Atheists

[Rukas]

right, but if a new theory appears that is more realistic with more evidence than evolution, people (the majority at least) will drop evolution and state the new theory as a fact. but i find it hard to believe that all christans/muslims/jews will drop their religious beliefs for any reasons (it's only possible on an individual level, but a new world event will not make them stop believing)

I cant speak for everybody, but people convert, lose their faith, regain it, all the time.

gravity theory, when applied to a large enough schale, will give wrong results far froom reality

That just shows that science can be wrong, and thus a belief in science is a belief based on faith that it is the best possible answer, but still faith none the less.

people tend to trust people who claim to have evidence, as long as they know that this evidence is at their disposal. if someone doesn't believe in evolution, he can try to understand it, learn about it, and make up his own mind. Whether he does it or not is a different question. Religion on the other hand, specifically asks for faith, and religious people in general will blame anyone who asks for evidence for religious things.

There are different forms of evidence. A lot of religious people have evidence that a God exists, its just not always a form of evidence science can messure, just like scientific evidence is not always something religion can messure.

sci-fi = science fiction
i don't think people who believe in aliens do so the same way religious people believe in God.

I disagree, I happen to think its the exact same blind leap of faith.

people who claim that aliens exist, as well as those who claim that they don't, are both doing the same mistake of "believing".
again, those who believe blindly in aliens are wrong. But those who do so based on non credible evidence (which is the case most of the time) can be convinced otherwise.
i think the best attitude towards this is:" i don t know"
and i would agree with anyone who, when asked about god, admits not to know.
but as i said, religion asks people to believe no matter what, and i think that not believing in god is a sin according to some religion.
i think also that the ideas of alien existence is much more credible that that of God. And the same way, i know a lot of people who believe in god, but find the iea of alien existance laughable.

Why is the existance of aliens much more credible? Because its cool? Because they are in movies? There is no hard evidence that aliens exist. Believe in some super intelligent alien species is exactly the same as believeing in some super intelligent God.

Furthermore Im not entirely convinced that one doesnt equal the other anyway.

Look at Egyptians, it seems to me that they basically believed their God's were aliens, in their context of understanding. Is their Religion more credible to you because it could be aliens and you believe aliens are more credible than God?

doesn't prove anything. Until the next time the church chooses to adjust some info from the bible, believer are still bound to accept this "new edition".

Im not bound to accept anything, its a choice I can make. No one puts a gun to my head.

In addition, the mere fact that the church can change what people believe is also in argument for brainwashing. Why wasn't this done long time ago??

Is the fact that science can change what people believe an argument for brainwashing?

doesn't judaism and christianity require faith?
on the other hand, islam is robably the religion that has had the most interpretations (there are so many confessions within islam)

They do, so? So does science. What is your point?

historically, no one was entitled to change the Quran, this is why unlike the bible, there s only one version.

That still doesnt prove its actually the writing of "the prophet" or that it wasnt changed somewhere along the way. Putting a law in place doesnt prove that law hasnt been broken before.

ÿou can check the qualifications and the degrees of a psychiatrist, can you do the same with a priest?

Of course you can. If someone goes to talk to a priest they want to talk to a priest and can check his qualifications as a priest.

again, if the pope says something, religious christians will immediately accept it as a truth.

Woah, thats a very broad generilzation you just made.

But if Stephen Hawkings comes out with a theory, he is expected to back it up with evidence.

... True, just not by kids on the internet who want to appear like they are hip and down with the latest revolutionary anti-norm/establishment way of thinking.

 

[Jocka]

Heck, there are even atheists that think the idea of a God is laughable yet they believe in ghosts and aliens, because they someone seem sci-fi and in some peoples minds sci-fi = science.

Whoa whoa lol. I'm not "Athiest" but I felt I had to comment. While i'm not a religious man, nor am I an athiest. I strongly believe the existence of ghosts and aliens to be true. While I can't prove this to anyone else (well.. anyone that wasn't there with me), I have my own personal experience as far as "paranormal activity". It may not have been a ghost but it didn't have a constant solid form and was definatly not something you see/hear everyday. My first impression as a child was "ghost" but now I believe it could have been many things. But of those many things it was definatly paranormal, which this word is often mistaked with "Ghost".
As for aliens. We have some legit proof and some fake proof of the existence of aliens. While we'll never really KNOW what's legit and what's fake, we do know that it's an issue that has been around since before our time. Since biblical times in fact. So while they may or may not exist, it at least has been debated and attempted to be proven lol. I myself believe in them. Not as "killers from mars" but more as "people like us".

