[_ Old Earth _] GenesisTime

[Barbarian]

The "Orthodox Christians" say you are not orthodox for the obvious reasons

Most of the world's traditional churches accept evolution is consistent with God. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, most Lutheran denominations, and many others acknowledge this fact.

and "Orthodox Darwinism", which does not allow god-talk

Francisco Ayala is one of the world's foremost biologists. So is Francis Collins, who managed the Human Genome Project, and who accepts the reality of evolution. Both are devout Christians, and speak of God publicly and often. You're putting your trust in people who are not worthy of it, Zeke.

You deny "both Orthodoxy and science" and create you "own illegitimate amalgamation" - an illegitimate amalgamation that you can't even defend via the scientific method. Why?

So in order to try to "harmonize" Orthodoxy and evolution,

There's no need. As you see, even Augustine acknowledged the fact that Genesis cannot be a literal history, from its own testimony.

one either disregards the Patristic Tradition

Other prominent expositors of this view included Gregory of Nyssa (331-396 a.d.), Augustine of Hippo (354-430 a.d.), St. Gregory the First (540-604 a.d.), St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Leibnitz (1646-1716), Swedenborg (1688-1772), Bonnet (1720-1793), and numerous contemporary scientists. In fact, many of Darwin’s contemporaries embraced this view, believing that “natural selection could be the means by which God has chosen to make man.†[40] As confirmed by Dr. James Rachels, professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham: and sides completely with science or one denies both Orthodoxy and science and creates his own illegitimate amalgamation. Thus, theistic evolutionists are the ones truly placing a divide between religion and science. (Jesse Dominick)
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=97

Surprise.

Why do the "Orthodox Christians" and "Orthodox Darwinians" say you are not orthodox?

See above. Patristic tradition puts me precisely in orthodoxy. You, not so much.

 

[zeke]

Barbarian suggests:
Let us know when you find that writing by St. Augustine that contradicts what he wrote in his classic works.

I have given you the work of a world-class biblical scholar - and then we have you and your 'facts from nowhere'. I will go with the scholar who clearly states, "Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible." Augustine wrote in De Civitate Dei that his view of the chronology of the world and the Bible led him to believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC...Too bad for you. The gentleman from Hippo was not on your side you just thought no one would check your projection. Nice try though.

 

[zeke]

Patristic tradition puts me precisely in orthodoxy.

Only in your mind. Dominick is Orthodox and he correctly thinks your blend of weak theology and the Darwinian lore leaves you exactly where you - with an illegitimate amalgamation that classical Darwinians reject. Dawkins would look at your position and laugh and his the big-daddy of Darwinism today.

So in order to try to "harmonize" Orthodoxy and evolution, one either disregards the Patristic Tradition and sides completely with science or one denies both Orthodoxy and science and creates his own illegitimate amalgamation. Thus, theistic evolutionists are the ones truly placing a divide between religion and science. (Jesse Dominick)

“. . . belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” ~ William B. Provine - Darwinist​

 

[zeke]

Francisco Ayala is one of the world's foremost biologists. So is Francis Collins, who managed the Human Genome Project, and who accepts the reality of evolution. Both are devout Christians, and speak of God publicly and often. You're putting your trust in people who are not worthy of it, Zeke.

I think it is you who puts your trust in the unfaithful and unworthy my friend. Darwinians such as Will Provine who consider 'theistic evolutionists' to be nothing more than useful idiots admits that modern evolution makes atheists out of the gullible and he correctly states that..."One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism..." Where does that leave you?

"Evolution is the “greatest engine of atheism.â€

“. . . belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.â€

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.â€

“The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.â€

~ William B. Provine - Darwinist and atheist extraordinaire​

Again I ask you - what is the difference between your version Darwinism and the Darwinism of Provine and Dawkins? Why did Provine say "modern evolution makes atheists of people"? Provine said Charles Darwin understood perfectly that "no gods worth having exist" - was Provine correct?

 

[zeke]

"Darwinism, the AK-47 of neo-atheist shock troops..."

By "neo-atheism", I mean a tripartite belief system founded on the conviction that science provides the only road to truth and that all religions are deluded, irrational and destructive…Atheism is just one-third of this exotic ideological cocktail. Secularism, the political wing of the movement, is another third…The third leg of neo-atheism is Darwinism, the AK-47 of neo-atheist shock troops. Alone among scientists, and perhaps because of the enormous influence of Richard Dawkins, Darwin has been embraced as the final conclusive proof not only that God does not exist but also that religion as a whole is a uniquely dangerous threat to scientific rationality. ~ The God wars by Bryan Appleyard

 

[lordkalvan]

"Darwinism, the AK-47 of neo-atheist shock troops..."

