Scientists actually do have some reasonable theories as to the genesis of the Big Bang, though it's pretty heavy-duty quantum physics stuff and I can't claim to understand it very well. No respectable scientist would claim to truly KNOW what started it, because we are only now on the cusp of having the perspective and base of knowledge to start seriously tackling the problem.

Nonetheless, the evidence pointing to the actuality of the Big Bang is quite overwhelming - since we are looking at radiant energy (in many spectra) that came from very very very far away, we are literally looking back in time - Since the universe is expanding, the spectral signature of the light is slightly warped by the relative momentum between us as the observer and the energy source. You've probably heard of this effect under the terms "Red Shift" and "Blue Shift", and also experienced something exactly like it when a police car drives by and the pitch of the siren changes (the "Doppler Effect.") Armed with this knowledge, Scientists can determine the movement of the light source relative to us, and using other properties of the observed energy can roughly calculate the distance from us to the point in space at which the object emitted the energy. Scientists labored to map and describe the known universe using these and other methods (such as the gravitational bending of light, which was used to confirm the existance of Black Holes and Dark Matter,) and the result is a pretty clear picture - the universe is expanding from a central point, and that expansion appears to be accelerating.

What I mean to say by all of this is that the Big Bang is something that is STILL IN THE PROCESS OF OCCURING, like a boulder tumbling down a mountain. We can look at the big bang with our telescopes just like we can look at that boulder with our eyes, but that observation is not enough to provide us the details of how exactly the boulder started its fall in the first place. You could say that God made it happen, and you might be right, but then again it could have been a goat or a clump of melted snow.

The problem with the idea that people have about the tension between science and religion is that they view it to be some sort of equal battle when it isn't - I can look at something through a telescope and say wow! Look at that! Do you see what I see? This is observational evidence, and it can be repeated again and again and again. The bible, however, was only a DESCRIPTION of what might have been observational evidence (though it could just as well be pure drivel, the ravings of self-interested men), and that observation is not available to be made again and corroborated by a disinterested third-party. That means that today the bible is merely anecdotal, not observational, and thus completely fails the kind of peer-reviewed and rigorous testing and discussion that takes place as a matter of routine in scientific discourse. It may well be that noone will ever know what (or who) pushed the boulder, because someone would have to have been in a position to observe it when it happened, or the information to divine that knowledge would have to be available by looking at the boulder when it comes to rest, or perhaps by physically going to and analyzing the site that it originated from. Since we have only anecdotal evidence of anyone truly coming back from the dead (as in necrotized brain dead, not heart-stopped for a few minutes dead,) science is in no position to make claims one way or the other as to the existance of God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since any such claims would have to happen (due to our lack of perspective) outside of the process of observation, explanation, and peer-review that are an intrinsic part of what science actually is.

AAAAAAAND Finally - If you Christians sense hostility from those of us who don't subscribe to your religious beliefs, that's because your religion as a whole has been forcing those beliefs down our throats (Contraception, Euthanesia, Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc) for two thousand years and counting. Screw you for that. Really. The hostility you feel from us is real. But that doesn't mean I can't get over it on a personal level, and I count many deeply religious people amongst my friends and family.

Lykus, why post a thread saying you're open to ideas about religion and just insult and call B.S on every post defending religion, all you're doing is making arguements flare up about it. *It's pretty obvious we can't convince eachother.*

@Ace Windu
I have already agreed with you that the logical conclusion is that there is either no purpose or a higher diety. How much further can I expound on the concept of not having a purpose other than simply saying "Well, maybe there is no purpose. - The End." It seems that because of the complete lack of ability to make an argument equivalent in length for both suppositions, a purpose or no purpose, that you are unable to identify the fact that I'm stating "Well, maybe there is no purpose."

And the other way, which I have already stated, is that there is actually an answer which has either been found, or is yet to be found.

@devilnis
(I'm not sure if you were even addressing my statements, but even so I am simply responding to yours.)

I have not even been arguing the legitimacy of the big bang theory. I was pointing out that there is not a consensus on either it's legitimacy as a theory or the evidence to support the theory. Now, not having a consensus does not serve to negate the legitimacy of the theory. After all, not knowing an answer does not mean that the answer does not exist at all. My point is, that the lack of confirmation for the theory, or knowledge of the answer, undermines the credibility of the argument that God does not exist because God's existence cannot, or has not, been proven. When, that argument itself does not have any confirmed alternative.