But that was way off subject. So carry on. *Waves hands and continues brainwashing*

 

[Illuminattile]

You just said that the church admits some of the book isnt meant to be taken literally so how can it be set in stone?

It's the same words, you're just supposed to read them differently. It's not like the church have said "Jesus thought that X was the case, but it wasn't. He was wrong, ignore him". All they're saying is "The book was right, you just misunderstood it". Like I said, religious leaders are constantly trying to make sure that they have excuses as to why their book seemingly contradicts fact.

Why is the existance of aliens much more credible? Because its cool? Because they are in movies? There is no hard evidence that aliens exist. Believe in some super intelligent alien species is exactly the same as believeing in some super intelligent God.

Yet belief in aliens is seen as crazy.

 

[Rukas]

^^ By some, I happen to be open minded to the possibility of Aliens, because I believe in God even though I cant see him, so I cant say Aliens dont exist.

Jocka, Id love to hear your experiance something, PM me if you dont mind sharing...

 

[Jocka]

Rukas. I've shared this many times. There was a thread in here somewhere but it's gone now. That was a while back. Yea. I guess I can PM you the ghost experience though.

 

[rtyfghvbn]

It's the same words, you're just supposed to read them differently. It's not like the church have said "Jesus thought that X was the case, but it wasn't. He was wrong, ignore him". All they're saying is "The book was right, you just misunderstood it". Like I said, religious leaders are constantly trying to make sure that they have excuses as to why their book seemingly contradicts fact.

:thumb:

as far as aliens go, i feel aliens and god are very unrelated. belief in god is SOLELY a test of faith, where the majority of believers never really expect solid, hard evidence to surface.

whereas, a belief in aliens is based more upon...scientific probability. i mean, it's not that hard to believe that - keeping in mind the size of the known universe - there may be life somewhere else. because if there's life here...if there are physical, living, moving creatures here, that means such a thing exists.

however, when speaking about dieties and gods, there is no basis for belief to compare it to. it's not like a christian can say, "well, allah exists, so for that reason, my god must exist." or vice versa. because no one has ever PROVEN the existence of a god, whereas it has been obviously proven that there is such a thing as life.

'bottom line is...the belief in aliens is really just the belief that an already existing concept (the concept being a living, thinking creature) is simply placed in an 'unearthly' environment. that being any of the hundreds upon thousands upon millions of unreachable, undiscovered planets wandering the universe.

on the other hand, the belief in a god is simply a leap of faith, with no existing concept to base your belief on.

illuminattile, as far as your second comment goes, that belief in aliens is seen as crazy....i wouldn't necessarily say that. i mean, if you're talking about people who wear aluminum on their head and hear aliens talking to them in their ear, then yeah. even i'd say they're crazy.

but as far as a normal, moderated belief, i think a large majority of the world's population now accepts that idea.

 

[Jokerman]

Adaptive evolution, or survival of the fittest, is totally different to evolution. Animals adapt to their environment, but remain the same animal, they do not evolve into another life form. The fossil records do not show any animal going from A to B, there is no evident bridge, as there should be if we slowly evolved over time.

You’ve obviously been “brainwashed” (by choice ) by faulty information on the internet from people who have a hidden agenda and who take quotes out of context by isolated scientists that no serious professional listens to because it contradicts the massive evidence for evolution that exists. So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, and between reptiles and mammals. The fossil record provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time. For example, a clear line of fossils traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals. However, many individual mutations must accumulate before two populations become totally separated. The process is spread across thousands of generations.

There are gaps in our knowledge because the process of fossilization occurs rarely. This is exploited by anti-evolutionists to the fullest. Usually, animal or plant remains will decay or be scavenged before the process can begin. Only a fraction of the species that have ever existed are known from fossils. Still, the fossils that have been discovered are sufficient to provide detailed information on the course of evolution through time.

