We're only here to survive? Explain music.

Over a billion people in China who are not Christian. Over a billion people in India who are not Christian. So are all these people going to hell simply because Of part the world they were born in? Doesn't sound like a loving "creator" to me.

Actually happen to agree. The point is, our enjoyment of beauty, music, and ability to love others to our own harm points to a greater Creator than chance and survival.

Since art doesn't hinder survival, why would survival based understandings be hindered by people liking art? Beauty and love are excellent traits for survival. Beautiful people are greatly correlated with healthy people and love is plenty motivation for people to work together in surviving.

Man is a social animal and tribal instinct is burned into our DNA. In some cases, the instinct is localized. Ask any sports fan. Most of the fans around here support Chicago teams because of it's proximity. Other times it goes across racial, religious, or national "tribes". Sometimes, we as a people, expand our tribe to the human race in it's entirety. Look at the rescue workers in Texas. They aren't asking "are you here illegally", "are you a Christian" or "who did you vote for". Other times, we are divided by those questions, but when push comes to shove, we are human beings.

unless the "tribal instinct" is actually the ability to love others, given to us by our creator :-)

It has served mankind well. Example: Look at how people's tribal instinct kicks in during disasters. Hurricane Harvey comes to mind. People doing what they can to help those in need. Tribal instinct varies on the situation. It is to keep the tribe alive. The bigger the event, the bigger the tribe becomes. We see people that don't think of themselves first. They don't think of their own petty prejudices. Those get put aside. True, there are those that look to their own personal gain: We'll see scammers asking for money to help with disaster relief, but then pocket those donations. They use it as a power play, and soon get exposed, like Ted Cruz leading the way to block relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, but now is asking Congress and the president for the same aid he denied east coast victims. Those are the scum of the earth, though, and in smaller tribes would be banished or killed.

Psalm 14:1
Romans 1:18-19

It requires ZERO faith to believe in evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact supported by myriads of exclusively concordant evidence across multiple scientific fields of study, which not only lack any need for faith, but reject any assertion based on faith offhand, since faith is, by its very definition, an unwavering conviction held with no regard to -- or even in spite of-- evidence; it is the deliberate suspense of critical judgment in favor of an assertion. Science and it's methodology have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to faith. Our phylogenetic connection to our hominoid ancestors has already been demonstrated by genetics with just as much certainty as can be provided to a father and son by a paternity test, and that's just the beginning of the evidence. Just because you don't understand the evidence or how and why it would work doesn't mean it isn't true; such an approach is logically fallacious, and an appeal to incredulity. And while we don't know what exactly and specifically the mechanism or origin of morals and aesthetic pleasure is, we do know more than you'd think we do, and there are literally dozens of explanatory hypotheses out there with a scientific basis that could all be equally right. Just because we have yet to understand these phenomena in their entirety doesn't mean that we cannot or never will, nor does it call for an ad hoc supernatural explanation. People have been using this "God of the Gaps" argument for thousands of years, and every time they have been proven to be horribly mistaken. Once upon a time, people thought that divine beings must exist because of things like diseases or illness, which they falsely assumed could have no natural explanation. Even after the invention of the microscope, many people of faith still asserted that germ theory could not possibly explain the phenomenon of illness. Such people would appear embarrassingly ignorant and idiotic in the modern era. Additionally, which hypothesis objectively depends more on faith is determined by how much evidence there is for each side; to compare the respective implications of evolution and of creationism, then claim that one requires more faith than the other to believe in because one just "makes more sense" to you than the other, is a baseless assertion derived from ignorance. There is abundant evidence both directly indicative of and exclusively concordant with evolutionary theory, but literally no such evidence exists for creationism.

Nice copy and paste :)

If evolution were true. Every single animal/plant whatever would have to stand up to the test. Which they dont.
How come apes aren't giving birth to humans today?
I used to think like you. That's why I really got into science. After learning so much about dna stars, planets I began to notice it was all so beautiful, so very perfect. Almost like an artist's masterpiece. That's how I found religion.
For the big bang theory all that stuff to happen. I mean do you realize what the odds of all these things happening actually are?

