User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Experience
confused on logic of atheism

Sorry im very confused, atheism seems to be a bit contradictory to me, heres why, you deny the teleological argument and say that there is no design it was all going to happen eventually, looking at this we must say that anything significant probaly didnt happen first time, atleast in sense of must be perfect, must be this, must be that blah blah blah. now id like an answer so dont delete this thread as soon as you see its not promoting atheism as thats just pitiful and would only look bad on atheists if they cant defend their argument.

i want to put foward an argument but i going to try and put it from your point of view, or as near to it as i understand as i have difficulty understanding how you can deny design, heres why.

starting with the cosmological argument, every educated man/women must know that the only thing that cannot be created is energy, now the big bang was formed by a bundle of energy in its purest form. (now you may correct me if i go off, but i dont believe anything too relevant to my argument is off) now if it was timeless and spaceless outside we must say that no collisions or build ups as thats impossible. (timeless means no build ups or why did it build up there blah blah, you understand what im talking about (im trying to hurry it up so ill not explain everything im sure you understand)

then you are basically saying that the big bang must be on a collapsing and reexploding process and it continues to do this, (ill stop to check your followng before i continue) get back to me so i know your following.,

It's my understanding that the current thinking on the creation of the universe is that the total energy in the universe is zero. The "positive" energy consists of matter (E=Mc^2), the electromagnetic energy, etc. The "negative" energy is the energy it took to pull apart all that matter into the vast amount of space. It's negative because it took energy to pull apart the matter that was originally together.

There is still some mystery as to why there is a universe at all, but the energy issue isn't a big problem.

If you think a god created the universe, what created the god?

outside time and space is timeless, because its not in time. so if its timeless then god would b timeless (he always existed).

and so as i was saying before, we need a conscious being to create the universe as we're in a timeless spaceless enviroment, and we cant have it reexploding because eventually all the enegy turns into mass as the universe expands, gravity pulls all the mass together and the mass pressurizes to create pure energy on the inside, but there isnt any/enough pressure on the outside and so isnt enough to explode. therefore the end of time, so it had a start, and then we know there must be a god. or i dont see another possibiliy

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy called "special pleading." You don't really have evidence for your god, but when there's a problem, you invent special powers for it in order to get around it.

What evidence do you have that the universe (in some form) didn't always exist? That is, ff you're claiming your god always existed, then why not the universe? It's a simpler explanation that explains the existence of the universe without having to invent a god who did it.

Our current understanding of the future of the universe is that it will continue expanding and die trillions of years from now in what is called "heat death". The March 2008 issue of Scientific American had a good article on the topic, should you care to learn more.

I'm curious what your god does and how you know its the god who does it. Why is "god" a better explanation than "fairies"? Would I be right in claiming that since I don't know something and can't imagine any other explanation, that it must have been fairies who did it? Everyone knows they're magical, right? Wouldn't it be a better claim to say that fairies created the universe since the universe is big and there could be a lot of fairies? Isn't that a more believable explanation to you? If not, why?

the last part of your answer Don is really the interesting and important part.

confused christian is arguing "first cause" which to me is the biggest cop out argument for a god, especially for someone who not only believes in A god, but a specific one who's guidebook he claims to possess.

if confused christian believes not only in a creating, first cause god...but an INTERVENING, JUDGING, and MUST BE WORSHIPED OR ELSE god...then why not argue that? Wouldn't evidence that I will burn in hell for all eternity unless I get on my knees be a bit more likely to get my attention?

but instead, confused wants to know what could cause the universe. well, gosh, no one knows. sorry i am not going to just accept "god did it, because nothing else could" as an explanation. that used to be the explanation for why the sun rises and volcanoes erupt.

a being who creates a universe but then does not concern itself with how it runs is not a god. so the first cause god explanation doesn't work at all. it is only a being that demands its creations worship it that is a god. but that god would by necessity have to reveal itself to its creations in order that they should know what to do. no god has ever done so.

the fallback position of faith is simply ridiculous. if a god wants to be, nay DEMANDS at the cost of eternal torment, to be worshiped, then it would be ridiculous even cruel to demand we creations simply take the word of a single human who claims to have had a telepathic message. after all, the last person i heard of who claimed to have had this type of communication with a god was told to kill their children. the unreliability of this type of communication between a god and its creations is pretty clear. the eternal souls of us all are at stake and the best we are offered is hearsay from someone who might just be mentally ill.

confused christian is aptly named. if i was trying to make sense of all that blather i'd be confused as well.