There is no uncertainty about the process of evolution through natural selection. That theory is as well established as any scientific theory we have, and indeed better than most. Not only is evolution itself well established as the framework for the development of life on earth, but we know with confidence a great many details about the evolution of many species, including humans.

However, although the framework of evolution is beyond doubt, many arguments about particular evolutionary developments remain speculative. Not because there’s any serious doubt that life evolved, but because we cannot perform experiments to test particular evolutionary hypotheses. With evolution, there was only one “experiment,” namely, what actually happened. Fortunately, that “experiment” provided us with an enormous amount of evidence, only a fraction of which has so far been discovered, so we do have one way to test our theories: we can use those theories to make predictions as to what kinds of evidence we might be able to find, and then look for the evidence.

In the case of Homo sapiens, any explanation for a process has to be consistent with both the historical and fossil evidence and with our knowledge of the abilities of present-day humans and other species. We should also apply Ockham’s razor, and make our explanations as simple as possible, based on the minimum number of (plausible) assumptions. Provided that we proceed in such a fashion, anyone who thinks we have it wrong will have an obligation to come up with a better explanation—a better fit with the known facts and with Ockham’s razor. Religious beliefs don’t even come close to doing this. Evolutionary theory comes closest.

 

[Khaled]

I cant speak for everybody, but people convert, lose their faith, regain it, all the time.

as i said, its possible on an individual level, but a religion as a whole will not be dropped because of an argument that can prove it wrong, unlike a scientific theory

That just shows that science can be wrong, and thus a belief in science is a belief based on faith that it is the best possible answer, but still faith none the less.

not at all, people don't believe in science just for the sake of it, they believe in it because of how they can use it. Scientist agree that science is not the truth, it's just as close as we've got so far.
No one has faith in science. No one who has faith agrees that he might be wrong

There are different forms of evidence. A lot of religious people have evidence that a God exists, its just not always a form of evidence science can messure, just like scientific evidence is not always something religion can messure.

evidence must be valid for everybody, or else it doesn't mean anything.

I disagree, I happen to think its the exact same blind leap of faith.

those who believe in aliens do so based on some kind of evidence and unexplained phenomenon.

Why is the existance of aliens much more credible? Because its cool? Because they are in movies? There is no hard evidence that aliens exist. Believe in some super intelligent alien species is exactly the same as believeing in some super intelligent God.

i don't know anyone who believes in aliens the way they believe in God. the people who speak about aliens that i know about say that it's possible.

Furthermore Im not entirely convinced that one doesnt equal the other anyway.

people who believe in aliens blindly can at least answer some question about what it is they believe in, but so far, no one has ever been able to explain to me clearly what god is.
Scientifically, the only way to disprove a theory is to show a contradiction. So we cannot prove that aliens don't exist, (and we haven't proven that they do exist)

Religion however, is full of contradiction. As i said, no one can prove to me that god exists. and i am able to prove wrong any idea about god as portrayed by any religion


Is the fact that science can change what people believe an argument for brainwashing?
accepting science doesn't make people act in any precise way, but religion do. And once again, science doesn't require you to follow something blindly. the definition of faith however, is to accept something without evidence.

That still doesnt prove its actually the writing of "the prophet" or that it wasnt changed somewhere along the way. Putting a law in place doesnt prove that law hasnt been broken before.

what's the point of changing it without people knowing about it??? if they want to adjust the beliefs, they would have done just like the church did in your thread don t you think??

... True, just not by kids on the internet who want to appear like they are hip and down with the latest revolutionary anti-norm/establishment way of thinking

not sure i get your point!! are you saying science brainwashes young kids on the net ??

 

[TecK NeeX]

Atheism was riding the wave of the Age of Enlightenment, a move away from mysticism and towards reason. Are you surprised that as people started to look at the world with a scientific eye that they began to reject religion?

Ha @ the "Scientific Eye" when reffering to Darwins theory. like i said before, everythying about the damn theory is AGAINST science. from the very beginning to the of it which states that something created itself out of nowhere and began evolving is about a hundred times more absurd and flawed than all religions put together. you call that reason? It's a more of a move away from possibility and towards idiocy.

