Christians come on in

[NJSC]

Youre absolutely right. Allow me to explain:

I refer to the christian "God" as "a god" because by capitalizing his name and using his name as a proper noun, i am admitting to his existence, which i cannot do. Not to offend, just how i operate.

As for me personally, I have read the books, been to bible school, examined the bible word by word. I believe VERY little of it.
I have entertained believing, but i was lying to myself and everyone the whole time. At the end of the day when i lie awake in bed and think about it, It seems insane to me to believe in something, and idea presented to me by mortal men, with no hard evidence to speak of.
I do believe in good and evil (in people) but each are implemented by chemical reactions in the brain. I do not believe in an atmospheric battle between good and evil.

My hard evidence that a god does not exist is simply the lack of hard evidence that a god does exist.
Let me shoot out an example:

I tell you "Hey NJSC, listen up. There used to be huge purple elephants the size of the moon on Earth. There were three of them, and they lived for thousands of years, eating meteors. We sprouted out of their poop."

There is no evidence left from these elephants, and it sounds absurd, but to me, my origin story is just as believable. Again, not trying to offend.

thank you for taking an interest!

I take no offense in your stance and I applaud the maturity that you have been presenting in the conversation.
First thing to consider is you are willing to refute the idea of a supreme being based completely on you not seeing any evidence. But at the same time you ascribe to the belief in a soul which just appeared through evolution. Your support of this is us having feelings and emotion, but do not inferior animals also have this soul? Any dog lover will tell you that their dog has feelings. You shout at a dog, they are sad. You come home from a long day, and your dog obviously missed you and is excited that you are home. So based on your argument dogs then also have souls, but at what point during the evolutionary period did dogs receive that? You get the point. The evolutionary theory also is based on genetic mutations which are then able to make a specific individual stronger, faster, sexier, etc. So a "soul" would then have no evolutionary benefit and therefore based on it's own argument would not propel a species further along the evolutionary spectrum. So based on the evolutionary theory there would be no souls.

The idea that you do believe in good and evil in people but only by chemical reactions in the brain is in itself an oxymoron. The idea of good is that there is an outside standard which people hold themselves and others accountable for. If you simply attribute this to chemical reactions in the brain then one cannot judge another on what is good or what is evil. We are simply animals, again with no souls. That would then go to say if I wanted to come and hump your leg, punch your aunt Sally in the face, or (GASP IS HE ABOUT TO SAY IT?! YES HE IS!) steal your car that you cannot then say that it is wrong, because it is all just chemical reactions in my brain. Across nearly everyone in the world there is obviously evidence that this standard exists. Rape and cannibalism are two of the highest standards to social laws or objective standards on what is evil. This goes to show that there is obviously an external objective moral standard that exists, and I would argue that this standard is from God.
I'm going to touch on your argument for evidence again. Scenario: QD (I picked you because you are probably going to read this.) comes into my house and kills my wife no finger prints, no dna evidence, no weapon, no motive, nothing. Does that then mean that QD did not kill my wife? Of course not. Truth is truth whether evidence is there or not also whether you choose to believe it or not.
Another book to read is "More Than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell Little bit of an easier read.

[msanch24]

I take no offense in your stance and I applaud the maturity that you have been presenting in the conversation.
First thing to consider is you are willing to refute the idea of a supreme being based completely on you not seeing any evidence. But at the same time you ascribe to the belief in a soul which just appeared through evolution. Your support of this is us having feelings and emotion, but do not inferior animals also have this soul? Any dog lover will tell you that their dog has feelings. You shout at a dog, they are sad. You come home from a long day, and your dog obviously missed you and is excited that you are home. So based on your argument dogs then also have souls, but at what point during the evolutionary period did dogs receive that? You get the point. The evolutionary theory also is based on genetic mutations which are then able to make a specific individual stronger, faster, sexier, etc. So a "soul" would then have no evolutionary benefit and therefore based on it's own argument would not propel a species further along the evolutionary spectrum. So based on the evolutionary theory there would be no souls.