By "neo-atheism", I mean a tripartite belief system founded on the conviction that science provides the only road to truth and that all religions are deluded, irrational and destructive…Atheism is just one-third of this exotic ideological cocktail. Secularism, the political wing of the movement, is another third…The third leg of neo-atheism is Darwinism, the AK-47 of neo-atheist shock troops. Alone among scientists, and perhaps because of the enormous influence of Richard Dawkins, Darwin has been embraced as the final conclusive proof not only that God does not exist but also that religion as a whole is a uniquely dangerous threat to scientific rationality. ~ The God wars by Bryan Appleyard

Can you tell us why we should value Bryan Appleyard's opinion? You seem very fond of relying on authority for your arguments. Can you explain the argument in your own words? The only religious threat to scientific rationality appears to come from fundamentalist zealots who wish to deny any science that points to an Earth and Universe much older than 6 KY.

 

[Sparkey]

The scriptural basis for the earth being 6,000 years old came from the expression, "One day is like a thousand years unto the Lord." The reasoning goes, "Well, if the Lord created in 6 days, then rested... we could imagine that Jesus was the "sun/son" of the 4th day, right?" or something similar. But those who advocate that the earth is a literal 6 "God-days" old, should have re-evaluated by now.

I don't want to be accused of saying, "Why does the Lord delay his coming," but I remember other thinking of the same sort, "National Israel is the fig... one generation is 40 years... thus, He will return in 1988."

What is the actual age of the earth? My conclusion is that no man knows. It is older than 6,000 years though even if the age is calculated solely on a bible-based chronology. Ooops, let me take that lie back... if calendars are corrected for error and the birth of Jesus is set back a couple years and all that, some suppose that Adam was created, 6 days after the start of everything in 4012 BC. I'll post my comment again next year, Lord willing.

Varying Theories among YEC's:
Another complication that can arise amongst those who hold the 6,000 year view is that of "Prophecy Years" vs. Gregorian Calendar years. A prophetic year is assumed by some to be 360 days long, so much work has been done (by some) to convert. According to "The Tablets of Vision," by Harlan Cosner, "Joseph lived to be 110 years old, which converts to 108.4 Gregorian years..." He cites Adam's beginning to be around 4004 to 4005 BC.

Here's one guy who put a lot of work into a Biblical Timeline. It appears that he states that the "7th day", or "God's Millinium" started on the 28th of September, 2009. Here's the link (for those interested): Biblical/Historical Timeline

 

[zeke]

Can you tell us why we should value Bryan Appleyard's opinion? You seem very fond of relying on authority for your arguments. Can you explain the argument in your own words? The only religious threat to scientific rationality appears to come from fundamentalist zealots who wish to deny any science that points to an Earth and Universe much older than 6 KY.

I don't look at Appleyard as any kind of 'authority' - he simply makes some interesting points regarding neo-atheism. You may not agree with him but that remains your problem and I would be more than happy to discuss his comments on "fundamentalist zealots". But first can you tell us what you think he means when he noted that the "third leg of neo-atheism" has embraced and taken over Darwinism, using it as "proof" that God does not exist and that "religion as a whole is a uniquely dangerous threat to scientific rationality." Is science at war with religion or is naturalism at war with God?

On another thread I had reminded you that the history of life on Earth can only be explained in two ways - (1) special creation or (2) spontaneous generation. We all know that the unique complexity of even basic life forms is remarkable and the notion of life arising from non-life via blind chance is an absurdity - theologically and scientifically.

God's revelation to man is clear - God is the Author of Life but you told us that you reject God and kinda-sorta believed in some flavor of spontaneous generation but couldn't quite nail it down. You also made the remark that the idea of God was an absurdity. Can you explain why you believe the idea of God to be absurd?.

Can you also please explain why you accept the absurdity of spontaneous generation? Are you a neo-atheist? Have you always been an atheist? Do you find religion to be a dangerous threat to scientific rationality? Is atheism a religion? Do you not want to believe in God?

"I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution....When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." ~ George Wald (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1967)

"Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about... I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem." Werner Arber (Nobel for Medicine in 1978)​

 

[lordkalvan]

I don't look at Appleyard as any kind of 'authority'...

So when you do nothing more than C&P a piece of text with no comment as to your intent, but in what seems to be approval of its views, what are we to suppose other than this is an argument you agree with and that the quote stands as authority for the views it represents?

