dear mysummerro,
i understand ur confusion so pls think about what i'll say,
God created life to all humans as a test, it may sound silly but if u think about it, why are u born? why are evil and good are made? why is it for u to choose? why warent u born to have fun? well alot lose faith and think that thats life, but u will die eventually, and u will not just die and thats it bcause there is a God and there s a judgement day where all what u did will be recorded on u and u will be accounted on it, so if u ppl also think about these questions and reply i will be grateful.
and sallam

Christianity might have been made up for the satisfaction of humans. Meaning, one day a guy sat down thinking we are no different from other animals we are born then we die "I refuse to believe that it is too depresiing I'll make something up" voila. But then again I still believe in christianity, I'm only human. Christianity is a religion of faith and not of proof you looking for proof without been close to God yoy must be wasting your time. It's really a situation of choosing to believe or choosing not to believe. I choose too believe I will be rewarded amen. The best made up story is budhism (note, i dont think christianity is a made up story).

Just something to wet your apetite on the topic  :

http://www.funnyfunpages.com/funny_joke_barber_shop2.htm


please scroll the entire length of the page

there is one problem with the barber.

In order to get a haircut, you have to pay the barber.

The poor man never paid the barber, so the existence of hair on his face, is independent of the existence of a barber.

there is one problem with not seeing the hand of God

you got to believe he is, for whoever cometh to God must believe he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

so your unbelief in God is independent of the existence of God, seek and you shall find; seek not and you shall find not!

wow, in order to know God exists, I must believe in him.

So, it must follow that if I don't believe in him, God does not exist.

Otherwise, I could believe in say. , the Grand Coconut, ruler of the Universe, and it would exist.

I Believe my God

Do believe in God, it's as simple and stop arguing guys. I do believe!

God have mercy on your souls,

Kismat,thanks for ur effort,u ve highlighted the truth,u ve done your own part,its now left for him to either believe or not.
Anyway it is also written in the holy Quran that "WE (ALLAH)ve pull wool over their eyes so they cannot see".
This confirms that no matter how u tell them the truth if it is not ordained by almighty ALLAH that they should hear,they will never hear.
So if u like believe in God if u like don't believe,but let me just remind u that ''NO ONE SHALL BEAR THE BURDEN  OF OTHERS".

@ zatoichi
You've got many definitions of atheism. All with a different slant, depending on their own position (many theists believe that atheism is only an active disbelief in God(s)). Most atheists would define atheism as a lack of belief in (a) supreme being(s).

So if you believe in a supreme being of any kind, you are not an atheist. Atheism is not limited to the God of the Bible.

@ zatoichi
If you go by the definition you posted here, you are a either a religious atheist or a pantheist.

one thing is sure, that you choose not to believe in God does not mean he does not exist

One cannot [i]choose [/i]to believe in anything. Believing is not a matter of choice. It is consequence of exposure to information.

Even Physics defines that b4 anything can occur there must be a CAUSE. . .
the cause of life, is God and he has revealed himself as more than a force but a personal being.

blinx4real:

Even Physics defines that before anything can occur there must be a CAUSE. . .

Actually, that is not true

blinx4real:

the cause of life, is God

Care to explain?

blinx4real:

and he has revealed himself as more than a force but a personal being.

Where's the evidence?

nferyn:

Actually, that is not true

The Law of inertia

nferyn:
Care to explain?

History, science and religion even evolution does not deny that there was a beginning, they all tell us that there is a starting point to everything, there was a time when there was nothing. Then there were the inanimate things, then living things and finally man.

nferyn:
Where's the evidence?

I think it is only fair to say that all of what we see today is not here by MISTAKE, the perfect synergy of the whole of nature points to the fact that the INITIATOR thought this scheme through before he created anything. Ask yourself how come the only things that don't work right are those made by man. Has the sun ever slowed down its speed? and its been in existence for billions of years

blinx4real:

The Law of inertia

Scientific laws are descriptive, not explanative. What about the Big bang Theory? And the creator still needs a cause in this framework. It adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of the universe to put a God at the beginning.

blinx4real:

History, science and religion even evolution does not deny that there was a beginning, they all tell us that there is a starting point to everything, there was a time when there was nothing. Then there were the inanimate things, then living things and finally man.

