Not. A. Religion.

You made kitteh double facepalm and headdesk.

Did you know that at one point, 30% of conservatives thought Stephen Colbert was serious about the Colbert Report? Almost 1 in 3 failed to see the obvious satire right in front of them. Hell, at one point, people thought Jonathon Swift was totally serious about eating Irish babies.

So it should come as no surprise that an awful lot of Christians think the Darwin Fish is the same sort of symbol as the Jesus fish.

Yet here I am, simultaneously headdesking and facepalming. (Easier on your head, harder on your hand.)

Despite its anti-religious stance and lack of a theistic belief, Secular Humanism is a religion just as Christianity is one, argued [David Noebel].

. . .

For starters, Christianity has the Christian Ichthys as one of its religious symbols while Secular Humanism has a developing religious symbol: the Darwin Fish. And like Christianity, Secular Humanism has clergy members that perform social ceremonies and preach a faith that is just as dogmatic: theological atheism, naturalism, spontaneous generation, and moral relativism, among other beliefs, Noebel points out in his book.

The Darwin Fish, or evolve fish, is not a religious symbol. It's satire. If you were to ask a group of atheists/secular humanists what the symbol of atheism is, you'd get a blank look. Some of us, online, have adopted such things as the scarlet A, but it's not an agreed upon symbol of all secularists. (Trying to get atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats. I once participated in a discussion about whether or not a nonsymbol is as symbolic as a symbol and if it is, is it still a nonsymbol. Don't ask.)

As for clergy members: lol wut? I assume he means people like Hitch, Dawkins and Myers, but clergy? You'd have to stretch the definition of clergy to meaninglessness to consider any of the more famous atheists to be clergy. And dogmatism? See above. Plenty of atheists have little to no opinion on spontaneous generation, we're all (religious or not) morally relative and naturalism? I'm calling that science, and if you post things on the internet, you like it, too.

The author also references in his book the 1943 decision by the Second Circuit to grant conscientious objector status to Mathias Kauten, not on the basis of his belief in God, but on the basis of his "religious conscience."

"Secular Humanism is a religion. It's just as religious as all the other religions in the world," Noebel asserted to students.

"Now, they deny it to the last drop only because they were caught. They caught themselves on conscientious objectors so they had to declare themselves somewhat of a religion."

So, I looked up the Kauten case, and I can't find the original decision, only commentaries on it, or references to it. According to several references, this case is sealed until 2020, so I don't know where Noebel got this from.

EDIT: (big h/t to [redacted])

Noebel is something of a liar, it seems. [redacted] got me a copy of the Kauten case, in its entirety, and the Court stated outright that Kauten was not a religious man:

We hold that Mr. Hardy's interpretation was well founded. [HN3] In order to avail himself of his privilege a registrant must establish that his objection to participation in war is due to "religious training and belief." It must ex vi termini be a general scruple against "participation in war in any form" and not merely an objection to participation in this particular war. Moreover, the conviction that war is a futile means of righting wrongs or of protecting the state, that it is not worth the sacrifice, that it is waged for base ends, or is otherwise indefensible is not necessarily a ground of opposition based on "religious training and belief." Though the registrant may have been entirely sincere in the ideas he expressed, his objections to reporting for induction were based on philosophical and political considerations applicable to this war rather than on "religious training [*708] and belief." They, therefore, were properly overruled, but not because he lacked membership of any sect or organization whose religious convictions were against war. Such a status was necessary to obtain exemption under the Act of 1917, but the provisions of the present statute are more generous [**10] for they take into account the characteristics of a skeptical generation and make the existence of a conscientious scruple against war in any form, rather than allegiance to a definite religious group or creed, the basis of exemption. We are not convinced by anything in the record that the registrant did not report for induction because of a compelling voice of conscience, which we should regard as a religious impulse, but his declarations and reasoning seem to indicate that he was moved by convictions, however sincere, of quite a different character.

In other words, while Kauten was believed to be sincere, and to hold beliefs that one would normally associate with religion, he was not religious. Atheism is not a religion.