...he simply makes some interesting points regarding neo-atheism.

What is interesting about them? Would you care to explain why you find them interesting?

You may not agree with him but that remains your problem...

If his comments are simply interesting, why would it remain a 'problem' for me if I agreed with them or not?

...and I would be more than happy to discuss his comments on "fundamentalist zealots".

I don't think he mentioned fundamentalist zealots at all. Can you show where he did that?

But first can you tell us what you think he means when he noted that the "third leg of neo-atheism" has embraced and taken over Darwinism, using it as "proof" that God does not exist and that "religion nas a whole is a uniquely dangerous threat to scientific rationality."

It's not my job to tell you what the providers of quotes that you have posted may or may not mean. Insofar as he has failed to tell us that this alleged 'neo-atheism' is anything more than a construct of his imagination and also failed to show how religion per se is any threat at all to scientific rationality, I think this means that you are offering his opinion as evidential argument. Which it isn't.

Is science at war with religion or is naturalism at war with God?

Not if you agree with the unremarkable observation that many scientists are also theists who accept both the power of naturalistic processes and the role of God in setting up the conditions in which those naturalistic processes operate - Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins spring to mind as two such examples.

On another thread I had reminded you that the history of life on Earth can only be explained in two ways - (1) special creation or (2) spontaneous generation.

Well, you asserted that, but i don't recall you explaining why that is so. However, I do recall pointing out to you that spontaneous generation is an outmoded idea that has nothing to do with modern research into abiogenesis, so I am surprised to still see you using this obsolete term. I am also surprised that you appear to think that spontaneous generation has anything to do with evolution at all.

We all know that the unique complexity of even basic life forms is remarkable and the notion of life arising from non-life via blind chance is an absurdity - theologically and scientifically.

That you are ignorant of something does not mean that we all share that ignorance. Please explain why 'the notion of life arising from non-life' is a matter of 'blind chance' rather than a natural consequence of chemical processes and physical laws which are anything other than 'blind' in the sense that you seem to be implying. Or perhaps you think it is a matter of 'blind chance' that two hydrogen atoms bond with one oxygen atom to form a molecule of water?

God's revelation to man is clear - God is the Author of Life...

You are entitled to believe this, but your simple assertion to this effect is neither evidential nor authoritative.

...but you told us that you reject God and kinda-sorta believed in some flavor of spontaneous generation but couldn't quite nail it down.

I suggest you are deliberately misrepresenting my views here. I cannot reject something I believe does not exist, any more than I can reject fairies, Easter Bunnies, or Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot. Also, as I have explained to you that spontaneous generation is an outmoded idea, I would be pleased if you can show me where I said that I 'kinda-sorta believed' in it. And finally, what I said about the OOL is that I don't know, so posing your false dilemma argument repeatedly is only going to elicit the same response.

You also made the remark that the idea of God was an absurdity. Can you explain why you believe the idea of God to be absurd?

Can you tell me in what post I did this and what the context was?

Can you also please explain why you accept the absurdity of spontaneous generation?

This is dishonest of you. I have never said any such thing.

Are you a neo-atheist?

What is a 'neo-atheist'?

Have you always been an atheist?

What relevance is this? Are you a YE creationist? Have you always been a YE creationist?

Do you find religion to be a dangerous threat to scientific rationality?

Why would it be such a threat, other than in the hands of fundamentalist zealots who wish to deny any science that conflicts with their theologically-derived worldview?

Is atheism a religion?

Not by any understanding that I have of what constitutes a religion.

Do you not want to believe in God?

Why do you imagine that I should want to do this? And if I did, would I have to believe in your version of God? What about Lord Brahma or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

"I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution....When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." ~ George Wald (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1967)​

Wald is entitled to his opinion, if this is an honest representation of his views. Can you tell us where you sourced it from, what lies in the ellipses and what the context is? Do you think he would still hold to this opinion if he was familiar with the current state of abiogenesis research and, if so, why?

"Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about... I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem." Werner Arber (Nobel for Medicine in 1978)

​

Again, can you tell us where you sourced this quote and what its context is? Regardless of this, however, what may or may not be satisfactory to Arber is not in and of itself evidential. The action of a supernatural agent as the creative force providing the naturalistic conditions in which life could originate and evolve naturalistically is no less valid an argument than positing the idea that life itself and its wide variety were the result of a supernatural act of special creation. You have given no reason to prefer one option to the other, or even that these are the only options at all.

 

[zeke]

Insofar as he has failed to tell us that this alleged 'neo-atheism' is anything more than a construct of his imagination...

