all!!!

  • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows 7 x64 Edition Windows 7 x64 Edition
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

    Wow, I just read through all of these comments and realized that theists aren’t very logical. Good luck guys, you’ll need it when you realize you’ve been looking at a piece of glass thinking it’s a diamond.

    • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

      of course theists are not logical, hardly any human is. We all think with our emotions, whether you like it or not. Think about it, if you are so logical, than you should infer that from my responses, Ill always have a rebuttle ready for any of your sad and glorified misconceptions(Sorry if it offends, but thats the way i calmly see it).Therefore, any extra time you spent trying to convince me is time of your life that your wasting. so then, why waste it? Its in vain. Your not using logic because you would have given up by now. Though Im fifteen, Ive studied various religions, and have learned a lot about psychology and sociology. I settled on Christianity, but (whatever Im just blabbering now) Hey, if any of you guys want to talk about this (Ive been greatly in need of someone to intellectually challenge me) please visit my site at http://www.faithbloggers.webs.com. Im the only ac6tive one there, and all are welcome . . .

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    You assume I’m an atheist because I show your point being worthless… Who’s not open mind now?

  • using Google Chrome 12.0.742.91 Google Chrome 12.0.742.91 on Windows Vista Windows Vista
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/12.0.742.91 Safari/534.30

    All of this shown in your statement saying “I SETTLED for chrisitanity” Sorry you ‘had’ to do that. Read more in your next 15 years on this old Earth.

    • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

      Hmm, is that what your reading? cause thats not what Im meaning. Whatever, do as you wish, I will continue to pray for you

      • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
        Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

        No that is what you posted above Sir.

      • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
        Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

        Tyedric Hill
        June 7, 2011 at 3:56 pm
        using Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP
        Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1
        … “I settled on Christianity, but (whatever Im just blabbering now)” …

        • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
          Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

          Yes that is what I read that you typed.

        • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
          Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

          Well though i said i settled, i kinda meant that in the end christianity was the most logical to me . Granted you are probably going to attack this post with some psycological, hypercomplicated ramble, im enjoying this

          • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
            Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

            Sorry you find true logical hypercomplicated.

            If xianity logical, your bar on logic is very low.

          • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
            Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

            Sorry for my psycological, hypercomplicated rambling, my masters degree of religious history (minor in psychology) sometimes gets in the way of me talking to dilutional Paulist.

            You mix some science to filling the gaps (or cover up the really crazy parts) of your sky daddy fairy tails and call it fact.

  • using Google Chrome 12.0.742.91 Google Chrome 12.0.742.91 on Windows Vista Windows Vista
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/12.0.742.91 Safari/534.30

    That said, your site sucks. 8 members (one being me) all are 14 to 15 and you are not the most active on your site I am, all in one day, as there has been no posts in months. Your welcome, that said please don’t reply to my posts on your site, as I will not respond on there or ever look at your dead site again because it is dead.

  • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

    Yup, my site is as dead as can be! Sorry about the posts, I guess Ill add some later. But you wont get to read them cuz you wont visit. And then you wont get to ” render my points worthless” lol. Sad Day! for you.

  • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

    Hehe, i just saw Jack Sparrow by the Lonely Island. HILARIOUS!!!!

    • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
      Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

      Is this that “how many degrees game”? Ok let me try…
      Jack Sparrow to Johnny Depp to Mad Hatter to a high school play that you played 2nd fiddle.

      Do I win?

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    Why Tyedric Hill is not a Christian

    Your bible includes the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh. You call it the Old Testament. It was composed between the 12th and 2nd century BCE. Jesus and his disciples based their teachings on the tanakh, referring to its tenets as “the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms” Luke 24:44-45.
    In it are more than six hundred laws that establish how to conduct your secular and religious life, which in ancient times were undistinguishable from each other. These laws are very strict, requiring stoning of unruly kids, stoning of gays, killing of adulteresses, eating kosher foods, circumcision, etc. (I will not list all of them as I am sure you have read your bible… scarcaism was very heavy in that statment). As a devout Jew and rabbi, Jesus would have followed these laws.
    How do I say that? Judaism, by definition, requires obedience to “the law of Moses, and the prophets” To abandon them would be to abandon the very foundation of the Jewish religion. Your Jesus would not have done that. Why? Because he is alleged to have said:
    “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplishee. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 5:18-19
    He makes similar statments in Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:17