In fact, the Court did define religion in its decision, and secular humanism ain't in it:

It is unnecessary to attempt a definition of religion; the content of the term is found in the history of the human race and is incapable [**11] of compression into a few words. Religious belief arises from a sense of the inadequacy of reason as a means of relating the individual to his fellow-men and to his universe - a sense common to men in the most primitive and in the most highly civilized societies. It accepts the aid of logic but refuses to be limited by it. It is a belief finding expression in a conscience which categorically requires the believer to disregard elementary self-interest and to accept martyrdom in preference to transgressing its tenets. A religious obligation forbade Socrates, even in order to escape condemnation, to entreat his judges to acquit him, because he believed that it was their sworn duty to decide questions without favor to anyone and only according to law. Such an obligation impelled Martin Luther to nail his theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg and, when he was summoned before Emperor Charles and the Diet at Worms, steadfastly to hold his ground and to utter the often quoted words: "I neither can nor will recant anything, since it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do other. God help me. Amen." Recognition of this obligation moved [**12] the Greek poet Menander to write almost twenty-four hundred years ago: "Conscience is a God to all mortals"; impelled Socrates to obey the voice of his "Daimon" and led Wordsworth to characterize "Duty" as the "Stern Daughter of the Voice of God."

Mr. Noebel, you are a liar.

END EDIT.

Mathias Kauten sought conscientious objector status to avoid the draft in 1940 not from religious belief, he admitted to being an atheist or agnostic, but because he distrusted the Roosevelt administration and disagreed with the war.

During and since World War II, political objectors have appealed to the courts for c.o. status, The most significant case has been that of Matthias Kauten, an artist of "atheist or at least ...agnostic" persuasion. In addition to challenging Congress' right to pass laws like the draft which infringe upon the "individual qualities of a person," he disliked the Roosevelt administration and viewed the draft as its answer to unemployment. Further, to quote a Department of Justice Report, "he has stated it is not right to act unfriendly to Japan and now to seek to protect ourselves from the consequences of our wrongdoing.... During his travels [he] has witnessed the animosity which exists among the different peoples of Europe and this has strengthened his opposition to war."

The Justice Department supported the local board's decision to deny Kauten c.o, status. "There is no doubt that the Registrant is sincerely opposed to war but this belief emanates from personal philosophical conceptions arising out of his nature and temperament, and which is to some extent political." An Appeals Court in turn supported the local board's decision, both because Kauten's opposition was to one war and not to all wars, and because "his objections ... were based on philosophical and political considerations ... rather than on 'religious training and belief.'" It observed in passing that "in the early days of the draft, many thousands of the American people distrusted our foreign policy. If men holding such views had been ipso facto classed as conscientious objectors, the military effort might have been seriously hampered."

The significance of the Kauten decision is not that the draftee was denied c.o. status, but rather that in doing so a court ruled that "a conscientious objection to participation in any war under any circumstances ... may be the basis of exemption under the [1940] Act." Kauten's humanitarian convictions might have qualified him for exemption because of a broad definition of "religious training and belief." The Kauten court viewed religion as "a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God that is at the present time the equivalent for many persons of what has been thought a religious impulse." Operating under this definition, that court later reached its verdicts about Phillips and Brandon where humanitarian convictions were also at issue, and the Supreme Court drew on the Kauten reasoning in its broadened definition of religion in the Seeger verdict. Kauten's convictions did not exempt him, however, because "Congress intended ... not to give exemption to the great number of persons who might object to a particular war on philosophical or political grounds." A c.o. may thus be one who opposes all wars on humanitarian grounds but not one who objects to a particular war on political grounds.

Here's what Noebel is hanging his hat on:

The Kauten court viewed religion as "a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God that is at the present time the equivalent for many persons of what has been thought a religious impulse."

So, basically the Court didn't know how to qualify an atheist/agnostic for the purposes of conscientious objector status, so they defined religion broadly enough to include conscience. Um, I kinda fail to see how that makes atheism (Kauten did not identify as a secular humanist, though Noebel does seem to use atheism and secular humanism interchangeably) a religion.

Let me put it another way. Current law regarding abortion puts the woman's right to choose above the rights of a fetus inside her body. Does Noebel believe that to be true? I'm going with no. He's cherry-picking what Court decisions mean to him. Roe v. Wade proves nothing, Mathias Kauten proves I am as religious as the Pope.