You need to get out more often---here

Well, you asserted that, but i don't recall you explaining why that is so. However, I do recall pointing out to you that spontaneous generation is an outmoded idea that has nothing to do with modern research into abiogenesis, so I am surprised to still see you using this obsolete term. I am also surprised that you appear to think that spontaneous generation has anything to do with evolution at all.

Abiogenesis
noun Biology
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. ~ Dictionary.com Unabridged​

• Spontaneous generation is the notion that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter.
• Abiogenesis is the notion that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter.
• Evolutionism preaches the discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter.

Let me know if I can help you? Do you believe that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter? Remember, there are only two choices (1) Special creation or (2) Spontaneous generation. And your choice is...

Or perhaps you think it is a matter of 'blind chance' that two hydrogen atoms bond with one oxygen atom to form a molecule of water?

No blind chance - God's design.

II cannot reject something I believe does not exist, any more than I can reject fairies, Easter Bunnies, or Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot.

Let me guess - orbiting teapots and flying spaghetti monsters are the highpoint of your philosophical expertise. You are original. On what bases do you believe there is no God - evidence, logic, faith or something else? What positive evidence do you offer that disproves God? Please be specific.

Do you believe the concept of God is an absurdity?

 

[lordkalvan]

You need to get out more often---here

And speaking of getting out more often, you need to find a source that provides a definition based on something more than a diatribe against people it doesn't like. Your source seems to regard neo-atheism as atheism that dares to offer any critical opinion of religion at all.

Abiogenesis
noun Biology
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. ~ Dictionary.com Unabridged​

You need to broaden your understanding and not rely on simplifying, limited dictionary definitions. You may find this discussion interesting:

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Abiogenesis/

[*]Spontaneous generation is the notion that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter.

Classically, spontaneous generation refers to the phenomenon I outlined for you in a previous post, traces to Aristotelian roots and was discredited by Pasteur in the 19th Century.

[*]Abiogenesis is the notion that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter.

See above.

[*]Evolutionism preaches the discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter.

You need to stop beating up on those strawman arguments.

Where do you remain confused? Do you believe that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter? Remember, there are only two choices (1) Special creation or (2) Spontaneous generation. And your choice is...

I only remain confused by your inability or unwillingness to understand that your argument is based on misunderstanding and false dilemmas, never mind your avoidance of points that address your assertions directly and seek clarifications of them.

No blind chance - God's design.

In which case, why do you imagine that God could not also design the conditions in which the great variety of life could originate and develop naturalistically, in just the same way that two hydrogen atoms bind with one oxygen atom to form a water molecule entirely naturalistically?

Let me guess - orbiting teapots and flying spaghetti monsters are the highpoint of your philosophical expertise. You are original.

And you are predictable. So where does that leave us?

On what bases do you believe there is no God - evidence, logic, faith or something else?

That would be lack of evidence.

What positive evidence do you offer that disproves God? Please be specific. You may be confused.

Not my requirement to disprove God, but rather yours to prove that he exists, given that the consequential difference between his existence and non-existence appears to be none at all.

Do you believe the concept of God is an absurdity?

I notice you fail to link to or offer the number of the post where, according to you, I said this. Why is that?

To answer your question, I think that your concept of God is no more of an absurdity than the Archbishop of Canterbury's, than those who believe in Lord Brahma, than the gods of Dynastic Egypt or of Classical Greece and Imperial Rome? Do you think these various concepts of god are absurdities and, if so, why?

 

[zeke]

And speaking of getting out more often, you need to find a source that provides a definition based on something more than a diatribe against people it doesn't like.

My source correctly notes those atheists who 'border on the manic' in their dislike of the true God are referred to as neo-atheists. You asked - I delivered. Do you consider yourself to be a neo-atheist?

You need to broaden your understanding and not rely on simplifying, limited dictionary definitions.

Your "hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter" is the same as my "living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter" - yes? Any way you spin it the absurdity remains.

In which case, why do you imagine that God could not also design the conditions in which the great variety of life could originate and develop naturalistically...

But classical Darwinism does not preach that doctrine - does it? Classical Darwinism is atheism - it insists that life came from non-life via naturalism and it did not have man in mind. Is that the dogma you preach?

That would be lack of evidence.

Are you claiming you have examined all the evidence in the universe?

Not my requirement to disprove God...

But you only "believe" that God does not exist - what positive evidence do you offer that disproves God or do you simply rely on faith alone? Are orbiting teapots the best you have?

