Why I'm an atheist

[organofcorti]

Atheists scoff at people 300 years ago for believing the Earth was flat, but are convinced they could never believe a similar absurdity. Those who ridicule and oppose anything they don't already believe is true, and who will diligently avoid any effort to fairly evaluate new, especially dramatically new ideas, are not rational, by definition. I urge all atheists to read up on the latest science and evaluate the evidence in favor of intervention theory; only a few hours spent searching for information could provide any reader with a profoundly altered world view.

More details explaining Intervention Theory

It's a shame that guy spent so much time writing such a long paper that is completely false

Darwin's "three logical fallacies" are just silly... there are no fallacies... his paper is easily debunked by anyone familiar with evolution... any high school kid could debunk that paper these days

Darwin actually did write a few things into the theory of evolution that turned out to be incorrect, but whoever wrote this paper is not familiar enough to even know what is true or not... he didn't even mention the things which are actually false

I don't understand why you feel the need to put words in the mouths of Atheists...

Just because you feel a certain way, does not mean Atheists feel that way... Please, do not ever claim to know anything about Atheists because you don't

Everyone is different, but Atheists tend to be extremely skeptical people... we take nothing on faith... we are rarely convinced by anything silly like religitards, because we rely on facts and evidence to support our beliefs about reality...

Atheists never claim to be infallible... we are the only ones who admit we can be wrong at all... every religion claims it is perfect and infallible... that's just nonsense... it's provably false

Just curious. Why do you attempt to set yourself above God, Who has been proven to exist scientifically, thereby becoming an idol, and doing it all by simply saying that you are an atheist, when atheism doesn't really exist, since you are disallowing atheism by your self-god-making?

You say you have proven your god is an idol -- I thought idolatry was a sin in most religions?

[1714481835]

1714481835

[1714481835]

1714481835

[1714481835]

1714481835

[BADecker]

Atheists scoff at people 300 years ago for believing the Earth was flat, but are convinced they could never believe a similar absurdity. Those who ridicule and oppose anything they don't already believe is true, and who will diligently avoid any effort to fairly evaluate new, especially dramatically new ideas, are not rational, by definition. I urge all atheists to read up on the latest science and evaluate the evidence in favor of intervention theory; only a few hours spent searching for information could provide any reader with a profoundly altered world view.

More details explaining Intervention Theory

It's a shame that guy spent so much time writing such a long paper that is completely false

Darwin's "three logical fallacies" are just silly... there are no fallacies... his paper is easily debunked by anyone familiar with evolution... any high school kid could debunk that paper these days

Darwin actually did write a few things into the theory of evolution that turned out to be incorrect, but whoever wrote this paper is not familiar enough to even know what is true or not... he didn't even mention the things which are actually false

I don't understand why you feel the need to put words in the mouths of Atheists...

Just because you feel a certain way, does not mean Atheists feel that way... Please, do not ever claim to know anything about Atheists because you don't

Everyone is different, but Atheists tend to be extremely skeptical people... we take nothing on faith... we are rarely convinced by anything silly like religitards, because we rely on facts and evidence to support our beliefs about reality...

Atheists never claim to be infallible... we are the only ones who admit we can be wrong at all... every religion claims it is perfect and infallible... that's just nonsense... it's provably false

Just curious. Why do you attempt to set yourself above God, Who has been proven to exist scientifically, thereby becoming an idol, and doing it all by simply saying that you are an atheist, when atheism doesn't really exist, since you are disallowing atheism by your self-god-making?

You say you have proven your god is an idol -- I thought idolatry was a sin in most religions?

You simply don't like to remember that I told you long ago that I don't own a god. I checked my pockets, and there wasn't any there... the closet, the drawers, the cupboards, the garage, the shed, and the basement. Show me where I own a god. And if it is one of your gods, prove to me by title that you own it, and then title it over to me, by contract and agreement.

Actually, the closest I have been able to come to owning a god is, you atheists set yourselves up as gods, and since I am showing it to you, I own you. Wanna be free? Recognize God, so you don't keep on getting owned.

[qwik2learn]

Everyone is different, but Atheists tend to be extremely skeptical people... we take nothing on faith... we are rarely convinced by anything silly like religitards, because we rely on facts and evidence to support our beliefs about reality...

You take it on faith that all psychics are frauds. OP takes it on faith that awareness arises from nothing when all the evidence actually shows that it is continuous and cyclical.

Like it or not, accept it or not, science is no different from politics. Truth is never the absolute expected by those outside their fraternity.