Sadly, no.

Now I see Noebel's obsession though, and it ain't Jesus, unless Jesus is spelled m-a-m-m-o-n:

Secular Humanism is among the worldviews taught at one of Summit’s Student Worldview Conferences, a two-week program that teaches young evangelical Christians how to defend their faith and Christian worldview against major competing worldviews.

He makes his money this way. Of course secular humanism must be a religion. Otherwise, he can't charge for a two week program on how to defend against it.

Noebel noted that while the worldviews associated with Christianity and Islam have the largest number of adherents, it is Secular Humanism that has caused more Christians to walk away from their faith.

He attributed the trend to the dominance of secular humanist ideas and teachings in public schools, saying secular humanists "run" the public school system from elementary school to graduate schools.

"Out of Secular Humanism, the one big appeal has always been Darwinism," he said. "More Christians have probably stumbled in their faith over Charles Darwin than just about anyone else, more than Karl Marx."

Oh, you mean science! Okay, then. Sure. As the slacktivist has pointed out, a religion based on the denial of basic science is a brittle faith indeed. You need only to learn the lie of one portion of it, i.e., creationism*, for the whole thing to fall apart. That's not Darwin's fault, asshat.

pic link

*Sadly, it's not just creationism. Watch in amazement as one person defends their faith by positing that our eyes create light, clap with delight as another claims the earth is flat and accelerating, or expanding at quite a fantastic rate.

Atheists Win Again

As we suspected, atheists and agnostics know the most about religion (in the US).

In a Pew Forum survey, atheists and agnostics answered the most questions correctly, closely followed by Jews and Mormons. Out of 32 questions, atheists/agnostics average 20.9 correct answers, while white evangelical protestants (looking at you, Ray) could only answer 17.6 questions correctly.

This gets even more amusing when you break it down by what the questions were about. On questions relating to Christianity, atheists/agnostics answered 6.7 questions correctly. White evangelical protestants did only slightly better with 7.3 correct answers. It's their religion, folks, but they don't know much more about it than you and I. When asked about other religions, white evangelical protestants only managed 4.8 correct answers (shocking, I know!), while atheists/agnostics answered 7.5 questions correctly.

Even less surprising is the finding that the single most important factor in being able to answer the questions correctly was general level of education, you know, that thing white evangelical protestants eschew as liberal claptrap? You might want to get back on the learning train, guys.

Profiling the Nonbelievers

atheism, atheist, survey, christian, agnostic,

A survey of the nonreligious in the US was performed (they surveyed 5,000 people), and I have to say, the results are interesting.

In the category of "things I already knew", nonbelievers don't really agree on a label:

The survey found the population to be less homogeneous than previous studies have typically portrayed them to be. Forty-eight percent described themselves as atheist, 12 percent identified themselves as agnostic, 22 percent chose the label humanist, 7 percent called themselves spiritual, and 5 percent chose other.

When given the option to choose multiple terms to describe themselves, 77 percent checked "atheist," 63 percent marked "humanist," 29 percent reported "agnostic," and 3 percent checked "spiritual." But when forced to choose only one label among the four, far fewer individuals identified themselves as humanist (24 percent). Meanwhile, 57 percent preferred the label "atheist."

Which is interesting because 75% of nonbelievers are "somewhat, mostly or absolutely certain that God does not exist." I think we need to start mailing out dictionaries, people, because that is the definition of "atheist". Of the remaning 25%, 15% just weren't sure one way or the other, and 8% were sure that god exists, but not of anything else.

Most atheists, as atheists will tell you, had some type of religious upbringing, ranging from casual to fundamentalist:

Nearly a quarter of nonbelievers had childhoods with little parental emphasis placed on religion. A quarter of them experienced a moderately religious childhood and 35 percent reported being raised with a strong or very strong religious emphasis.

