italo:
Who has the burden of proof. I know God is. How am I obliged to prove it to you?

It is you who stupidly claims that things that aren't scientifically proven are non-existent while not being able to prove your own claims scientifically.

Wrong. Why should I take YOU seriously when you cannot prove many of your claims scientifically yet insist other must do so to validate their claims?

For the upteenth time on this thread, it doesn't matter to me whether you care or not. Yes, my belief has both empirical and logical backing but why should I bother offering to you when you are not honest enough to admit that: that you haven't perceived something, that people misunderstand it...and that you haven't seen the kind of evidence you want doesn't mean that thing is non-existent?

I think you are the deluded one. If you can evolve from fish, how is it impossible for animals to talk?

If your speech is as a result of a chemical or physical reaction that started the universe, who's to set the limits for that reaction.

I think you're worse than just deluded. You're also daft and arrogant about your folly. A lethal mix.

The burden of proof cannot be on the skeptic. Bertrand Russell made that point absolutely clear. Moreover, one can't prove that something does not exist unless one was omniscient and knew everything in the universe (though something's nonexistence can be proven by pointing out it's incompatible attributes if any).

Reyginus: Dude, can atheism exist if there is no theism?

Yes. Gods were not always there. Religion was not always there.

Are claims of 'perceiving' the Easter Bunny and the Spaghetti Monster proofs that the myths are true?

italo: Oh! A few hours ago, your position was that a neutral baby would not be religious without parents indoctrinating them.

A few hours later, it is no longer parents but fear.

Anyway, you dont have physical evidence of this your version of the origin of religion yet you believe it.

It is only when religious people cannot give physical evidence of God that you start rioting abi?

Hypocrisy.

You are mixing it all up. Were my statements contradictory? Of course not. My previous post was in response to your question about the 'first' religious person. It had nothing to do with today's child who is subject to intense indoctrination from birth because of well-established traditions of organized religion.

FrostyZonn: plaetton created a huge pile of wayward bonfire and ran away...lol!

Gbam!!!

italo: Have you ever imagined the first ever religious person (whoever that is)?

He surely wasnt taught by his parents, yet he was religious.

How come?

Your question ignores the fact that religion didn't just happen. Man initially had no gods. Ignorance and fear of nature led to the idea of good and bad 'forces'. These forces were later personified which led to the creation of gods and devils. The good gods were sought and worshipped for protection against the devils. Religion was born.

Reyginus: Plaetton, I don't think it is a logical argument to assume that atheism is a default mental setting.
What it implies is that the human mind from the instant of conception has been tied to a belief in the absence of a deity. Atheism.
And then we begin to wonder how by default, a being will disagree in a concept he is yet to come across.
Something he is not aware of. How can that be.
Don't ever think that atheism will exist if there is no theism.
The argument fails from your premise.
Don't you think that for a being to have an unbelief in anything, as in, to be opposing any proposition, he must be aware of both the proposition and the opposition?

Your statement is based on the false premise that Atheism is 'opposition' of Theism. It is not. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god.
A child has no beliefs in any god though that does not qualify it for the tag 'atheist'. A child can, therefore, not be Jewish or Muslim for example. Now, imagine that religious tradition which ensures religion is passed from parent to child is nonexistent. Would we have religious adults? Most unlikely. We'll definitely have atheists and agnostics in the majority. That kind of proves that agnosticism is our default 'settings' as humans.

italo: ^^^

Matter cannot be created without energy.

So if the universe was created with energy, who created or generated the energy?

Science does not claim to know it all because it is constantly evolving. The God of the gaps gets smaller daily.

italo: ^^^

Matter cannot be created without energy.

So if the universe was created with energy, who created or generated the energy?

Your question easily begs the question: Who created God?

Francesco Carotta wrote in his book 'Jesus was Caesar', ''Everything of the Story of Jesus can be found in the Biography of Caesar.'' The Italian-German linguist and philosopher after more than 15yrs of investigation concludes that the story of Jesus is based on the narrative of the life of Julius Caesar. According to Carotta, ''The Gospel proves to be the history of the Roman Civil War, a 'mis-telling' of the life of Caesar - from the Rubicon to his assassination - mutated into the narrative of Jesus from the Jordan to his crucifixion.''

Similarities between Caesar and Jesus:
a) Caesar's career started in Gallia while that of Jesus started in Galilee.
b) Caesar crossed the Rubicon and Jesus the Jordan. Across the river, Caesar met a patron/rival Pompeius while Jesus met John the Baptist. Caesar also met his first followers Antonius and Curio and Jesus met Peter and Andrew.
c) Caesar finally arrived at the capital Rome after a long sojourn. Jesus arrived at Jerusalem.
d) Caesar had a special relationship with Cleopatra and Jesus with Magdalene.
e) Caesar had an encounter at night with Nicomedes of Bithynia, Jesus with Nicodemus of Bethany.
f) They both had traitors: Brutus and Judas. Lepidus washed his hands of Caesar's ordeal. Pilate did the same to Jesus.
g) Both were accused of making themselves kings: King of the Romans and King of the Jews.
h) Caesar was stabbed with daggers, Jesus was crucified but with a stab wound in his side.
i) Caesar died on the Ides (15th) of March, Jesus on Nisan 15.
j) After their deaths, Caesar became Divus Iulius while Jesus became Jesus Christ.

Coincidence? Or was Jesus really the historical Gaius Julius Caesar?

italo: Let me get you straight. You are saying the entire universe came from nothing?

Recent research in Physics shows that it is possible for matter to be created from 'nothing'.

Questions had always been asked about how the universe could come from 'nothing'. 'Nothing' can be defined as empty space i.e. the universe without any particles and radiation. 'Nothing', according to theoretical physicist Prof Lawrence Krauss, is complicated and unstable. In Krauss' words, ''Recent discoveries in Physics and Cosmology prove that 'nothing' is unstable. The laws of Quantum Mechanics and Gravity show that if an empty space is left long enough, particles will be created and could produce a universe full of matter.''

Since God's creation effort ended thousands of years ago (6000yrs?), how do we explain the creation of new stars and planets? Does Krauss' idea of the effect of gravity on positive and negative energy in line with recent research not provide a better explanation about the origin of the universe?

abbeycial: am highly disappointed.



must ol dis azzholes belong to gay or lesbian world to keep their remarkable personalities?
I fear for our posterity.Good GOD pls save our souls.

Your disappointment is disappointing. According to research, more than 80% of gay people are born that way. Maybe you'll ask god why he created them like that.

Nice win. Followed the live text commentary on The Guardian.