Please present positive arguments why you think atheism is true

[Jireh]

In fact, I said that some people (anti-Semites) applaud and praise Hitler's actions as Good even though I, and much of the world, found them to be Evil.

So why has your opinion more value, or is more true, than theirs ? isnt it just a matter of opinion ? How can you say, your point of view is superior of theirs ?

Furthermore, this proves my point because Hitler was using the "objective morality" of Christianity to further his Nazi cause!

Like Jesus command, to love each other ? or the one in the old testament, we should not kill ? or which one do you refere to ?

My point was and remains, no one here cares what you think about our standards of morality when the Christian standards are often set LOWER than that of us "heathens."

lower based on what standard ?

Ramble on about what ever you want, but don't expect anyone here to take you seriously when you're saddling us with the choices of Adolf Hitler ... a known, practicing CHRISTIAN!!!!

Anyone can call himself a christian. One thing is to claim to be christian, a other thing is in fact to be one. hitler was obviously not a christian, otherwise he would have not done what he did.

---

why ?

Because across the centuries you and countless other dickheads like you have failed to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a god. Any god. Or a devil.
Any devil.

Frankly, all you can offer is absurd mental gymnastics which, at the end of the day, are totally fucking meaningless.

over 12th posts, but youve no learned that attack personally the counterpart, weakens your case ?

---

Before we can talk about validity you need to show why we should even consider theism a valid option.

No, i don't. I don't even need to present any option.

This isn't a contest of let's see how many questions we can ask each other.

No, it isnt, neither did i say so.

Ace said, once again, he did not believe because he HAS NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE. That is his reason.

So why did he jump into this topic then, if he has no answer to my question ?

Now by you jumping from that and saying "Well what about your evidence for naturalism" you seem to be dodging the implication that there was no evidence for theism.

Again. that is not the matter of this thread. difficult to understand ?
He is actually the one dodging the topic of this thread.

In fact you didn't defend theism at all.

Neither is that the objective of this topic. Have you understood, what it is ?

I think we will all be willing to discuss the "evidence" for naturalism as soon as you say that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR THEISM.

Why should one be correlated with the other ?

If you believe there is evidence for theism than state it.

thats NOT the topic of this thread.

---

What causes lightning? not Thor, electrons flowing from a higher potential to a lower potential.

thanks for bringint that up.

http://aaaworldwitness.wordpress.com/200...of-of-god/

How did lightning and thunder, along with the vital life supporting lightning-nitrogen cycle, evolve?

No one Evolutionist strikes the same answer twice.

Lightning is like the 100 or so non-living elements on earth. How they came to exist in the first place is a complete mystery to evolutionists.

Here’s a couple of theories about the original cause and evolution of lighting from chats I have been having with some seriously minded Evolutionists:

“I’ve been out of active meteorological research for some time but I keep an interested eye on the field. Lightning was probably triggered by energy in the flux of cosmic rays to Earth and cosmic ray fluxes vary in time.” (Physicist, Holwick, UK)

“It started out with single volt lightnings that spontaneously appeared, and after millions of years of chance they’re now millions and millions of volts, and contain multiple branches, and evolved thunder as a defence mechanism. Oh and the Nitrogen Cycle is a distant ancestor of these primitive 1 Volt lightnings. By chance it became the nitrogen cycle over a trillion years. I’m an Atheist, Hail Satan.” (Software Developer, Nuneaton, UK)

Really? …can you pick the basic flaws in these theories? Why not drop me an email.

No laboratory lightning experiment has ever produced life from non-life.

How did modern species come about? They evolved from other organisms.

You take that on faith, don't you ?

How did matter come about? It formed from energy in the early universe as it cooled.

and where did the energy come from ?

How did stars come about? Gravity.

and you know that how exactly ? or is it just a statement of faith ?

How did all the elements form? From fusion in stars.

http://creation.com/the-naturalistic-for...-difficult

The way some scientists talk about planet formation, one would think that the process was easy:

‘Our solar system was built from the dust of dead stars. It’s an often-repeated fact.’1

A proposed theory of planet formation from accreted stellar material. Remnants from an exploded star produce the raw material. Though this material is thought to accrete through gravitational interaction, the effect of gravity is too small to allow this to happen in the timeframe proposed by evolution. There is also the question as to whether the small particles would coalesce under the influence of gravity at all.
Planet formation is just one of the many hypothetical evolutionary processes that started with the big bang and ended with humans on Earth after many billions of years. Since planets exist, evolutionists reason they ‘must’ have formed from a dust cloud called a nebula. The dust must first develop from dead stars because dust does not just develop from gas molecules. So the dust is believed to have ‘evolved’ from the explosion of a star in a supernova. Hence our solar system is believed to be the result of a collapsed dust cloud from an exploded star. These are the simple naturalistic deductions, assuming evolution is the only mechanism.

Many people are satisfied with this scenario and take it no further. But if an inquiring person were to ask how the planets actually formed from the dust, he would get a surprising answer:

‘But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might get an embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one knows why the dust clumps together so quickly’

Those are just a few of the questions naturalism has answered.

It has answered it , but without hard compelling evidence. These are all answers held by faith.

naturalism works, it has worked numerous times.

If you want to believe its postulates, it " works ". But if it reflect reality, the truth, well thats quit a other chapter......

I'm a naturalist because it works.

no, because you WANT to believe it........