Religion Is A Pop-Culture
- Thread starter notme2000
- Start date
notme:
What is truth?
*Xev smiles and orders that Jewish rabble-rouser to be freed, and goes back to producing truth*
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Obviously, to say, "there is no truth" is a contradiction in terms. I meant more an absolute truth. I do not believe that absolute truth exists...I think that everything fluctuates.
Right, no nihlism before bedtime!
Empty Dragon:
I see.
notme:
Okay. Good point. Sorry, I'm tired and rambling.
What is truth?
*Xev smiles and orders that Jewish rabble-rouser to be freed, and goes back to producing truth*
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Obviously, to say, "there is no truth" is a contradiction in terms. I meant more an absolute truth. I do not believe that absolute truth exists...I think that everything fluctuates.
Right, no nihlism before bedtime!
Empty Dragon:
I see.
notme:
Okay. Good point. Sorry, I'm tired and rambling.
Then how would it be truth if it changed by our preseptions?
I have to believe existence continues when I close my eyes. So wether or not we exist to percieve the truth, things still happen, time still passes, thus truth still exists. We however would not. So if the state of things fluctuates, which I'm sure it does, it does not mean truth itself fluctuates, but that it is true that the state of things fluctuate, that in itself being the truth.
Last edited:
Empty Dragon,
Does Athiesm mean just not to belive in God?
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
3. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
There are two types of atheist, one who does not believe in God because they are not interested in anything of that nature, they just want to live their life how they want to live it. They are not interested in discussing whether or not there is a God, they don’t care whether there is a God or not, at least not until they are ready, then they may act. These kind of people you will rarely find on these forums. But if you do, they will naturally gravitate toward “atheism” this also applies to people who think they believe in God, but upon closer inspection find that they don’t.
The other type, is the type you see on these forums, they are active, and see their action as a cause. They cannot stand the idea of a God and will go to lengths to state their claims. “Evidence or lack of, is nothing but a smoke screen. They ask for direct evidence knowing it cannot be given, but when asked to produce evidence of anything, they avoid.
In terms of action, they use as much energy in their dis-belief as someone uses to believe, they are not neutral. To say that this is a natural and neutral position is nothing short of delusion. When a child is born, they may not know about God, but apart from wanting food, what do they know?
The first 2 dictionary meanings of the word “atheist” above, all describe action (in bold), the third describes my first description.
If you look around you in society, you will find that most institutions that provide essential services, have been usurped, by corporations whose only interest is profit, this includes religion, in fact just look at this religion forum and you will see a microsm of most modern societies.
You find all kind of nonsense happening in religious institutions i.e. Catholsism.
What you see happening on this forum is the new religion, a new institutionalised religion. For some reason the institutions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism are no longer useful to the global cause, or they are playing their finale, by killing each other, so now we have “atheism” just simply a reversal of the other institutes, but it serves a societal purpose.
So then hoe does it differ from religion where you believe with out evidence that here is a god.
You are right, it is an empty religion. A lot of churches where I live, are empty, the ones that are in trendy locations are used as nightclubs and bars. So people still go to church, but not for the purpose of serving God, but to serve their senses. Sense gratification is the new inst. Religion.
It would take the same amount of faith to BELIEVE that there is not a god. Untill we understant the ultimate nature of the universe Can anyone really know for sure?
Of course it would, you are right.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Does Athiesm mean just not to belive in God?
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
3. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
There are two types of atheist, one who does not believe in God because they are not interested in anything of that nature, they just want to live their life how they want to live it. They are not interested in discussing whether or not there is a God, they don’t care whether there is a God or not, at least not until they are ready, then they may act. These kind of people you will rarely find on these forums. But if you do, they will naturally gravitate toward “atheism” this also applies to people who think they believe in God, but upon closer inspection find that they don’t.
The other type, is the type you see on these forums, they are active, and see their action as a cause. They cannot stand the idea of a God and will go to lengths to state their claims. “Evidence or lack of, is nothing but a smoke screen. They ask for direct evidence knowing it cannot be given, but when asked to produce evidence of anything, they avoid.