The survey really gets interesting when we start getting into how nonbelievers live and think:

When compared to churchgoers, surveyed nonbelievers were predominantly male, more highly educate, more likely to be never married or cohabiting, and had fewer children living at home.
Nonreligious individuals were also found to have greater "openness to experience," which involves a high need for cognition, intellectual engagement, and xenophilia (interest in new experiences), than religious individuals. Among the differences between believers and nonbelievers in regard to education, gender, marriage, and child-rearing, openness was the strongest predictor of lower religious belief.

Churchgoers, on the other hand, reported higher "agreeableness," or a quality of being amiable or nonconfrontational as opposed to skeptical of others. The low agreeableness among nonbelievers indicates that strong nonreligious individuals appear to be somewhat less likely to acquiesce to or to trust others, the report stated.

That last bit explains a lot. The primary complaint among Christians about atheists is that atheists are rude and arrogant, which is a complaint most atheists don't really understand. No, we're not rude and arrogant, we're just outspoken, we reply. Or, hey, I was plenty polite until you starting poking me with that stick.

Now I get it. Christians value amiability highly. Atheists value skepticism. Given these opposing values, it's easy to see why Christians are so easily offended by atheists' . . . well, atheism. Questioning another person's beliefs doesn't really qualify as amiable, even if you are gentle and polite about it, and atheists are just acting out a valued quality, skepticism.

The survey also puts to bed that ridiculous "depressed atheist" meme, though I doubt the fundys will notice.

The survey found few differences between the religious and nonreligious group in regards to mental well-being. Contrary to popular belief, the nonreligious population is not any less happy or satisfied with life than the religious, the survey suggested. Reported life-satisfaction was well within the average range for both groups. Self-described spirituals, however, were less likely to report being satisfied with life.

In other notable findings, the survey revealed that more confident nonbelievers were the most emotionally healthy, relative to the "fence sitters" or religious doubters.

"[H]aving uncertainty regarding one’s religious views appears to be associated with relatively greater emotional instability," the report stated.

Makes sense. Unresolved issues will do that to a person.

Functional Atheists Are Not Atheists

atheism, atheist, makarios, muslim, hindu, shinto, pagan, agnostic, deism, fail, christianity, bible, god,
I may have figured out why there are so many current and former atheists in a country where less than 5% of people are atheists.

Makarios' latest is on the evil of Oprah, which I just don't have time for, but the following is illuminative:

while there are relatively few professing atheists in the world (those who declare there is no God), there may be a billion or more what I call Functional Atheists - those who live as though God, as He is described in the Bible, does not exist.

Functional atheists, or practical atheists as they're called by some, believe that God’s desires for us are no more relevant for our lives than those of the guy next door.

First of all, these are not atheists. Atheists lack a belief in any and all gods, just the same way Makarios lacks a belief in Thor or Zeus or the tiny pink unicorns in my basement. (They're lovely.) What he is describing is agnostics, deists or unaffiliateds. They represent about 10% of the US. Makarios can call them atheists, but they're not atheists. I can call my dog a cat, it's still a dog.

Secondly, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, pagans, etc. could be described as living as though the god of the bible does not exist, by which I think Makarios means "not being the exact same sort of christians as me." Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, pagans, etc. are demonstrably not atheists: they all believe in god(s).

So, Makarios can redefine agnostics, deists, unaffiliateds, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, pagans and my couch as atheists, until he arrives at the billions and billions number, but that does not change the fact that none of these people are atheists.

Redefinition fail.

Oh, For Crying Out Loud

atheism, atheist, agnostic, barna, morality, abortion, drug, drunkenness, homosexual, bisexual, pornography, gambling, sex, sexuality, cohabitation, religion, christian, christianity, makarios
First of all, I need to say that if you are going to reference a study, an article, etc. in a post, you need give a link. Stop making me do your research.

Secondly, can we please give the "atheists are immoral and dangerous" meme a rest? Please? Atheists act just like everyone else. To be fair, we're better at marriage (the more fundy you are, the more likely you are to get divorced), but there appears to be little real life relationship between believing a thing is wrong and actually not doing it. (See: The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion.)

Makarios pulls out and dusts off this meme, yet again, in his post Atheist Richard Dawkins. (I don't know why he feels a need to put the word "atheist" in front of "Richard Dawkins". It's sort of like saying "Catholic Pope".)