I love what you wrote, simple, well said.

Spaghettimonster,

Suggesting to confused Christian that he should argue something else does not answer his argument, and his argument is not entirely about first cause. What confused Christian unsuccessfully attempted to argue was that the Bible had previously answered what the scientific theories are just now discovering. Confused is giving typical apologist's arguments that claim the scientific theories about origin are not in conflict with what was written in the Bible. In this kind of discussion simpler certainly doesn't work; it would only add to the confusion. Arguments without proof are examples of things that serve no purpose. Confused didn't seem to know the difference between an actual scientific theory with observable evidence and a hypothesis, and confused didn't seem to know that there is no hypothesis or theory that needs a creator.

Confused gave Bible verses to prove the attributes of God, but as he was shown they all have conflicting verses in the Bible. Confused doesn't understand why the Bible is not proof of anything, though it has been explained with the evidence based on facts many times. Confused doesn't understand that there are no original manuscripts concerning what is written in the bible, and that there are many discrepancies in these writings, along with who the actual authors were. There have been many discussions with confused about the authenticity and inconstancy of the Bible. Meaning the claims that were being made concerning the Bible were actually proven false by evidence that was presented; it was not just an opinion that something wasn't true, it was proven that it wasn't true.

Confused was trying to reconcile scientific theories with creationism. Confused was unsuccessful at proving his claims, but to actually dispute confused christian's claims you need to explain why "creation science" isn't real science, and why the Bible is in conflict with the scientific theories. Anything short of giving him the actual science and showing him the conflicting statements in the Bible isn't proving a thing. Confused can deny anything he doesn't want to accept about reality, but facts are not that easily dismissed. What someone wants to think is true may not be justified when the actual evidence is presented. Most theists do prefer discussing their imaginary issues with no evidence or explanations.

If my logic is a fallacy, then please show me where i go wrong. i dont think iv invented any powers for it, gods been around forever and christianity has said that for a while, if he exists outside time and space then hes timeless and this fufills what we say he is. i fail to see where i have invented anything there.

my evidence for why this universe didnt always exist? well science has told me this version of th universe was made around 13.2 - 15 billion years ago (i find it changes depending on who im talking to and which website i see) but that alone tells me that the universe started, or the big bang happened, and through mass if the energy turns into mass then eventually it will drain the pure energy, gravity will pull the mass together pressurizing the mass into a pure energy on the inside but meaning that it cant explode agai because there isn enough energy as the mass on the outside doesnt have the same pressure.

i may look into the book, but it was before my understanding that as we grew energy was used to create stars and dust particles within space and since energy cannot be created it must be coming from somewhere, this source being the big bang, but eventually it would end up running out, energy would all eventully be turned into mass energy and gravity would pull it all together.i accept there are other theorys on the matter, but acording to my teachers the gravity pulling it together is the most popular theory.

heres how i look a my god.

since hes outside of time and space, and always been there, there isnt really anytthing he doesnt know, he created everything and knows how it works because he created it. he created the cells in our body and through his will manipulates the cells to create us and plant cells to grow into trees and he creates every cell so he knows what it does. since he created the universe and everything in it, then there isnt much he cant do, he created fire, so he can put fire where every he wants by creating a fire there, he created water and so can create water anywhere etc.

now i dont know that its the god who does it, but the bible tells me he does do this and so i know through logic that there must be a god, so i believe the bible, also most evidence, infact im told nearly all biblical scholars admit jesus existed and there were over 500 people who saw him after he died. now just because we dont have a video camera to show us doesnt mean i cant trust it. if fairies created the universe and did everything that i just said i can see god has done, then you are actally asking, how do i know god isnt a fairy, and then again he might be a magical turtle, but if he created us and gave us this universe then i dont think it should really matter. if god sent his only son to die for us, why does it matter. and why does god need to be magical, if hes god and he made the atoms and the cells, then why cant he just place with the structure of the cells and instead cause although not humanly possible to us a miricle.

if aliens came down and could use telepathy etc, would you say they are magical, you accuse god of being a magical fairytale but in an animals e.g. a dogs eyes arnt we pretty magical, by playing with clay we make huge sky scrapers in a couple of years. with a couple of lumps of metal we cant send lumps of lead miles at the pull of a trigger. and to us it seems simple but to them its probaly complex. does that mean we dont exist. just because it seems so incredible that its hard to comprehend how he did it, doesnt mean he cant.

i believe in 1 god because th bible says, i you say why cant god be a fairy, then sure i guess he could be. that doest mean he isnt god. just means a fairies god. i believe god is a all knowing and all powerful being. all powerful because he created every atom and cell in the universe and can choose what they do, since he created everything in the universe i believe its all knowing because he knows what he created. therefore whether you call it a fairy, a flying spagetti monster or w.e. its still god in my eyes.

then the bible gives me the specific details in why i believe hes like how i believe he is like.

but if you cant come up with another possibility rather than god or fairies, why do you not believe in fairies or god. and why do you critcise theists or believing in it. if i see a little child in a room with a red pen, and see lots of drawings on the wall in red ink, am i wrong to assume that the child drew them, or should i believe him when he says they just randomly appeared?

