Why is it so important to atheists to evangelize?

[THE LIGHT]

Creation violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, so NO scientist would ever conclude Creation is "logical."

Wrong. They have concluded that. Regardless...

The big bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

and

Evolution voilates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Big Bang does not violate any Law Of Thermodynamics and you have no idea what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. I'll bet you can neither state the SLoT correctly or give the correct equation for it even after googling it!

But please explain your two false claims.
Thank you.

Let's hear your definition of it.

 

[edthecynic]

Wrong. They have concluded that. Regardless...

The big bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

and

Evolution voilates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Big Bang does not violate any Law Of Thermodynamics and you have no idea what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. I'll bet you can neither state the SLoT correctly or give the correct equation for it even after googling it!

But please explain your two false claims.
Thank you.

Let's hear your definition of it.

Just as I predicted, you can't explain your false claims or define the terms.
Thank you.

 

[IanC]

So you just have a problem with the concept of a creator. Not because it isn't correct, but because you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it is just your belief and should remain as such. However, those brilliant scientists have examined the concept of creation and come to the conclusion that it is the best most logical theory.

Creation violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, so NO scientist would ever conclude Creation is "logical."

Wrong. They have concluded that. Regardless...

The big bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

and

Evolution voilates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Life on Earth (includes evolution) doesn't violate the second law because there is a constant influx of energy from the sun. the law doesn't preclude individual areas of increasing entropy as long as the system as a whole is losing it.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Creation violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, so NO scientist would ever conclude Creation is "logical."

Wrong. They have concluded that. Regardless...

The big bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

and

Evolution voilates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Life on Earth (includes evolution) doesn't violate the second law because there is a constant influx of energy from the sun. the law doesn't preclude individual areas of increasing entropy as long as the system as a whole is losing it.

Sorry, but adding raw energy to a system doesn't lead to an improved system.

 

[edthecynic]

Wrong. They have concluded that. Regardless...

The big bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

and

Evolution voilates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Life on Earth (includes evolution) doesn't violate the second law because there is a constant influx of energy from the sun. the law doesn't preclude individual areas of increasing entropy as long as the system as a whole is losing it.

Sorry, but adding raw energy to a system doesn't lead to an improved system.

You still haven't explained how "the big bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics" and "Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

You are merely parroting lies taught to you by your fellow christians. You never question WHY they are lying to you!!!! Logic dictates that they must believe the truth does not support their position!!!!

 

[uscitizen]

I am an atheist and do not evangelize.

I do not know of any atheist evangelists touring the country or even with TV networks.

Please name one.

 

[Hister]

I am an atheist and do not evangelize.

I do not know of any atheist evangelists touring the country or even with TV networks.

Please name one.

So how do you know for certain that there's no god?

 

[WillowTree]

Really, why?

If G-d doesn't exist then why do you spend soooo much time and resources writing books and movies, posting on message boards, etc... to slander a god that doesn't exist.

I mean really, why not divide your time between G-d and Santa Clause?

cause they is fat assed bitches

 

[uscitizen]

I am an atheist and do not evangelize.

I do not know of any atheist evangelists touring the country or even with TV networks.

Please name one.

So how do you know for certain that there's no god?

I have seen no evidence that he exists.

I cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no god.
But I do not believe that there is one nor an afterlife.
Again based on no evidence.

I also have no evidence that Uma Thurman is god.

Besides this thread is about atheists evangelizing.
Name one evangelist atheist on tour like Billy Grahm, etc.

 

[Hister]

I am an atheist and do not evangelize.

I do not know of any atheist evangelists touring the country or even with TV networks.

Please name one.

So how do you know for certain that there's no god?

I have seen no evidence that he exists.

I cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no god.
But I do not believe that there is one nor an afterlife.
Again based on no evidence.

I also have no evidence that Uma Thurman is god.

Besides this thread is about atheists evangelizing.
Name one evangelist atheist on tour like Billy Grahm, etc.

So you're not an atheist.

 

[uscitizen]

So how do you know for certain that there's no god?

I have seen no evidence that he exists.

I cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no god.
But I do not believe that there is one nor an afterlife.
Again based on no evidence.

I also have no evidence that Uma Thurman is god.

Besides this thread is about atheists evangelizing.
Name one evangelist atheist on tour like Billy Grahm, etc.

So you're not an atheist.

I currently believe that there is no god. so I am an atheist. If confronted with evidence to the contrary I would reconsider my stance.
I doubt such evidence will present itself though.

 

[Hister]

I have seen no evidence that he exists.

I cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no god.
But I do not believe that there is one nor an afterlife.
Again based on no evidence.

I also have no evidence that Uma Thurman is god.

