Atheism....????

Psalms 104:5 : "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" Misplaced modifier. You are working on the assumption that 'it' is referring to the earth when in actuality it is referring to the earth's foundations. Foundations here being an abstract concept as it has been used throughout the Bible (the lord is my rock, and my FOUNDATION, of whom shall I be afraid? ...obviously God isn't a physical rock nor is he something that I step on literally). 1 Chronicles 16:30 : "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." Where does it state that the sun evolves around the earth? or that the actual physical rotating of the earth is non-existant? The term 'it cannot be moved' first off does not imply that the earth just sits in one spot, but second in this context is talking about the religions: that the lord and his ways will not crumble or be destroyed as other idols in their times had been. Ecclesiastes 1:4-5 : "Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." lol...The earth remains forever: pretty self explanatory, but my favorite is the "sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises". Someone help me out here...doesn't the sun always rise in the east and set in the west? Does this change?...hmmm... is the rising and setting of the sun determinative of either the earth's rotation or lack of? 1. Not one of these verses state that the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth does not revolve around the sun or even that it doesn't revolve at all. 2. The verses are taken out of context and it is SO easy to make a point out of context (even though the point isn't supported by the texts, these are 4 lines out of how many lines in the Bible, and these texts are taken more literally than they were intended!). Ya know the Bible says there is no God? ...it does... it says 'the fool sayeth in his heart there is no God'. 3. Let's go back to 1 Chronicles 16. Now read 16:33 : "Then the trees of the forest will sing..." ...so why not bring that one into argument and tell us all how trees can't actually sing and as such is direct refutation of the Bible's validity and truth. Because you know just as well as we do that the Bible is not 100% literal; it uses euphemisms, abstract thoughts, and metaphors. Do again what I said: EXAMINE the BIBLE more closely-- not just specific versus as versus do not constitue a whole any more than my ears make up my whole body. It is easy to be swayed by popular opinion and the classics that we have been taught to refute the old christians with, but approach the Bible with no more intentions in mind than to get down to the truth and essence of what is being said and then tell me about the sun revolving around the earth. lol. Not one of those versus stated it. But what you did was read INTO the versus rather than reading them.

my favorite concept of this 'rebuttal' is that you have to accept at the minimal the writings of the Bible before you can start to refute it. Not just pick and choose. So if you concede that this is what the Bible SAYS and then go on to say 'but it can't be true because of this that and whatnot', you are not conceding where the Bible says that "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that man is without excuse" (Romans 1:20)

I once heard someone say that we, our little bodies made of dust, stand in anger shaking our little dust fists at God because He has not answered us in the way we wanted Him to. I often think of how silly that looks and so I'm happy to have been chosen by that God to understand Him and that He does have a good plan for me, I just had to get on board. Father does know best.

As long as there will be free will there will be people whom are opposing others. It may be because they wish to be different or it may be because they believe the opposite of what whats said. Its part of life. There is nothing that everyone agrees with. And just for the record I believe in science. I do not believe in a all mighty being. However if it was to be proven by science I would have no choice but to believe.

Its funny how everyone either refers to "god" as he or she. If god existed it wouldn't be either.

I agree wholeheartedly with you. Although I also believe in the existence of a "Supernatural Power", I think that the argument being presented against the Atheists is a frail one. I think "believing" in a "Supernatural Power" should be the debating point, rather than "existence" of a "Supernatural Power"

The difference between historical documents that speak of dragons is that none of them state that the dragons can be seen in modern day, that dragons will evolve into another form, or that some other sort of things related to dragons will occur 2000 years from when it was written. The Bible, some forget, was not written in one sitting (BY FAR), not by the same guy, and not discussing an isolated incident. The 'support' documents are merely that: support. They are the 'evidence' that is needed to support something that was already written. If someone had written 500 years ago that George W. Bush would be president of the united states, and now there are documents that state this as such, these documents in and of itself are true to the age/era/time, but they further support the document written 500 years ago. So it is not because the document was 'written' that makes it true; it is the support for the document so just because historical documents wrote of dragons, does not mean we need to be cave hopping. Historical documents have done just that: reported history. Historical documents told us there was a man who tried to abolish a single religion from a country we call Germany, but that is all it was: a point in history.

and see below for negating a constant: evolution was accepted at one point, right? Yet has since become not so accepted. and why? Because people have taken the step to disprove the theory. evolution is an intangeable just like God is so why has no atheist attempted to disprove God? Funny thing too is that it didn't take near as long to disturb the idea of evolution as it has for atheists to attempt to disrupt God.

