Just a fact. Atheists attack believers without merit. Why?

You are right and time and time again they come here and say that we Christians ignore science and we couldn't possibly know anything about science.

My answer to them is to check out the MIT website - a college of science and their campus has all kinds of Christian groups.

Also there is a list of scientists in several places on the web that are/were physicists, biologists, anthropologists, astronomers and on the down the line - scientists and also Christians.

But---they ignore that.

Yes! I totally agree! There IS a God, and I strongly believe it! Yay for you! And science NEVER does prove there's no God. The world is too complex for there to be no Creator. Even Darwin said that at the end of his life. Think this way: If a monkey was evolving, it's eyes would be evolving. But they wouldn't be able to see if the eyes were evolving, because they were forming. They would be globs of... eww. That would be useless, and the body would soon reject the rotting clumps of eww, because they're good for nothing at that time! The world is too complex for there to be no Creator. And here: The plagues Moses sent to the Pharoah could have been caused by this one volcanic erruption. Every plague could have been caused by this. BUT it couldn't have possibly all happened at the same time Moses was making the plagues happen with out a Creator. It couldn't have just been a lucky little thing that happened. There needed to have been a Creator to plan this all out. And scientists are not trying to end religion, it is the atheists. There are many scientists who are Jews and Christians, but the atheists are the ones who don't have a religion, therefore, trying to end religion.

Thank you, everyone, if you read this, and I hope this will lead you to Christianity!

I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO SAY IT!

You got the whole thing wrong. True believers do not care what others think. Why ask this question when you know exactly what the outcome will be? This question is asked worldwide everyday. I am not an atheist but I kinda am. I may believe in a higher power but not a god in the way most religions see him. So I kinda am a atheist because sometimes I do not believe at all and I am more about Science.

But I do not care if 99.99% of the worlds population does not agree with you... Why? Because we will all find out when we die. Or if I am correct we will not find out because there will be no form of afterlife. Anyhow take your beliefs hold them inside share them with your family and Friends but keep them off of the world wide web because out here nothing changes so its pointless. Maybe you will prove me wrong when I am burning in hell or something.

It is an essential element of science that events occur because of natural causes: supernatural ones are excluded. It is true that science cannot prove or disprove religious beliefs -- which is precisely why all such beliefs are useless (even though possibly true). It can be proven that the predictive power of any theory derives exclusively from its refutability; religious theories, being irrefutable, can predict nothing. Incidentally, the theory of evolution is now proven, so it is proper to call it the fact of evolution.

athiests have taken a stand regarding the lack of a God, and they have totally convinced themselves that they are right. Therefore, they discount or discredit any other belief. Although they feel there may not be actual proof that exists in order to prove that a God really does exists, as far as i am concerned, at the same time, there is no official proof out there that proves that a God does not exist either.

Athiests who critisize believers are just as much in the wrong as believers who critisize athiests.

Atheists are rationalists, not revelationists so they tend to convince by demonstrating things. I´m not sure I understand the without merit part but I´ll tell you a secret:

People that show common sense and demonstrate criterion should not believe (and most don´t, as much as 10% of the planet are atheists either closeted or declared). They belong to an elite and an elite is always small.

The others should believe in order to be reined and be obedient to be a gear in an enormous social machine. In fact, they should not be allowed in consequential decisions because their judgment is not reliable. They became a scourge in the teaching establishment.

Theocracies have amply demonstrated their inability to lead, and people with faith have demonstrated either weak mind or fanaticism. Faithful people are extremists by nature, indoctrinated like cross or crescent nazis led by lunatics. I shudder at what the world would become if those people came to power. Check history, it is replete with examples.

Atheists do not unite like flocks of cowards, they stand tall and live their lives according to ethics and the least contradictory path possible.

Religion is by nature irrational. It is supported by people who will then go and label any argument they don't agree with as "irrational", as if their irrationality is any better than the atheist's.

Certain attacks may be without merit, but so are most religious arguments. People who abandon reason and rationality have no right to expect polite acceptance of their irrationality, nor to have it politely ignored.

Please give me an example of an irrational use of science against religion.

Technically, science *could* disprove the existence of a god - At least, a specific class of gods that are claimed to be creators of the universe. If it could be shown that it is impossible for the universe not to exist, then a creator could not exist either.

Please stop painting people with the same brush.

I am an atheist and I have never attacked Believers nor would I ever do that.

Just like anything else there are people in every group that are angry, and disrespectful of others. That has nothing to do with what they believe and everything to do with who there are as people.

This goes for Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Jews, 7th Day Adventist, Atheist, Satanist, Pagans, Buddhist, etc.

Your question is a beautiful example of a straw man argument. Read on:

To identify a Straw Man Argument, you must be familiar enough with the topic in question to recognize when someone is setting up a caricature. Understanding when someone is using this deceptive tactic is the best way to call attention to the weakness of the straw man position.

A Straw Man Argument is a statement a person makes if they want to more easily attack an opposing position.

Let's take the following position: "Evolution has been the main engine of speciation throughout natural history."

A person using a Straw Man against that position will intentionally make a ridiculous caricature of evolution, one that only the most ignorant might believe. These are the steps they might use to try to "disprove evolution".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steps used in creating and using a straw man argument:

Step 1: Build the Straw Man: "Evolution is false! How could a mouse evolve into an elephant!?"

Step 2: Knock down the Straw Man by any means necessary: "How could a mouse evolve into an elephant? There would have to be billions of changes for that to occur, and nobody has ever seen speciation anyway!"

Step 3: Connect the original position to the Straw Man:"So it's silly...who has ever seen a mouse evolve into an elephant? Nobody!!"

Step 4: Claim to negate the opposing position by the connection in 3. "Therefore, evolution must be false!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's easy for the perpetrator to knock down their own Straw Man because they can make the Straw Man themselves. It's a tailor-made position for the person using it. Usually, the person using the argument will knock down the unrealistic caricature in Step 2 as quickly as possible, and then proclaim that the opposing position has been demolished because they were so cleverly able to knock down their own manufactured Straw Man.

They pretend that the Straw Man is the real argument, not the ridiculous caricature they created with deliberate ignorance and made-up facts. A real counter-position could cite facts to support their position. You can point out to them that they just knocked down their own caricature of evolution. Not the facts that support evolution. Straw men are ineffectual in that they leave the facts untouched.

Unfortunately, this tactic fools a lot of people because it can be subtle. In the case of evolution, an anti-evolutionist can take a slightly ridiculous point of view that seems born out of ignorance of science or fact. They then refuse to listen to rational facts, and escalate the ignorance until it's a full-blown Straw Man. This is a related tactic called deliberate ignorance. It will also include attempts to generate numbers out of the air to defend a Straw Man position.

This is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics, since the person using the Straw Man has so little confidence in their own position that they cannot even address the real position of their opponent! At the heart of the Straw Man Argument is deception.

When people use Straw Man arguments, ask for facts. Straw Man arguments are rarely based on undistorted fact.