Also, are you attempting to tell Christians that they should stop complaining about the hostility they feel, which you yourself say is valid and real, because of the hostility which you have felt from the "religion as a whole" from Christians? Because I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like a person who is looking through a one-way mirror.

Ok, so essentially we agree to disagree at this point. I misinterpreted your previous post, so sorry about that :)

Christian intrusion into our lives takes an active form. They bar my gay friends from marrying, they murder abortion doctors, they attempt to teach creationism in school as if it's a tested and verifiable fact. I as an agnostic am not telling you you MUST have an abortion or marry someone of the same sex as you. How is it that I am limiting your freedom and thus justifying your hostility towards my point of view? I don't feel in any way threatened by the fact that you believe differently from the way I believe, I feel threatened by the ways in which you exercise those beliefs, and history is full of examples of the injustices commited thereby in the name of Christianity.

As to the big bang - Calling it a theory is very similar to calling the Laws of the Conservation of Energy a theory. There COULD be some other explanation for what we see, but the big bang has been analyzed, tested, its characteristics predicted mathematically and verified to the best of our abilities through rigorous observation. The remaining naysayers are reduced to attempting to write off the whole thing as false due to the fact that it doesn't explain (or even attempt to explain) everything. Science isn't here to provide an answer to "Why?", it's here to discribe, as accurately as possible, what there is and how it came to be to the best of our observational abilities.

Christianity, meanwhile, is no more nor less viable an explanation than voodoo, in that it explains everything in a system that is wholly internal to its own argument, and can't be truly tested against observational evidence. I'm not going to race to lend credence to the beliefs of the voodoo priests, why stand so shocked that I wouldn't lend credence to Christianity's version of creation? And why be so surprised that I resent the way your Christian voodoo has impacted my life and the lives of those I care about? If you want to teach creationism to your kids, go for it. If you want to abstain from pre-marital sex, go for it. If you want to bring the rapist's baby into the world because you have a moral issue with abortion, go for it. Just stay the hell out of MY decisions on those things, because they have absolutely nothing to do with you whatsoever at all.

Buddhists aren't influencing public policy to the detriment of my freedom and so I have no ill-will towards them at all, even though I think their story is every bit as far-fetched as Christianity. The difference is that Christianity intrudes on my life, and that, my friend, is an observable and verifiable fact.

I can see that you're having a heated discussion with yourself. I hope all goes well with that.

I would address (some) of your statements (because the rest of your statements are entirely based on emotionalism and opinions, things which have no possibility of even "arguing" {for lack of a better word}) but it seems that any attempt I make would only end up in getting a response that vaguely and indirectly addresses my statements and then quickly spins off into another tangent. That would be a waste of my time, and thus I shall become solely an observer to your single-person conversation. Do carry on.

Whatever dude, you keep claiming that extensively verified facts are opinions, so it's no wonder that you are unable to adequately respond to them. I've responded to many of the points you've brought up, and if I ramble and topic drift a bit, the same can clearly be said of you as well.

1) Followers of Christianity attempt to influence my freedoms due to their interpretations of the moral commandments of their religion. True or False?

2) Verifiable evidence, such as the spectral shifting I spoke of earlier, corroborates the existance of the Big Bang, yet does not corroborate the Christian story of creation. True or False?

3) Christianity has no greater or lesser claim to truth than any other major religion such as Buddhism or Shinto since all alleged evidence that could provide strength to that claim is anecdotal, not repeatedly observable. True or False?

4) I have never once claimed to know that God does not exist, and since it is you and your ilk that so strenously maintain that He does exist, and work to limit my freedoms as a result of that belief, the burden of providing proof of that existence to a skeptical audience lies on you as the originator of the declaration of his existance. Since you cannot, it stands to reason that I would be resentful of Christian influence upon my freedoms since the whole basis on which you make your arguments to curtail those freedoms cannot be shown to be correct in any way, shape, or form, and the fact that it also cannot be shown to be incorrect is totally irrelevant. True or False?