In terms of action, they use as much energy in their dis-belief as someone uses to believe, they are not neutral. To say that this is a natural and neutral position is nothing short of delusion. When a child is born, they may not know about God, but apart from wanting food, what do they know?
The first 2 dictionary meanings of the word “atheist” above, all describe action (in bold), the third describes my first description.
If you look around you in society, you will find that most institutions that provide essential services, have been usurped, by corporations whose only interest is profit, this includes religion, in fact just look at this religion forum and you will see a microsm of most modern societies.
You find all kind of nonsense happening in religious institutions i.e. Catholsism.
What you see happening on this forum is the new religion, a new institutionalised religion. For some reason the institutions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism are no longer useful to the global cause, or they are playing their finale, by killing each other, so now we have “atheism” just simply a reversal of the other institutes, but it serves a societal purpose.
So then hoe does it differ from religion where you believe with out evidence that here is a god.
You are right, it is an empty religion. A lot of churches where I live, are empty, the ones that are in trendy locations are used as nightclubs and bars. So people still go to church, but not for the purpose of serving God, but to serve their senses. Sense gratification is the new inst. Religion.
It would take the same amount of faith to BELIEVE that there is not a god. Untill we understant the ultimate nature of the universe Can anyone really know for sure?
Of course it would, you are right.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Then would each athiest believe a different a different philosophy or the same Dogma. We each seek our own way in life, in some ways it might seem similar to the way of other. But in reality it is us and only use who walk the path, you may travel with some for a while but to hault your search and walk their path. What does that mean, fellowship, identification with others would only hinder your search for the truth. Whiether we call our selfs Hindu or Atheist it dosn't fundemntaly matter since these are creations on man through presseption. Are all Christians alike, are all Athiests alike? Anyone with an open mind changes at every interraction of his existance. True many religions have "spiritual practices" ei: Theory, Prayer, Yoga, Tai Chi, Internal Alchemy. Are those practices techniques or truth?
Ahhh #@!%#$%$%^ I need to watch my grammer and spelling..
I have heard this argument many times, often from someone who couldn't convince me there was a God. I'm sorry you couldn't convince me there is a God. I'm not commited to the idea of there not being a God, I am commited to truth. And like it or not, I have mass amounts of evidence that there is not a God and not one bit that supports a God. And even if I were to recieve evidence of a God, I doubt it would be enough evidence to contradict all the evidence I have stating otherwise. So you can see, to someone who is trying to prove God's existence to me, I would be quite frustrating, because I'd be asking for at least as much evidence of a God as I have that there isn't one. And I don't think any theists can deliver that.
And as for Athiesm being a new religion, that is not true. Every religion starts with the assumption of total knowledge. They have a book, wether it be the bible, tora, whatever, that tells them everything they need to know. Athiesm starts with the assumption of zero knowledge. We acknowledge the fact that we are born in to this world not knowing anything, and we look around us and make what we can with it.
Science is the opposite of religion. Science teaches us to make observations, develop a hypothesis, then develop an experiment to test this hypothesis. If the experiment succeeds, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory. If the experiment fails, the knowledge gained during that experiment can be used to develop a new hypothesis, and the process begins again. As our ability to observe the world around us advances, so too does our scientific knowledge. The development of the microscope dramatically increased our understanding of biology. The development of the telescope dramatically increased our understanding of cosmology. We can gain knowledge through observation, and further it by applying the scientific method. Theories are not immutable, and certainly can and will be discarded when new knowledge is introduced. This has happened many times.
So you see, we do not have the same amount of faith in there not being a God as someone has faith that there is a God. All we do is work for the truth, and we realize we have no say in what the final truth is.
Last edited:
go for the strong points
Atheists/Agnostics always strongly attack those things which are the best proofs that God is alive and working in human society. For instance:
Christians believe Humans are the special creation of God. Therefore science says that humans are nothing but animals.
Christians believe in a risen savior. Therefore, the atheist tells us that Jesus' never even existed to begin with.
Christians believe in a supernatural revelation from God, called the Bible. The atheist says it is a fabrication.
Humanity can see the handiwork of God in all of nature. Science tells us it was all the work of random evolution.
