Why I don't think god exists

[Retitled] Why I don't think god exists: Open for debate

Earliest man (pre homo sapiens) experienced his reality without the understanding of the forces of nature we take for granted. He saw rain, lightning, the sun, the moon, and other phenomenon that we now know are governed by permanent, and more often than not complex natural interactions. Although through no fault of his own, his lack of knowledge precluded the possibility to rationally explain these phenomenon so he did the only thing he could: he concluded that they must be driven by supernatural forces. Cave paintings and other archeological and anthropological evidence strongly suggest that not only did early humanity assume the sun and rain were supernatural but that each was a sentient, thinking being. Thus the sun was the sun spirit, the lighting was the lighting spirit and so on and so forth. Among historical circles this point is relatively uncontested (please don’t let that stop you from offering arguments against it).

Here’s where my personal opinion enters the picture. I think that as humanity developed into complex civilizations this conception of supernatural forces evolved and became more sophisticated as well. Spirits led to idols, idols to polytheistic deities, and finally to the concept of a singular god -- with all manner of variation and blending of belief in between. Books were written to record all known information and interpretation on the spiritual world, and those books passed through the ages. The famous decedents of these early books are of course the Torah, the Koran, the Bible, the Rig Veda and other less influential works.

So the point of this little excursion through my personal interpretation of history – It is my solid belief that all religions, all theology, the belief in god itself is linked all the way back to that first caveman who couldn’t understand his world and was forced to make incorrect assumptions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"...A more exact profile on ancient man can be derived from examination of actual artifacts which reveal his extensive sophistication. Rene Noorbergen writes that "for the past thirty years there has been a steadily increasing number of historical and archaeological discoveries made at various sites around the world, which, because of their mysterious and highly controversial nature, have been classified as 'out-of-place' artifacts

....The reason for this designation is that they are found in geological strata where they shouldn't be, and their sudden appearance in these layers of ancient dirt has baffled the minds of many a trained scientific observer.

They emerge from among the remains of the treasured past sans evidence of any preceding period of culture or technological growth. In many cases, the technical sophistication of the (out-of-place artifacts) extends far beyond the inventive capabilities of the ancient peoples among whose remains they were discovered.''

Site Medzamor in Soviet Armenia is of intriguing interest. An international scientific report published in 1969 expressed the belief that these finds point to an unknown period of technological development. "Medzamor was founded by the wise men of earlier civilizations. They possessed knowledge they had acquired during a remote age unknown to us that deserves to be called scientific and industrial.'

The preceding year Koriun Megurtchian of the Soviet Union unearthed the oldest large-scale metallurgical factory currently known. At this site over 4,500 years ago an unknown prehistoric people worked with over 200 furnaces, producing an assortment of vases, knives, spearheads, rings, bracelets, etc. The Medzamor craftsmen wore mouth-filters and gloves while they labored and expertly fashioned their wares of copper, lead, zinc, iron, gold, tin, manganese, and fourteen kinds of bronze. The smelters also produced an assortment of metallic paints, ceramics and glass. Scientific organizations from the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain, France and Germany verified that several pairs of tweezers made of exceptionally high grade steel were taken from layers predating the first millennium B.C.

In Scientific American (June 1951, Vol. 7, p. 298) a report was given concerning a metallic vase that had been dynamited out of solid rock on Meeting Horse Hill in Dorchester, Massachusetts. The report read, "On putting the two parts together it formed a bell-shaped vessel, 4 1/2 inches high, 6 l/2 inches at the base, 2 1/2 inches at the top and about an eighth of an inch in thickness. The body of the vessel resembles zinc in color, or a composition metal in which there is a considerable portion of silver. On the sides there are six figures of a flower, a bouquet, beautifully in laid with pure silver, and around the lower part of the vessel, a vine, or wreath, inlaid also with silver. The chasing, carving and inlaying are exquisitely done by the art of some cunning craftsman. This curious and unknown vessel was blown out of the solid pudding stone, fifteen feet below the surface."