You make the claim that your god is outside time, but you provide no evidence. This is called special pleading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

I don't believe in any gods. The best evidence is that they're all made up by humans. Imaginary things can't create anything as they're not real.

My point about the universe was that it could have always existed. Yes, I admit that it changed form at the start of the big bang. I've already explained that this change of form did not require energy to be created. I don't think any scientist has found evidence for some sort of outside pressure, that you keep bringing up.

It's interesting that you think that your god is needed to create fire and water. Cells, etc. Does he throw lightning bolts, too? Science can explain all of that. It seems that your god is looking desperately for work!

Your argument amounts to: "I can't explain X, therefore God did it." This is called the argument from ignorance. Even if NOBODY can explain X, it doesn't mean that God did it. You must provide positive evidence for a claim. That's why I asked about fairies. Had you answered my questions (instead of wasting my time), you would be on your way to understanding your logical fallacies.

Concerning the Bible, why do you think it's true? "Because God wrote it." Why do you think God wrote it? "Because the Bible tells me so." This is called circular logic. This is yet another logical fallacy. The Bible is a collection of stories. Do you also feel the urge to practice the atrocities listed in the Bible?

In your last paragraph you make an analogy with a child with a red pen and marks on the wall. In this case, you have EVIDENCE. In the case of the universe, you lack the child and the red pen. You are assuming they exist and inventing attributes for your god so that your explanation works.

So far, you have presented no credible evidence and used several logical fallacies. Perhaps you can ask your god for some help here... You do believe prayer works, right? Put it to use and give me something that doesn't rely on lies, logical fallacies, or emotional manipulation (the usual tools of the apologist).

Deuteronomy 33:37 says god is eternal, if god is eternal hes been around for eternity, therefore he has always been here, therefore he is timeless, i havnt invented this up it says in the bible.

you just claimed that gods arnt real, but you have no evidence to back up your claim, if god exists then hes not made up by humans and therefore that isnt evidence. that arugment is as logical as, god isnt unnecessary, therefore he is necessary, therefore he exists.

i didnt say he was needed, but i said that he created fire and so he could create fire, that doesnt mean he is needed for fire, although he may well be. just because something can do something doesnt mean its the only thing that can do it.

no my argument is this, its impossible for X to happen without someone doing it, it must be a someone rather than a something because of x, x and x, therefore its logical to believe that there is a someone. its no arogance, you arugment goes, i cant see it, i cant hear it, therefore it doesnt exist. carbon monoxide, cant see it, cant hear it, cant smell it, but that doesnt mean its not there, and if you dont realise that its there then it can kill you.

i believe its true because 1. i can trust people.. 2. some people dedicated their lives to this man, people talked about him so much and majority of the world joint together to follow a man who acording to roman records is dead. I GUARANTEE!!!! you could not get half the world to follow you no matter how hard you tried, if obama said he was god, people woldnt follow him, therefore i think there was something special about him, the bible is his story. and also gods word.

no here is the situation,

we have a wall with red ink on it, noone has been in the room, nothing has been in the room, you claim that you dont know how it happened, but you know noone did this and its magical, i claim that someone snuck in and did it.

i am claiming someone made the universe, you are claiming it just happened. stop telling my my logic doesnt work and then giving pitiful excuses. before you mention the bible again lets try and establish that god exists because we decide which god we will talk about.

what i am saying is no that i dont know, i am saying there is no other possible, logical explaination, and i challenge you to give me an example of where god would not be required to create the universe that can be backed up logically and scientifically.

If you'd like to set the Bible aside, that would be fine with me. I'll ignore Deuteronomy. I'd be interested in what evidence you have of Jesus from Roman records. I know of no first-hand accounts of the man/god outside the Bible. You've also given an argument from popularity for Jesus--another logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum I'm not impressed by people who dedicate their lives (and sell out their fellow men) for the desire of an infinite payout (perpetual orgasms in heaven). I would call it unenlightened self-interest. Given that so many people are willing to believe in such a crazy thing, it's not surprising that it would be a popular idea.