Even though evolution works cumulatively, it does not have a direction. Man is [b]not [/b]the pinnacle of evolution.
Begining and end imply a linear perception of time. This is far from a given. It is not because it is true in our day to day experience that it must be true in all circumstances

blinx4real:

I think it is only fair to say that all of what we see today is not here by MISTAKE, the perfect synergy of the whole of nature points to the fact that the INITIATOR thought this scheme through before he created anything.

No it isn't. The Theory of Evolution is perfectly capable of explaining our biodiversity without having to bring in any supernatural explanations. By the way, if that initiator thought through this scheme beforehand, than either he did a really lousy job or he is cruel and sadistic.

blinx4real:

Ask yourself how come the only things that don't work right are those made by man. Has the sun ever slowed down its speed? and its been in existence for billions of years

Actually, speed is a relative concept and the sun has changed considerably over those billions of years. Nature is far from perfect and the biological "designs" are even worse. Just think about he blind spot in the eyes of the vertebrates: bad design that can only be explained by the unguided force of evolution.

nferyn:

Scientific laws are descriptive, not explanative. What about the Big bang Theory? And the creator still needs a cause in this framework. It adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of the universe to put a God at the beginning.

Scientific laws describe based on the data available, the big bang theory is crap because it does not have data to back it up. The laaw of inertia however has been validated and proven to be a law, thats why its not called a theory.

nferyn:
Even though evolution works cumulatively, it does not have a direction. Man is [b]not [/b]the pinnacle of evolution.
Begining and end imply a linear perception of time. This is far from a given. It is not because it is true in our day to day experience that it must be true in all circumstances

in other words evolution can return man to ape just as it evolved man from ape?

nferyn:
Actually, speed is a relative concept and the sun has changed considerably over those billions of years. Nature is far from perfect and the biological "designs" are even worse. Just think about he blind spot in the eyes of the vertebrates: bad design that can only be explained by the unguided force of evolution.

Have u ever wondered what the effect could be if u had it? Dont u think that u were made a black man(now I am assuming that u r black) for a reason

blinx4real:

Scientific laws describe based on the data available, the big bang theory is crap because it does not have data to back it up. The laaw of inertia however has been validated and proven to be a law, thats why its not called a theory.

It seems that you do not have a proper understandig of what a scientific theory really entails. If you would understand, you wouldn't call the Big Bang Theory just a theory (in it's colloquial meaning)
Have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
the work of Popper is also very enlightning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Anyway you still need to explain the creator.

blinx4real:

in other words evolution can return man to ape just as it evolved man from ape?

Under the appropriate selective pressure that is very well possible, yes. But stil, it's not because man has an exceptionally large and powerful brain that he is no longer an ape. We are the third chimpanzee (or chimps and bonobo's are the second and third living species hominins if you prefer that)
There are many cases where the blind force of evolution worked 'backwards', blind cave fish and salamanders with eyes, whales and ostriches just to name a few.

blinx4real:

Have u ever wondered what the effect could be if u had it? Dont u think that u were made a black man(now I am assuming that you're black) for a reason

Well, you're wrong here (see my profile). Skin color is an adaptation that we, hairless apes, underwent because it protects us from UV radiaton. Whites lost that adaptation because it was no longer beneficial in the climate of Europe

zatoichi:

@Nfreyn
There are certain kinds of minds i've had the opportunity of interracting with I call them "ELECTS" you rank as one of them, The seat of evolution in man has shifted from the physicals to the more granular levels of mind (a personal opinion,please).
Please tell me what is your area of speciality? What do you do?

