Nobody has yet answered my question that they cannot prove their beliefs (even if they are atheistic and not religious) but still require Christians to prove beyond all doubt that God is real. Very hypocritical if you ask me. And as for the statement that there is no evidence for Christianity, how about the bible? How about the hundreds of thousands or millions of people who have felt God interact in their life? Why throw out all these sources?
And if anyone has the time to read something long, here's a copy of something I posted over on the foxes forums:
To be honest I don't understand Atheism; in my opinion it is in itself a religion, a religion based on science.
It includes some things that define religion
*A creation and meaning of life
*A way of living (this way is choose your own way of living, whether moral or amoral)
*It does not include a focus of worship which some might say defines a religion, however other religions, Deism being a prime example, do not either and yet they are considered religions.
Atheism also, in my opinion, takes just as much faith as a religion like Christianity.
Most Atheists would believe in the Big Bang Theory, which is that everything started from a single point of mass/energy that then expanded into what is now the universe. However, I would ask where you think that point came from, to which there are basically two answers.
1. It has always been there.
This to me is confusing, as I do not understand why thinking that a point of mass/energy has always existed is reasonable while saying it is impossible that a God has always existed. While more mundane and reasonable on the surface, both faith in religion and faith in Atheism believe that something has always been there that the individual hasn't seen and can't prove or explain. To me, they both are having an equal amount of faith, yet Atheists often scorn those who follow other religions for their faith (in general, not anyone here in particular).
2. It was not always there but appeared at a specific time.
This is easily dismissed as it seems to violate the very laws of science that I feel Atheists believe in. The Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy states that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed in a physical or chemical reaction. Even in a nuclear reaction, Mass-energy can only be converted into its other form (as stated in Einsteins famous equation) and cannot be created from nothing or destroyed from nothing.
An argument to this might be that there are other scientific reactions that we as of yet do not know about, but again, you are having faith in something that you have no proof exists or will exist and that you cannot see. This is sounding a lot like religion to me.
Most Atheists would also probably agree with the Theory of Evolution and natural selection. Earth has a rich diversity of life of many forms and types, yet several planets we have sent probes to and none of the many planets we have observed from Earth have shown any evidence of life.
One could argue that Earth has a more favorable climate than any other planets we have observed, but if so, why didn't the theoretical life that could have existed on all these planets adapt to the climates of these planets?
Another common argument is that there are an infinite number of planets, so is it likely that we will find life on ones near to us? This however, is probably false. Relativistic physics suggests that the universe is actually curved much like the surface of a sphere so that there is a finite number of planets (the curve being caused by the presence of four dimensional objects in the three dimensional plane of space-time). Additionally, most of space is just that: empty space with nothing in it, including planets. The number of planets we cannot see looks much smaller when seen from this perspective.
There is also the issue of Irreducible Complexity, which essentially is that for life to have developed via natural selection, it would first need to make the small components of an animal for instance and built up. So it would have started with the cells. However, cells themselves are made up of organelles, which all have specific functions and work together to let the cell function, yet would have no purpose on their own, and hence shouldn't exist based on natural selection. This flaw is present from the most basic forms of life to the most complex of animals.
*Note* I am not dismissing the theory of evolution, I am merely commenting that it seems unlikely, at least without divine influence.
Now, to answer hell's points in the OP of this discussion (or point really because one was inductive based on his own experiences and difficult to contradict).
Quote from Hellraiser:
"I don't believe in this "God" you speak of. I have seen to much death and destruction. How can a thing/"creator" do this to the things he created and loves."
People have essentially said the answer in the post (though usually disparagingly). God is infinitely just and gives every person the opportunity to make their own choices in life, even if the choices are destructive for themselves or the people around them. God loved the things he created so much that he allows them to make their own choices, even if it leads to "death and destruction."