You seem to think that God is required for the toaster to pop up. You claim that someONE must be behind everything that happens. Do you deny the possibility of naturalistic explanations for anything? Must there always be a god or fairy or somesuch?

With the red ink (and the universe), I'm consistently going with the most likely explanation. In the case of red ink, I know of no likely way for it to get on walls without some sort of agent. People and markers are common things and it's a likely thing that some person made the marks. With regard to the universe, the most likely explanation is natural. If you posit a supernatural entity, it just moves the problem to how it came into existence and a host of other questions. What is more likely? 1) Matter became created through natural means or 2) a magical creature popped into existence from nothing with the ability and purpose of creating matter from its mind or some other magical thing? The latter sounds mushy at best.

How can matter be created? Read up on zero point energy. It's a measurable property of "empty space" where matter (and antimatter) is spontaneously being created and destroyed. It does beg the question of why there's more matter in the universe than antimatter, but there are mechanisms known to science by which matter can be spontaneously created (WITHOUT a cause!). Now, suddenly, the supernatural mumbo jumbo doesn't sound all that plausible.

If you look online you can find a catalog of all the gods that mankind has invented. There are something like 20,000 of them. You seem to be saying that if I can't disprove all of them, that they must exist. (Another logical fallacy.) Do you agree that at least some of them don't exist? I just believe in fewer gods than you do. I don't believe in any of them because I don't have any evidence that would warrant my belief. Please define your god and provide some evidence for its existence.

I used the bible verse to show you how god being timeless is not a 'Special pleading, you also claim that i have lied (you need to show me where i have done this, Emotonally tried to manipulate you, (i have done no such thing) and used a Logical Fallacy (which you have continued to fail to show me).

i present to you this website here i have found with many examples of historians which a few where hostile to the christians, and they talk about jesus as someone who existed. http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php

they think theyve found where jesus would of been bureid - The news conference was convened by Biblical Archaeological Review, which reports "an archaeological landmark" in its November-December issue. The ossuary was not uncovered in an archaeological excavation, but apparently surfaced on the antiquities market. This means that potentially important evidence for evaluating the box is missing. But experts consulted by BAR and Christianity Today seem satisfied that it really is a 2,000-year old artifact.

Scholars who've set out to prove once and for all that Jesus didn't exist have been forced by the evidence to change their minds.

i think that should be sufficient for now.

how can you claim that jesus isnt popular, when hes considered to be god or a phrophet by most of the world, islam consider him a prophet, buddist documents talk about him, jewish documents talk about him, jehovahs witnesses believe hes the son of god, christians believe hes god. mormons believe hes god but theres been prophets etc since (or something along those lines, i never quite understood but i got the idea their christians with other prophets and updated bible or something.) so if hes not popular explain how most of the world consider him on high regards and then atleast half of the ones who dont believe in him, or that he existed.

ill put this into context for you, 33% of the world is christian, 21% is islam (thats over 50% of the worlds population holding him on high regards) Buddists admit he exists in their records (6%), and jews only 0.22% but still. that makes 60% of the worlds population. but then 60% of 10 is 6, thats not many, so how many people is that. well..

2.1BILLION chrisitans 1.5BILLION Islam and 14Million Jews.

and thats excluding mormons and jehovahs witnesses. now if we look at the popular kid in school i guarantee 3.74 billion people dont believe he exists, and 3.6 billion consider him a great man, and 2.1 billion consider him god.

this is no logical fallacy, please stop saying everything you dont like is a logical fallacy, its not. from what you have given me, atheism comes across as a flop, you deny the evidence i give you by saying faires could of done it. denying the fact that some conscious being had to do it. fairies are conscious they could of done it but i proved this through the logic there is no other possibilities:

its conscious, it made the universe, it knows what it made and so is all knowing, and is pretty powerful if it can make it.

ive also recently been looking at near death experiences..

http://www.wirenot.net/X/NDEindex.shtml

says

Near death experiences are remarkable in the fact that even though the stories are unique, they share many common elements: seeing a light at the end of a tunnel and moving swiftly towards it, being outside the physical body and looking down on it, having overwhelming feeling of peace and love, feeling disappointment about having to return, seeing their life "pass before their eyes." This is not an exhaustive list, but some of the more popular elements experienced.

now this seems a bit similar to what the bible talks about, being outside a physical body, feeling of peace and love.