Professionally, I'm a project manager. I studied communication science at university, but I stil maintained a keen interest in the life sciences (I'd probably study biology if I could start over again).

What exactly do you mean with[i] The seat of evolution in man has shifted from the physicals to the more granular levels of mind[/i]? Are you talking about memetics?

I'm a hard naturalist. I do not believe that the mind or the spiritual are separate from the physical, but only a manifestation of the material. It's obvious that this link is still very murky and not very well understood, but I have confidence that we will soon find the material basis for the immaterial mind and:or spirit.
I do believe -and there we're touching the thee of memes again - that information can evolve as well, as long as it has an appropriate medium to replicate in. Human brains are prime source material

I'm Agnostic, means I have doubts, I don't have enough proof of "God's" existence, till I do, I'm going to remain this way.

retro:

I'm Agnostic, means I have doubts, I don't have enough proof of "God's" existence, till I do, I'm going to remain this way.

If you are agnostic, it actually means that you have no knowledge (or cannot obtain that knowledge) of the existence of God. It doesn't say anything about what you [b]believe [/b]in.
You can either be a theist, beliving in a personal, active God (like the one from the Bible), a deist (believing in a impersonal God, that is no longer active in in the world) or an atheist (lacking the belief in a God) (I leave out the other options for clarity)

nferyn:

If you are agnostic, it actually means that you have no knowledge (or cannot obtain that knowledge) of the existence of God. It doesn't say anything about what you [b]believe [/b]in.
You can either be a theist, beliving in a personal, active God (like the one from the Bible), a deist (believing in a impersonal God, that is no longer active in in the world) or an atheist (lacking the belief in a God) (I leave out the other options for clarity)

Erm, I never said anything about "believing",
http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

What's your point?

Umm. . . there is a little known secret. . .outside of the world of those who study physics. . .

all laws of physics. . .are not exact. Essentially, they describe what would happen on a probabilistic basis.

For example, if you toss a fair coin, you expect that over time, the ratio of heads to tails will approach 1:1.

Similarly, if you push an object a lot of times while it rests on a surface which imparts zero friction onto it and somehow manage to isolate it from all forces that don't act perpendicular to the plan of motion, you would probabilistically expect the object to remain in motion.

Just like it is actually impossible to "prove" the fair coin experiment - ie, you deform the coin each time you flip it and its contact with air, light waves, hitting the floor changes its composition and distribution so you'd never be flipping the exact same coin the exact same way,

neither can you really conduct an experiment that would definitively prove the law of inertia holds for all cases.

If this wasn't enough, there are alternate theories which can explain the effects that we currently observe (ie - if correct, it means that our concept of inertia is actually wrong) but those theories have not been proven beyond . . . a scientific doubt - or we don't have the technology or knowledge to observe effects which would prove this theory.

This is a basic . . .example in bayesian decision texts. A man has a burglar alarm which goes off when a burglar is detected. however, it also goes off if an earthquake is experience near his home. When the alarm goes off, the man gets a message on his phone. So, the man is at work one day and gets the message. If there was a burglary, he should probably rush home. However, if it was just an earthquake, then he can stay at work. If the man turns on the radio, and hears that an earthquake occurred, then that can explain the alarm and decrease the man's belief that it was a burglar.

Right now, for "large" masses, newton's laws apply. However, we already know that inertia does not apply to an electron or many other "small" molecules. We have relativity and associated theories which seem to explain the effects we observe (to some degree), however, there are people who are working on new theories that can explain those effects and show newton and relativity to be wrong.

These new theories are like the man discovering he had rats in his basement which sometimes would cause the alarm to go off. The rats would only move when an earthquake occurred. So, now, while the alarm and the observations as to the cause remain correlated, there is a hidden link exposed between the two.

I will believe in God if you show me some solid evidence of his existence. There is none.
The moment you start describing properties of God, he becomes self contradictory. All what is left in the end if faith in the unknown and unknowable.