Preaches the atheistic anti-life dogma i can't decide if he means that atheists tend to be prochoice, or that we're just against life in general. either way, stoopid. that works AGAINST natural selection natural selection has nothing to do with birth control. i don't know much about the subject, but i would think that birth control and fertility medicine are skewing our results a bit. by causing in atheists an aversion to reproducing their genes atheists are in no way averse to reproducing. most atheists i know, like most people i know, have children. what a strange world Makarios lives in. (out of three marriages Dawkins could only stomach the creation of one child that's just rude. first of all, his wives would have had the final say in whether or not they got pregnant. secondly, we don't know if his wives were infertile, or if dawkins has fertility issues. makarios could well be mocking some poor woman who desperately wants to have children and can't. lastly, in the end, whether or not to have children is a personal choice. i choose no, you choose yes. good for both of us.), and/or killing their offspring by the millions every year. wft?! anyone seen those news reports? seriously, what. the. fuck.

The Barna Research Group found regarding atheism and the morality that those who hold to the world views of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviours as morally acceptable: (as I said, there is a huge difference between finding something to be immoral and actually not doing it, but let's play along)

no, wait, let's not. I found the study Makarios helpfully didn't bother to provide a link to. It's from 2003 and it is not what Makarios represents it to be.

More than four out of five adults - 83% - contend that they are concerned about the moral condition of the nation. Given that 84% of all adults consider themselves to be Christian, they have good reason to worry about the moral state of the country: many of [Christians'] views conflict with the moral teachings of their professed faith.

wait, that's not atheists or agnostics. that's christians. i assume Makarios is engaging in a No True Scotsman here, but he's misrepresenting the study. the participants in the study were not atheists and agnostics- they were christians.

and this is how christians felt about a variety of issues in 2003:

illegal drug use; 17% of those interviewed felt that was acceptable. hardly a majority.

excessive drinking; holy ambiguous, batman. 35% were in favor of "drunkenness".

sexual relationships outside of marriage; 42% were okay with this, though with the caveat that the relationship is hetero.

abortion; 45% in favor of.

cohabiting with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; 60% were fine with it

obscene language; 36%. more people were okay with abortion and adultery than with saying "fuck"? seriously?

gambling; 61% in favor of. I wonder if they reminded people that the lottery is a form of gambling. as is bingo.

pornography 38%. abortion and adultery yes, porn no? where did they find these people? and obscene sexual behaviour wtf is that?;

and engaging in homosexuality and bisexuality 30% weren't bothered by Teh Gai at all.

the rest of the post is some quotes from dead philosophers that I guarantee Makarios does not understand, but that was fun. It's nice to know what christians are really all about.

Not In Front of the Children!

Let's review the instructions on how to witness (beat over the head with a bible until they beg for mercy, or agree with you to make you shut the hell up) to an atheist. You'll note that no one seems to have consulted, or indeed spoken to, an actual atheist.

Just for the record, atheists don't believe in any deity at all. We don't know how the universe got started (nor do we need to, answers for everything is the believer's problem, not ours), but we know it wasn't some bearded dude in a white robe yelling, "Let there be light!" We believe that tomorrow is no guarantee, the afterlife is a lie, so you better get out there and live today. We also believe that god does not provide, prayers are not answered and there are no guardian angels, so we need to help each other, because there is no other help coming.

This is different from agnostics, those who believe that there might be a god, but they're not entirely sure, and they certainly don't know what religion to pick. Theists definitively believe in god, but may not necessarily have picked a religion or specific belief set.

Onward to the forced conversions!

OP: Is there an effective way to reach Atheists? Many people I know on other forums, are either atheistic, agnostic, or non-religious in general. They quite often rely on logical thinking over faith. I love the implication that while atheists are capable of logical thought, accepting Christ as your personal savior renders any kind of thought impossible. That's not quite a point in favor of converting in my book. OP probably shouldn't mention this to potential converts at first. Can someone please help? I want to witness to some non-religious friends.... I call this harrassing, and I certainly wouldn't call the OP "friend" after that.

