A good guesstimate says that if every star we know of had a habitable planet around it, then there would still be only one billionth of one billionth of one millionth of one percent of the volume of the universe that would be inhabitable. How is that "fine-tuning"? When the vast majority of the universe can't support any life form, that is supposed to make it the best place for us to exist?
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
I don't care about this argument in the slightest... it is just you grasping.First, several atheists contended that you cannot really compare the crimes of Christian regimes of the past to those of atheist regimes of the twentieth century.
...ridiculous. How am I not accountable for my life?the same can be said of those who don't want there to be a God as they'd rather not be held accountable for there life.
God gave us logic. God gave us curiousity. God gave us the drive to seek evidence. God and people like you then scoff when my curiousity leads me to seek evidence through logic?So they look at life and the evidence for God or Jesus or otherwise, through the filter of atheism.
No offense but that is totally stupid.
That is how this works... you have to SHOW EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS
AND THEN we can argue if the evidence is legitimate or not. Damn dude...