We acknowledge the existence of things with our five senses. We see, hear, feel, touch and smell them. Yet, all of you must claim that you have brains, yet none of you have ever seen, heard, felt, touched or smelled your brain or mine. Yet you believe that they all exists because you have faith in their existence.
Are you ahead of me?

EEGs and CAT scans can show you your brain activity and pictures of it while it's still in your head. We can operate on brains while still alive, and when dead, we can remove and examine them. So yes, we are ahead of you because brains can be verified and examined, and don't have to be taken on faith that they exist, unlike some things you happen to believe in.

The Bible, just as all knowledge is progressive

The bible is progressive? When was the last time someone updated the bible to confirm new discoveries like the world being round and going around the sun? When was that part about stoning for working on the sabbath or killing those who don't believe in god removed because they were unethical?

Tom Edison looked in the Kingdom of God for a way to light it up and after 8,000 tries he found it. He tried 8,000 times because he had faith that what he could not see was there if he continued to look for it.

No, he was experiementing with electricity, which had been discovered well before his time. He used science, not faith. There's a huge difference.

And it would behoove all atheists to stop defending our points of view by running back into biblical history for backwoodsy beliefs about their existence as though those beliefs were cut and dried, concrete, dyed in the wool, beliefs. They are beliefs that constantly get an overhaul down through the centuries as mankind learns more about what is going on in the Kingdom of God.

I assume by "backwoodsy" you mean "what the bible actually says". I think you forget the part where the bible doesn't make any predictions about the world as we understand it today, not about evolution, or curing diseases, or creating the lightbulb, or traveling to the moon, or cell phones, or computers, and that those achievements have come through science and testing, and retesting, and long drawn out process of trial and error and questioning and revision; not faith.

That does not make religion, or a belief in God bad because people are learning more and more how God really operates in His universe

No, it makes it incorrect; It's bad for a completely different set of reasons.

Take God away, and Atheism has nothing to debate. With nothing to debate, Atheism has no motive to continue to exist. It is only designed to bad mouth

You're right about the first part; with no belief in god we wouldn't debate it anymore. Now, by bad-mouth, I can assume you mean point out inconsistencies, fallacies, bad moral teachings, and poor reasoning. It's hardly my problem that your faith can't stand up to questioning or prove itself, and resorting to emotional tactics of "don't be so mean to my ideas just because they're wrong" isn't going to work.

Odds are that you are correct, but you cannot really prove it. I accept that you have a brain on faith. Without that faith, I could spend my life debating you with the assumption that you do not have one at all and you could not prove it otherwise.

Except, as mentioned above, you don't have to take it on faith; there is an uncontrovertable amount of evidence. So yes, we could prove otherwise; whether or not you accept the evidence is a totally different matter.

Since The existence or non existence of God cannot be proven, the only thing left in the debate is whether you wish to accept God on faith or not. I do, based on the existence of all there is in my world

At least you admit you have absolutely no reason to believe what you do. Might be hard to debate anyone on that logically basis though.

You tell me how this all came about. If you say, "Well, it just always has been." then I am reminded of Saturday Night Live and the Church lady who said: "How conveeenient!"

And how do you feel god came to exist? Assuming something even bigger, living, and intelligent pre-existed is to assume more than you try to explain. I think I know the answer to that one, so let me give you the same response back; "how conveeenient"

Second: Since The existence or non existence of God cannot be proven, the only thing left in the debate is whether you wish to accept God on faith or not. I do, based on
the existence of all there is in my world. Some way this all got created by a creator.
You tell me how this all came about. If you say, "Well, it just always has been." then I am reminded of Saturday Night Live and the Church lady who said: "How conveeenient!"

The Bible, just as all knowledge is progressive, in that we improve on what we observe in the place where we live. We improve because we seek what we cannot yet see, hear, feel, touch or smell. As we do, our perspective changes. This is the progressive revelation of the Creator. Jesus, when asked about asking God for whatever, said: "Seek ye first the Kingdom and all of these things will be revealed to you."
So we look and we find. Tom Edison looked in the Kingdom of God for a way to light it up and after 8,000 tries he found it. He tried 8,000 times because he had faith that what he could not see was there if he continued to look for it. All our answers to prayer are already here. We want them now, but that is not the way life is set up by the creator. It is a "seek and you will find" program, a progression in revelation. That is why "necessity is the mother of invention." That is why Jesus said to "Ask and you will receive."
And it would behoove all atheists to stop defending our points of view by running back into biblical history for backwoodsy beliefs about their existence as though those beliefs were cut and dried, concrete, dyed in the wool, beliefs. They are beliefs that constantly get an overhaul down through the centuries as mankind learns more about what is going on in the Kingdom of God.
Example: "If Cain is avenged 7 times, truly Lamech 77 times" changed to "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" changed to "forgive your fellowman 70 x 7." It is a progression.
People who pray to Jesus as though he were God because of the screwed up theology of the Trinity, have real problems when they see how many times Jesus prayed in the year and a half he was in his ministry, and everytime he prayed, he prayed to God, and he was not looking in a mirror! This drives the fundamentalist Jesus boys nuts and so they simply rationalize the trinity to fit it anyway. That does not make religion, or a belief in God bad because people are learning more and more how God really operates in His universe. Atheism exists because it only denies belief. If it did not have that opportunity, it would not continue with only a positive outlook on one's existence. Take God away, and Atheism has nothing to debate. With nothing to debate, Atheism has no motive to continue to exist. It is only designed to bad mouth
anyone else's religious point of view. It is like proving that there is a peanut in a peanut shell or that you have a brain because you have seen one in a dead corpse. Odds are that you are correct, but you cannot really prove it. I accept that you have a brain on faith. Without that faith, I could spend my life debating you with the assumption that you do not have one at all and you could not prove it otherwise.