"Just because you don't understand the evidence or how and why it would work doesn't mean it isn't true; such an approach is logically fallacious, and an appeal to incredulity."

You said it yourself...

"If evolution were true. Every single animal/plant whatever would have to stand up to the test."

Literally every living organism stands up to the test from the perspective of genetics, and many of them do simply by physiology.

"how come apes aren't giving birth to humans today?"

There was never a point in time where it could be said that "an ape gave birth to a man." There is not a single facet of evolutionary theory or population genetics that implies that this would be the case.

"I began to notice it was all so beautiful, so very perfect."

The concept of beauty is an entirely subjective criterion which does not constitute scientific evidence and any way, shape, or form. Likewise, whether or not something is "perfect" depends on how you define the word, and again, is categorically meaningless from a scientific perspective.

"do you realize what the odds of all these things happening actually are?"

No one truly does, since the perimeters that define the statistic probability of their occurrence are (as of yet) unbservable and indeterminable. Yet there is no evidence that suggests such things are impossible, or even unlikely overall.

I also think it is amusing you have posted a picture juxtaposing a skeleton from the genus Homo with a skeleton from the genus Pan, as the former is not descended from the latter. I also think it's funny that the picture uses the word "kind," an arbitrary and unscientific term creationists use to avoid using the actual biological phylogeny of organisms. And indeed, phylogenetically speaking, humans are still just as much apes as chimps are. But anyway, you say there's no missing links between humans an earlier hominoids? How about Homo heidlebergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugenensis, and Sahelanthropus tchadensis just to name a few?

If you ever had "really gotten into science," you wouldn't have to be asking any of these questions.

https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/god-science-and-the-bible-dna-discoveries-demonstrate-divine-design

Explain the woodpecker.

The article you linked just lists a series of half-truths about DNA, confuses them with misleading analogies, and makes meaningless unsupported assumptions accordingly. Their claim that "all DNA is actually used," for example, is completely false. While many genes that appeared dormant can turn out to serve an alternative function (which isn't even the least bit surprising given the nature of organic chemistry,) a sizeable chunk of any genome is still literally gibberish, meaning it contains codons which are entirely chemically dysfunctional. Additionally, The comparison of a directly functional chemical lattice to arbitrary informational coding is one that is only used informally and itself only makes sense on a completely superficial level. The claim that the intricacies of DNA could not be the result of natural phenomena is a baseless and unscientific assertion. In fact, there are many theories which postulate how it could have occurred, and according to all evidence as of yet available, any given one of them could be correct.

https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/god-science-and-the-bible-dna-discoveries-demonstrate-divine-design

Give me the ol'wood pecker theory again. :)

Horses giving birth to humans compared you your ape theories. And you wanna lecture about logical fallacies. :D

That's very true Natalie, the odds of the universe existing at all are minute indeed. The fact that it does certainly suggests there's a higher force fine tuning things to see the universe is able to exist, despite the vast amount of chaos out there.

Why, thank you :)

:{

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

It is atheism though. ;)

Congratulations. You typed alot, but said nothing. ;) lol

So you're saying there is absolutely zero chance of a supreme being? But the extremely, extremely rare and basically impossible percentages of all these things to line up, one after another, after another, after another is the explanation. Anything else is illogical? Am I understanding you correctly?

So you're not an atheist after all?

There you go

Nice questions, thank you.

 1- The age of accounts, prophesies actually coming true, historical accounts and global spread are my main ones, outside of personal experience, of course.

2 - I don't pretend to understand God. It's simply more logical to believe that there is a God, than some ridiculous story about monkeys gradually changing over time. I found that question interesting, because I have met very few people that deny the existence of any sort of spiritual side of life. Do you maintain that there is no spiritual or supernatural?

3- Jesus is the only one in history that got morals right. Much of the behavior recorded in the Bible is not condoned by it. The fact that across times and cultures we can point at behaviors and ideals and say this is bad, or that was good, is what I'm talking about. Even the best of biblical characters did bad things. Look at David and Uriah. Jesus is the only one that is perfect. All Christians are bad people. Bad things that Christians have done have no bearing on whether God is real or not. 