You said that a high school student could refute Dawson's book, but I would be more willing to listen to a professional scientist. But you did not provide any evidence of such cogent refutations. Pye provides evidence of his own though; can you provide ANYONE who rebutted the researchers quoted below?

some of today’s best-known geneticists and naturalists have broken ranks and acknowledged that what Dawson complained about in 1873 remains true today. Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote: “Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.” Colin Patterson, director of the British Museum of Natural History, stated: “No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it.” And these are by no means exceptional disclosures.

[Moloch]

Everyone is different, but Atheists tend to be extremely skeptical people... we take nothing on faith... we are rarely convinced by anything silly like religitards, because we rely on facts and evidence to support our beliefs about reality...

You take it on faith that all psychics are frauds. OP takes it on faith that awareness arises from nothing when all the evidence actually shows that it is continuous and cyclical.

Incorrect...

Before viewing the evidence, I had no opinion on whether psychics were legit or frauds...

I have seen dozens of cases where psychics have been debunked as frauds... using evidence and proof... showing exactly what tricks they use, which makes it obvious that other psychics use the same tricks...

I even linked a dozen videos from James Randi debunking psychics... feel free to click a fucking link man... you cannot claim I did not provide evidence simply by not looking at it... that's like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "lalalalala... I cant hear you!"

So yes, they are all frauds, but not because "I took something on faith", but because all of the available facts and evidence point to such a conclusion

On a similar note, there are plenty of people who think pro-wrestling is real... people are easily fooled

[Moloch]

Just curious. Why do you attempt to set yourself above God, Who has been proven to exist scientifically, thereby becoming an idol, and doing it all by simply saying that you are an atheist, when atheism doesn't really exist, since you are disallowing atheism by your self-god-making?

I think you missed the point of everything I have ever posted...

I did not set myself above your God... your God set his moral standards below mine...

You cannot blame me for your God being an immoral, slave-loving, gay-hating, hypocritical asshole with bi-polar disorder

[Buffer Overflow]

You simply don't like to remember that I told you long ago that I don't own a god. I checked my pockets, and there wasn't any there... the closet, the drawers, the cupboards, the garage, the shed, and the basement. Show me where I own a god.

You neglected to check your own mind. You'll find your very own personalised custom built god inside.
What a coincidence it just so happens to want exactly the same things that you want, and agree with exactly the same things you agree with.

Now there's a stroke of luck.  

[qwik2learn]

I have seen dozens of cases where psychics have been debunked as frauds... which makes it obvious that other psychics use the same tricks...

So because some are frauds, therefore they are all frauds... ?

because all of the available facts and evidence point to such a conclusion

That's not true, because actually the available facts and evidence are not adequately explained by the skeptical explanation. For some cases, a skeptic would have to imagine quite an elaborate conspiracy.

Randi again? But he has been dishonest! Check out this link:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm

You claim that all mediums are frauds, but is there any evidence at all that suggests Eisenbeiss was dishonest? I believe you have only pointed out hypothetical possibilities, apparently you do not realize that you also have a burden of proof in this discussion? You still did not link to anything that specifically addresses this one. Same with Thonnard's study; you don't understand it so you just point me to irrelevant sources that do not specifically address the study's methods.

[Moloch]

I have seen dozens of cases where psychics have been debunked as frauds... which makes it obvious that other psychics use the same tricks...

So because some are frauds, therefore they are all frauds... ?

because all of the available facts and evidence point to such a conclusion

That's not true, because actually the available facts and evidence are not adequately explained by the skeptical explanation. For some cases, a skeptic would have to imagine quite an elaborate conspiracy.

Randi again? But he has been dishonest! Check out this link:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm

You claim that all mediums are frauds, but is there any evidence at all that suggests Eisenbeiss was dishonest? I believe you have only pointed out hypothetical possibilities, apparently you do not realize that you also have a burden of proof in this discussion? You still did not link to anything that specifically addresses this one. Same with Thonnard's study; you don't understand it so you just point me to irrelevant sources that do not specifically address the study's methods.

1) People can say anything on the internet... this does not make it true...
Your link is nothing but propaganda not worth my time disputing... every claim they make is factually incorrect

B) Just watch some of Randi's videos (I linked 7 of them)... you will see exactly how he debunks them... he doesn't just debunk 1 person, he debunks the method they use... like cold-reading mediums... this is a tactic used by most of them and it is simply a trick... once you know its a trick, and how it is performed, you can safely assume anyone using it is a fraud

Every psychic ever has been debunked

Feel free to google about Eisenbeiss... I found this with a simple google search for "Eisenbeiss debunked"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120669

Apparently the chess match you are talking about took 8 years to play 48 moves (62 days per move)... yeah, seems legit... surely no funny business going on there...