The scientific journals Nature (London,1886) and L'Astronomie (Paris,1887) published confirmation that in 1886, in the foundry of the Austrian Isador Braun of Vocklabruck, a block of coal dating from the Tertiary period was broken open. A small metal cube was discovered inside. Tests indicated that the cube was composed of a steel-nickel alloy. It measured 2.64 by 2.64 by 1.85 inches, weighed 1.73 pounds, and had a specific gravity of 7.75. The edges of this ancient cube were perfectly straight and sharp; four of its sides were flat, while the two remaining opposite sides were convex. A deep groove had been cut all the way around the cube. It appeared that the cube had been machine made and was part of a larger mechanism.

It was perhaps with uncanny insight that historian Will Durant wrote, "Immense volumes have been written to expound our knowledge, and conceal our ignorance, of primitive man...primitive cultures were not necessarily the ancestors of our own; for all we know they may be the degenerate remnants of higher cultures..."

Prehistorian Robert Silverberg describes the sophistication of Paleolithic art in terms which equate with the thesis of this dissertation: "The cave paintings are upsetting to those who prefer to think of Quaternary man as little more than an ape. Not only do they indicate great craftsmanship, but they point to a whole constellation of conclusions: That primitive man had an organized society with continuity and shape, religion and art. It was so dismaying to learn that the earliest inhabitants of Western Europe...had scaled heights of artistic achievement that would not be reached again until late in the Christian era. That exploded the theory [that] man's rise from barbarism had been steady and always upward.'' From the facts at hand there is warrant for the concept that barbarism occurred after the great heights of achievement were manifest.

The great archaeologist, William F. Albright, in From The Stone Age To Christianity, gave his expert impressions about Paleolithic art: "...though the number of motifs, techniques and media available to him now is, of course, immeasurably greater, it is very doubtful whether man's artistic capabilities are actually any higher today than they were in late prehistoric times."

Research has supported the concept that Stone Age man lived in well-constructed houses. The Magdalenian paintings have been admired for their originality and profusion. Yet, in these Lascaux Caverns one can still see the holes in the rock that supported wooden crossbeams. These crossbeams held scaffolding that enabled Cro-Magnon artists to execute their works on the cave ceilings ten to twelve feet above the cavern floor, much like Michelangelo constructed many millennia later. Rene Noorbergen sheds revealing light on this subject of Stone Age sophistication:

What are perhaps the most disturbing prehistoric construction and civilization ffnds were uncovered in 1965 by archaeologist Dragoslav Srejovic at a site now called Starveco, on the Danube River, on the Yugoslavian and Rumanian border. Digging into the Yugoslavian bank, Srejovic first encountered traces of a Roman road; beneath this were fragments of proto-Greek pottery, and below these were Neolithic remnants and traces of Mesolithic cultural artifacts.

Deeper still, Srejovic came upon something totally out of place: the remains of a cement floor. More speciffcally, the material was an amalgam of local limestone, sand and water, considered a feat of chemistry and construction several millennia ahead of its time. The cement surfaces were not placed haphazardly, but were carefully laid out in large slabs to form the foundations of houses. Several foundations were built one on top of another, indicating that buildings had been constructed and reconstructed over an indeterminate period. Yet there was also remarkable uniformity. The layout of the houses in the later periods was the same as that in the earlier periods - there was no evidence of a gradual development from a simple to a complex pattern. Rather, the Starveco village suddenly appeared, fully mature, flourished, then decayed and was abandoned in the same advanced state.

In addition to the foundations, the individual Starveco buildings also showed a high order of architectural sophistication. They all had one side larger in size than the other three, with proportions of either 3:1 or 4:1. The larger side was shaped like a 60-degree segment of a circle. This larger side always faced toward the river, providing the occupants with the maximum view of the Danube and the surrounding hilly country. Inside each house, the shape of the dwelling was repeated in the hearth or oven, which was bounded by carefully shaped stone slabs and always located in the eastern or sunny end of the house. Srejovic noted that the position of the hearth was significant, as it was situated in the exact center of an equilateral triangle if the lines of the house were extended....The implications of the mathematical and geometrical knowledge cannot be ignored.

The same precision and order evident in the architecture is also found in the arrangement of the dwellings at the Starveco site. The structures were laid out in what appears to have been a planned fan shape, opening toward the riverbank. The larger buildings, presumably those belonging to members of a higher class or governing body, were located toward the center, surrounding a paved plaza...