Answers:

1. I don't. No one does. If they say they do, they're lying.

2. Because the sum total of mankind's current knowledge of the nature of the universe is a droplet of water to the ocean when measured against the sum total of ALL knowledge of the nature of the universe. You say "A requires B". Does it? You're sure about that?

Frankly, I have to laugh at the arrogance and hubris of people who aren't very far removed from the certain knowledge that dragons consumed sailors who ventured too close to the edge of the planet.

Science is great, until it starts thinking it knows everything about everything, and forgets that when it comes to the universe, we are the intellectual equivalent of a cockroach contemplating how a cellular phone network works.

3. Don't fall into the trap of making an argument against Deism by pointing at the fallacy and hypocrisy of religion in general, or worse yet singling out a particular religion. The latter is dependent on the former, but not vice-versa. You can't take a single characteristic of a single religion, and apply it to all Deists. All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.

Summary:
I have met some atheists who question the fundamental validity of the theory of natural evolution. Not many mind you, but they're out there. And the reason they are, is because the foundational principle of natural evolution is not only an unproven fantasy, but all empirical and observable evidence in nature tends to run in opposition to it.

To put it simpler, Speciation is a lie, and without it natural evolution cannot exist. To believe in speciation is to believe in something without any evidence to support it. That is the dictionary definition of "faith". Now, I don't begrudge you or anyone else, their faith and their beliefs, but at least have the intellectual honesty to call them what they are.

"...that were so, then evolution would never have attained the level..."

You clearly underestimate the amount of protectiveness a person can have toward something they've poured their life into.

"...speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature..."

No, it has not. I won't bother to challenge you to provide this evidence, because I've had this particular conversation many times before. Please forgive me if I skip to the end; There is no evidence of literal speciation (a given species transforming into a different species, by any means or method), not in nature and not reproduced under controlled conditions. None. Go look for it. I'll save you some time; you won't find any.

I actually had a guy tell me once, that the proof of Speciation lies in the fact that without it, natural evolution cannot work. He *literally* presented that to me as proof of Speciation, nearly word-for-word. I think I stared blankly at him for a full five minutes waiting for him to grasp what he'd just said. Nope, that guy was a true believer.

Nature on the other hand, makes it perfectly clear that she prefers genetic purity. This is indicated by common behavior patterns in both post-natal and mating instincts in nearly every mammal on the planet. This instinctive predilection for genetic purity that appears to permeate all life, moves in the opposite direction of supposedly mutation-driven evolution.

Now, please let me direct you away from the tiger pit that people tend to fall into right here; Recognizing the tremendous fallacy of natural evolution does NOT, by itself invalidate atheism. You can acknowledge that evolution is a hoax, a crock, an epic con job, junk science at it's utter finest, and not necessarily jump to the unrelated conclusion that the only alternative is some sort of God (big 'G', little 'g', whatever).

"...dependent upon the same faith as that required to believe that a man supernaturally turned..."

I respectfully refer you to Clarke's Third Law.

If our sole purpose was to survive, we would only need to hunt or grow our food, have access to drinking water and some form of shelter.

Physical evidence supplants the need for faith. Faith is just believing what you wish for. Also we didn't come from monkeys but we do share common ancestors with monkeys.

If I believed in what I wish for, I'd be a hedonist :-)

*than. Don't care in the least.

Thank you!

The commenting here seems to not be very happy, don't you guys agree?

Lol, no kidding, and no explanations of music either

a d a m
a n d
e v e

why did this have to get religious

If God didn't give us reasons to be moral, what good is morality?

Faith is too every human G.O.D god option deciding godly Optional decisions godless Observational destractions or Opposite directions.positive and negative Blind faith vs blind to believe faith.its two forces cancelling each other out O,D +vs- god vs devil..add the letter O too god you get the word good! Take away the word D out of devil you get the word evil.good vs evil,god vs devil plus+ vs negative- it's not about what god you believe in or faith you follow every religion believes there god is the right one and that's when the devil gives us the tools to destroy our selves fighting in the name of god and judging people in the name of god! When I didn't know god was hiring anyone? But the devil mite to do his work! Just saying!