How gullible are you?

[organofcorti]

Atheists scoff at people 300 years ago for believing the Earth was flat, but are convinced they could never believe a similar absurdity. Those who ridicule and oppose anything they don't already believe is true, and who will diligently avoid any effort to fairly evaluate new, especially dramatically new ideas, are not rational, by definition. I urge all atheists to read up on the latest science and evaluate the evidence in favor of intervention theory; only a few hours spent searching for information could provide any reader with a profoundly altered world view.

More details explaining Intervention Theory

It's a shame that guy spent so much time writing such a long paper that is completely false

Darwin's "three logical fallacies" are just silly... there are no fallacies... his paper is easily debunked by anyone familiar with evolution... any high school kid could debunk that paper these days

Darwin actually did write a few things into the theory of evolution that turned out to be incorrect, but whoever wrote this paper is not familiar enough to even know what is true or not... he didn't even mention the things which are actually false

I don't understand why you feel the need to put words in the mouths of Atheists...

Just because you feel a certain way, does not mean Atheists feel that way... Please, do not ever claim to know anything about Atheists because you don't

Everyone is different, but Atheists tend to be extremely skeptical people... we take nothing on faith... we are rarely convinced by anything silly like religitards, because we rely on facts and evidence to support our beliefs about reality...

Atheists never claim to be infallible... we are the only ones who admit we can be wrong at all... every religion claims it is perfect and infallible... that's just nonsense... it's provably false

Just curious. Why do you attempt to set yourself above God, Who has been proven to exist scientifically, thereby becoming an idol, and doing it all by simply saying that you are an atheist, when atheism doesn't really exist, since you are disallowing atheism by your self-god-making?

You say you have proven your god is an idol -- I thought idolatry was a sin in most religions?

You simply don't like to remember that I told you long ago that I don't own a god. I checked my pockets, and there wasn't any there... the closet, the drawers, the cupboards, the garage, the shed, and the basement. Show me where I own a god. And if it is one of your gods, prove to me by title that you own it, and then title it over to me, by contract and agreement.

Actually, the closest I have been able to come to owning a god is, you atheists set yourselves up as gods, and since I am showing it to you, I own you. Wanna be free? Recognize God, so you don't keep on getting owned.

You didn't answer the question. I certainly didn't ask if you owned or controlled a god. I was responding to your words.

You say: " Why do you attempt to set yourself above God, Who has been proven to exist scientifically, thereby becoming an idol"

This sentence you have written means that means that God has become an idol because you think you have proven it to exist scientifically.

You say it is an idol you worship. Do you really mean that or are you just making things up because they sounded good at the time?

[qwik2learn]

Apparently the chess match you are talking about took 8 years to play 48 moves (62 days per move)... yeah, seems legit... surely no funny business going on there...

How gullible are you?

I am certainly not gullible enough to believe in an elaborate conspiracy coming from an educated and reliable economist. Why would a professor prepare this grand trick with no expectation of gain? It sounds totally unprecedented in academic research... Let's read some uncomfortable information from that very link you posted:

getting a grandmaster to spend years playing a mail game of chess as part of a hoax seems like a bit of a stretch. Why would someone go to that much effort to perpetuate a hoax? What did Eisenbeiss expect to gain from all this? The game garnered almost no publicity. There was no money riding on the game. The kind of preparation you're talking about is very extensive.

Then the psycic is in on it as well, which makes three people who have kept their silence for 15 years now- Eisenbeiss, the mysterious chess player, and the medium (who died without revealing any attempt at a hoax). You would think this was a master heist, not a chess game with nothing riding on it.

In your mind, why do YOU think these 3 or 4 people went to all this trouble?

I came to a totally different conclusion by reading your same source; I suspect it's because I am NOT gullible enough!

Extremely easy? The materialistic explanation has a lot of holes in it. You're supposing a conspiracy of 3 or more people (one of which is a Grandmaster or high ranking Master who's reputation would have suffered if anyone blabbed) spanning years for no monetary gain and no publicity. That doesn't sound very plausible at all.

[Trading]

Some statements we read on the comments on this thread are stupefying.

But the most astonishing thing is that their authors claim that their beliefs are all scientifically proven.

Jonathan Swift: “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

[Moloch]

Some statements we read on the comments on this thread are stupefying.

But the most astonishing thing is that their authors claim that their beliefs are all scientifically proven.

Jonathan Swift: “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

Sometimes I don't know why I bother...