To answer your question, I think that your concept of God is no more of an absurdity than the Archbishop of Canterbury's, than those who believe in Lord Brahma, than the gods of Dynastic Egypt or of Classical Greece and Imperial Rome? Do you think these various concepts of god are absurdities and, if so, why?

Is that you admission that your do not think the Judeo-Christian God is an absurdity? Have you always been an anti-theist?

 

[lordkalvan]

My source correctly notes those atheists who 'border on the manic' in their dislike of the true God are referred to as neo-atheists. You asked - I delivered. Do you consider yourself to be a neo-atheist?

Unsupported assertion, that the atheists referred to in your citation are 'manic'. Anyone who has read or listened to either Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, for example, readily understands that neither of these two entirely reasonable individuals are at all 'manic'. So in terms of this biased, strawman definition of the manufactured article you call neo-atheism is concerned, no I am not a neo-atheist. Are you a YE creationist?

Your "hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter" is the same as my "living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter" - yes?

No.

Any way you spin it the absurdity remains.

You have yet to show that the origin of life as a naturalistic event resulting from chemical processes is an absurdity.

But classical Darwinism does not preach that doctrine - does it? Classical Darwinism is atheism - it insists that life came from non-life via naturalism and it did not have man in mind. Is that the dogma you preach?

I didn't ask about your version of Classical Darwinism, but whether you thought it a reasonable postulate that God could have provided the conditions for a naturalistic origin and development of life as easily as he could have created the variety of life by special creation.

Are you claiming you have examined all the evidence in the universe?

No, but then neither have I examined all the evidence in the Universe to decide that pink unicorns probably don't exist either. I am willing to admit the possibility that they do exist somewhere on the basis of my lack of knowledge of the entirety of the Universe, but in terms of everyday likelihood it seems reasonable to live my life as if they don't.

But you only "believe" that God does not exist - what positive evidence do you offer that disproves God or do you simply rely on faith alone? Are orbiting teapots the best you have?

What positive evidence do you have that Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot doesn't exist. If you understand this point, you understand why it is not my repsonsibility to provide proof positive of God's non-existence - the absence of proof positive that he does being sufficient for my lack of belief.

Is that you admission that your do not think the Judeo-Christian God is an absurdity?

Nope, it's a question asking you to explain whether, in your eyes, these various beliefs are absurd and, if so, why.

Have you always been an anti-theist?

Why does this interest you and what relevance does it have? Also, I am not anti God, I simply see no evidence presented to persuade me that he/she/it exists. Certainly, you have presented none.

 

[zeke]

Anyone who has read or listened to either Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, for example, readily understands that neither of these two entirely reasonable individuals are at all 'manic'.

Everything is debatable. Both individuals noted above are/were troubled minds. One went into self-destruct mode and is no longer with us and the other exhibits routine bouts of frenzies that border on uncontrolled reason (manic behavior).

You have yet to show that the origin of life as a naturalistic event resulting from chemical processes is an absurdity.

I refer you back to the words of George Wald, atheist, scientist, Darwinian (1967 Nobel Prize). His words tell the story.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible,*spontaneous generationarising to evolution." (Wald, Scientific American}​

Two choices my friend – (1) God or (2) naturalism via spontaneous generation (self-evident absurdity). And your choice is...

No, but then neither have I examined all the evidence in the Universe to decide that pink unicorns probably don't exist either.

Again, I ask – are teapots and unicorns the pinnacle of your philosophical expertise?

What positive evidence do you have that Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot doesn't exist.

Intelligent minds on both sides of the issue have debated the existence of God over the ages and all you can present is teapots. Very telling of where you are coming from.

If you understand this point, you understand why it is not my repsonsibility to provide proof positive of God's non-existence - the absence of proof positive that he does being sufficient for my lack of belief.

But the confusion is all yours – you are an atheist not because you “lack belief in God” - my dog lacks belief in God but she is not an atheist. You are an atheist because you have been introduced to the concept of God and you made the decision via God's gift of freewill to believe God does not exist - you do this as an article of faith. But what reason do you offer for your rejection of God? What is your one best evidence that He doesn't exist? Or are you simply mad at God because He exist?

Why does this interest you and what relevance does it have?

I think it is a fair question. You are the resident atheist on a Christian forum. I would like to understand what you are about - of course you do not have to answer.

You say you are not 'anti-God' but you are certainly not pro-God – there is no in between – where does that leave you?

 

[Free]

This is the Science forum, not a debate on why someone doesn't believe in God. But it has run it's course.