Christians have faith in things unseen. Atheists claim that they do not have, nor do they need faith. Yet both sides need plenty of faith to believe what they do.
Atheists:
What is your evidence that there is no distinction between humans and animals?
What is your evidence that Jesus never existed?
What is your evidence that the Bible is a hoax?
What is your evidence that the world came about through evolution?
There is no incontrovertable evidence to support the Christian belief. But there is no incontrovertable evidence to support the atheist belief either. At least not enough to unconvince the devout. Like it or not both sets of belief require faith.
There is no one so religious as the devout atheist. I have seen faith that rivals any zealous dervish displayed by the atheist who refuses to see that man is infinitely more advanced than the smartest animal. Or the atheist who rejects devine creation in favor of a theory devoid of hard evidence. Or the atheist who rejects the Bible as a fabrication, when it has displayed its supernatural power for 1000 years. Or the atheist who claims that Jesus never existed, when time itself is measured by his life ("B.C.", "A.D.").
I see atheism as a religion for the irreligious. The ultimate paradox existence. A reaction against the beliefs of others is the driving force behind their zealousness.
-Mike
Atheists/Agnostics always strongly attack those things which are the best proofs that God is alive and working in human society. For instance:
Christians believe Humans are the special creation of God. Therefore science says that humans are nothing but animals.
Christians believe in a risen savior. Therefore, the atheist tells us that Jesus' never even existed to begin with.
Christians believe in a supernatural revelation from God, called the Bible. The atheist says it is a fabrication.
Humanity can see the handiwork of God in all of nature. Science tells us it was all the work of random evolution.
Christians have faith in things unseen. Atheists claim that they do not have, nor do they need faith. Yet both sides need plenty of faith to believe what they do.
Atheists:
What is your evidence that there is no distinction between humans and animals?
What is your evidence that Jesus never existed?
What is your evidence that the Bible is a hoax?
What is your evidence that the world came about through evolution?
There is no incontrovertable evidence to support the Christian belief. But there is no incontrovertable evidence to support the atheist belief either. At least not enough to unconvince the devout. Like it or not both sets of belief require faith.
There is no one so religious as the devout atheist. I have seen faith that rivals any zealous dervish displayed by the atheist who refuses to see that man is infinitely more advanced than the smartest animal. Or the atheist who rejects devine creation in favor of a theory devoid of hard evidence. Or the atheist who rejects the Bible as a fabrication, when it has displayed its supernatural power for 1000 years. Or the atheist who claims that Jesus never existed, when time itself is measured by his life ("B.C.", "A.D.").
I see atheism as a religion for the irreligious. The ultimate paradox existence. A reaction against the beliefs of others is the driving force behind their zealousness.
-Mike
we are animals- it's clearly seen. And it is said by many cultures- take native indians for instance.
christians think that they are smthing unique- when we all really are a part of nature
false
bible isn't written by god- you want to object?
wrong-
Christians see the handiwork of God in all of nature. Science tells us it was all the work of random evolution.
atheists need evidence not faith
DNA
few atheists say that a person like Jesus never existed and they usually base that on poor historical sources
imho Jesus existed, but forget about all the miracles
careful analysis of it
just look at all the contradictions
fossils and micro evolution
atheists do not have belief they have evidence or lack of it
atheists are quite different- all they doubt existance of gods though
we are the smartest animals
there is much evidence in favou of evolution and clearly more than no evidence for creatonism
I have and am studiying history and see none
I think it was BCE and CE
ad is just historically formed because of the christian influence in middle ages
ahteism is no a religion it is a way of thinking that requires evidence
Mike:
Who says there is no distinction? Can you show me another animal that has as good a command of language as man?
How about an animal that is as intelligent or artistic or philosophical as us?
Straw man. You know better than this Mike, while many athiests claim that he never lived, many others simply point out that there is no evidence that he was the son of God.
Anyone who claims that the Bible is a hoax is either ignorent of history or joking around.
The Bible is not a hoax. It is a compilation of Jewish and Christian myths that accumulated over thousands of years and is thought by many to be the revealed word of God.
The world, Mike? I think you mean living organisms on terra, which did not come about through evolution, although they did evolve.