so heres how i see it, i mean its pretty much a no brainer for me. heres what i have proven.

conscious being made the universe, it is timeless and not physical. (like god) its all knowing as it knows what it created (like god), a man called jesus came down and claimed to be god, allegely did lots of miricles and then was killed, now we have a empty coffin (what happened there :O) and 500 people claiming they saw him alive after he was killed. we have 4 gospels about his life as well as others. we have christias being persecuted for centurys under nero (the roman emperor) but not only did we survive, but we began the most powerful religion in the world for a millenium.

when people die they talk about feeling at peace and being loved, similar to what jesus talked about..

im made the connnection and so have most christians, yet somehow you argue that we are delusioned?? you really need to help us out on this, how are WE! the ones who are delusioned?

What an amazing response. You deserve your moniker.

As far as I remember, you were trying to convince me that your god exists. You've rambled on about physics and the popularity of Jesus and near death experiences. Meanwhile, you've evaded most of my questions. I consider that a deception, by the way.

On special pleading: you are sure that nothing can exist forever--especially not anything in the universe, yet you claim that your god has that property (which is special pleading). To back it up, you refer to the Bible, which I don't accept as an authoritative source. It's like you trying to convince me that wizards exist by referring to Harry Potter. I'm not impressed.

On your web site concerning whether Jesus existed, please point out what you think is the most convincing evidence. I'm having this discussion with YOU. If you can't defend your beliefs, perhaps they're not worth defending. Jesus supposedly died around 33 CE. Most of those sources are written long after. These can't be first-hand accounts. They're just repeated rumor, which I don't find convincing. We have legends of King Arthur, who did not exist. Many of the others are accounts about the existence of Christianity (and people who believed in Christ). I agree that Christianity exists. The question is whether Jesus existed. The evidence there is weak. Personally, I don't care too much about that question as it doesn't answer anything. What evidence do you have for the supernatural claims with respect to Jesus? That is, it's not enough to just prove the existence of Jesus.

Next, you refer to the James Ossuary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary You seem to think it's evidence of Jesus of Nazareth. The ossuary is old, but the writing isn't. It's a forgery. The art dealer who modified it knew he could count on people like you to make him some money. Even if it weren't a forgery, it is not very good evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (James and Jesus were common names) and it says nothing about supernatural claims. Furthermore, nobody claimed that Jesus was buried in the ossuary. You made that up or you're repeating a lie. Seriously, if you find embellished rumors about fake artifacts to be the truth, you are a great Christian. They must really love you. How much do you give to your church a year?

You claim: "Scholars who've set out to prove once and for all that Jesus didn't exist have been forced by the evidence to change their minds." Do you have any evidence for this? I can refer to Gerd Ludemann, a Biblical scholar who came to the conclusion it's all made up. Feel free to look him up on the web or read one of his books.

Then you go on rant about whether Jesus is popular. I never said belief in Jesus wasn't popular. I said it didn't prove anything and I gave a plausible reason for the popularity. If you think this proves anything about the existence of Jesus (or god), then you've used a logical fallacy called the argument from popularity. You were claiming that you believed in Jesus because you were following the crowd. I was pointing out that it's not a good reason to follow something.

You then again make the assertion that your god created the universe. Yawn. I'm still waiting for evidence. You've again used special pleading to claim that your god exists outside time. I don't know what Jesus has to do with your god, but an empty box just means that you don't have a body. It's an admission of the lack of evidence for Jesus' existence. You fail to list one contemporary eyewitness historical account to someone who supposedly raised the dead and did all manner of miraculous things. And you think that embellished lies about forgeries help your case. Oh, and you play the victim card. Christians have killed Jews by the millions. Does that make their religion true?

You wrap up citing how you think NDEs are confirmation of Christianity. All evidence is that the mind dies when the brain dies. There is no evidence of a soul. There is nothing for your god to torture when we die. Smile! There is no hell.

I do think you and the other Christians are somewhat deluded. You all have your own concept of god that unfortunately doesn't jive with that of your other fellow believers. See http://tinyurl.com/yaczapg

You (all) use lies, logical fallacies, and emotional manipulation to convince people of your bogus hedonistic claims and bully the rest of us. You personally have used deception (evading questions and the James Ossuary) and logical fallacies. So far, you haven't used emotional manipulation (yet). Those are the tools of apologists, however, because they don't have real facts on their side.

