Quote Originally Posted by msanch24 View Post
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.