The Starveco site has yielded a number of other cultural characteristics previously thought to have been developed thousands of years later, in the Middle East. Behind the hearth in each house, laborers unearthed the remains of altars, indicating religious beliefs and practices. Each altar was composed of a flat stone, with a cup impression for burning a sacriffce, which faced two or more upright stones of reddish sandstone. This sandstone has been excavated from an outcrop, located in a ravine several miles away, and many of the stones had carved wavy lines or chevrons in low relief, considered the oldest examples of architectural decoration. Even more significant was the discovery of twenty sculpted life-size human faces of stone....

An interesting aspect of the site was the evidence of very good health among the Starveco population. There was a striking absence of deformed or diseased bones, and the women were so robustly built that it was difficult to tell their skeletal remains from those of the men.'

In spite of his absence from Western culture and history Stone Age man is seen to equal or, in some cases, to surpass our own modern accomplishments. In depth research was continued by Noorbergen into the sophistication in clothing.

In a cave near Lussac-les-Chateaux, in 1937, Leon Pericard and Stephane Lwoff uncovered a number of engraved stones dating from the Magdalenian period which drastically altered the accepted picture. The flat stones showed men and women in casual poses, wearing robes, boots, belts, coats and hats. One engraving is a profile of a young lady who appears to be sitting and watching something. She is dressed in a pant suit with a short-sleeved jacket, a pair of small boots, and a decorated hat that flops down over her right ear and touches her shoulder. Resting on her lap is a square, flat object that folds down the front, very much like a modern purse. Other examples show men wearing well-tailored pants and coats, broad belts with clasps, and clipped beards and moustaches.


The Evolution of Man?

1. Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.
2. Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
3. Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.
4. Peking Man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared.
5. Neanderthal Man - At the Int'l Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave Said his examination showed that the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.
6. Cro-Magnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man...so what's the difference?
7. Modern Man - This genius thinks we came from a monkey.
8. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools - Romans 1:22


Sorry this post is so long, just wanted to ba thurough. There is a lot more where that came from.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would you want to convince yourself that prehistoric man was our equal? It’s an impossibility. You’ve proven that among other advanced skills (and by that I mean, above animal level) ancient man had a degree of mastery over fire and matter but could he explain them, did he understand them? Is it remotely possible that he could have developed a theory as to why the sun existed without using supernatural explanations? No, he couldn’t do any of these things. Like I said they were impossibilities and not because he lacked the physical or perhaps even the mental capacities; but because he simply did not have the knowledge of the complex natural interactions behind all those phenomenon garnered by centuries of human investigation. I stand by my original opinion. And I request further debate – find a flaw in my logic, don’t side step it.

As for this:
"7. Modern Man - This genius thinks we came from a monkey."

Don’t get me started- that’s a whole other debate. Im attacking the existence of god from a historical interpretive stand point. So defend your position with historical evidence. Or don’t, its your choice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Think of God as everything, and everywhere. When we die we go back to God, for example. God is one. The answer is right in front of your nose and all of ours, but I definately wont force my views on you.

If you want to believe God doesnt exist, I'll respect you. But think about this one ideology, when you die you go back to God where you came from. It stands on science as well as religion. Try thinking of it like that.

 

I think there is more than enough evidence to suggest their intelligence was well with in the limits needed to reason.

"Is it remotely possible that he could have developed a theory as to why the sun existed without using supernatural explanations? No, he couldn’t do any of these things. Like I said they were impossibilities and not because he lacked the physical or perhaps even the mental capacities; but because he simply did not have the knowledge of the complex natural interactions behind all those phenomenon garnered by centuries of human investigation. "

Theorys are developed long before the proof to back them. But to that answer there have been substancial findings suggesting early man had great understanding of sciences and mathmatical concepts:

In 1820, the brilliant Orientalist Claudius J. Rich became the first person in modern times to survey Nineveh. It was later excavated by French archaeologists, and in 1846 and 1847 by the distinguished English archaeologist Henry Layard, who discovered the palace of Sennacherib. Layard took back to England an unrivalled collection of stone bas-reliefs, several bronzes and thousands of clay tablets inscribed in cuneiform script. But it was while working at Nimrud, the earlier capital of Assyria, that Layard made his most intriguing find - a curious crystal artifact.