I'm getting tired of replying to a lot of nonsense, so let's wrap this up. Please present your single best evidence for the existence of your god in your own words. Please solicit help from your minister, your fellow believers, and your god. Please pray, take your time, and do research. You have every advantage here. Present it on this thread and this measly atheist who cannot possibly win over your god will critique your evidence. If you use a lie, logical fallacy, or emotional manipulation, you effectively admit that your religion is garbage. If you don't play, you also admit that Christendom and your god can't stand up to little me. If you provide solid evidence that convinces me of your god, I'll become a tireless advocate for Christianity. If I poke holes in your evidence/argument, you will admit on this thread that the very best evidence for your religion is crap and you are a dupe.

Ready to play?

Confused Christian,

Two more things. First, I should have given you a link to a paper about a naturalistic explanation for the creation of the universe. It's written by a cosmologist friend of mine:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

Second, you have nothing to lose by "losing" your bet. There is no god nor heaven, so you won't lose that. You'll also start on the path to thinking critically and you won't waste your money on tithes or other scams. There's no way you will not benefit by my challenge.

Very well i will give 3 points for god. you must both prove my 3 points wrong, and then give 3 points of your own to prove god doesnt exist, i will then prove your 3 points wrong..

few ground rules first, no throwing stones at christianity and such, this is not evidence for anything, this is perthetic and always countered. comparing god to fairies is innadiquite, god is not a fairy. saying there is no proof for god is not a point against god.

If you can give strong evidence against god, and repel every piece of evidence i give for god, i will announce it on this website and convert on the spot. but if you fail to counter any of my arguments then you must never again critisis any theist, shut down all websites you have where you do it? how about these conditions, however if i am to convert it must be strong evidence, not theres no proof for, or the bible says this and thats not true kind of evidence.. and if you are to counter my arguments you must give example, like we may not know all the answers is not adiquite..

1. God is far greater than we can imagine and is totally nonphysical. This is no surprise to Bible students because those inferences have been in Scripture all along. Passages like "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16), "God is light" (1 John 1:5), "God is eternal" (Psalm 102:27; 90:4), "God is unseen" (1 John 4:12), and "God is not a man" (Numbers 23:19) make that clear. Even more clear are the biblical references that tell us that God is outside of time and outside of space (see Jeremiah 23:23-28, and Acts 17:22-29, and 2 Peter 3:8). The Bible portrays God as having existed before the Creation (Genesis 1:1, Psalm 90:4, Acts 1:7, 1 Corinthians 2:7, Revelation 22:13) and also as existing after the physical cosmos has dissolved (2 Peter 3:10-11, Revelation 22:13).

If the method of creation is that vibrating superstrings were created to produce the physical cosmos by a series of transformations, such a discovery would simply show us the profound uniqueness and enormous capacity of our Creator.

I would hope that, as you read over the properties we just listed, you would also be impressed with the fact that the cosmos was not produced by methods and from substances perceptible by our senses. The person who claims to only be willing to believe what they can see, smell, taste, touch, and hear cannot accept a cosmos produced by entities that would not be perceptible by any of these devices.

therefore before we understood the universe god had already described things like being outside time and space, a concept we use today over 2000 years ago.

in a timeless and spaceless enviroment it means you are forced to accept that it must be a chain reaction of big bangs that created the universe, also since its all the energy together you are forced to accept that it turns to mass and gravity pulls it together so it can cause another big bang, however as mass the pressure will only apply to the centre of the mass, and the outside of the mass will not be pressurized and so will not turn to pure energy, like coal will turn to diamond when burried deep, but if you bury it a foot deep it will never turn to diamond as the pressure isnt enough. therefore the big crunch is impossible, therefore the big bang would not take place again, and so therefore it cant continue and be a cycle, therefore we must have a start, therefor god exists.

2. NDE, In 1982, while a Fellow for the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Morse was working in a clinic in Pocatello, Idaho. He was called to revive a young girl who nearly died in a community swimming pool. She had had no heart beat for 19 minutes, yet completely recovered. She was able to recount many details of her own resuscitation, and then said that she was taken down a brick lined tunnel to a heavenly place. When Dr. Morse showed his obvious skepticism, she patted him shyly on the hand and said: "Don't worry, Dr. Morse, heaven is fun!." loosing heart beat for 19 minutes would mean that her brain, would be dead as well, her brain cant work without oxygen, noones brain can work without oxygen, so if shes been dead for 19 minutes we can make the acknowlegment through common sense that she was ofcorse dead, rather than daydreaming.

3. and finally. it is evident that man is different to animals. im rather confident with the othr two alone, so for this point ill just say, howcome humans are so different to animals. why dont animals build houses, why are we more evolved that them. why is there 1 intelligent species on this planet rather than 2?

