Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

Since: Mar 11

Florence, KY

#127911 Oct 5, 2012
Why should anyone care about what one scripture says about another scripture?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Discredit the source because you do not like what it says. My initial source quotes academics. The only one who lies to self is you and others who convict Scripture as guilty until proven innocent. Again and again. Refuse to accept Scripture as evidence for anything other than myth. Even when 1 Kings refers to the Exodus as actual it is dismissed. All the ancients were wrong and your sources are right. Never mind they were 1000s years closer to the event. They are all sub standard according to critics. I was reviewing the past few pages and noted you initially dismissed EMS post as fiction which was rude so i think you have little to gripe about when you stated he asked a mis leading question as you invited the response given your trite dismissal of his post. Bersides, i don't think you were put off only by the question. There were other things going on. Who knows how long he spent just to bring that post here only to have you and others dismiss it. That is why you ahve a hard time to get academics to come on to sites like this. Why slum it? All you had to do was google and look for hostile opinions. There is more to the Exodus than just dismissive opinions which basically calls all the ancients liars and you elites know the real truth of the matter. No matter how much is thrown at you it is easy to predict your reaction.

Since: Mar 11

Florence, KY

#127912 Oct 5, 2012
Light pukes out apologetic reject sites that say oh hey look what this scripture says about another scripture or ohhhhhh look this scripture sounds kind of like an older one! Woohoo!

Lmfao!
EMS Servant wrote:
<quoted text>I find it interesting that light brings data from various sources to support his arguments but your rebuttal is that it's all false but there is nothing cited to substantiate it. If you are going to say what he is posting is false perhapse you may want to cite some credible sources to back up your assertions so they don't look like simple conjecture or name calling "your a liar and a poopie head!"

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#127913 Oct 5, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Discredit the source because you do not like what it says. My initial source quotes academics. The only one who lies to self is you and others who convict Scripture as guilty until proven innocent. Again and again. Refuse to accept Scripture as evidence for anything other than myth. Even when 1 Kings refers to the Exodus as actual it is dismissed. All the ancients were wrong and your sources are right. Never mind they were 1000s years closer to the event. They are all sub standard according to critics. I was reviewing the past few pages and noted you initially dismissed EMS post as fiction which was rude so i think you have little to gripe about when you stated he asked a mis leading question as you invited the response given your trite dismissal of his post. Bersides, i don't think you were put off only by the question. There were other things going on. Who knows how long he spent just to bring that post here only to have you and others dismiss it. That is why you ahve a hard time to get academics to come on to sites like this. Why slum it? All you had to do was google and look for hostile opinions. There is more to the Exodus than just dismissive opinions which basically calls all the ancients liars and you elites know the real truth of the matter. No matter how much is thrown at you it is easy to predict your reaction.
Admittedly, there are two schools of thought concerning the date of the Exodus (i.e., the early date and late date theories). "Proponents of the late date theory (1290 B.C.) are clearly in the majority, but they reject clear Biblical statements with reference to the date of the Exodus. Therefore their arguments in favor of a particular pharaoh will not be considered in this article."

That is from your linked article. Do you really expect people to take your sources seriously when that is how they think? "Everyone else thinks this, but they don't believe in the bible like me, so let's ignore them."

Hilarious.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#127914 Oct 5, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Discredit the source because you do not like what it says. My initial source quotes academics. The only one who lies to self is you and others who convict Scripture as guilty until proven innocent. Again and again. Refuse to accept Scripture as evidence for anything other than myth. Even when 1 Kings refers to the Exodus as actual it is dismissed. All the ancients were wrong and your sources are right. Never mind they were 1000s years closer to the event. They are all sub standard according to critics. I was reviewing the past few pages and noted you initially dismissed EMS post as fiction which was rude so i think you have little to gripe about when you stated he asked a mis leading question as you invited the response given your trite dismissal of his post. Bersides, i don't think you were put off only by the question. There were other things going on. Who knows how long he spent just to bring that post here only to have you and others dismiss it. That is why you ahve a hard time to get academics to come on to sites like this. Why slum it? All you had to do was google and look for hostile opinions. There is more to the Exodus than just dismissive opinions which basically calls all the ancients liars and you elites know the real truth of the matter. No matter how much is thrown at you it is easy to predict your reaction.
The ancients are the best!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#127915 Oct 5, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I'll wait.
Someplace else?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#127916 Oct 5, 2012
EMS Servant wrote:
I find it interesting that light brings data from various sources to support his arguments but your rebuttal is that it's all false but there is nothing cited to substantiate it. If you are going to say what he is posting is false perhapse you may want to cite some credible sources to back up your assertions so they don't look like simple conjecture or name calling "your a liar and a poopie head!"
<quoted text>
Are you joking? Both of you have been provided with multiple sources that all say the same thing - the exodus probably did not happen. Light posting a link to an apologetics website (whose author specifically says that he is ignoring the majority scholarship in favor of bible verses) is not "data from various sources." It's a desperate attempt to defend his beliefs based on another man's desperate attempt to substantiate his belief.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#127917 Oct 5, 2012
Haha, wow, light, your "source" believes in the parting of the red sea. Is there no limit to his, and your, madness?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#127918 Oct 5, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Someplace else?
Haha, if only.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127919 Oct 5, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Discredit the source because you do not like what it says.
Let's review. I post interviews and commentary from two archaeologists who are actually uncovering sites during the times in question.