My logic here is totally impeccable. Yours shows some promise here and there but appears to originate from an inherently illogical premise - That this unprovable thing DOES exist, therefore my freedoms should be limited in accordance with that fact even though it isn't actually a fact because it's unprovable. One more question for you:

I believe that the Big Bang theory is of high probability to be reasonably close to the truth. I have used my belief in it to justify an attempt by me and people who are of like-mind to curtail your personal freedoms. True? Or False...

Good luck!

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org
check this site out.

It had a fun format, but rapidly devolved into logical fallacy. It asked me if I felt that Absolute Moral Laws exist. I do not believe that they do. It asked me again with a not so subtle nudge to its preferred answer by asking me if I believed that child molestation for fun is ABSOLUTELY MORALLY WRONG. I do not believe this to be the case. Morality is a human construct, and thus "absolute" morality (that which is independent of the beliefs of the observer) cannot exist. One can claim there is an arbiter of an absolute morality (aka God) but the societal desire for this arbiter to exist does not necessarily make it so.

Child molestation is immoral because there is a societal consensus that this is so. This consensus arose because allowing things like child molestation (and other consensus moralities such as respect for life and property) to occur destabilizes society, so a complex stable society would never evolve if such actions were condoned. The universe, however, cannot be shown to care. Any moment we could get hit by a gamma ray burst and we would all fry to cinders in an instant, and the hypothetical child's potential for future happiness is ruined with even MORE assurance than if they were molested. Are the gamma ray burst or the ultradense objects that spawned it MORALLY TO BLAME for this? No. They aren't. Morality exists only within the inherently limited scope of sentient observation.

The site you linked, interesting as it may be in its construction, is attempting to use emotional goads (and you can be sure that I am indeed disturbed as anyone should be at the thought of child molesters) to cause me to accept a logical fallacy, but personal and societal righteousness are not analagous to universal morality, no matter how the website manipulates the question in the hopes of eliciting a specific answer.

@Zilmorph
|> I would LOVE to read your comments.

Cute, but God is only "the father of all humans" in a figurative way, not in the biological way, which pretty much ruins your argument. If you build a sexbot, you are its creator, its "father", would that make it incest to sleep with it?


@RuthLess
Looks like you made quite a typo there, here, let me fix it for you:
|> @Everybody
|> This is just bullshit
|> Can only Christians be ignorant morons NO
|> Are there also Muslims who are ignorant morons YES

(For the people with limited reading comprehension, I'm **not** calling all Christians / Muslims ignorant morons, I'm merely asserting the possibility for one to exist (strictly speaking I'm not even saying one exist, has existed or will exist, only leaving the possibility open).)

Not that I really believe you're a Muslim of course, probably just a Christian who wants to give Muslims a bad reputation (for instance, you used the word "God" instead of "Allah"). Either way, I've been told that Muslim craftsmen always (intentionally) make the smallest of error in their products. It's a way of paying tribute to Allah: since perfection is reserved for him it would be blasphemous to attempt perfection themselves. I can only conclude that you must be the most devout Muslim on the face of this planet (and probably well beyond) if the degree of imperfection in your reasoning is anything to go by...

@reddawgs98
|> It probably wasnt the best idea for our founding fathers to make us a multiracial, multireligional nations, becuase we end up with discussions like this

Excuse me...!?
They didn't exactly had much of a choice regarding the "multiracial" bit, it was either massacring all the "native Americans" (not that they didn't try...), getting the hell out of there themselves, or going multiracial.
Besides, there's this thing called "freedom of speech", last I checked it's "kinda" important. How are you going to have freedom of speech if you don't even allow people to have any religion they want?

I'm from Europe, if I travel 1000 km (approx. 650 miles) I go through five different countries (four *other* ones if I go in another direction) and just as many languages. I have no idea how many "races" or "cultures" that would cover (how would you even count that?), but it covers three mayor branches of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox). Travelling 2000 km brings me to Turkey, where most people are Muslim. All of that is ignoring small minorities of course.
Maybe it's just me, but I *like* multiracial, multireligional, multilanguagal, multicultural and probably most other multis you can think up. The only thing I like even more (or, the thing which makes me enjoy it) is tolerance, which you are not displaying nearly enough of, for my taste...

@Lykus
|> Go have fun with your life full of blissful ignorance.

Are you by any chance an Alanis Morissette fan? Because man, do you love [irony](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jne9t8sHpUc)...!