You say: "Very well i will give 3 points for god. you must both prove my 3 points wrong, and then give 3 points of your own to prove god doesnt exist, i will then prove your 3 points wrong.."

No. The wager was that you give your single best argument for your god. One.

No again. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. If you're claiming a god exists, YOU have the burden of proof. You must provide evidence for your claim. Furthermore, unlikely claims require stronger evidence. I have no burden of proof.

You say: "few ground rules first, no throwing stones at christianity and such, this is not evidence for anything, this is perthetic and always countered. comparing god to fairies is innadiquite, god is not a fairy. saying there is no proof for god is not a point against god."

Christians claim that their god is the author of morality, that that god created humans, that god can communicate with humans at will, that they can pray to the god to initiate communication, that God is the same as the holy ghost that lives inside each believer, that each believer yearns to please the god to get their perpetual orgasms. This means that the mass movements of Christianity are necessarily a reflection of the morality of this god.

You seek to exclude FACTS that make Christianity look bad. Deep down you know the religion is CRAP, so it must have some sort of special treatment to gloss over its systematic flaws. BULLSHIT. If you don't like the fact that Christianity has murdered millions of Jews over multiple millennia, that's not my problem. If you don't like the fact that there are 2000 sects of Christianity that can't agree on basic tenets, that's not my problem. If you don't like the fact that Christianity continues to do harm, that's not my problem. If my pointing out these problems makes you uncomfortable, consider that your sense of morality is FAR SUPERIOR than the pathetic con game you seek to promote. Wake up. The religion is using you.

You say: "If you can give strong evidence against god, and repel every piece of evidence i give for god, i will announce it on this website and convert on the spot. but if you fail to counter any of my arguments then you must never again critisis any theist, shut down all websites you have where you do it? how about these conditions, however if i am to convert it must be strong evidence, not theres no proof for, or the bible says this and thats not true kind of evidence.. and if you are to counter my arguments you must give example, like we may not know all the answers is not adiquite.. "

Your conversion on the web site is meaningless. I'm the only one with integrity to use my name and reputation in this conversation. Again, present your very best single argument.

You are also trying to change the bet. If you're not up for the bet as I proposed it, just say so. Don't be a weasel.

You want me never again to criticize a theist. Think what that means: even if you convince me of your god, you want me to say nice things about Hitler, Martin Luther, Torquemada, and all the other murderers and torturers who happen to believe in your god. You want me to suppress my own sense of morality and aid and abet some of the worst criminals in human history. Is that what Christianity means to you? A deal among thugs to not criticize each-other: you ignore my pedophilia and I'll ignore you selling rapture snuff porn. Wow, what a great religion! I guess the promise of a perpetual orgasm makes you shut off your moral reasoning. Who cares who gets killed and tortured as long as you get to get off for all eternity!

Either take the original bet or don't. If you take the bet, give your single best piece of evidence or argument. Until then, I won't be responding to your arguments.

I don't have a wager with you. It is logically impossible and logically contradictory to require another person to prove that something does not exist. We can only prove that something exists; nobody can prove that something does not exist. Nevertheless, I'll bet you that you are not going to answer my questions any better than you answered Don Baker's. I copied and answered each one of your questions and there is no rebuttal. If you don't answer my rebuttals I will assume you are not responding because you can't. That means you have lost the argument, so you can turn in your bible and that huge cross I'm sure you are wearing.

confused christian "1. God is far greater than we can imagine and is totally nonphysical. This is no surprise to Bible students because those inferences have been in Scripture all along. Passages like "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16), "God is light" (1 John 1:5), "God is eternal" (Psalm 102:27; 90:4), "God is unseen" (1 John 4:12), and "God is not a man" (Numbers 23:19) make that clear."

Exodus 33:20-23, John 1:18, and 1 John 4:12 teach that God cannot be seen. In Amos, God is seen standing on a wall, holding a plumb line. In Genesis, Jacob sees God "face to face," and subsequently names a place after the event. In Exodus 24, the nobles of Israel saw God, and they ate and drank. In Exodus 33, however, only God's "back parts" are visible, since it's specified that anyone who sees God's face will drop dead. Later, in John, it is written that no man has ever seen God at any time." I'm sure there are plenty of apologist's explanations for these misunderstandings or prevarications. confused christian said, "Even more clear are the biblical references that tell us that God is outside of time and outside of space (see Jeremiah 23:23-28, and Acts 17:22-29, and 2 Peter 3:8). The Bible portrays God as having existed before the Creation (Genesis 1:1, Psalm 90:4, Acts 1:7, 1 Corinthians 2:7, Revelation 22:13) and also as existing after the physical cosmos has dissolved (2 Peter 3:10-11, Revelation 22:13)."