It was a disc, not quite circular since it had 0.2 inches discrepancy between its longer and shorter diameters. One face of the disc was flat, but the other had been ground to make it convex, using some sort of precision tool. Although no longer in pristine condition, it showed the remains of twelve cavities which had once contained condensed gases or liquids.

At first, archaeologists concluded the disc must be an ornament of some sort, but then David Brewster became interested in the find. Brewster was an eminent Scottish physicist noted for his experimental work in optics and polarized light. Today he is best remembered as the inventor of the kaleidoscope and the man who first produced three-dimensional images using a modified stereoscope. Brewster examined the artifact and announced, in 1853, that it was a well-made optical lens. This find is not unique. Some seventy-five similar lenses of varying dates have subsequently been found at sites that range from central Turkey through Crete to Troy.
What an optical lens was doing in ancient Nimrud was then - and remains today - beyond the understanding of orthodox archaeology. But then so does the ancient 8.8-ton slab of manmade glass discovered in 1956 at Beth She?arim, south-west of Galilee. Similar weights of glass have been manufactured in modern times, but only rarely and for very specialized purposes - like the lenses of giant telescopes.

A workable pregnancy test is described on a Babylonian clay tablet. It involved the insertion of a herbaly impregnated woolen tampon into the woman?s vagina. When removed and treated with an alum solution, the tampon turned red if the woman was pregnant.


However, working from the assumption God exists in the form of the giver and sustainer of life, then one would assume that the first man was as able to communicate with Him as any man.

Working from the skeptical view, we find that science now tends to confirm what even the earliest references of creation in found text and artifacts said. So either early man was very much our peer in the field of science, or he did have a direct connection to an inside source..i.e.God.

My post was intended to give you reason to doubt that man made up God due to inability to reason. I in no way intended to offend you. I will neither push my beliefs on you.




*As for this:
"7. Modern Man - This genius thinks we came from a monkey."

Don’t get me started- that’s a whole other debate. Im attacking the existence of god from a historical interpretive stand point. So defend your position with historical evidence. Or don’t, its your choice.*

That was a little snippet on the light side, not intended to offend you in any way.

 

Taken,

Interesting reading. Thanks. You say there is more where that came from - what source are you using?

 

"Ooparts, Anomilies, and Ancient Technology."
You can find links to it and some other interesting stuff at:
http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/spiritst/s8int/Phile1.html

another good find there:

" There is at least one artifact that proves beyond all doubt that one civilisation in the ancient world possessed technical knowledge which no modern scientists had previously suspected. As it was found in the sea off Antikythera, a small island north west of Crete, it is known as the Antikythera Mechanism.". "Looking at this extraordinary relic is a most disturbing experience. Few activities are more futile than the ?what if....? type of speculation, yet the mechanism positively compels such thinking. Though it is over two thousand years old, it represents a level which our technology did not reach until the eighteenth century?If the insight of the Greeks had matched their ingenuity, the industrial revolution might have begun a thousand years before Columbus. By this time we would not merely be puttering around on the Moon, we would have reached the nearer stars.? Work on the artefact revealed that on the outside it had consisted of dials set into a wooden box with at least 20-gear wheels inside. The box was covered with inscriptions that included an astronomical calendar. The mechanism also included a system of differential years. A crank spindle set the gears in motion at various speeds, turning pointers on three dials that calculated the rising and setting times and phases of the Moon, and the positions of the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn all with a high degree of accuracy . "It appears that this was, indeed a computing machine that could work out and exhibit the motions of the sun and the moon and probably also the planets" ...Solla Price

 

I too, am interested in hearing the source of your story. Could it have been perhaps, a failed story line from the short lived “Young Indiana Jones” series? Just poking fun.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I’m thankful that you’ve decided to not force your beliefs on me, and I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know that I will gladly return the privilege. My beliefs, it seems are mine alone, as I’ve yet to meet another who shared my unique outlook on life. Nor, I might add, have I felt compelled to force my admittedly extremist views upon anyone else. I only wish to engage in a friendly debate of historical interpretation. Which, I’m sure you’ll admit is open to speculation on a variety of topics. This is due primarily to what I like to call “the whisper down the lane effect” whereas information is progressively distorted by repeated oral transmission. Consequently, the further back into the past you go when studying history the murkier and less reliable information becomes. Now I know this sounds like a broad, generalized, and functionally unsupportable claim, and you’re right. But like I said my views are my own, and I’m offering them up to the best devil’s advocates I can find. I want to be challenged by you, change my mind. Or at least give it a good shot.