Adoration cannot even articulate the basic tenents of his own faith. (Being incapable of thought is a bitch!): Here's my question:How do I form arguments/answers to an unbelievers statement that God doesn't exist...therefore Christianity has no validity.Or if they say "Prove to me that God exists". How would you answer? Seriously, you cannot explain to me why you believe god exists? That's pretty freakin' basic, buddy! I can tell you why I don't think god exists.

John 321 appears to be talking about . . . well, I'm not sure, but probably not atheists: These people want God in a test tube from some science lab actually, that would be totally cool, but no, that's not what we want. Just give me something other than (a) I believe and so should you, or (b) it's right here in the bible that god exists, and the bible is absolutely true because god wrote it, and off we go in a circle forever...it's not happening! Remember they hated God first. what? how can I hate what I don't believe in? I don't hate Santa or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, either. After planting the seed of the gospel it is God who gives the increase. Increase? Pay increase? Weight increase? What? Continue to pray for them but do it quietly and not in front of the children!

Whamo takes an approach popularized by police interrogators: I try to start more subtle: Get them to realize there is a creator first. How? I believe it's easier to witness for Jesus to someone that believes in a "higher power", or God, than someone with zero belief. probably true, but how are you planning on getting me to believe in anything at all?

Hilhill spouts the most commonly held belief evangelical christians have about atheists: In my experience there are very few true atheists, but rather anti-theists. Everyone knows that God exists. They can try to convince themselves that He doesn't because of their own personal stubborness or rebellion, but His Law is written on the heart of every man. Of course, they don't act like this and they will NEVER admit it, but they know God exists deep deep down, but they are just trying to ignore Him. Basically, Hilhill believes that no matter what I say, I truly do believe in god, I just don't feel like going to church or giving up my rebellion. We're all born knowing all about evangelical christianity, but we choose to ignore this knowledge and be muslims and jews and hindus and atheists.

Does anyone else see how ridiculous and insulting this belief is? It puts the atheist in the position of being a particularly disobediant dog. My dog knows damn well he isn't supposes to steal food off my plate, and for the most part, he doesn't. Every now and then, for reasons known only to him, he will attempt to take the food right off my plate while I'm eating from it. He knows I will punish him for this, and he does it anyway.

To Hilhill and people like her, I am less intelligent than my dog, because he only does this occassionally, and I do it every moment of every day. (Not related, but I keep typing "dog" as "god". Hee hee!)

I think Hilhill and her ilk hold this belief because it shores up her own: her own belief HAS to be right. Otherwise, she is wasting her life for this crap when she could be living it. If she allows herself for one moment to contemplate that I honestly do not believe in god, that I am happy, and that I am also a moral, good person despite my lack of belief, then she will have to confront the idea that she, too, could be happy without her restrictive faith.

Can you imagine spending every day running from the knowledge that you may well be deliberately and actively wasting your life? Yikes!

Hootmon starts out ok, and goes downhill from there: Depends on the source of their atheism. Dont apostrophe! assume they are a monolithic block of 'heathens' hey, thanks for that...
Some were raised in 'religious' households, and are atheist due to rebellion. no, sorry. true atheists are not "atheist due to rebellion". some people claim to be atheists out of rebellion, but true atheists have a conversion moment, exactly like the ones described by christians. it's an "ah-ha!" kind of moment where you realize that even if you want to, you don't believe. That's not rebellion.

Some were raised in religion-free households and are atheist due to ignorance.
Sure, you find me a person on the US or anywhere else in the world, who has reached I dunno . . . 7 without hearing about some kind of religion. I'm waiting. Still not back yet? That's because 7 year old Jews and Muslims in the US can tell you all about Jesus. Trust me, there isn't anyone anywhere who is entirely ignorant of religion.

Some chose atheism due to 'logic'...ooh "logic". it's so ridiculous to think about things. who does that? why think when you can believe? The latter two groups are way easier to reach than the first one, but you need to approach them each on their own terms. I can't imagine how you approach the logic people. "Hey, tired of thinking and deciding for yourself? Jesus has a solution for you!" Ultimately, you need to show them how belief in any 'god' is a logical proposition, yeah, that must be quite the bit of sophistry. and then show how belief in the Christian God is the most logical of the available options. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't think this guy understands what "logical" means.