I like to tell myself that someone reading it understands the conversation, even when the person I am debating clearly doesn't have a clue

[qwik2learn]

the most astonishing thing is that their authors claim that their beliefs are all scientifically proven.

You sure make your beliefs sound like they are scientifically proven, OP.

everything seems to force to conclude that you were nothing (you didn't exist as an aware person, so you were like dead before you were conceived) for an eternity and are going to be nothing again (you are going to die and stay dead) for another eternity.

You are going to return to our natural state, our only real "permanent home", where we already spent an eternity, before being born: nothingness.

Why would the material world "seem to force" a conclusion upon our minds when mind is far superior to matter? My internal reality is not an anecdote, it is valid. Our total reality and total existence are beautiful and meaningful . . . . We should judge reality by the little which we truly know of it. We have concluded that the awareness is the finest and greatest item in this world based on the practical analysis here itself. If the practical experience is neglected, the logic will lose its basis.
I cited Hammeroff and the AWARE study to prove that mind is superior to matter. Now I will also quote Gödel and Chopra for their very helpful comments on this difficult discussion:

It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness.

- See more at: http://www.chopra.com/ccl/what-is-cosmic-consciousness#sthash.qAGM6TT1.dpuf

Now all of this is according to the "philosophical viewpoint" of the most brilliant mathematician of the 20th century:

The world is rational.
Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).
There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems.
There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
There is incomparably more knowable a priori that is currently known.
The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly one-dimensional.
Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
Formal rights comprise a real science.
Materialism is false.
The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.
Concepts have an objective existence.
There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

I now present more fascinating and salient quotes from this mathematical genius:

"The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit."

Positivists decline to acknowledge any a priori knowledge. They wish to reduce everything to sense perceptions. Generally they contradict themselves in that they deny introspection as experience. … They use too narrow a notion of experience and introduce an arbitrary bound on what experience is …

One bad effect of logical positivism is its claim of being intimately associated with mathematical logic. As a result, other philosophers tend to distance themselves from mathematical logic and therewith deprive themselves of the benefits of a precise way of thinking.

What I call the theological worldview is the idea that the world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

Source: http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Why would awareness come from nothing and return to nothingness?
Would it not make more sense to say that awareness comes from a sort of non-awareness and returns to non-awareness in a cycle?
What is so difficult about accepting the possibility of another existence under conditions of material non-being? And the endlessness of these cycles?

What is so funny about all of this talk of "scientific proof" is that skeptics apply different standards of proof for parapsychological research and mainstream science. I strongly advise anyone to browse the spiritual development site to discover the facts behind skeptical misdirection, eminent researchers, etc.

I too wish that others will understand the debate, so I am putting forward the facts. One final fact I want to mention: For any authority, the final stage is experience, which alone gives the validity. So how can OP claim that we should conclude that death is real when no authority has ever experienced it? Does OP purport to be the authority on death?? I assume not. So why not choose cycles as the explanation, especially since it is far simpler than creation ex nihilo? Even if you were to conclude (somehow) that something (awareness) arose from nothing, how would you know for sure that this is the case? Maybe if you think that your permanent home is "nothingness" then your awareness will search out for that home upon your having a "death experience". Matter does not force upon us a belief and neither does science have much to say about death; we know for sure that it is a miracle to be alive if indeed the true home of our minds is annihilation (i.e. non-existence or nothingness). Gödel agrees that simple mechanism cannot yield the mind, and that the mind did not arise in the Darwinian manner. That home which gave birth to OP's mind "out of nowhere" is described by OP as both "pre-existing" (quantum fields) and "nothingness" (an absence of any thing), but it cannot be both! If it were, then our existence would be scientific proof of a miracle.

[qwik2learn]

everything seems to force to conclude that you were nothing for an eternity and are going to be nothing again for another eternity.

Incorrect.

The world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

[BADecker]

Some statements we read on the comments on this thread are stupefying.

But the most astonishing thing is that their authors claim that their beliefs are all scientifically proven.

Jonathan Swift: “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

Sometimes I don't know why I bother...

I like to tell myself that someone reading it understands the conversation, even when the person I am debating clearly doesn't have a clue

The reason you bother is that you don't have any real reasoning for the things that you think, and you are trying to find someone who will tell you the reason why you reject the truth.

[Moloch]

Some statements we read on the comments on this thread are stupefying.

But the most astonishing thing is that their authors claim that their beliefs are all scientifically proven.

Jonathan Swift: “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

Sometimes I don't know why I bother...

I like to tell myself that someone reading it understands the conversation, even when the person I am debating clearly doesn't have a clue

The reason you bother is that you don't have any real reasoning for the things that you think, and you are trying to find someone who will tell you the reason why you reject the truth.