The idea that you do believe in good and evil in people but only by chemical reactions in the brain is in itself an oxymoron. The idea of good is that there is an outside standard which people hold themselves and others accountable for. If you simply attribute this to chemical reactions in the brain then one cannot judge another on what is good or what is evil. We are simply animals, again with no souls. That would then go to say if I wanted to come and hump your leg, punch your aunt Sally in the face, or (GASP IS HE ABOUT TO SAY IT?! YES HE IS!) steal your car that you cannot then say that it is wrong, because it is all just chemical reactions in my brain. Across nearly everyone in the world there is obviously evidence that this standard exists. Rape and cannibalism are two of the highest standards to social laws or objective standards on what is evil. This goes to show that there is obviously an external objective moral standard that exists, and I would argue that this standard is from God.
I'm going to touch on your argument for evidence again. Scenario: QD (I picked you because you are probably going to read this.) comes into my house and kills my wife no finger prints, no dna evidence, no weapon, no motive, nothing. Does that then mean that QD did not kill my wife? Of course not. Truth is truth whether evidence is there or not also whether you choose to believe it or not.
Another book to read is "More Than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell Little bit of an easier read.

For me, souls are in all living things. Its the ability to reason, as well as the presence of emotions that separates us from other animals. A more intelligent animal will survive. Through evolution, the species gets more and more intelligent until it obtains the ability to reason. Pair that with emotion and bam, you've got yourself a human being.

Im not too clear on the point you're making in the second part, but ill take a stab at responding. Chemical makeup of a persons decision making sector of the brain decides how well they abide by the "social moral code of good and evil". This doesnt change that the code exists or whether or not they break it or abide by it. They simply do or dont. Some do, some do not. This, of course, largely influenced by environmental factors and the quality of parenting. But some apples are just rotten from the beginning.

As for the unfortunate story about QD, no, we do not know who killed your wife, but we know that she was killed. Her body is the evidence that it happened. In the context of the existence of a god, there is no such evidence. QD addresses this in very good wording up a little bit. let me go find it... ok, this right here:

"He's been around for all this time and there is no definitive evidence of His being? Speaks volumes, man."

this is pretty much what Im trying to say.

My apologies if this is all a little incoherent. I ramble sometimes and my meaning mightve gotten buried somewhere.

[sport_122]

For me, souls are in all living things. Its the ability to reason, as well as the presence of emotions that separates us from other animals. A more intelligent animal will survive. Through evolution, the species gets more and more intelligent until it obtains the ability to reason. Pair that with emotion and bam, you've got yourself a human being.

Not sure if you are a Bio major or not, but I was and I don't think we got evolution right.

Depending on the numerous schools of thought, most believe evolution is either a guided act of selection to pass and carry on traits through DNA.

My issue is that evolution has some very large gaps in its foundations. I remember Richard Dawkins (Biology professor at Oxford and Neo Atheist) discussing evolution with John Lennox (Mathmetician and Theologian at Oxford)

He presented a case for a guided evolution which was not random (in his mind). To him evolution is a guided process on which we went from simple cells to complex cells. We went for billions of years to become what we are today.

Well the problem comes in with DNA. In the same sense, some professors credit DNA as the computing factor that drives evolution and development. Under this idea, the process of evolution is guided by the most complex code known to man. So evolutionists have seriously faulted in my mind when they have chosen to discuss the cellular model, but they leave out the method by which the majority of evolutionary biologists claim the process is guided. Scientists cannot explain DNA at its origins through evolutionary theories. This is the foundation that the entire argument must be supported on.

Also, if you haven't seen Ben Steins documentary "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed" you should watch it. I experienced some of these things as and undergrad and my brother in law is experiencing them now. The interesting dynamic is how people who ask for scientific reasoning oftentimes don't realize that the scientific community is EXACTLY like the religious community. There is a status quo that effects a high majority of the fundamental beliefs, and to step outside of the status quo means you will be labeled and cast out...Try asking your professor to bring in a person who can really articulate alternative scientific oppositions to evolution and see what there response is.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Academic...8AC93998A58A61

I mention all of this (seems a bit off topic) but it is mainly to make a statement that the battle between faith in God and Science is a myth. I think it is poison that is being taught to us as if it is the end all truth and there are tons of people out there propagating this crap.

[msanch24]

Not sure if you are a Bio major or not, but I was and I don't think we got evolution right.

Actually I am