Mike reiterates the "they believe that just won't admit it" with a twist: It is interesting to note that the bible makes no effort whatsoever to prove God's existence. Neither do the Jason Bourne novels, the Lord of the Rings or the Wheel of Time series attempt to prove the existence of their characters. So what? I would echo what has already been said, everyone knows that God exists, some choose to pretend that they don't. Pray for them to lose whatever they are holding onto that damn logic again! that is coming between them and God.

Alhere seems a little confused on the definitions of "legal", "forensic" and "evidence". There are a number of lines of legal forensic evidence that could be presented.One would be that life is too complex to have come into existence by time, chance and random processes. really? how would you know? keep in mind, that while you may believe the universe is only 6000 years old, I believe it is billions if not trillions of years old, and trust me, everything that can happen is bound to happen at least once in all that time.

There is no way you could add information to the genetic machinery for increased complexity unless there was an intelligence designing and directing the adding of information. Alhere clearly doesn't know how evolution works. Not surprising, but the information doesn't get added to DNA by an outside source, it is selected by which orgamism lasts long enough to reproduce. Let's look at sickle cell anemia. In sickle cell anemia, the red blood cells are the shape of a sickle moon rather than being round. It is a horrible, painful disease that greatly reduces life expectancy, but it makes one immune to malaria. Malaria kills millions of children a year before their 5th birthdays. People with sickle cell anemia make it to adulthood. Therefore, in an evolutionary sense, sickle cell anemia is successful: people with it live long enough to reproduce. If you accept that there is no evolution, you must also accept that god created sickle cell anemia rather than simply making people immune to malaria. That's a hard position to defend, unless you like the idea of the sadistic god.

That leads to, well who is that intelligence then? From there you can point out that the Bible claims to be a message from that intelligence. so does the torah, the q'ran, and a number of other books. Ok, then how do I know that the Bible is really from the creator? There are a number of lines of evidence one can consider. Bible prophecy and its accurate fulfillment is strong evidence that the Bible is from that Creator. the bible, like many other books, is consistent within itself? that's amazing! There are hundreds of prophecies already accurately fulfilled and many more ready to be fulfilled in the end times. so, they haven't been fulfilled yet is what you are saying? The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has strong legal evidence that it truly happened. "legal" evidence? what? The gospels are 4 eyewitness accounts of these events admissable in any court of law. no, they're not. simply because some guy, a couple thousand years ago, says he saw the same thing 3 other guys say they saw does not make it admissable in a court of law. I suggest reviewing the Rules of Evidence. There were over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ available also. really? are they available today? did they write their testimony down? Secular historians recorded the fact of the existence of a man named Jesus Christ. doesn't make him the son of god.The dead sea scrolls attest to the accuracy of the manuscipts we now have. The writings of the early church fathers preserve virtually every verse in the Bible which affirms our current Bible.There is a start. to what?

Glory in Print takes the "all atheists are mass murderers" approach: I don't think there is anything you can do other than to plant the seed of the gospel and pray for them...I have debated over 100 atheist you counted? and I found one thing real fast apparently not that fast, you did debate 100 of them. unless Glory in Print debated 100 atheists at once. they are not seeking truth not your truth, anyway, they love darkness rather than light we're evil!, they will reject the truth at all cost it's that logic! we just can't give up the logic!...And not to mention the fact that alot of atheist have a vile hatred for God, and for Christians i love how these idiots think that because a person gets really annoyed about being preached at, they must hate god. there's no other explanation...Now when I talk to an atheist I don't even acknowledge there their unbelief and I tell them it doesen't matter if they don't believe in God, because God will judge them regardless of there unbelief then I share the gospel with them. so there! i'll be right in the end, you'll see!

psalms 137:9 apparently didn't get the memo about thinking: What is wrong with logical thought? jesus demands that you think about nothing! BTW, I looked up psalms 137:9, and now I am very afraid of this poster: he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

buzzardhut, a moderator on the raptureready message boards, gives psalms 137:9 the memo: Logic blurs at the metaphysical yeah, what the fuck does that mean?

I'm giving up there. Apparently, my brain is the reason I can't believe. Not sure why god gave me a brain . . . and now I'm back to atheism.