    Now I know you will try to ignore and disobey the Old Testament laws and give me the song and dance: …that is the OLD Testament. There is a new covenant with God. Jesus did away with the old laws”. Sorry no, shown above in your Jesus’s words. But you will counter with Romans 10:4 “For christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.”
    But Romans was written by Paul. It was not dictated by Jesus, not hinted at by Jesus, not referenced in any pre-Paulian scripture. It is Paul’s abandonment of Jewish law to make the Christian cult more palatable to the gentile (i.e. pagan Roman) recruits. It is in direct contradiction to Jesus’ multiple admonishments. It is not by coincidence Paul included it in his letter to THE ROMANS. I mean, requiring circumcision to join the cult would have certainly put a damper in the recruitment plan.

    So why don’t you follow Jesus’ words, keep kosher, kill witches on sight, and get circumcised? Because you find it easier, more convenient, to follow Paul than you do your professed Lord and Savior. You are not Christian at all; you are Paulists. You follow a false prophet, and you, along with Paul “… shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven”
    One can imagine that when you croak, and Jesus smells that bacon on your breath, and gets a glimpse of your foreskin, you are truly screwed. To bad you won’t get to see it.

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    And that folks is how you shut a xtian up.

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows 7 x64 Edition Windows 7 x64 Edition
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/4.0; GTB6.6; FunWebProducts; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; MDDC; .NET4.0C)

    Kyle needs to learn how to spell “atheist.”

  • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

    Aw, NOW whos being close minded? You think that since Im a christian im creationist?(We could both point out the flaws in that) im a theistic evolutionist. Google it.

    “Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.

    Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists.[1][2]”

    Please dont be hypocritical and try to immediately find flaws in my argument, but try to consider it, like I have yours.

  • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

    If I may, I recommend Francis S. Collins The language of God. It explains my position better, and it proves and interesting read.

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    Again denial reflex to “I can’t say I don’t know or that there is no proof for Jesus”. And by the way nice copy and paste.

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    Sorry there is no ‘Proofs’ in that book at all.

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    Lol so typical that a theist can not even say, in their own words, what they are. Just recite (or in this case copy and paste) what they have been told they are. You make it too easy Sir. Thank you.

  • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

    and just as you used a favorite quote to help express what you couldnt put into words, i used wikipedia to help explain my position better lol.

  • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

    Ok, NOW your confusing me, what am i denying? Last time I checked, I just said I wasnt creationist, because Im not. Also, youre assuming things. When I said your being close minded, i was saying that you werent considering my point of view.

    But since wiki isnt good enough Ill explain

    I said this(you were being close minded), because every atheist Ive talked to( yes Im assuming youre either atheist or agnostic because your arguing against the existence of God) at first wouldnt even consider my opinion, instead they tried to immediately find flaws in my position.( I was merely asking you to consider the possibility that I was right, not saying you were stupid if you didnt, because using the word possibility, I realize I could be wrong) I realized that this was because I would do the same to them. So I set out to consider the opinion, but it was in that consideration I began to find correlations between science and the bible, and realized that the two had no confliction, and that they were perfectly compatible with eachother. So i set out to find a name for myself and my beliefs, and discovered the term christian darwinist, or theistic evolutionist.

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    My fav quote about this book, that speaks to the way I felt after reading it, is:
    “He fails the way a surgeon would fail if he attempted to operate using only his toes.”

  • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

    forgive me, I meant “and it proves AN interesting read”

  • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

    Sorry, you left me at the church of wiki? What is that might I ask?

  • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

    You didnt read it, you googled atheist responses to it. And if you read it, there arent “proofs” there is evidence.

  • using Firefox 4.0.1 Firefox 4.0.1 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

    i know you didnt read it, because it is around 300 to 500 pages long.

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    I read every page Sir.

  • using Internet Explorer 8.0 Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP Windows XP
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)

    304 to be presice not even close to 500. I have read a book a week for 8 years Sir. Included on that list is all of The Great Books of the Western World by Britannica, many 1000′s of pages, Collins 300 page dribble was not that big of a deal.

Leave a Reply