You seem to have taken my generalisations personally. It was not my intention to accuse you of anything, you asked why I speak out and I told you.

I also set out the limits of what I could beleive based on what the evidence has shown to be impossible. Again you have taken my declaration as an accusation levelled against you. I don't know what you believe beyond what you have said.

"Sure we can agree to disagree so long as you don't make claims that are invalidated by the facts." this statement perhaps should have been elaborated on but I was merely setting a condition on how far my tolerance to agree to disagree would go. I was letting you know that I can't tolerate beliefs that defy reality. It is just not in my nature.

Indeed am I to assume from your "Good eventually overcomes evil" comment that you think me evil?

"It just happened? Then let's all quit. It's going to happen anyway."

NO, not at all. This kind of petulance really pisses me off. There is a lot we can do. You can plan ahead, you can set up emergency shelters, disaster relief etc. You can assess the dangers and work out how to minimise or even negate them. All of that can be done without your mythical sky man.

Who says Atheists pray? Surely you can tell the difference between a prayer and a benediction? And you seem to have got my statement wrong. I said "Atheism is as much a religion as not colelcting stamps is a hobby". So you ojection seems doubly absurd.

Atheism isn't about replacing one religion with another. It is about accepting what is evidently real and not believing in stuff that lacks evidence or worse, defies available evidence. It is not a moral code and never will be a moral code. My morality comes from my life and the lessons I've learned from my parents, family and friends etc.

"But, I assure you, that when your have completed this assignment, there had better not be any one in your religion who kills or maims, causes anyone in the world to suffer, all the complaints you have against present day religions."

Very funny, like religions don't already blame atheism for a whole host of problems real and imagined going back to the dark ages. Usually this is done by first misrepresenting atheism as being a moral code or a rejection of all morality.

You seem to assume that I blame religion for the failings of certain individuals which given your previous complaint (addressed above) about possible assumptions of your fundamentalism, seems a bit hypocritical. But since you brought it up I would say that religion is no magic charm against such atrocities. I agree bad people will be bad period, so what is the point of religion again?

"Dear God, before we peel the foil back from your bounty, let us give thanks."

-- Marge, serving TV dinners

"Good rice, good curry, good Gandhi, let's hurry."

--Apu

and of course:

"Dear God, we paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing."

--Bart

A person who does not believe in God and "evangelizes" his belief ( angel means messenger) has his Religion because he believes about his unbelief enough to feel threatened by those who believe, hence his own personal need to debate it.

Question: Why are you posting on an atheist web site. For debate? No one else here is debating god's existence. We're atheists. Get it? Are you here debating because you feel threatened by those who don't believe, hence your own personal need to debate it?

Observation: "Feel threatened by those who believe..." Pal, we're threatened all the time by people who believe. We're going to hell. We're evil and will be punished for all eternity. Oh, the torture that awaits us. God will smite us, etc. I repeat, we're threatened all the time.

Comment: I think most people here enjoy a good debate. One must have a strong position that they believe in to have a good debate. And for the record, one of the oldest and most irritating things a Christian can put forth is the old "you really do believe in god, you just can't admit it. See, you're doing things god wants you to do all the time." Please.

If "Atheism is as much a religion as stamp collecting is a hobby," then why don't stamp collectors pray as they collect stamps as atheists pray as they pursue atheism?

Atheists don't pray, and there's nothing in that little passage that constitutes praying. Being grateful for things and appreciating what you have is not the same, by far, as praying. If you fail to see the difference, that doesn't change that there is a rather large difference.

The reason Atheists want to thank people is because
that is the way God wants to be thank! As Christ said: "Feed them, you feed me."

Christ also said "anyone who doesn't hate his family cannot be my disciple" (roughly paraphrasing). God is also quoted as saying "kill anyone working on the sabbath" (which I can assume includes you), "kill every homosexual", "Kill disobident children", "kill all those who don't believe in [god]", and back to Jesus for a moment "Sell everything you own (yes everything) if you want to get into heaven". Likewise, under that logic, people murder because god wants them to, and are gay because god wants them to be, and god has planned every abortion that has ever, and will ever happen. God also wants me to think you're beliefs are stupid, harmful, and wasteful. Argue your way out of that one.

