Quote Originally Posted by Maniacc
But before I fall asleep lemme say a few things. If you are fully sane you should be able to see how idiotic your posts are, or at least think they are stupid. Because believing things with no or invalid proof is pretty much what being stupid is all about. Let me ask you this, if I told you I believe for sure that masturbating unicorns are secretly planning to take over earth early next year with Mario Cantone clones riding them bareback -would you say that is a stupid belief? Or would you not call it stupid, but just say it's a belief that you 'don't share?'

Also. Just throwing this out there for the hell of it, but I personally don't consider myself atheist or agnostic because claiming to be an atheist is a pretty bold statment, but even the overly enthusiastic atheists -- at least are accurate and logical in what they are talking about - whereas the religious people believe insane illogical crap like a guy coming back from the dead, a virgin birth, and that a guy on an arc who was 500 years old gathered two of each species of animals(must have been a pretty big boat...) and got them all to fuck during a flood of the entire earth which is physically impossible since the water supply of earth is finite and has to go somewhere so if there was a flood that big then where did all this new flood water come from?
The flood in Noahs account was a regional flood. The bible talks about the world being flooded because it was a large region. You find that out pretty quickly when you study the text in its context and original language.

Also as for the unicorns. Provide us with compiled selection of evidence and I will be able to make a good conclusion.

Maniacc, the reason we sound so strange to you is that you have not looked at the evidence. The evidence does not have to prove our case or convince you of our worldview, but it should at least get you to understand that the unicorn theory as used by Dawkins, Hitchens, and all of the "free thinkers", is very inaccurate in describing believers. The irony for me is that most of these "free thinkers" or militant atheists who say crap like this are exactly the opposite. They outwardly admit to ignoring the evidence of their errors and the evidence of their non-scientific approach to theorizing and then THEY have the nerve to say that someone else is ignoring the case.

Well, Maniacc, when you have a case and I present a series of arguments from the same field and other fields of study then I have earned the ability to say that I do NOT agree with your theories as a "free thinker" based on the simple point that there is a much better case against you.

Dawkins touts evolution as if it even remotely explains human origins (he admits it doesn't) and that human origins have to be a product of something else. Even though he describes evolution as a very intricate and structured process. I don't believe in his evolution version either by the way.

Then you get Christopher Hitchens, who hasn't made a valid argument yet, but gets off of bickering and name calling like a little british school girl. His strongest argument is the expansion of our universe, which only demonstrates that our universe is STILL submissive to the laws of its origin.

These men are not free thinkers, and if you would just look at some of their debate without trying to be bitter about religions then you would see that they are not making good cases against God. They make god cases against stupid fundamentalists, but never against God. Their points always land on..."its just absurd" but never is there any substance to those arguments.

But again, you don't have to believe and we are not called to provide proof. We are called to provide evidence because that is what leads to legitimate belief.

There are infinite possiblities of what is out there, we just happen to be what we are because, well, we just are. If we weren't then we wouldn't be able to think about it. So it's not really luck. It just is. Doesn't mean there isn't a 'higher power.' Shit, we could be the experiment of some chemist on some planet 1000000 light years away whose average citizen is 500 feet tall.
You admit infinite possibilities yet none of those possibilities in your mind has to do with a resurrection of our God with us, living and breathing on our earth. And your giant chemist argument only leads to the same issues of origins of all things.