You are amazing at projecting yourself onto others... its uncanny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It can take the form of blame shifting.

According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.

[BADecker]

Some statements we read on the comments on this thread are stupefying.

But the most astonishing thing is that their authors claim that their beliefs are all scientifically proven.

Jonathan Swift: “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

Sometimes I don't know why I bother...

I like to tell myself that someone reading it understands the conversation, even when the person I am debating clearly doesn't have a clue

The reason you bother is that you don't have any real reasoning for the things that you think, and you are trying to find someone who will tell you the reason why you reject the truth.

You are amazing at projecting yourself onto others... its uncanny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It can take the form of blame shifting.

According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.

If the fact is in fact a theory, then it is not known to be a fact.

I am not trying to deny you the right to have fun.

[Trading]

Some statements we read on the comments on this thread are stupefying.

But the most astonishing thing is that their authors claim that their beliefs are all scientifically proven.

Jonathan Swift: “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

Sometimes I don't know why I bother...

I like to tell myself that someone reading it understands the conversation, even when the person I am debating clearly doesn't have a clue

Yes, others will read us. There is hope some will be more reasonable.

I'm used to read people writing about spirits like if they were talking about their next door neighbor or a close family member.

But when they start telling me that they are Napoleon, or that Napoleon is still walking around, the debate starts looking like a train wreck.

However, when they add "By the way, did I told you that there is also an alien conspiracy going on?", it's time to jump from the train to save my sanity or, at least, my "savoir faire".

I wonder if, at least sometimes, they stop and realize "Damn, I believe on some unorthodox* stuff".

* Political correct word for "crazy".

Well, they probably will add immediately to themselves: "But it's all scientifically proven".

To any believer taking my words the negative way, sorry, but you can't post these things and expect to be taken seriously.

[qwik2learn]

Yes, others will read us. There is hope some will be more reasonable.

To any believer taking my words the wrong way, sorry, but you can't post these things and expect to be taken seriously.

Speak for yourself, brother! You are saying totally nonsensical and backwards things right here in the OP! You say that by observing the physical world, we can conclude that awareness comes from nothingness, but you did not do any actual observation because if you did you would realize that everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness.

everything seems to force to conclude that you were nothing for an eternity and are going to be nothing again for another eternity.

Incorrect.

The world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

Dear Richard and Michael,

I read your lament that some people leave religion for ‘something worse,’ Deepak Chopra’s spirituality.

I would say that in the areas of (1) evolution, (2) consciousness and (3) the nature of reality, Deepak’s view is closer to scientific truth than is yours.

Regarding (1) evolution, please see my Huffington Post blog — which came first, feelings, or the brain?

Regarding (2) consciousness and (3) the nature of reality, Deepak maintains that inner conscious experience is more real than what appears to us as the material world, and that both consciousness and reality are, at deeper levels, ‘non-local’, interconnected across spatio-temporal boundaries, as occurs at small scales in the quantum world.

Dawkins sticks with materialism, which is suspect because (1) neuroscience tells us mental constructs don’t match physical reality; that we, to some extent at least, construct reality, and (2) at small scales, matter encounters the quantum world, particles existing non-locally in multiple states and locations simultaneously.

The key question then is whether the brain utilizes quantum mechanisms in consciousness, in which case Deepak’s non-local spirituality is feasible. Indeed, more and more evidence points to quantum biology, e.g. in photosynthesis proteins. If a potato or rutabaga can utilize quantum coherence, surely our brains might manage it. Indeed, coherent vibrations indicating quantum resonances have been detected in microtubules, cylindrical protein polymers which organize cell interiors including brain neurons.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/more-rational-than-thou-a_b_7515498.html

The standard dogma is that consciousness emerges from complex computation among brain neurons and synapses acting like ‘bits’ and switches; I will AGAIN point you to four reasons given by Hammeroff for doubting the standard dogma; the implication is that the brain is acting more like a receiver of consciousness than a generator of counsciousness; why have you not yet addressed these four empirical points:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/darwin-versus-deepak-whic_b_7481048.html

[Hirose UK]

everything is going to be nothing? do you think we just exist? and its natural? oh come on mate, you're kidding. how could you say that? don't you see how perfect the work of our body? how perfect the earth is. if you ever studied science, you will know that earth, proton, electron and other universal things rotate to the left. there's should be the greatest power who handles them.

if you still don't believe, let me ask you. who did create you? do you create yourself or someone else create you? if you think your parents create you, then ask them, could you choose to make daughter or son? absolutely they can't, ever.