P.S. Taken, You can't expect me, or anyone else for that matter, to believe your stories simply because you took the time to cut and paste them. Those anecdotes are meaningless without solid, scholarly or by another means credible citations. You’re going to have to do better than: msnhomepages.talkcity.com.

Elbaz, thanks for the kind words but you can keep them. If you truly respected me you wouldn’t speak to me like I’m a person who can’t or won’t allow myself to understand "reality as it truly is", but I like all people will eventually and finally see the light (pun intended). To do that shows your disrespect for my personal ideology and for me as a person. I assure you, however that I will make every effort to prevent myself from speaking to you in a similar manner.

 

LOL You will find all the needed footnotes and references on the full articles. That page just happens to have a lot of links to resources that I thought blonde would find interesting. I did not give you the whole thing, just what referenced the post, so I didn't think you wanted the whole Bibliography, but I will be glad to give you that. Many of the findings in fact come from scientific journals and papers, not from a Christian source. But as for the sections I thought were relevant to this topic, you will see that the names of the Scientists were included in the text and can easily be cross referenced if you want more detail on their findings. And all of the findings are documented historically and scientificly accurate to the best of mans ability to be sure of our current archiological techniques.

I have no need to force anything on you. We all share a quest for the truth in life, it is a great human characteristic. But as long as we are open to discussion and questioning our thinking, we will continue to advance toward that goal. And after all, this is a discussion forum, not church.

But I assure you, it is easier to convince a person that God does exist than to convince someone God doesn't exist if the subject is indeed open to the consideration and not blinded by the prejudices and hypocracies created by men.

 

I am reminded of an old philosophy joke...

If I have never heard your brain speak other than thru the mouth of a physical man,
and I have never seen your brain,
or felt your brain,
can I assume based on that criteria
that you do not have a brain?



Disclaimer.....It IS a joke, the use of the word "you" is just the wording of the joke. And the joke has a higher meaning, it was not intended as a personal assault on anyone!

 

excellent, go right ahead.

i took a second look, and that doesn't seem to be the case. "What Does the Bible Say About Being Saved?" from Mark Roberts' homepage, links to the O'Riley Factor and "Evolution: Its Collapse In View?" by David Buckna from The Revolution Against Evolution website don't exactly qualify as credible. but, please let me know if you find something that does.

 

Do you want the scientific slant or the spiritual slant? Perhaps a more accurate question would be, where do you personaly think those "early" men came from. (and I wont ask you for sources..*grins*)...just your reasoning on the matter based solely on your lifes total findings thus far.

 

I didn't get any of the info I used from the aforementioned links.
Hang ten Ill get you the site you need.

 

http://www.science-frontiers.com/index.htm

Better?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rrice/apagadgt.html

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/layard/

 

It was Aristotle who coined the term ad hominem, meaning attacking the person not their argument. You are allowing this discourse to deteriorate into that type of debate, which is pointless for both of us. I have no desire to get into a personal spat with you. I'm merely providing you the opportunity to argue the merits of the points I’ve raised. In case you missed them I’ll recap.

[

Lastly, Taken, your information does not yet meet my definition of credible. Im sure you will produce something eventually that I would consider reliable. But, bear in mind I never said I required you to back your opinions with scholarly data. I would be perfectly satisfied with, “just your reasoning on the matter based solely on your life’s total findings thus far.” Which you haven’t been inclined to offer.

I really have to go to sleep now, but ill be more than happy to continue this tomorrow.

 

Will you accept my best guess?

Lightning, sunlight and other energetic stimuli reacted with an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor, to produce a liquid that contained all of the basic ingredients for life. Among these ingredients were amino acids, which through spontaneous chemical reactions linked up to form molecules that make up organic life. If you go to your local science supply store they may sell a rather famous kit that allows you to repeat this process and prove it for yourself. From those molecules the first single celled organisms developed about 3.8 billion years ago (that number changes every now and again but its not really important). Those organisms slowly evolved and advanced over the eons in a process called phylogeny into more and more complex organisms, leading up to mammals the most advanced organisms on the planet, and finally, man, the most advanced of the mammals.

