Atheist billboards in Atlanta

[solja247]

Every question remains open,without exception.That doesn't mean one scoffs at everything,merely that one remains open, rejecting dogma. Science does not claim absolutes or "THE TRUTH", neither does the skeptic.It is only the hubristic believer who makes such fatuous claims.

The skeptic is too skeptical to be ojective, that is the problem I have with skeptism...

A majority? I've seen conflicting statistics on whether religious scientists are statistically in the majority or minority, but regardless, I see that a fair consensus amongst all of the studies I've seen appear to come to the following conclusion:

I mean in the 17th and 18th century, not recently.

As such, I consider this fact indisputable to the conclusion that scientists are overwhelmingly atheists or possibily agnostic with a smaller number of religious websites posting a large minority of such scientists.

Its all about world view, it would not matter if everyone was a theist or atheist, its all about ones world view...

Because, generally speaking, their respective faiths require that they teach their own respective faiths. From my understanding, in order to be Christian, the literal word of god is understood to be written in the Old and New Testiments.

This is a post-reformation idea, an idea which is wrong. People like John H Walton (an expert on Genesis) and N.T wright (NT scholar) is showing us how the people back in the day read their Bible or their Torah. I dont see why one should take everything literal...

I should also note that while I've been saying that Catholocism has accepted certain scientific ideas, this creates major problems that I'm not aware have been reconsiled with their beliefs.
After all, how does a catholic believe in evolution and big bang and reconsile that with one of their core foundational beliefs of the "Original Sin" without an adam, eve, and all of the creationism that follows?

I see the origins of sin to be much more complicated than some eating a piece of fruit from a tree, it doesnt make ruin any core beliefs, instead of giving an answer, we say; 'I dont know.' That is all we can say at the moment.

Why? What evidence is there of a resurrection of any human who has been dead at that point in time in history?

Plenty. If you are interested you should, 'The Resurrection of the Son of God' by N.T wright, one of the greatest books defending the Resurrection...

any why that part of the bible and nothing else? Why is some parts metaphor, but jesus' existance and god's providence and everything else true but the bible is all metaphor except for Jesus' resurrection?

I dont take the bible as being metaphoric. I believe the Jews literaly believed that Genesis 1 was literal, that God gave the Earth a purpose and existence. But I believe the Earth came around a different way...
I dont take Abraham or Moses as being metaphoric, why should I?
At times, I will argue 'poetic lisence' when the sun stood still for Joshua or in Job 1 the meeting with the other 'chiefs' I take that as being interesting, may of happened by most likely didnt...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants

What is incredible about the followers of Jesus, they believed full heartedly what they believed and they died for it, not many other leaders have the same affect. Christianity received persecution from day one and continued to grow and thrive, people gave up everything for this new belief, that the Messiah had come. People were used to 'Messiahs' coming and going, but this Messiah stopped the world...

When you think about how fallacious a "god-man" is, how gullible most people are, and how desperate most people are to discard personal responsibility and dump all blame for immoral action on an imaginary person, then it makes sense that manipulative persons with a hunger for power, riches, and fame won't pass up a "golden opportunity."

Perhaps you are the fool?