Can you name one thing the Bible predicts that has come true? Besides, there will be war, there will be famine, you know things not anyone predict that WILL come true. Thanks Secondly, Evolution has not been proven wrong, it's just not been proven completely right. There is that thing with the missing link. I can not look at you and say prove dragons do not exist. How in the world are you to do that? It's my claim that they do, but your to prove me wrong? No, I am to prove I am right by presenting evidence that can with stand your examinations. Evidence such as hysterical documentation dating as far back as the Bible, written eyewitness reports even drawings of dragons on cave walls. All of which does exist, BTW. All you can do is present a Book. A book put together by mans hands, written with mans hands that claim only to have done so while inspired by God. Yes it's an old book, it even contains accurate history in it. Yet, all of people are to accept it's the word of God? Based on nothing else but what, your opinion? This is what you are asking of Atheist, can you not see how ridiculous that is? So since your back is against the wall, now it's fair to say...OK prove me wrong. LOL

i 100% agree that it IS a personal thing. I struggle with my faith so can only imagine how someone without face copes, but something that has always been able to help me is to hear the opinions of others. I don't think Christians should push their faith on others or that atheists should push their disbeliefs on others, but the two can have open discussions as many have done in the past and many will do in the future, lol.

"Atheism is the state of disbelief or non-belief[1] in the existence of a deity or deities. It is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (i.e., the assertion that deities do not exist), or the deliberate rejection of theism (i.e., the refusal to believe in the existence of deities). " Wouldn't a denial of theism be a denial of that which theism teaches or even is? ie. dieties, miracles, and higher powers? And is this not what I stated makes no sense to me? As how can we deny first something supported historically and secondly supported internally. Please read my reply on page two on the concept of babies being atheists as well as such a concession is just more evidence on why atheism does not make sense. Agnostic, yes, atheism, no.

Perfect Post. Perfect. More people should read this before making claims about atheism and atheists.

Well it's hard to argue against someone's armchair psychological assesment, especially if it's set up in a "The more you deny it, the more right I am." kind of way, but I do think you're making a mistake in assuming that "nothing" is a kind of substitute for God for atheists. I don't normally like to fall back on the tooth-fairy/Santa argument, as I think the comparrison is insulting to believers, but we don't believe in God in the same way you don't believe in any number of other mythical beings. I assume you don't believe in the tooth fairy, but that doesn't mean there's a void floating around in your subconscious acting as a desperate replacement for her. As for humans needing to have someone watch over them, people have different personality types and different needs as a result. I'm an independent, skeptical, questioning type of person. I'm not purposely defying God, because I don't believe he exists, but I don't feel any lack of a needed force in my life. At any rate, if Thor ever sends a thunderbold in my direction, and I live through it, I'll report back.

umm...i didn't say anything about god having to have a gender...or that he has one... but i will aside note to say that most people accept god as being male because of the fact that christ was god in the flesh so people then assume that god is male...but then again god is god so why does he have to have a physical being? the bible says that this very idea of 'feeling' something as in feeling air and therefor believing it exists is the very reason to believe in God: because of his invisible qualities (read chapter one of Romans). so why can't I use the same 'feeling' excuse to say God exists?

and why not? you have the choice to read or not to read, to respond or not to respond, and this isn't an inappropriate environment either. Heck this is a great place to discuss it with the many different countries and religions represented in the mylot community. it would be narrowminded for me to discuss relgion with someone who believes the same way I do.

Why do you have to believe in someone? Where is that mandated?

you are using 'atheism' as a noun.... of course atheism exists: it is a belief (or disbelief if you please); that is not the point I was making in my post. My point was that the concept makes no sense to me.