h.b. said:


So since the Bible has some truth that can be verified, the rest of it must be true? If that were the case, anytime a liar wanted to deceive someone, all they have to do is tell mostly truth, which makes the rest of their statements are believable, no matter how absurd. I do not believe in talking donkeys. I see little reason to take a book with talking donkeys as fact.
You don't need to see a miracle to recognize God's existence. You don't have to see a miracle to recognize God's nature. If you did, then god definitely would show you a miracle. Since you don't need to be shown a miracle, and it's required that man shall live by faith then you're excuseless and you're only testing God. The evidence to recognize God isn't something real hard to grasp. It's everywhere and so plain and obvious that it's insulting to ask to see a miracle. People tell themselves they can't see it and they don't. They choose to have no faith.

Do you know that in old times, that the type of stories and genealogies in the bible were read aloud in in the synagogue in Israel? It was also told by word of mouth, every thing was in those days and not just in Israel either. They had all this stuff memorized in their head and they were trained to remember lots of stuff like stories and genealogies and history of wars and everything else because hardly anyone read or wrote. So all the time there were people who were hearing this written history and things and if it was wrong, then lots of people would be saying hey that's wrong.

All of the books of the bible were written by leaders and scribes and people well known about and very visible and information would be much more widely available. For instance the books of chronicles or the books of kings were from the royal palace itself, and would be widely circulated. Especially because another one of scribes jobs was to make copies of existing documents.

With the information there is to know about God, it's enough to have faith. You don't need the bible to know there's the all loving God in the bible. And why aren't you as suspicious about all history? Do you know there wasn't a talking donkey? I know I can't prove something i can't show you, but at the same time you have no way of knowing and the possibility still lies open there could be one in the past. So take care to recognize your bias.

I *have* to? What happens if I attempt to and find nothing?
With honestly, humility and faith that won't happen.


I'm not sure what you mean by "evidence from the heart", I will assume it means Values and beliefs. Obviously correct me if I'm wrong in the assumption. So I look down in my heart (or use my brain, since the heart only feels in a symbolical sense) and come to the conclusion that God's version of morality is immoral to me, then I must be right, right? I mean, the evidence was right there in my heart.
Not just values and beliefs. Ultimate values. Spiritual Truth. I don't believe that our feelings are in our brains of course. I think there's a good deal to show this is true. Also, something I've noticed. Have you ever noticed that whenever you feel real deeply about somethings, like if you feel very strongly towards a girl of if you're in emotional pain it hurts right in your heart, I mean your physical heart. I find that interesting and I'm not saying the physical heart can feel, but I've thought about it and if there's a designer I think that would be the perfect place to make that connection you know? from the spiritual heart to the beating heart? we we think of the beating of the physical heart, it's very representative of what we recognize as our heart, our center of feeling and of sentient perception.

Since when do atheists believe in a "spiritual truth"? And how do they contradict themselves with humanism, assuming of course that all atheists subscribe to humanism, which of course they all don't.
According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view. The Humanist Manifestos declare:

"These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith." Philosophically, secular humanism is naturalism. Strictly speaking secular humanism does not allow for ultimate morality but adopts a philosophy of ethical relativism. But on the other hand, who of them of them will deny that loving isn't good or helping someone who needs help is not right? Many people have different concept of what they think is the best love, but ultimately we all recognize love as something right, a higher standard that's higher than us all that we are all obligated to follow. But the material universe cannot determine moral Truth . Only sentient beings can recognize that. But then when examined they would be forced to admit that according to their belief in naturalism and evolution they cannot allow a spiritual truth. I know you might say well some people believe in God and evolution but I think that can be easily shown fallacious but the truth is leading evolutionist don't seem to like theistic evolution at all.

Logically, atheists have to provide a moral code from outside of their belief system which which can't provide any. Richard Dawkins even claimed that he was a passionate Darwinist as to how we got here, but a passionate anti-Darwinist when it came to morality.

An idea of the problem for atheists was illustrated in the famous radio debate between the Jesuit philosopher and historian of philosophy Frederick Copleston and the anti-Christian mathematical logician Bertrand Russell (www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm):

Bertrand Russell [BR]: You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I donâ??t say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.

Frederick Copleston [FC]: Yes, but whatâ??s your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?

BR: I donâ??t have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.

FC: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?

BR: By my feelings.

As Christian apologist Dr. Ravi Zacharias said in The Atheists Challenge, if Copleston werenâ??t such a gentleman, he might have asked, â??in some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?â?ť
Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God

Here's what can happen when angry and hurt people believe there is no standard of morality, that they can make their own rules:

How to build a bomb in the public school system