Whats the point of judgement without a test?

and no im not surprised at all. A move from one religion to another and a move from one scripture to another (Origin of Species} are alot more common then you think.

My parents didn't raise me as an atheist, nobody handed me a book and said "read this, it'll change your mind".

and neither were millions of religious people. you're not special

If someone is religious, then they are incapable of questioning what their particular religion says. You can't question something in the Qu'ran, because you think it is the infallible word of God. For most people of faith, nothing you put before them could make them question their religion. They will always find a way to "interpret" their religion's teachings to make it fit the facts.

why would i question it if i agree with every word of it? if i find something i dont agree with why wouldn't i question it? Do you question something you agree with?

See what I mean?

No i dont see what you mean, do you want me to believe science contradicts the Qur'an when it doesnt?

 

[rtyfghvbn]

Ha @ the "Scientific Eye" when reffering to Darwins theory. like i said before, everythying about the damn theory is AGAINST science. from the very beginning to the of it which states that something created itself out of nowhere and began evolving is about a hundred times more absurd and flawed than all religions put together. you call that reason? It's a more of a move away from possibility and towards idiocy.

listen, teck, you can't make statements that you know nothing about. because it only displays your ignorance.

how in the hell is the scientific theory against science? if you're talking about the big bang theory, then yeah. it is completely possible to create something out of nothing. otherwise, how would god get created? god couldn't have created himself, because he didn't exist before he was created, and therefore, he didn't have the supernatural ability to create. because he didn't exist.

so, no matter what religion/theory you believe in, you have to face the fact that at some point in the universe's history, there was nothing. and then, there was something. something had to be created to balance out the nothing. it's the yin and the yang. black and white. sunrise and sunset. night and day. positive and negative. young and old. dead and alive. everything in this universe has an opposite. the fact that nothing was in the universe didn't click with the laws of the yin and the yang, and the only way to correct that imbalance was for something to be created.

as far as the theory of evolution goes, it's not that hard to believe. we'll take natural selection for example. natural selection is the foundation for the theory of evolution.

natural selection works like this. you have a bunch of giraffes. they all have relatively short necks. some just slightly longer than others, because the laws of genetics demands that in any given reproduction, there will always be some minor, physical differences, or mutations, from parent to offspring.

anyway, these giraffes live in the african plains. there isn't much food in the plains, but there are certain places where trees and leaves are plentiful. now, the giraffes eat the leaves. the shorter ones eat the leaves lower to the ground. and because there are more short-necked giraffes, they run out of leaves. they can't find more, and they starve.

the longer-necked giraffes, however, not only have the ability to eat the lower-down leaves, but, when those run out, they can stretch and reach the higher-up leaves. so, the longer-necked giraffes don't starve. instead, they eat, live, and reproduce.

now, these longer-necked giraffes are going to have offspring with a relatively similar sized neck. maybe a little longer, maybe a little shorter. and of course, the longer-necked giraffes are going to prosper. they will then reproduce, and the cycle will go on, each generation of giraffe's necks getting slightly longer than the last generation. and this isn't just with giraffes. there is proof of changes like this with plenty of species.

lastly, never label a belief with a word like 'idiocy'. it doesn't matter how much you don't believe in something, or how ridiculous you think it is....when you label a belief idiotic, you are calling anyone who believes in it an idiot. which is not merely against board rules, but it is also ignorant, arrogant, and indecent.

 

[TecK NeeX]

You’ve obviously been “brainwashed” (by choice ) by faulty information on the internet from people who have a hidden agenda and who take quotes out of context by isolated scientists that no serious professional listens to because it contradicts the massive evidence for evolution that exists. So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, and between reptiles and mammals. The fossil record provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time. For example, a clear line of fossils traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals. However, many individual mutations must accumulate before two populations become totally separated. The process is spread across thousands of generations.

There are gaps in our knowledge because the process of fossilization occurs rarely. This is exploited by anti-evolutionists to the fullest. Usually, animal or plant remains will decay or be scavenged before the process can begin. Only a fraction of the species that have ever existed are known from fossils. Still, the fossils that have been discovered are sufficient to provide detailed information on the course of evolution through time.