If it makes you feel any better scientists have not yet determined exactly how having the right ingredients at the right time led to life. You and your fellow “believers” can feel free to say God stepped in there and provided the spark of life; whatever pleases you. Personally, I’ll wait until the scientific method provides more a more believable explanation.

P.S. I’m still waiting for you to comment on my earlier points, or anyone else reading this for that matter.

 

My apologies, Cainxinth, if you took it the wrong way, but I was mearly trying to get you to see it from my perspective. Sure, as I look back on it, I can see how you would percieve the 'tone' of my writing as being that way, but like I said I wont force my views on you. These are my views. If I say something like try thinking of it like this, I'm not trying to talk to you like a retard.

This is debate, and I've found from personal experiences, that the best debaters are those that can understand a situation from all positions. You dont have to agree or even like any ideas put forth, but its a good idea to not be hasty in criticizing them.

I in no way attempted to insult, or treat as less of a person as you obsiously think I did. I'm not like that.

You'll never truly know how much I respect you, unless of coarse I tell you directly. Perception is one thing but knowledge is another. For example, I could assume by your response to me, you can be quick to judge, whiny, insecure (quick yet berate (good 'ol thesauarus!) defense) or that you took simply took my RE wrongly,etc. Look back at my response and try to see it as I explained in this post.

 

*Originally posted by Cainxinth
Lightning, sunlight and other energetic stimuli reacted with an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor, to produce a liquid that contained all of the basic ingredients for life. Among these ingredients were amino acids, which through spontaneous chemical reactions linked up to form molecules that make up organic life. If you go to your local science supply store they may sell a rather famous kit that allows you to repeat this process and prove it for yourself. From those molecules the first single celled organisms developed about 3.8 billion years ago (that number changes every now and again but its not really important). Those organisms slowly evolved and advanced over the eons in a process called phylogeny into more and more complex organisms, leading up to mammals the most advanced organisms on the planet, and finally, man, the most advanced of the mammals. *

What luck for the teachers that students don't think.

The human genome contains 3.3 billion base pairs.
You say evolution has taken about 3.8 billion years.

That means one new base pair appeared almost every single year, on average, to go from rock to man.

What evolutionist has any evidence that evolution works that fast?

 

An interesting take on me. Consider it under advisement, but in the meantime perhaps you may want to take another look at my little blurb about ad hominem.

I have, and I stand by my previous interpretation of your post. I think it is you who would do well to re-read your statement.

Can you not even recognize that you are speaking to me in absolutisms? I said I would try not to, but allow me to reverse the situation to clarify my point.

50 to 100 years from scientific research will have advanced so far that humankind will have more control over its destiny than is currently conceivable. An exponential spike in our understanding of reality will alter human history to an unparalleled degree. No event in all of time recorded will be comparable to this quantum leap, and lives as we currently know them will become a distant and curious memory. Among other things, I live my life to help advance and accelerate this singular event in human history and hope that I may be astoundingly fortunate enough to experience it. Finally, whether you accept it or not you will be faced to confront this fact if you intend on living for another 50 years or more… but I respect you and won’t force my beliefs on you.

Unlike you Elbaz, I actually respect your conflicting ideology, and only stated my beliefs here as though they were unquestionable to make a point. In the normal course of debate I would never treat anyone with disrespect by speaking to them as if I was living by the only true ideology. I may not believe that there is even a possibility that god exists, but I respect your belief in him regardless. I don’t ask that you place any value in my beliefs, in fact I encourage you to attack them, but I wont allow you to insincerely claim you respect me while you condescend to me.

P.S. Tony, do you have any background in biology? Do you realize what you’ve said makes no sense? There is plenty of quality information on the Internet about biology, and I'm not here to explain every concept one would learn in bio I and II. If you truly want to know about genetics you can research it yourself. Here’s a good place to start

 

Sorry if I sound irritated, but once again I find myself forced to defend my behavior and not the issues I’ve raised. I honestly, intend no offense to anyone here, and I am literally begging you to play devil’s advocate. Understandably, Taken, Elbaz, and Tony may have further issues to settle with me in this thread before they will be prepared to discuss my arguments against the existence of god, but if anyone else out there has a comment to make on my original post I am most interested in hearing it. The only way to strengthen one’s ideology is to continually test and challenge it, and in that capacity I require your input.