@devilnis
|> like a boulder tumbling down a mountain (..) You could say that God made it happen, and you might be right, but then again it could have been a goat or a clump of melted snow.

Did you think up that analogy by yourself, or did you get it from somewhere? That's quite important for me to know; gotta credit the right source when I'm reusing it. :D

@[P/X] jsa11111
Apart from devilnis' (very valid) points, there's another huge problem with that site. It first makes you say you believe a bunch of things exist, so far, (mostly, see devilnis' post) so good. Then on the second-to-last page it suddenly pulls in the Bible out of nowhere:
|> The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable.

So, the Bible is wrong, reasoning broken...

|> The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

It can declare all it wants, but if I state "The sun is a triangle", would you believe me because I declare it to be "so obvious that you are without excuse for not believing me"? Or would you point out "if it's so incredibly obvious, humour me, *explain* **why** it's so obvious"...?

|> The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary.

Problems:
1. What if there is no sense to be made of universal, abstract, invariant laws?
2. God is not at all the necessary starting point, science has been doing a pretty good job so far.
3. What does "by the impossibility of the contrary" even mean??

|> The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.

I had high hopes for that site. Especially when it asked "are [the laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality] made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?" I thought I knew where it was going ("you believe in logic, mathematics and science, you agree that they are immaterial [some deduction] then why can you not accept an equally immaterial god?"). Unfortunately it failed miserably, instead spewing out some lame dogma. :(

RvW, I actually did think that analogy up myself :) Thanks for the compliment!

@devilnis

Christian intrusion into our lives takes an active form. They bar my gay friends from marrying, they murder abortion doctors, they attempt to teach creationism in school as if it's a tested and verifiable fact. I as an agnostic am not telling you you MUST have an abortion or marry someone of the same sex as you. How is it that I am limiting your freedom and thus justifying your hostility towards my point of view?

Gay marraige has NEVER been approved in the past. It's not like CHristians came and banned Gay marriage, it's more like Atheists came and banned the banning of Gay marriage.
You say Christians take away your freedom, so atheists have abortion, taking away the freedom of Life from the fetus. HOw can you talk about freedom of speech, religion, etc, when freedom of life has been taken away?
Atheists TEACH (not attempt to teach) evolution in school, AS IF THAT HAS BEEN TESTED AND VERIFIABLE FACT.

As to the big bang. God created the whole universe in 1 sentence (Genisis:1:1) "in the beggining God created the heavens and the earth. Thus, the bible never disaproves the big Bang (only disaproves evolution). In fact, I believe in the big bang myself (except that it is caused by God).

1) Followers of Christianity attempt to influence my freedoms due to their interpretations of the moral commandments of their religion. True or False?
True, but Atheists (and all other religions) also restrict freedoms due to their own interpretations of moral commandments

2) Verifiable evidence, such as the spectral shifting I spoke of earlier, corroborates the existance of the Big Bang, yet does not corroborate the Christian story of creation. True or False?
I believe i have already answered that

3) Christianity has no greater or lesser claim to truth than any other major religion such as Buddhism or Shinto since all alleged evidence that could provide strength to that claim is anecdotal, not repeatedly observable. True or False?
True, I have already told you, Christianity is based on faith. God cannot be proven by science, period. THus I believe based on faith.

4) last question not targed at Christianity, more at individuals, thus I will not answer it.

The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable

What the hell is this bullshit, just came up with random points about the bible. Read it first at least before making statements about the bible. The bible said there are two types of people, those who goes to heaven, and those who goes to hell, and unbelievers go to hell (thus not believing in God is available in the bible). As for seeking God, yes, no one can ever seek God, only God can seek man.

The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

This is true, however, Jesus also said that Satan (or the devil) enjoys "blinding" people. Without Satan, everyone would believe in God (Satan first lured Eve to sin), because of the statment above.

@RvW

Oh I know, but I'm just saying if you twist the words of religion just a little bit, you get some interesting results. About the incest, whether or not it is technically incest, it is still gross and morally wrong.