Modern biology. Transitional fossils, simularities in genetic makeup, observed examples of what you creationists call "micro-evolution". The fact that the theory holds together well.
Athiesm is rather the lack of a belief, not a belief per se. C'mon Mike, you know this.
It is impossible to be religious and an athiest. What, do we throw orgies with "Dear God" and "Terrible Lie" playing in the background?
(Btw, I think I am damned for comparing XTC and NIN. Please be merciful, oh ye gods of music. I throw in "Christian Woman" by Type O Neg to appease thee.)
Straw man.
A prevarication at best, or a display of most willful ignorence.
An assertion without evidence. Supernatural power? I have several different versions of the Bible floating about my room, but they do not spin about like Linda Blair in that Excorcist movie.
This is a silly "proof" and in any case, a straw man.
*Xev hums "choices always were a problem for you - what you need is someone strong to guide you - like meee- while checking supplies of whipped cream*
Hey Mike, do you think we should sacrifice a virgin to Carl Sagan?
Who says there is no distinction? Can you show me another animal that has as good a command of language as man?
How about an animal that is as intelligent or artistic or philosophical as us?
Straw man. You know better than this Mike, while many athiests claim that he never lived, many others simply point out that there is no evidence that he was the son of God.
Anyone who claims that the Bible is a hoax is either ignorent of history or joking around.
The Bible is not a hoax. It is a compilation of Jewish and Christian myths that accumulated over thousands of years and is thought by many to be the revealed word of God.
The world, Mike? I think you mean living organisms on terra, which did not come about through evolution, although they did evolve.
Modern biology. Transitional fossils, simularities in genetic makeup, observed examples of what you creationists call "micro-evolution". The fact that the theory holds together well.
Athiesm is rather the lack of a belief, not a belief per se. C'mon Mike, you know this.
It is impossible to be religious and an athiest. What, do we throw orgies with "Dear God" and "Terrible Lie" playing in the background?
(Btw, I think I am damned for comparing XTC and NIN. Please be merciful, oh ye gods of music. I throw in "Christian Woman" by Type O Neg to appease thee.)
Straw man.
A prevarication at best, or a display of most willful ignorence.
An assertion without evidence. Supernatural power? I have several different versions of the Bible floating about my room, but they do not spin about like Linda Blair in that Excorcist movie.
This is a silly "proof" and in any case, a straw man.
*Xev hums "choices always were a problem for you - what you need is someone strong to guide you - like meee- while checking supplies of whipped cream*
Hey Mike, do you think we should sacrifice a virgin to Carl Sagan?
Avatar:
Mike sounds cute. He is probably not a virgin.
To quote one Lady Sylvia in Lair of the White Worm (about virgins):
"Unfortunately, they are so hard to come by these days."
What about it, Mike? Want to be sacrified to the Great Cthulhu - er, holy gods of athiesm?
Mike sounds cute.
He is probably not a virgin. To quote one Lady Sylvia in Lair of the White Worm (about virgins):
"Unfortunately, they are so hard to come by these days."
What about it, Mike? Want to be sacrified to the Great Cthulhu - er, holy gods of athiesm?
Xev + Ekimklaw = a Christian who doubts himself
Sacrificed? Virgin? Forget it... I have a strong aversion to having my still-beating heart ripped from my chest and hurled into some brazier.
But as to the apparent misunderstanding of my post...
==============================================
Avatar wrote:
...we all really are a part of nature.
==============================================
I never said we aren't part of nature. But some atheists (James R for one) believe that a human is no different than an animal. Not true. Animals do not have emotions like humans. (See my post on the "Proofs that God exist" thread... page 10)
==============================================
Avatar wrote:
...just look at all the contradictions [in the Bible].
==============================================
Give me ONE example of a "contradiction".
==============================================
Xev wrote:
Who says there is no distinction [between humans and animals]?
==============================================
James R, for one. I've heard other atheists spout this "belief". I'm glad you're not one of them Xev.
==============================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw originally wrote:
What is your evidence that Jesus never existed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xev responded:
Straw man. You know better than this Mike, while many athiests claim that he never lived, many others simply point out that there is no evidence that he was the son of God.
