Christian Myths and Atheists Lies

[Tiberius]

Then there are different types of atheists I suppose or you're in a different category by yourself for as you should know, believing requires an admitting that one not knows for a fact. This is the main argument atheists use against our belief in God or in fact any god.... is it not? If you are admitting belief in something you cannot prove exists then you are a believer same as I. You believe in chance I believe in God...see what I mean?

I come across people like you often. They assume that their view of what an atheist is is the correct view, without even asking atheists. It's this type of stereotypical reasoning that you came here and accused us of, and yet now you find that none of us agree with the blanket statements you make about us. Here is a life tip for you; how about instead of making assumptions based on stereotypes, you first come and ask what we believe? The best theist members we've had here aren't the ones that make assumptions about atheism, but the ones who honestly want to know what we believe.

So no, I deny that the main argument against belief in God is that it's a belief and not fact. Beliefs have the capabilities of being true, so the existence of God is possible; I do not deny this. My reasoning for not believing in God stems from logical arguments and the nature of the beings claimed to be gods.

Yes, I'm a believer the same as you. I believe in many things, science, philosophy, logic, the enlightenment, etc. I am the sum of what I believe, as everyone is. Believing I don't have any problems with; believing on faith alone I do.

And no, I don't believe in "chance".

The question is this... how many Mensa's have actually done something beneficial to world history that improves the quality of life for humankind? I submit to you relatively few proportionately in comparison to Christians. Bottom line intelligence and IQ is only part of the equation of wholly integral productively functioning human being... don't you agree?

IQ is an important part of the equation, but I accept that it isn't the only part. People can contribute to society in more ways than just inventing something. However, the only reason we have advanced technologically and been able to live in stabilized cultures is because of the research and work done by Mensa-level people. Through their work, we have better methods of farming where we are able to produce more food for people, better levels of healthcare so that we are able to heal people quickly as well as prevent deaths from injury and infection. Even the invention of the internet has meant that more people have been in contact, meaning people on opposite sides of the world can work together in realtime, a feat simply not capable any other way.

Do you think a Harvard Grad today is more intelligent than Galileo? Personally I think one of the biggest lies and one of the biggest myths perpetuated by atheists and secularists is that the ancients were ignorant and superstitious and we are so much more advanced and intelligent.

The ancients weren't ignorant, but the vast majority of them were highly superstitious. Even the Greeks, who gave us so much of philosophy, believed in multiple gods that were responsible for a variety of different natural phenomena. We are so much more advanced and intelligence because we used science and reasoning to learn things about the natural world. It is through this that we have learned about the universe, not through any of the ancient methods.

When in fact the average person in the past had a far more grasp on general knowledge than the average person of today.
In the past many many average people had a basic understanding of astronomy, construction, animal husbandry, agriculture, music and arts and crafts. I think a reasonale argument can be made that we may more educated but not necessarily more intelligent.

A grasp of general knowledge is ultimately useless when you want to succeed in something. Education today is focussed on specialisation, not generalisation, because we need people who know a lot about a specific subject.

Our astronomers do not need to learn about music; it is irrelevant to their subject.

I disagree with your point about intelligence. Studies show we are gaining around 3 IQ points on average every 10 years. Our IQs are far greater than those of the ancients, and our level of technology shows this.

Most assuredly there indeed is....its used to explain our resistance to the THEORY of evolution, in specific MACRO evolution which is a complete crock!

Could you explain why you have capitalised the word "theory". To me, this is the standard argument which revolves around the mis-definition of the word when used in the context of science, but I might be wrong.

Could you further explain why evolution is complete crock? It is wrong to highlight a problem with "macro" evolution, since macro evolution is micro evolution over longer periods of time. If you dispute macros evolution, you either dispute evolution as a whole, or the time periods involved. So, how old do you think the universe / earth is?