Perhaps, if I were to analyse this, we are shown that religious platforms erode with the passage of time, and when we look at scriptures today many of the ideals are either irrelevant, or unorthodox for the world's multitude of societies. When looking at this we see it doesn't matter whether the believers are wrong or not but if they are believing in a false system. Which in turn causes religion of all types to have a controversial role in our society and government, this can lead racism as scapegoats become different believers of different faiths and non-believers. Since we all know the harmful affects racism which include discord and conflict, the real question becomes about how organised faith influences and changes us, and is the change harmful?

Okay, it seems that you actually were attempting to discuss my statements and so I should display more leniency; but once again you fail to actually address my points of argument, which ironically happen to be that you are not addressing my points of argument.

1) My first impression of this question is to answer false. However, the words "influence my freedoms" can mean a whole host of different things... so yes...no...?

Even so, in what way does this relate to my statement that you were criticizing christians for complaining about hostility that you acknowledge on the grounds of hostility that you yourself have recieved, which are hypocritcal sentiments.

2) I don't know whether or not it does, I have not studied the Big Bang theory in depth.

Also, the Big Bang theory does not disprove the theory of creation.

And, once again, how does this address my point: "My point is, that the lack of confirmation for the theory, or knowledge of the answer, undermines the credibility of the argument that God does not exist because God's existence cannot, or has not, been proven. When, that argument itself does not have any confirmed alternative."

3) False.

4) False, it is relevant because it goes to show my point. I have not even begun to prove the existence of God (what is I mean is through the use of facts or evidence,) I have been merely addressing the subject of existence on a purely theoretical basis. Also, in no way have I attempted to limit your freedoms, I am confused at how/why you are attributing negative views accross the board for all Christians, and seemingly even assumed Christians, because I have not even stated my religious views, much less any religious affiliation.


You continually keep saying that I am limiting your freedoms when I have made absolutely no attempts to do so. At the least, it is questionable to say that your logic is impeccable.

How is that even a true or false question?????????????????????????????

Whoops I forgot to point out in point 4 that in my second sentence I was addressing that you said I cannot prove the existence of God, which you cannot know because I haven't even been addressing it.

Aquaholic, thank you for a concise and well-reasoned reply. Let me respond:

"Gay marriage has NEVER been approved in the past."

Patently false. Enjoy: http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html - It's also irrelevant, since the point is that religious beliefs should not be used as an excuse to marginalize groups of people that live in a nominally secular society as enshrined in the concept of the "Separation of Church and State". So even if in the past gay marriage wasn't condoned by various non-Christian society (though it was, as you can see from that link,) it was an injustice then as now, much like debtor's prison (very very common in societies before the 18th century) was an injustice that tended to destabilize society (read up on the initial emigrants to Australia for some context on that).

"You say Christians take away your freedom, so atheists have abortion, taking away the freedom of Life from the fetus."

The abortion debate is certainly a tricky area - at some point what was once a mere embryo, little more than a small ball of cells, gains its own rights to life, liberty and happiness. At what point does that happen? The justification for the Pro-life stance is that life begins at conception, and thus so do the rights that we as a society assign to living beings. I believe that the basis for this justification is the concept of a soul, which is intrinsically religious and thus can't be used as a pretext to drive public policy in a secular nation. The pro-choice stance is that the ability to perceive and analyze is an inextricable part of the definition of a sentient, living being. Since the brain is the physical form of our thoughts, it follows that aborting a fetus (or much more typically an embryo) before its brain has developed to the point where it would be capable of at least rudimentary perception and analysis is therefore not immoral, and further that the woman holds the trump card in being the queen of her own body and the sole arbiter of all rights pertaining to it, as pregnancy clearly does. In any event, I personally support the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy any time in the first trimester, and under certain circumstances (such as indication of a developmental problem in the fetus, or risk to the life of the woman) in the second trimester as well. The third trimester seems a little late. What do you think about all of this?

Other than the supposed restriction of the freedom of an embryo to become a full-fledged human by supporting a woman's right to choose to abort, what other restrictions of freedom do atheists (which I, by the way, am not) pursue?

"Atheists TEACH (not attempt to teach) evolution in school, AS IF THAT HAS BEEN TESTED AND VERIFIABLE FACT."