I would like to see Atheists in their minds, just let all the religions go to hell, forget about them, and then replace it with something better to make this world a better place. When you can come up with that, I will change my religion to Atheism

Again, atheism is not a religion, it's a lack of belief in any god(s). Yes, the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. Matter of fact though, you're almost an atheist yourself; you don't believe in all, many, or even a handful of the gods mankind has thought up over our existance, you only, presumably, believe in one. You are an atheist is regard to every other religion outside your own, I only take that one step further. What reason do you have for believing in your religion over any other alternative one? Do you feel yours is the best option, and if you do, why?

But, I assure you, that when your have completed this assignment, there had better not be any one in your religion who kills or maims, causes anyone in the world to suffer, all the complaints you have against present day religions.

People will do that regardless of religion, just as they do it today. Only difference is that by removing religion, you remove just one more irration justifaction people have to kill each other. While people are inherently aggressive, religion is an outlet that makes them feel justifed in hurting and hating others. Take the middle east for instance; Jewish/Islamic hatred. That could be solved simply if people weren't killing each other over 'sacred' pieces of the earth that hold no value outside of a religious context. Disputes can be settled when it's just an argument over land, but when both sides feel that god has entitled them to that land and armaggedon is coming soon, it puts everyone else is a bad place.

You cannot do it because we are all human and we progress from what was less before in any endeavor we pursue. Creation is built on that premise.

I think you actually mixed up your terms. Evolution is a progression from simple to complex, though not a progression towards an end goal.

We are doing an incredible job compared to 100 years ago, most of which would be called by them then miracles of God. They are, because that seems to be the way God works, with no hands but ours to do His will. The only difference today is that we don't give God credit for the miracles. How dare we think that we did it all. And if we did not, then who did?

Our progress has come from science, questioning, and experiments, much of which was, and is, opposed by religion. Also, one quick question, or rather an observation; god's will certainly seems at least to match up with your views pretty often. Likewise, when they aren't your views, it's only because god's will has been circumvented somehow. A bit odd don't you think?

"...just like Zeus is the son of Hercules!"

should read "...just like Hercules is the son of Zeus!"

A thousand pardons.

In Irish "Don méid atá romhainn, táimíd buíoch"
In English: For what is before us, we are thankful

In our atheist home, just before we eat, my wife or I say "So what is everyone thankful for?" and we each (me, wife, two daughters - 14 and 10) say "I'm thankful for..." Sometimes it's something silly, especially when first began the practice ~6 years ago. It's refreshing to be reminded of what a 5 year old is thankful for on a daily basis. But often it's something serious, a pivotal event in our lives - "I'm thankful that I got the job." or "I'm thankful that the we're able to bring our whole family together to share our love..." at Turkey Day or other big family-gathering holidays.

In fact, my sister and mother, born again Xians, have participated in this ritual on quite a number of occasions and are not offended or upset in any way that I can see. My brother and his girlfriend, my brother-in-law, step-father, and other assorted family members - all born-fine-the-first-time Xians at the very least - join in without hesitation. On one Easter gathering at Casa Pi, as we went around the circle my sister said "I'm thankful that Christ died for our sins." and, while my girls have never been formally exposed to Christianity (We celebrate Labor Day, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, and the Fourth of July. We don't discriminate.) but they both knew the story to which had she alluded. OTOH, when Mandy was 4 of 5 (now 10), we somehow ended up on the subject of Jesus as we drove home one after a visit to the in-laws. My wife (not formally declared but decidedly un-religious) summarized the Jesus story replete with the alignment of the cosmos, the "No room at the inn", a few miracles, the Apostles, the betrayal of Judas, and, of course, the crucifixion. It was a good, concise, one-minute blurb well-tailored to the audience. Mandy was quiet for a few moments and then suddenly declared "So Jesus is the son of God just like Zeus is the son of Hercules!" (thank you Walt Disney) and I replied "Exactly."

BTW: I've never had a "coming out" party or anything like that. Except for my bro and his gf, I've never acknowledged being un-Christian. Of course, I've never had to admit to being un-Shinto, or un-polytheist-shamanist-animist, or un-Muslim, or un-Baalian. So I suppose that it's also possible they think that I worship the gods of Valhlla since I've never denied that either.

For us to engage in debate on a question like that is silly and wastes time. And also, from my point of view, it simply is not worth my time to engage in debate with religious followers and god buffs because in my experience I have NEVER met one who will see and admit the factual inconsitencies of their god, their religious books of myth and fable, and the wholesale cruelty caused by these beliefs. I have yet to meet one who is intellectually honest. So to use an old cliche, arguing/debating with this population is akin to trying to teach the proverbial pig how to ride a bike. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Eric