You post the slanted views of the religious.

Yes, we can discredit your sources.

For example, read this laughable quote:

"History tells us that for several years after 1445 B.C. Amenhotep II was unable to carry out any invasions or extensive military operations. This would seem like very strange behavior for a pharaoh who hoped to equal his father's record of no less than seventeen military campaigns in nineteen years. But this is exactly what one would expect from a pharaoh who had lost almost all his cavalry, chariotry, and army at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:23, 27-30)."

Oh, that's truly awesome.
My initial source quotes academics.
I can't seem to find it.
The only one who lies to self is you and others who convict Scripture as guilty until proven innocent.
Not guilty. It's a mythology book, designed for people at that time.
Again and again. Refuse to accept Scripture as evidence for anything other than myth.
Yes, now you got it. And, no, I've already stated that some of the sites mentioned in the Bible are accurate. Just not all. Some that were mentioned - like Jericho - did not exist at the time stated in the Bible. So they were anachronistically added by later editors who were trying to unify the disparate versions.

Jewish scholars freely acknowledge that but you creatoinists are science and history deniers, so it's part of your religion to dismiss evidence.
Even when 1 Kings refers to the Exodus as actual it is dismissed. All the ancients were wrong and your sources are right.
Ah...the Egyptian sources also discredit the Bible's passages.
Never mind they were 1000s years closer to the event. They are all sub standard according to critics.
Well, when the writers add cities that they knew about that could not have existed during the happenings of their writing then, yes, we dismiss the writing as fantasy.
I was reviewing the past few pages and noted you initially dismissed EMS post as fiction which was rude so i think you have little to gripe about when you stated he asked a mis leading question as you invited the response given your trite dismissal of his post.
Yes, and then I apologized and admitted my mistake, while noting that scholars have said "you have to have faith to connect those two stories."
Bersides, i don't think you were put off only by the question. There were other things going on. Who knows how long he spent just to bring that post here only to have you and others dismiss it. That is why you ahve a hard time to get academics to come on to sites like this. Why slum it?
You mean, why do I post here at all? I like some of the people. It makes for procrastination.
All you had to do was google and look for hostile opinions. There is more to the Exodus than just dismissive opinions which basically calls all the ancients liars and you elites know the real truth of the matter. No matter how much is thrown at you it is easy to predict your reaction.
You've never posted a non-apologetic opinion that uses actual evidence to back up your beliefs.

I make use of academics - many of whom are Jewish and whom you would assume would have vested interests in supporting their Holy writings. That they don't is telling:

1. they're more honest than you and your religion
2. they have higher standards in evidence based research
3. they're critical thinkers and can separate religious versus scientific knowledge

I even posted material from the Jewish government acknowledging that the Bible isn't accurate and discussing what that means to their identity as a nation.

You aren't even capable of engaging in such a learned discussion.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127920 Oct 5, 2012
timn17 wrote:
Haha, wow, light, your "source" believes in the parting of the red sea. Is there no limit to his, and your, madness?
hahaha, that's great, we picked up on the same inanity.

