I'll post here what I posted in the other thread..

IF I where to meet the god of the abrahamic religious, I would simply ask these following questions:

Why does he feel he deserves worship, man's morality has surpassed god. I can forgive someone without needing a blood sacrifice to do it.

How can he be omniscient when a number of his moves are clearly reactionary.

and lastly, why the game? Why, if you are omniscient, and omnipotent, do you have to play this little game with evil? What is the point of the "end times"?

Sounds like a new Jeff Dunham puppet..

In today's world, many people (including myself) break it down this way:

Gnostic Theist: I know there is a god, and I believe.

Agnostic Theist: I don't know if there is a god, but I believe there is one.

Agnostic Atheist: I don't know if there is a god, and I don't believe there is one.

Gnostic Atheist: I know there is no god, so I don't believe there is one.

All "Agnostic" means is "without knowledge" so it is possible to be agnostic AND a theist, or atheist.

Funny, how when it's something "good" it's the infallible word of an omnipotent being, but when it doesn't jive with society it's just a guideline...

Jumping through hoops to keep Christianity, and it's god, loving much be hard work. Be sure to rest up.

So again, you use an ancient book to deny people rights, simply because the book is old, and supposedly the word of god.

Tell me again how it's loving?

Well, if he worships no one, then he believes in no god higher than himself, which would make him an atheist..

A quick search points to leviticus being in the Old Testament, not the New Testament.. Maybe try to bring up what Jesus (supposedly) said on the subject.

Yet you still go on calling Christianity loving?

You mean like you guys like to claim that Jesus basically erased the Old Testament while also claiming that Homosexuality is a sin against god, when Jesus says nothing on homosexuality, and the anti-homosexual passages are in the Old Testament.

Yeah, you have the right to comment on the maturity in a discussion..

I am not religious, and can't really say I've ever been, despite being raised in a christian household. I am atheist, in that I don't believe, or see a need for a supernatural entity. I am also an anti-theist, since I believe that religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity.

I imagine he'd probably call everyone with a cross on them a sick f***.

And yeah, there would be more replies in the Gen. Religion forum, but there would be more b****ing too..

Well, As soon as Wade AND Bosh chose Miami, you had to be delusional to think that Lebron was staying in Cleveland. You have the Lakers in the West who are darn near guaranteed locks for the Finals in the West, and then Boston and Miami to go thru in the East. If he stayed in Cleveland, he wasn't going to win a championship.

Could Lebron have handled it with more class? Yeah, but so could the Cavs owner, and with the outburst that he had, I find it hard to fault Lebron just for leaving.

Look at the bright side, Cavs fans, you get to fight the Knicks and the Nets for the #1 pick in the draft now.

And My Undefeated streak comes to an end..

...

And I still don't see a point in going "We don't know, therefore God!"

All "I don't know" means is that at this time we do not have the knowledge. To say that it must be god is a non-answer, it doesn't actually teach us anything, and it stops the desire to continue to expand our knowledge.

So, I still see no need to invoke a supernatural explanation (i.e. god) simply because Science has not yet found the reasonable, rational explanation.

Were you around for the writing of the bible? Because there is a lot of evidence that points to it NOT being a first hand account.

I didn't question the sanity of those who have claimed to see Fairies, Unicorns, or Gods, I asked if YOU believed in Unicorns or Fairies, since they fall in with god, as far as evidence (none) and that they can't be disproven.

"You cannot disprove it" does not make it true.

Do you believe in fairies? How about unicorns? There is exactly the same amount of evidence for them, and they can't be disproven either.

A book, written by ancient goat herders does not equal evidence of a god.

If humans did not create anything, how are we communicating? How do you get to work?

Kinda funny how you dismiss what I say as a "theory" (One that every true scientist agrees with, I might add) yet you take the existence of a god (of which there is zero evidence for) as a fact.

Nice little attempt to dismiss it, but you still fail.

If something affects the natural world, then natural laws apply to that thing. So, either god does affect things in the natural world, and the natural laws apply to him, OR He doesn't affect the natural world (and cannot, thus making our existence godless) and and natural laws don't apply to him. There is No way he can affect it, and the laws not apply to him.

So, for the quarterfinals onward, I'm 5-for-5.