runner,

I think that's a bit unkind to state that atheists engage in "irrational dogma". God's view is that they "suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Rom 1:18).

In fact, God does not believe in atheists. How come?

He has told us that the truth about God is plain to all people because God has made it plain. How?

Ever since the world was created, God's qualities of eternal power and the fact he is God, can be seen in what God has made (creation needing a Creator) and creation needing a Sustainer.

Therefore, when people face God at the end of life, they will be "without excuse".

God is crystal clear about what people do: "They knew God. But they didn’t honor him as God. They didn’t thank him. Their thinking became worthless. Their foolish hearts became dark. They claimed to be wise. But they made fools of themselves" (Rom 1:19-22).

I agree with you that order from chaos (or the slime) takes a lot of faith. Seems like a leap of faith to me, especially when God has nailed the problem for all who do not want to believe in God and the consequences for their unbelief (unrighteousness).

Because that’s so much better, isn’t is OzSpen?

<<I think that's a bit unkind to state that atheists engage in "irrational dogma". God's view is that they "suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Rom 1:18).>>

Or perhaps atheists simply reject religious claims as unsupported by the evidence? How did an omniscient god miss that possibility?

<<Ever since the world was created, God's qualities of eternal power and the fact he is God, can be seen in what God has made (creation needing a Creator) and creation needing a Sustainer.>>

Then why are there so many perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanations for so much of what we observe? Why would a god - who has an important message for us all, and wants to share it - want to deceive like that?

The Teleological argument is a fallacy, too, by the way.

<<I agree with you that order from chaos (or the slime) takes a lot of faith.>>

No, it doesn’t any faith at all. All you are doing here is relying on the bogus creationist claim regarding the second law of thermodynamics:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html

At least you acknowledge that faith is belief without evidence, I suppose. When you’re denigrating others, at least. Apply the term to religious belief, and suddenly faith becomes mere confidence.

Isn’t that right, OzSpen?

AJ Philips:

<<Or perhaps atheists simply reject religious claims as unsupported by the evidence? How did an omniscient god miss that possibility?>>

That's not God's view because the truth is that unbelievers are suppressing God's truth in their unbelief, wickedness - depravity (Rom 1:18). If you knew historical science, you'd know that Christianity is an historical religion that is supported by many historical facts. An omniscient God didn't miss your possibility. You have missed what He states is the core issue.

You can blame lack of evidence but that is not factually correct historically and it is refuted by the evidence before your eyes: "The heavens tell about the glory of God. The skies show that his hands created them. Day after day they speak about it. Night after night they make it known" (Psalm 19:1-2).

Therefore, God tells what is correct: the unbelievers suppress the truth because of their sinfulness. There's a word that might make you cringe but that's how God sees your and my sinful condition before Him.

<<The Teleological argument is a fallacy, too, by the way.>>

That statement is a joke. You're the one who is talking about evidence and you give not one shred of evidence to support your assertion about the Teleological Argument for the existence of God.

<<At least you acknowledge that faith is belief without evidence, I suppose. When you’re denigrating others, at least. Apply the term to religious belief, and suddenly faith becomes mere confidence. Isn’t that right, OzSpen?>>

That's your Strawman Fallacy of my view. Nowhere have I stated that faith is belief without evidence. Nowhere! It's your invention. I would not believe in the historical Jesus who lived, died and rose again without evidence to support His claims. Faith is not confidence without evidence. That's your concoction. You have substituted my actual position on Jesus and Christianity with a distorted and misrepresented interpretation of my views.

TheAtheist,

<<There is no reason to discuss religion in our schools where facts are taught. This should be the job of churches where fairy tales and fiction can be taught.>>

You have committed an Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy. You have presented the argument that Christianity is a teaching based on "fairy tales and fiction" and schools are where "facts are taught".

Here you tried to make what is taught in churches look laughable by misrepresenting the argument through the exaggeration of the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.

You should have presented evidence that Christianity contains fairy tales and fiction. Instead, you have dumped your presuppositions on us.

Christianity should be taught in public schools because it is a factual faith supported by plenty of historical and contemporary evidence.

Do not force your conjectures onto public schools and the churches will provide evidence for the Almighty God and the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

AJ knows that the big bang/evolution is a scientific fraud lacking any evidence. Instead he sees fit to critize the obvious. At one stage the evolution fraudsters were teaching that we are evolving into more morally upright people. They fail every scientific test and still push their faith based fantasies in schools and uni. You can understand kids being fooled by the professors are outright dishonest.

Do you have any evidence for this claim, OzSpen?

<<<That's not God's view because the truth is that unbelievers are suppressing God's truth in their unbelief, wickedness ...>>

Quoting the Bible isn’t very good evidence. How do you know the Bible is right?

<<... Christianity is an historical religion that is supported by many historical facts.>>

Please, do tell.

<<You have missed what [God] states is the core issue.>>

No, I didn’t miss that. I simply understand that there is no reason to believe that he said that, or that he even exists to begin with.

<<You can blame lack of evidence but that is not factually correct historically and it is refuted by the evidence before your eyes: …>>

Such as?

<<Therefore, God tells what is correct: …>>

Yeah, according to the Bible. But how do you know the Bible’s right?

<<You're the one who is talking about evidence and you give not one shred of evidence to support your assertion about the Teleological Argument for the existence of God.>>

Yes, we have limited words to work with. Try utilising Google. You can start here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design

I take it you’re not familiar with the problems regarding the Watchmaker fallacy?

<<That's your Strawman Fallacy of my view. Nowhere have I stated that faith is belief without evidence.>>

You implied it in what you said. There was no Straw man:

“I agree with you that order from chaos (or the slime) takes a lot of faith. Seems like a leap of faith to me …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19198#341271).

<<I would not believe in the historical Jesus … without evidence to support His claims.>>

His alleged claims are not evidence of his existence. Anyone could have made the claims. Who said anything about an historical Jesus specifically, anyway?

<<Faith is not confidence without evidence.>>

Faith:
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith)

<<You have substituted my actual position on Jesus and Christianity with a distorted and misrepresented interpretation of my views.>>

I didn't say anything about your position on either of those topics.