:)

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#127921 Oct 5, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha, that's great, we picked up on the same inanity.
:)
Haha that we did:) It was definitely good for a laugh.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127922 Oct 5, 2012
EMS Servant wrote:
I find it interesting that light brings data from various sources to support his arguments but your rebuttal is that it's all false but there is nothing cited to substantiate it. If you are going to say what he is posting is false perhapse you may want to cite some credible sources to back up your assertions so they don't look like simple conjecture or name calling "your a liar and a poopie head!"
Let's take a look at what I posted:

"Among Biblical scholars and archaeologists it is almost axiomatic that the Israelites entered Canaan about 1230–1220 B.C. In terms of archaeological periods, this would be towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, for which the Generally Accepted Date (GAD) is 1550–1200 B.C. Yet there are enormous problems with this dating. In recent decades an increasing number of scholars have recognized that if we accept the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C. for the Israelite entry into Canaan, we must reject the Biblical account of Israel’s conquest of Canaanite cities. This is because the Biblical account conflicts so strongly with the archaeological record. The Bible describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan at length and refers to a number of cities encountered by Joshua and his armies. In almost every case the archaeological evidence is inconsistent with the Biblical evidence—if we date the Israelite entry into Canaan to the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C."

http://davelivingston.com/davelivingston/arti...

They go on to demonstrate where the editors of the Bible have anachronistically added cities and happenings. For example:

"The Bible tells us that Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb at the time of the conquest (Joshua 14:13– 15, 15:13–14; Judges 1:20). At Hebron, excavations in the 1960s produced only scanty remains from between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and a late phase of Iron Age I (11th century B.C.) and no evidence of occupation in the 13th century B.C"

and

"On their march to Canaan, the Israelites were opposed by the king of Arad (Numbers 22:1,b33:40), yet Tel Arad was abandoned from the end of the Early Bronze Age (third millenniumbB.C.) until the Iron Age.7 No Late Bronze Age settlement was found. The late Professor
Yohanan Aharoni’s suggestion that Canaanite Arad lay at Tel Malhata, about eight miles to thebsouthwest of Tel Arad, does nothing to solve the problem, for there is no evidence of a settlement between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and Iron Age II (tenthbcentury B.C.)."

There's lots more. I also posted a link that discussed the paper your posted. It also discredited the Exodus story. I further posted a discussion about the workers of the Pyramids by THE archaeologist doing the onsite digging:

http://www.ekt.bme.hu/CM-BSC-MSC/WhoBuiltTheP...

And, I've posted discussions by archaeologists about how they treat the Bible as any other historical mythology: not as 100% accurate, but as something that can shed light on the past but also may be misleading.

So...no. Modern archaeology does not support Biblical literally. It shows that the Bible is a mythology designed to forge an identity and unity for the ancient Hebrew people. Over the years it was edited repeatedly as the times changed to keep their Holy book relevant.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#127923 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
(...snip...)Assuming the Exodus took place in 1445 then 40 years of wandering gets you to 1405 BC for the destruction of Jericho. http://allanturner.com/pharaoh.html
There was a more recent, thorough and complete excavation performed at Jericho. The link you give above does not utilize that data. This is something I see frequently at apologetics sites. They will ignore and often won't cite conflicting data, or the accepted and more accurate data that is clear.

It's disingenuous. It's misleading.

But I've come to expect it. In discussing the bible, I attempt to use Christian approved sources, along with trying to determine those sources are actually following an *a posteriori* scientific method, in which conclusions are subservient to the data; The conclusion is reached after the data or facts have been observed. Only data or fact that can be verified are utilized.

Opposed to an *a priori* method.<=(not preferable)

Anyway...

QUOTING:
"John Garstang conducted excavations at Jericho from 1930 to 1936. He found a destruction layer corresponding to the termination of City IV, and dated it to ca. 1400 B.C. This worked out well for traditional biblical chronology. However, in the 1950's, Kathleen Kenyon conducted further excavations at Jericho and concluded that the destruction of Garstang's City IV should be dated ca. 1550 B.C., not ca. 1400 B.C. In fact, Kenyon found no evidence at all of occupation of Jericho ca. 1407 B.C.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/...

But, then another "apologist archaeologist" came forward with a different interpretation. His name is Bryant Wood.

QUOTING:
"Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 B.C.). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected. http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/...

No surprise there, and it was rejected. Now, before you yell: "REVISIONIST AGENDA!"... There is no agenda, unless you consider arriving at an accurate conclusion an agenda.

QUOTING:
"Settling the Dispute

It is clear that the question is one of chronology. When was City IV Jericho destroyed? The scholarly consensus says ca. 1550 B.C., Wood says ca. 1400 B.C. What source can we turn to to settle this dispute?