There is no uncertainty about the process of evolution through natural selection. That theory is as well established as any scientific theory we have, and indeed better than most. Not only is evolution itself well established as the framework for the development of life on earth, but we know with confidence a great many details about the evolution of many species, including humans.

However, although the framework of evolution is beyond doubt, many arguments about particular evolutionary developments remain speculative. Not because there’s any serious doubt that life evolved, but because we cannot perform experiments to test particular evolutionary hypotheses. With evolution, there was only one “experiment,” namely, what actually happened. Fortunately, that “experiment” provided us with an enormous amount of evidence, only a fraction of which has so far been discovered, so we do have one way to test our theories: we can use those theories to make predictions as to what kinds of evidence we might be able to find, and then look for the evidence.

In the case of Homo sapiens, any explanation for a process has to be consistent with both the historical and fossil evidence and with our knowledge of the abilities of present-day humans and other species. We should also apply Ockham’s razor, and make our explanations as simple as possible, based on the minimum number of (plausible) assumptions. Provided that we proceed in such a fashion, anyone who thinks we have it wrong will have an obligation to come up with a better explanation—a better fit with the known facts and with Ockham’s razor. Religious beliefs don’t even come close to doing this. Evolutionary theory comes closest.

This is a perfect example of a brainwashed atheist, and of course he is doing what any other atheist would do, pass on the brainwashing onto others that dont know better with faulty information and no basis in fact.

The truth of the matter is there is absolutely NO evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. To say that the record does is like saying there is evidence if gods existence in a scripture. this is propoganda at work, Where are these "massive evidence of transitional fossils'? and why haven't you linked them?

Why do you think evolutionists tossed Darwins thoery of slow gradual evolution in the myth files and introduced the even more rediculous theory of "Macroevolution" which states thats animals dont evolve over long periods of time but instead they give birth to whole different species? to make up for the absolute lack of intermediate fossils

Your faith in this religion of evolution is much stronger than any person's faith in God.

 

[XIAN]

Religion is a beautiful thing and even if there is no god and I am souless I would still, never in a million years, regret that I believe that god is inside me and all around me right now.

"The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters, he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever."

~peace~

 

[Jokerman]

Where are these "massive evidence of transitional fossils'? and why haven't you linked them?

Hahaha. Some of us actually do more than depend on websites for our knowledge. We read books, science journals, visit museums, take courses. You should try it sometime. It's no wonder you're blindly accepting whatever "science" agrees with your religious viewpoint.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Hahaha. Some of us actually do more than depend on websites for our knowledge. We read books, science journals, visit museums, take courses. You should try it sometime. It's no wonder you're blindly accepting whatever "science" agrees with your religious viewpoint.

Lmao you gotta be shittin me, if they can be found in "museums, science books and courses" they CAN be found on the net with a simple search. you atheists make me laugh, seriously

By all means name me one course, museum or science journal where i can find these non-existent imaginary fossils.

Plz..

 

[rtyfghvbn]

Lmao you gotta be shittin me, if they can be found in "museums, science books and courses" they CAN be found on the net with a simple search. you atheists make me laugh, seriously

By all means name me one course, museum or science journal where i can find these non-existent imaginary fossils.

Plz..

uh, i have really been following your whole fossil discussion, but there are several fossils of cavemen found in africa, over an extended period of time. with noticable differences between each. maybe i'll scan the article later.

and just so ya know, not everything can be found on the internet. in fact, a very miniscule amount of the world's literature can.

and even if it could, i don't see what not being familiarized with google has to do with one's religious beliefs.

 

[TecK NeeX]

listen, teck, you can't make statements that you know nothing about. because it only displays your ignorance.

how in the hell is the scientific theory against science? if you're talking about the big bang theory, then yeah. it is completely possible to create something out of nothing. otherwise, how would god get created? god couldn't have created himself, because he didn't exist before he was created, and therefore, he didn't have the supernatural ability to create. because he didn't exist.

so, no matter what religion/theory you believe in, you have to face the fact that at some point in the universe's history, there was nothing. and then, there was something. something had to be created to balance out the nothing. it's the yin and the yang. black and white. sunrise and sunset. night and day. positive and negative. young and old. dead and alive. everything in this universe has an opposite. the fact that nothing was in the universe didn't click with the laws of the yin and the yang, and the only way to correct that imbalance was for something to be created.

