YouFound_Lxam

That is factually incorrect.  Abortion is always safer than pregnancy.

Perfectly acceptable reason to abort is just convenience.   It's a brain dead organism that also might kill you.

If driving is consent to a accident then it's good that you can have medical procedures for that.  Same for sex.  We can correct mistakes with medicine.

But it might kill her.  You don't get to decide how much of her life she should risk.

Why can't something have always existed?  Why is that not possible?

This is where you go wrong.  Why can't something always have existed?  In fact all evidence points to that it has

Science is not about forcing the world upon manmade assumption like many religious organizations do. Big Bang is a theory. We just have calculated the plausibility of such an event even though none of us are old enough to see it in person. And that is okay by scientific standards.

By no means are the scientific consensus saying that we understand what caused the big bang. We just assumed its existence because there are evidence towards it. Anything before are only theoretical and speculative and we have little evidence on that, unless the new report on internationally authoritative journals come out saying otherwise.

Why does this argument only apply to one side of the argument? 

Can't the opposition ask the same thing:

Where did God come from then?

Even God had to come into existence somehow. How did God come into existence?

What is the point of accusing them of not having answers that you don't have either?

That actually could mean specifically that the (whatever it is that would eventually make up the matter of the universe) always existed... if always is even a coherent term here.

You just said at length that this specific event could not occur so as per your argument there was never a time when there was nothing and then there was matter. Again if any of those terms even have any meaning in this context.

So far you have not eliminated the possibility of all the (whatever would eventually evolve into all the matter) existed for all of (whatever passed for time before the big bang).

So far I don't require a creator even if I accept for the purposes of this argument that the big bang could not have been a spontaneous event. 

One does not logically follow. The story of the universe would seem to be one of increasing complexity. Of the intelligent literally arising from from the interactions of unintelligent cells. I have no reason to surmise that the cause of the big bang (should the big bang in fact have a cause which you previously argued was impossible since something literally will not come from nothing) was intelligent. 

Now it's supernatural too? Why would I assume the intelligence that caused the big bang (assuming an intelligence was the cause) would be supernatural or even have meant to do it?

Also strangely nothing that points specifically to yahweh. Even if I assumed you were right about there being a god you would still have all your work ahead of you to prove that it is your god. 

Who is talking about mentally ill people? We are discussing drag queens and transsexuals. 

That you know of. Obviously if they "tricked you" or "fooled you" or more accurately if they presented the gender they identify with as opposed to their assigned birth gender then you wouldn't know it.

Atheists are not so far as I know offering any explanations.

You seriously believe that you could tell by sight everyone who has a penis without seeing their penis?

I'm going to go ahead and say that I don't actually believe you.

 I think human bodies vary and you will occasionally be fooled even by those who are not transgender.

I think that if you saw a very feminine drag queen who identified as a man out of the context of a drag show that you would be unlikely to know it at first glance. I am unconvinced that you would necessarily know at all without being told.

What makes the yahweh a better candidate explanation than say the Great Green Arkleseizure?

If we agree that the big bang happened then we have no discussion to have there.

I didn't actually mention any gender. But let's agree for the sake of this argument that I am definitely describing a woman because we associate all these traits with femininity. Now tell me how you know the person I have described doesn't have a penis without tossing up her skirt which I believe is illegal in most states?

Atheists did not suggest the big bang theory cosmological did. Some cosmological are atheists others are not. The thing you are talking about does not actually touch on the question of gods at all.

They are unrelated topics.

You are conflating scientific literacy with atheism and they are not the same thing.

Let us say you see an adult human. That adult human is slim. They have long wavy hair and are wearing high heels. They have tasteful makeup and a lovely perfume. 

Am I describing a man or a woman?

How did you come to the determination that you did?

The big bang theory is not concerned with where it came from only the hot dense state it once took.

Also the big bang theory is unconnected with atheism specifically.

Some scientists who study big bang cosmology are also religious.

You seem to be conflating scientific literacy with atheism.

The big bang does not specifically preclude the possibility of some deity. In general if someone both identifies as an atheist and is not ignorant in big bang cosmology they would remain atheists even if big bang cosmology were conclusively disproved.

What your describing is actually biological sex and though there are a few non binary outliers you are in general correct that most folks are born one or the other. You cannot however see a person's genitals or chromosomes when you are making the judgment that they are a man or a woman. Therefore you must be assessing their gender by other criteria. 

You have to be among the top two thickest Christians on this religion forum..

You have never studied these scriptures in any great detail for yourself have you? Or any basic theological ancient history, either.

The "serpent" of the Garden was a wise lord of medicine. You will find the "clues" here:

Numbers 21.  Matthew 10.

What do genitals have to do with gender? You almost never see them before you have mentally assigned a gender to a person therefore I can only conclude they are unimportant in making the assessment. 

everything that exists once occupied a very small point and then began to expand.

Great. So no mothers are dying in childbirth?

And everyone of them goes thru pain and hardship.and most have to put their career on hold.

 Pregnancy and childbirth are easy....but only for the guy in the waiting room

Don't want to get in a car accident?  Don't get in a car.  I live in the real world with real solutions

So we have something inside the mother that could kill her and it is essentially brain dead at that time. 

how do you understand the Bible?

Did the creation stories in Genesis happen thousands of years ago?