In fact, radiocarbon is such a source. In the early 1990's, when Wood first published his claims, there was only one radiocarbon measurement available for City IV. It was from a piece of charcoal dated by the British Museum to 1410 plus or minus 40 years B.C.(...)The corrected date for the charcoal sample from City IV turned out to be consistent with Kenyon's ca. 1550 B.C. date for the City IV destruction.

The corrected date no longer supported Wood's proposal, but it was insufficient to falsify the proposal. Radiocarbon dates on charcoal give the date the wood grew, not the date it was burned.

To be consistent with Bryant Wood's proposal, the wood which burned to produce the charcoal sample would need to have been cut from a living tree 150 years prior to the destruction.

Of course, this is not impossible."
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/...

One more quote from a different source concerning Bryant Wood.

"Each of Wood’s arguments is flawed: At each point he is either wrong, does not take account of previously published data or his argument is simply irrelevant." http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp...

There is no proof of the biblical "Exodus".

<*winks* at Hiding>

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#127924 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's take a look at what I posted:
"Among Biblical scholars and archaeologists it is almost axiomatic that the Israelites entered Canaan about 1230–1220 B.C. In terms of archaeological periods, this would be towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, for which the Generally Accepted Date (GAD) is 1550–1200 B.C. Yet there are enormous problems with this dating. In recent decades an increasing number of scholars have recognized that if we accept the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C. for the Israelite entry into Canaan, we must reject the Biblical account of Israel’s conquest of Canaanite cities. This is because the Biblical account conflicts so strongly with the archaeological record. The Bible describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan at length and refers to a number of cities encountered by Joshua and his armies. In almost every case the archaeological evidence is inconsistent with the Biblical evidence—if we date the Israelite entry into Canaan to the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C."
http://davelivingston.com/davelivingston/arti...
They go on to demonstrate where the editors of the Bible have anachronistically added cities and happenings. For example:
"The Bible tells us that Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb at the time of the conquest (Joshua 14:13– 15, 15:13–14; Judges 1:20). At Hebron, excavations in the 1960s produced only scanty remains from between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and a late phase of Iron Age I (11th century B.C.) and no evidence of occupation in the 13th century B.C"
and
"On their march to Canaan, the Israelites were opposed by the king of Arad (Numbers 22:1,b33:40), yet Tel Arad was abandoned from the end of the Early Bronze Age (third millenniumbB.C.) until the Iron Age.7 No Late Bronze Age settlement was found. The late Professor
Yohanan Aharoni’s suggestion that Canaanite Arad lay at Tel Malhata, about eight miles to thebsouthwest of Tel Arad, does nothing to solve the problem, for there is no evidence of a settlement between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and Iron Age II (tenthbcentury B.C.)."
There's lots more. I also posted a link that discussed the paper your posted. It also discredited the Exodus story. I further posted a discussion about the workers of the Pyramids by THE archaeologist doing the onsite digging:
http://www.ekt.bme.hu/CM-BSC-MSC/WhoBuiltTheP...
And, I've posted discussions by archaeologists about how they treat the Bible as any other historical mythology: not as 100% accurate, but as something that can shed light on the past but also may be misleading.
So...no. Modern archaeology does not support Biblical literally. It shows that the Bible is a mythology designed to forge an identity and unity for the ancient Hebrew people. Over the years it was edited repeatedly as the times changed to keep their Holy book relevant.
Yeah, but.........I need this thread to keep going. So stop with your wonderfully elegant refutation of Biblical "facts". It's demonic.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127925 Oct 6, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but.........I need this thread to keep going. So stop with your wonderfully elegant refutation of Biblical "facts". It's demonic.
Oh, alright. I renounce my evil ways. Buddha caused Exodus.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#127926 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, alright. I renounce my evil ways. Buddha caused Exodus.
Buddha loves Luther Campbell.