Evolution is and long has been a tested and verifiable fact - geneticists even understand to a large degree the intricate workings of the process by which evolution occurs on the physiological level. It is evolution in action that has brought about the sad prevalence of MRSA, for instance (staph bacteria with genetically inheritable antibiotic resistance). There's also the very famous study done on a form of moth that lived on birch trees - they tended to be white, in order to blend in with the bark, but a fairly common mutation would cause them to be dark brown instead. The dark brown moths were very rare because they were easily seen by birds and thus eaten. However, during the initial (coal-burning) phase of the British industrial revolution, the birches were blackened by soot, and over the course of a few years almost all of the white moths died out, and the mutated variant that was black began to flourish because the trait that had once been a liability was suddenly an asset instead. When Britain started burning oil instead of coal and the bark of the trees reverted back to white, the same process happened in reverse so that now the white moths are the most prevalent type of their species (the "typica".) Read for info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution ... So, really. Whether or not God exists, evolution straight up does. It is no more a theory than the theory of special relativity is. Try as you might, you will be completely unable to come up with any observable and testable data to refute this because it is about as sure of a thing as anything science has ever claimed.

|> Atheists TEACH (not attempt to teach) evolution in school, AS IF THAT HAS BEEN TESTED AND VERIFIABLE FACT.

Evolution is taught in science class. Nobody (well, there's bound to be someone, but you get the idea) objects to creation being taught in religion class (argh, what's the real English word for that??), what people have a problem with is creation being taught ("equal time") in science class. That's what started the Spaghetti Monster concept; requesting equal time (in science class) for evolution, creation *and* a third alternative (the Spaghetti Monster).

A very, *very* important point (even though it looks like the minutest of details) is that science never proofs *anything*. The only thing science does is falsify. It's "easy" to show a theory is wrong: just do an experiment where the theory predicts one thing to happen and observe that in fact another thing happens instead. That, once and for all, disproofs the given theory. But, no amount of experimentation can ever *proof* anything.
Example. Despite their name, Newton's Laws of Motion have in fact been disproven; Einstein showed they do not hold at extremely high speeds and/or near extremely large masses. He also supplied a new set of laws (and, with some forethought, used a different qualifier): the theory of relativity. Now, relativity has not been proven (and never will be proven, since that's impossible), it's merely withstood falsification until now. In other words, it's not correct (well, it might be, but it hasn't *shown* to be correct), it is only the best model currently available to us. It is however extremely likely it will eventually be disproven as well and replaced by yet another model.

The reason we still use (and teach in school) Newton's Laws is because they provide an incredibly accurate approximation "under normal circumstances" and are considerably easier to work with than Einstein's Laws. A similar situation occurs for atomic models: the protons and neutrons being a "star" orbited by electrons in a "planet-like" fashion is utterly wrong, but (up to a point) it provides a very useful model and is hence still used. Other theories, such as that of [ether](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether) have not only been proven wrong, but also provide no useful model and have thus been stricken from the schoolbooks (except the history books / history of science sections of science books).

Coming back to evolution, you are correct, it hasn't been proven. But to be honest, it has withstood falsification quite stubbornly. In fact, I know some people "fusing" their Christian beliefs with their scientific knowledge ("beliefs"), reasoning something like this: "God created the Earth and the animals, in such a way as that they *appear* to have evolved; since creation, their further development is directed by evolution".

---

|> |> The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable
|>
|> What the hell is this bullshit, just came up with random points about the bible. Read it first at least before making statements about the bible. The bible said there are two types of people, those who goes to heaven, and those who goes to hell, and unbelievers go to hell (thus not believing in God is available in the bible). As for seeking God, yes, no one can ever seek God, only God can seek man.

That bullshit came straight from the proof-that-god-exists website [P/X] jsa11111 posted. I was kinda assuming it would at least get its Bible quotes correct...

The term you are looking for is "Divinity Studies" or just "Divinities" in universities. In religious institutions it has a whole host of names such as "Bible School", "Catechism", "Theological Studies", etc. etc.

Imagination, that's a great response and I will respond back in due kind. I've been typing up a storm on this thread though so I'm going to take a break :) Give me some time and I'll get back to you!

P.S. - I love this stuff! Pretty much noone ever gets convinced to drop their previous beliefs when religious debates come up, but I still love to sharpen my wits on the conversation, and in fact that's where I came up with my devilnis handle many many years ago, participating in religious debates on a BBS message board :)

@ devilnis

Same for me