==============================================
My purpose was to show that some claim he did not exist, when there is a lot of evidence that he did. This tells me that they either refuse to believe no matter what the evidence, they are ignorant of the evidence, or they reject the evidence out of spite for Christians. After all, there is more evidence that he did exist rather than that he didn't.
I know this is a bit of an odd tactic, but what can I say...
==============================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw originally wrote:
What is your evidence that the world came about through evolution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xev responded:
The world, Mike? I think you mean living organisms on terra, which did not come about through evolution, although they did evolve.
Modern biology. Transitional fossils, simularities in genetic makeup, observed examples of what you creationists call "micro-evolution". The fact that the theory holds together well.
==============================================
Okay, my purpose here was to show that although the theory of evolution portrays itself as the answer to all the questions about origins, it leaves many things unanswered. The theory of evolution is not the balm of knowledge that some people think it is. It is fraught with "suppostions" and "implied evidence".
==============================================
Xev wrote:
Athiesm is rather the lack of a belief, not a belief per se.
==============================================
I know, but some atheists "lack of beliefs" have, over time, evolved into a strict set of beliefs. For example:
"We do not believe in a god", becomes "There is no God".
"We do not believe that God created mankind" becomes "Mankind evolved." etc.
This adherance to a certain set of dogmatic beliefs gives it the illusion of religiosity.
As for the B.C./A.D. thing... like it or not, time is measured by Jesus' life. Acadametians today are desperately trying to force humanity into accepting and using BCE and CE in an effort to hide this fact. But still it will always be that time is measured by the life of Christ (Not Siddhartha, Muhammed, or Caesar).
Oh, and Xev... you know I have feelings for you.
-Mike
Sacrificed? Virgin? Forget it... I have a strong aversion to having my still-beating heart ripped from my chest and hurled into some brazier.
But as to the apparent misunderstanding of my post...
==============================================
Avatar wrote:
...we all really are a part of nature.
==============================================
I never said we aren't part of nature. But some atheists (James R for one) believe that a human is no different than an animal. Not true. Animals do not have emotions like humans. (See my post on the "Proofs that God exist" thread... page 10)
==============================================
Avatar wrote:
...just look at all the contradictions [in the Bible].
==============================================
Give me ONE example of a "contradiction".
==============================================
Xev wrote:
Who says there is no distinction [between humans and animals]?
==============================================
James R, for one. I've heard other atheists spout this "belief". I'm glad you're not one of them Xev.
==============================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw originally wrote:
What is your evidence that Jesus never existed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xev responded:
Straw man. You know better than this Mike, while many athiests claim that he never lived, many others simply point out that there is no evidence that he was the son of God.
==============================================
My purpose was to show that some claim he did not exist, when there is a lot of evidence that he did. This tells me that they either refuse to believe no matter what the evidence, they are ignorant of the evidence, or they reject the evidence out of spite for Christians. After all, there is more evidence that he did exist rather than that he didn't.
I know this is a bit of an odd tactic, but what can I say...
==============================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw originally wrote:
What is your evidence that the world came about through evolution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xev responded:
The world, Mike? I think you mean living organisms on terra, which did not come about through evolution, although they did evolve.
Modern biology. Transitional fossils, simularities in genetic makeup, observed examples of what you creationists call "micro-evolution". The fact that the theory holds together well.
==============================================
Okay, my purpose here was to show that although the theory of evolution portrays itself as the answer to all the questions about origins, it leaves many things unanswered. The theory of evolution is not the balm of knowledge that some people think it is. It is fraught with "suppostions" and "implied evidence".
==============================================
Xev wrote:
Athiesm is rather the lack of a belief, not a belief per se.
==============================================
I know, but some atheists "lack of beliefs" have, over time, evolved into a strict set of beliefs. For example:
"We do not believe in a god", becomes "There is no God".
"We do not believe that God created mankind" becomes "Mankind evolved." etc.
This adherance to a certain set of dogmatic beliefs gives it the illusion of religiosity.
As for the B.C./A.D. thing... like it or not, time is measured by Jesus' life. Acadametians today are desperately trying to force humanity into accepting and using BCE and CE in an effort to hide this fact. But still it will always be that time is measured by the life of Christ (Not Siddhartha, Muhammed, or Caesar).