Buddha love you long time.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#127927 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Jewish scholars freely acknowledge that but you creatoinists are science and history deniers, so it's part of your religion to dismiss evidence.
You seem to believe the universe created itself which is logical absurdity. If that makes me a denier of Science then i wear your indictment as a badge of honor. You also believe in life on other planets out there somewhere. SETI is still waiting for that magical signal!
Ah...the Egyptian sources also discredit the Bible's passages.
What Egyptian source discredits Bible passages.
Well, when the writers add cities that they knew about that could not have existed during the happenings of their writing then, yes, we dismiss the writing as fantasy.
This is where you discredit yourself. That is easily explained. Take New York for example. It was initially New Amsterdam [?]. Some scribe probably changed the name so the audience would know the location. Not some extinct city no one knew of. Critics come along and say the city did not exist at that time so it is late dated. It's hyper criticism and garbage.
Yes, and then I apologized and admitted my mistake, while noting that scholars have said "you have to have faith to connect those two stories."
You got to have faith the universe created itself or life came from inert elements. Now who is anti science? Now who believes in miracles?
You've never posted a non-apologetic opinion that uses actual evidence to back up your beliefs.
I make use of academics -
Selective. Most of your posts are opinion. Most come from apologetic websites who have academics on them. They cite sources. They do research. Do you look at the sources?
many of whom are Jewish and whom you would assume would have vested interests in supporting their Holy writings. That they don't is telling:
Many are atheist.
1. they're more honest than you and your religion
You start with the premise Christianity is a lie and Christians are liars and go from there. If Fred the drunk down the street was an atheist and could pontificate your points then Fred would have more credibility with the crowd here than a Biblical scholar who believed the Exodus happened. Enough of your wrapping yourself around all the honest scholars and all that claptrap. They are all over the board on this one. All you have to do is look at Scripture. 1 Kings 6:1. Establish the time Solomon started to build the Temple and back date it 480 as it says in the text! Then you have the time of the Exodus. Not 146 or so years after that date!
2. they have higher standards in evidence based research
3. they're critical thinkers and can separate religious versus scientific knowledge
Then why can't they do the math?
I even posted material from the Jewish government acknowledging that the Bible isn't accurate and discussing what that means to their identity as a nation.
You aren't even capable of engaging in such a learned discussion.
It has more to do with my position than my capacity. Learned discussion. Go learn that things cannot create themselves.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#127928 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible [1]. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make."
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipu...
No ''leap of faith'' is required. All one has to do is compare the Exodus account with this Egyptian text to see the obvious similiarities. The river to blood is in both. What is the Egyptian author describing? Slaves revolting. What event is the Egyptian describing? The land dark. All this and more jibes with the Exodus account.''Not everyone is willing to make'' subsequently means many are willing to make. If not everyone is willing to make then who is willing to make? That is what happens when an authentic document is produced which jibes with Exodus account. It is dismissed! Explained away. No one know the date!(Appeals to ignorance!) Any number of excuses and hiding asks how does the document add validation to the Exodus accounts?

Since: Jan 12

USA

#127929 Oct 6, 2012


Middle East sources confirm the Bible time after time.


Babylon and the Bible
by Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD

Two hundred years ago, scholars doubted whether Babylon ever existed. The only record could be found in the Bible. Critics used the story of Babylon, and what they called its "non-historic kings," to discount Scripture. However, Babylon was discovered and excavated in 1898.

We know today that Babylon was one of the first cities in the world, and founded by Nimrod, great-grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:9-10). Archaeologists have found his name on many inscriptions and tablets, while a massive head of Nimrod has been excavated near Calah on the Tigris River.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_arc...


Sumeria is located in the Land of Kish (Kush or Cush) founded by son of Noah's son Ham.


"Kish was occupied beginning in the Jemdet Nasr period (3100 BC), gaining prominence as one of the pre-eminent powers in the region during the early dynastic period.

The Sumerian king list states that it was the first city to have kings following the deluge, beginning with Jushur."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_%28Sumer%29


"Cush, son of Ham. The Empire of Kush to the south of Egypt is known from at least 1970 BC, but this name has also been associated by some with the Kassites who inhabited the Zagros area of Mesopotamia, the Sumerian city of Kish in the Land of Kish."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Noah#Ham...


"The Sumerian Kish, the first city established in Mesopotamia after the Flood, took its name from the man known in the Bible as Cush. The first kingdom established after the Flood was Kish, and the name "Kish" appears often on clay tablets. The early post-Flood Sumerian king lists say that "kingship descended from heaven to Kish" after the Flood."


continues:
http://davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm
and
http://www.noahs-ark.tv/noahs-ark-flood-creat...

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#127931 Oct 6, 2012
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21711191/co...

A description of why they think dark matter exists.

To fit their model.

You wouldn't have those continuous issues if you changed your model. The model is based on gravity, and particles that mysteriously produce it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
God' existence 11 min polymath257 83
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 44 min serfs up 2,606
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr J RULES 23,239
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 2 hr thetruth 165
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 4 hr Mikko 5
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr Mikko 1,452
Evidence for God! 4 hr Morse 369
More from around the web