Did Jacob's flock get their spots by way of colorful wood?

 Did the Earth really stop spinning?

Can donkeys and snakes talk?

Was the flood global?

What is the smallest seed?

Ok now we have something to work with

Childbirth always carries the risk of death for the mother.  She is absolutely justified in saying she does not want to risk her life

We kill the innocent every day in America on purpose.

Then next of kin can authorize the death of a brain dead patient.  Most common method is starvation by removing the feeding tube.  A fetus has the same eeg reading as a brain dead patient and it is risking the life of the mother.  Killing it is perfectly justifiable

She is absolutely justified in saying she does not want to risk her life

Then next of kin can authorize the death of a brain dead patient.

Yeah, I think you're using this word incorrectly. If the story is LITERAL, then somewhere in there, it should say "And for some odd reason, rather than communicate directly to Balaam, God spoke through the donkey." It doesn't say that, and therefore is not "literal." Literal means the words on the page. 

Why are you bothering with this, anyway? You're not really interested in a good faith discussion, because like all Christians on this topic, you simply hand wave everything as "well, that part's a metaphor, duh" and "god used his powers even though the book doesn't say that." I guess my question is what's the point for you? You've yet to address anything that actually contradicts science in any real way. How, for example, does light come before stars? How did Noah live to be 900 years old? How did he gather two (or more) of each specific species of land dwelling living thing on earth and somehow fit LITERALLY (that's how you use this word) 15+ million creatures on a boat he built for forty days? 

Why abortion is wrong?

Why a fetus has value? 

So  then it's NOT literal? 

Here's the passage again. 

And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?” And he said, “No.”

Please point out where you're getting that god is speaking through the donkey. 

This is why talking about biblical contradictions is a pointless waste of time. Christians just say "well magic is why that doesn't contradict science." You're in over your head from the start. 

Show me one piece of evidence 

I see none

Dismissed 

Neither is a claim without evidence

So in this non-metaphorical story, are you saying that the talking donkey was the only and last one of its kind? The donkey LITERALLY spoke, in hebrew I guess?

Nope

Now that we've covered all the talking points- how do you understand the Bible? Did the creation stories in Genesis happen thousands of years ago?  Did Jacob's flock get their spots by way of colorful wood? Did the Earth really stop spinning? Can donkeys and snakes talk? Was the flood global? What is the smallest seed?

Any 'yes' answer would contradict what we know scientifically about the world. 

Then cite your evidence 

If I have evidence I DONT NEED FAITH

Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a fool of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you.” 30 And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?” And he said, “No.”

The problem with you is that you believe the bible is indisputable only because it contains or is based on certain historical events. I mean, the bible, as many other literature books, are based on real history but at the end it is just a fictional book, we have to take it as it is.

For example, there is indeed a historical Jesus, but this man is completely different to the biblical Jesus. While the former was an average man that got married and had children, the other one is a fictional character who was born by a virgin mother, made miracles, rose from the death, and was deified by his disciples.

That doesn't answer the question. Quite obviously, there are different heuristics for various Christian sects. Some prefer a more literal interpretation while others, probably recognizing irreconcilable issues this causes, lean more liberal. 

Which Christianity is OP referring to?

You have faith not based in evidence 

So do the Muslims, jews, Hindus......etc

But somehow YOU are right.  Lol

But you can't back it up with evidence.

The atheist believes in so many things that have evidence

I know it is not valuable. You believe it is because of ignorance. 

Dude anyone can say that

It's called an opinion not a fact

And where in the BIBLE does it state this, considering that god walked, talked and even wrestled with men in his time?

It is a fact that many Christian branches believe that the earth is only six thousand years old when science has proved this totally wrong. 

What about Noah's ark? Who's time did this event happen? 

Whether science and Christianity contradict depends entirely on how literally the Bible is being taken. An unbending literal reading produces many contradictions. A liberal reading can be made to work with science. 

What Christianity are we talking about?

Of course biology agrees with my opinion.  A 20 week old fetus is unviable.   That's biology and I agree with that

I believe life is not valuable before that.   You believe it is.

You have faith.....not evidence 

You believe because you want to believe

Atheists believe in all kinds of things....once they see the evidence

Maybe God is dead.  Oh wait....that's not in your magical rules

Exactly. 

So an elf defined as omnipotent, etc., would also explain anything.

It tells us nothing that "Elves did it" couldn't explain.

Did those illiterate fishermen understand this was what Peter meant when he spoke of a day being a thousand years in gods time?

  Why didn't Peter simply tell these fisherman this instead of using metaphor that seems to have completely threw them?

It takes more faith to believe in the Christian god than in the inflationary universe/big bang theory.

The inflationary/big bang + the laws of physics accounts for everything we can observe and test.

The inflationary/big bang is one mystery.

the nature of God, the supernatural world and their inhabitants, the afterlife, resurrection, the Trinity, souls,

Are all the billions of people who are not citizens of America in the world in fact citizens of other countries though?

I know I did.  Society makes that value judgment 

But it's not a machine.  The fetus has not developed enough to be considered a valuable human life.  That's biology

I know life exists now.

 I know it has never ended.

If someone can show me when it was created then I'll look at that but you can't 

As far as we know life has always existed

Yes there is evidence for how woodpeckers evolved

There is no start.  There is no end

Life is a circle