Oh, and Xev... you know I have feelings for you.
-Mike
Human IS no different than an animal.
I have dog for about 8 years and can assure you that he has emotions, just like us. He can be sad, happy, bored, playful, feel insulted or feel guilty or feel shame.
>Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
>Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
vs.
>Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
>I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
>I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
>Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
>Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."
it's not a belief , it's a fact- we are animals, smart animals but not more.
be careful with that
*Avatar grins by himself- Xev and Ekim having a theological dispute in bed
WRONG- @ 2 points
Yeshua couldn't have been born in 0 "ad" because Herod died in year 5 "bc" - it's quite well documented in roman chronicles.
2point- In Muslin countries time is measured by the time from when Mahmud got his revelation (sp) from Allah
Also it is different in Japan
and also - it is not important- Time could well also be counted from year 476 (the fall of Western Rome)
Mike:
*Xev pouts*
Mike, JamesR is agnostic, not an athiest. Most agnostics look down on athiests, and would be annoyed to be confused with us.
But I am glad you say "like". I don't think it's fair to say that other animals do not feel emotions - my shepard would come and lay her head on my lap or lick my face when I felt sad. I could be imagining this, but there are zillions of examples of animals acting as if they had emotions.
However, just to beat the dead horse a bit, man is very unique among the animals. I am thinking of posting this subject soon.
Yes, this is true, but please do not tar me with this pitch. I do not think you are like the Christians who picketed Matthew Shephard's funeral, and I do not think you are like the Christians who burned Giordano Bruno alive.
Please do not assume all athiests are alike, as I extend this courtesy to you with regards to Christians and Inquisitors.
The theory does not portray itself, some over-zealous proponents of evolution portray it this way.
Evolution is not and will never be a complete answer to the question of origens.
Yes, and I will confess myself guilty on this. I know perfectly well that I can't say "God doesn't exist" and mean it, but I have been known to say this.
*Hits self before continuing*
Intellectual honesty takes a great amount of self-discipline and I am weak here.
This is, b/w, why I prefer the Nietzschean formula "God is dead".
*Blushes*
Avatar:
"Thou shalt not kill" is actually best translated from archaic Hebrew as "Commit not murder" or "thou shalt not murder".
Murder and killing are, imo, quite different. I prefer the two contradictory creation stories of Gen. 1:1-2:3 and Gen. 2:2-25.
Here is a list by a former preacher who became an athiest for some reason or another, I haven't read his book although it's supposed to be interesting:
http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html
*Xev pouts*
Mike, JamesR is agnostic, not an athiest. Most agnostics look down on athiests, and would be annoyed to be confused with us.
But I am glad you say "like". I don't think it's fair to say that other animals do not feel emotions - my shepard would come and lay her head on my lap or lick my face when I felt sad. I could be imagining this, but there are zillions of examples of animals acting as if they had emotions.
However, just to beat the dead horse a bit, man is very unique among the animals. I am thinking of posting this subject soon.
Yes, this is true, but please do not tar me with this pitch. I do not think you are like the Christians who picketed Matthew Shephard's funeral, and I do not think you are like the Christians who burned Giordano Bruno alive.
Please do not assume all athiests are alike, as I extend this courtesy to you with regards to Christians and Inquisitors.
The theory does not portray itself, some over-zealous proponents of evolution portray it this way.
Evolution is not and will never be a complete answer to the question of origens.
Yes, and I will confess myself guilty on this. I know perfectly well that I can't say "God doesn't exist" and mean it, but I have been known to say this.
*Hits self before continuing*
Intellectual honesty takes a great amount of self-discipline and I am weak here.
This is, b/w, why I prefer the Nietzschean formula "God is dead".
*Blushes*
Avatar:
"Thou shalt not kill" is actually best translated from archaic Hebrew as "Commit not murder" or "thou shalt not murder".
Murder and killing are, imo, quite different. I prefer the two contradictory creation stories of Gen. 1:1-2:3 and Gen. 2:2-25.
Here is a list by a former preacher who became an athiest for some reason or another, I haven't read his book although it's supposed to be interesting:
http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html