as far as the theory of evolution goes, it's not that hard to believe. we'll take natural selection for example. natural selection is the foundation for the theory of evolution.

natural selection works like this. you have a bunch of giraffes. they all have relatively short necks. some just slightly longer than others, because the laws of genetics demands that in any given reproduction, there will always be some minor, physical differences, or mutations, from parent to offspring.

anyway, these giraffes live in the african plains. there isn't much food in the plains, but there are certain places where trees and leaves are plentiful. now, the giraffes eat the leaves. the shorter ones eat the leaves lower to the ground. and because there are more short-necked giraffes, they run out of leaves. they can't find more, and they starve.

the longer-necked giraffes, however, not only have the ability to eat the lower-down leaves, but, when those run out, they can stretch and reach the higher-up leaves. so, the longer-necked giraffes don't starve. instead, they eat, live, and reproduce.

now, these longer-necked giraffes are going to have offspring with a relatively similar sized neck. maybe a little longer, maybe a little shorter. and of course, the longer-necked giraffes are going to prosper. they will then reproduce, and the cycle will go on, each generation of giraffe's necks getting slightly longer than the last generation. and this isn't just with giraffes. there is proof of changes like this with plenty of species.

lastly, never label a belief with a word like 'idiocy'. it doesn't matter how much you don't believe in something, or how ridiculous you think it is....when you label a belief idiotic, you are calling anyone who believes in it an idiot. which is not merely against board rules, but it is also ignorant, arrogant, and indecent.

Oh God, Not the same damn stuff again. Look I know you're new and all but i dont need you to tell me what natural selection or evolution is. Infact from what i read its pretty obvious YOU haven't got the slightest idea of what the theory truly is.

 

[TecK NeeX]

uh, i have really been following your whole fossil discussion, but there are several fossils of cavemen found in africa, over an extended period of time. with noticable differences between each. maybe i'll scan the article later.

and just so ya know, not everything can be found on the internet. in fact, a very miniscule amount of the world's literature can.

and even if it could, i don't see what not being familiarized with google has to do with one's religious beliefs.

Please dont think i know fuck all about this theory. your decades old caveman fossils aka homo erectus and homo habilus have long been disregarded as human abcestors with newer late 20th century discoveries that revealed these fossils were no different than the apes we see today. Unless you got something new im not gonna bother replying to you.

 

[Jokerman]

By all means name me one course, museum or science journal where i can find these non-existent imaginary fossils.

The University of Michigan's museum, just to name one.

The internet doesn't have one thousandths of one percent of the research that's published in the scientific literature. All it has is a bunch of semi-informed amateurs from both sides of the argument making websites.

 

[Rukas]

those who believe in aliens do so based on some kind of evidence and unexplained phenomenon.

Stigmata, visions, miracles, demonic possession, prophesies, weeping statues, etc etc etc.

How are these less credible than UFOs or abduction stories? In many cases, they are more credible.

i don't know anyone who believes in aliens the way they believe in God. the people who speak about aliens that i know about say that it's possible.

Yes, where as an athiest says there is no possibility of God, yet some say there is a possibility of Aliens?

people who believe in aliens blindly can at least answer some question about what it is they believe in, but so far, no one has ever been able to explain to me clearly what god is.

You've got to be kidding me right? No one has explained what God is? Ever? You've never read the Bible or Quran have you?

The rest of your post has been answered before, or is opinion, and I dont have time to get into a full debate again right now, I just pointed out the obvious mistakes in thinking you made above.

 

[DrugBa11ad]

"The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters, he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever."

Dude, get the fuck out. If your not going to actually participate in the conversation without spitting rhetoric bible verses, shut up.

Yes, where as an athiest says there is no possibility of God, yet some say there is a possibility of Aliens?

Im not really an athiest, more of an agnostic, but I admit the possibility of God, and the possibility of aliens, and the possibility of Zues and Athena, I admit the possibility of Ra and Isis and all that. But basing your life and decisions around something that you can even be slightly sure of? I could never do that.

lol I hate religious topics anyway cuz they all end up turning into "God is real", "No, god is not real" bullshit.