Besides this thread is about atheists evangelizing.
Name one evangelist atheist on tour like Billy Grahm, etc.

So you're not an atheist.

I currently believe that there is no god. so I am an atheist. If confronted with evidence to the contrary I would reconsider my stance.
I doubt such evidence will present itself though.

So you're not an atheist, you're more of an agnostic.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I have seen no evidence that he exists.

I cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no god.
But I do not believe that there is one nor an afterlife.
Again based on no evidence.

I also have no evidence that Uma Thurman is god.

Besides this thread is about atheists evangelizing.
Name one evangelist atheist on tour like Billy Grahm, etc.

So you're not an atheist.

I currently believe that there is no god. so I am an atheist. If confronted with evidence to the contrary I would reconsider my stance.
I doubt such evidence will present itself though.

At least you are honest about it.

 

[uscitizen]

I am always open to reevaluating my beliefs based on new evidence.

Heck I was even going to vote for a republican senator for my state till Paul won the primary.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I am always open to reevaluating my beliefs based on new evidence.

You should really read Lee Strobel's book "A Case for Christ." ([ame]http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310209307?tag=churchcommuni-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0310209307&creative=373489&camp=211189[/ame]) He was an atheistic journalist who set out to prove the Bible was an utter sack of rubbish and ended up finding out the complete opposite.

Heck I was even going to vote for a republican senator for my state till Paul won the primary.

Paul as in Ron Paul?

 

[edthecynic]

I am always open to reevaluating my beliefs based on new evidence.

You should really read Lee Strobel's book "A Case for Christ." ([ame=http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310209307?tag=churchcommuni-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0310209307&creative=373489&camp=211189]Amazon.com: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal…[/ame]) He was an atheistic journalist who set out to prove the Bible was an utter sack of rubbish and ended up finding out the complete opposite.

Well I guess if you are gullible enough to believe that crap, you are gullible enough to believe
"The big bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

and

Evolution voilates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

What makes you think the people who will lie to you about science, something you could easily check up on, will tell you the truth about anything?????

 

[uscitizen]

I am always open to reevaluating my beliefs based on new evidence.

You should really read Lee Strobel's book "A Case for Christ." ([ame=http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310209307?tag=churchcommuni-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0310209307&creative=373489&camp=211189]Amazon.com: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal…[/ame]) He was an atheistic journalist who set out to prove the Bible was an utter sack of rubbish and ended up finding out the complete opposite.

Heck I was even going to vote for a republican senator for my state till Paul won the primary.

Paul as in Ron Paul?

No his son. Another dynasty in the making I suppose. And endorsed by Palin and her baggers.
I was for Trey Grayson whom has experience and a good track record.
Now I will be forced to vote for the Dem whom I am not impressed with.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I am always open to reevaluating my beliefs based on new evidence.

You should really read Lee Strobel's book "A Case for Christ." ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310209307?tag=churchcommuni-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0310209307&creative=373489&camp=211189"]Amazon.com: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal…[/ame]) He was an atheistic journalist who set out to prove the Bible was an utter sack of rubbish and ended up finding out the complete opposite.

Heck I was even going to vote for a republican senator for my state till Paul won the primary.

Paul as in Ron Paul?

No his son. Another dynasty in the making I suppose. And endorsed by Palin and her baggers.
I was for Trey Grayson whom has experience and a good track record.
Now I will be forced to vote for the Dem whom I am not impressed with.

He claims to be different than his dad, but they are both just as bad to me.

 

[uscitizen]

You should really read Lee Strobel's book "A Case for Christ." (Amazon.com: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal…) He was an atheistic journalist who set out to prove the Bible was an utter sack of rubbish and ended up finding out the complete opposite.





Paul as in Ron Paul?

No his son. Another dynasty in the making I suppose. And endorsed by Palin and her baggers.
I was for Trey Grayson whom has experience and a good track record.
Now I will be forced to vote for the Dem whom I am not impressed with.

He claims to be different than his dad, but they are both just as bad to me.

I don't think Rand has ever held any public position. And going straight for US senate.
The kind of people that baggers want I suppose.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I am always open to reevaluating my beliefs based on new evidence.

You should really read Lee Strobel's book "A Case for Christ." ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310209307?tag=churchcommuni-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0310209307&creative=373489&camp=211189"]Amazon.com: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal…[/ame]) He was an atheistic journalist who set out to prove the Bible was an utter sack of rubbish and ended up finding out the complete opposite.

Well I guess if you are gullible enough to believe that crap, you are gullible enough to believe
"The big bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

and

Evolution voilates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

What makes you think the people who will lie to you about science, something you could easily check up on, will tell you the truth about anything?????

Exactly! That's why I don't believe you about anything.