There is nothing in the bible that describes space-time. If you are trying to make it appear that the bible is a source for scientific theories after the scientists develop a theory; forget it. The bible's creation story has failed miserably to explain anything accurately about the beginning of our universe or life in that universe. The scientists have explained everything we know about this universe not the bible. God cannot have created Time - in order for time to be created it must be finite, and god would have had to create time before there was time, which is not possible. Therefore, God did not create such things as the dimensions of the Universe, major physical constants and the mass/energy sum total. There is nothing outside the Universe for God to exist in. The universe is all there is or ever will be. Quantum physics does not require us to abandon the distinctions between information, reality, and irrationality. If we did that then nothing would make sense, but it doesn't. We are nearing the end of that time when dishonest people can claim that we don't know what happened at the beginning - it's going to become increasingly more difficult for games to be played any longer. The LHC experiments will assist in our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature and the universe. The time is very near that those who create their own reality that they are more satisfied with will no longer be able to fool anyone. Science discovers what is really there. Science can study reality, and answer questions, and religion never will.

confused christian said, "If the method of creation is that vibrating superstrings were created to produce the physical cosmos by a series of transformations, such a discovery would simply show us the profound uniqueness and enormous capacity of our Creator."

You think you can use that to prove god? What you are writing is pseudo-science mixed with religion and conjecture that you are calling "theories". My answers were based on sound theories backed up by observations and evidence. A model is actually a tool of science, as a means of allowing the testing of a hypothesis; such as M-theory string theory that are only models. This says nothing about a creator. This is purely mathematical (theoretical physics) model that has not been proven yet - string theory or M-theory - and even if they are it wouldn't mean a thing as far as proof of a creator or creation pseudo-science. If something is not an indispensable part of a theory (god is not any part of any theory) it cannot be applied to the theory to prove that it exists.

Confused Christian said, "I would hope that, as you read over the properties we just listed, you would also be impressed with the fact that the cosmos was not produced by methods and from substances perceptible by our senses. The person who claims to only be willing to believe what they can see, smell, taste, touch, and hear cannot accept a cosmos produced by entities that would not be perceptible by any of these devices." therefore before we understood the universe god had already described things like being outside time and space, a concept we use today over 2000 years ago."

A branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics deals with events that occur at the atomic level. We are not aware of them in ordinary circumstances. We know atoms exist because of scientific experiments and observations. That big bomb! On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

What we have learned from quantum physics is this: Sometimes shit just happens - this need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity. The spontaneous appearance of the singularity (universe) from nothing need not break scientific laws or be unnatural or unscientific, and it was not a supernatural event.

There is nothing in the bible that explains quantum mechanics and the only way apologists can get there is by giving non-technical concepts of the new physics. When they try to combine religion with the new physics they run into problems. They say that we can not say that an atomic particle exists at a certain place and we can't say it does not exist. The particle has a strange probability pattern to exist and not exist. We can't describe the state of the particle in terms of fixed opposite concepts, because the particle is not present at a definite place but it is not omitted. The particle does not change position or rest. What changes is the probability pattern.

This is not the same as saying something exist with no proof of it's existence. That's like predicting something could happen and then calling it an actual event. If we did say that it is not that different from transcending the concepts of existence and non-existence as is done with religion. A probability explanation of a quantum event is not proof of the existence until it is observed. What the apologists think of reality is supposed to have some kind of applicability to quantum mechanics. They are saying god exist without any evidence. I don't think so!

The authors of the bible couldn't do math, didn't know about pi and they knew nothing about quantum physics. There is nothing about the space-time continuum in the bible, which transcends the three-dimensional to a multidimensional reality. Albert Einstein's greatest insight was realizing that time is relative. It speeds up or slows down depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to something else. For perception of motion to exist at all, it must be what it is, in its entirety, over a non-zero period of time. Time began with the cosmic origin. There was no time before time. The big bang was the beginning of time itself; any discussion about before the big bang is meaningless. That includes your god.

Einstein found that space and times are part of the physical universe, and they are linked. In fact, space as one thing and time as another are not suitably valid concepts. Einstein's theory of space and time unified them in a space-time continuum. Space has three dimensions, and time has one, so space-time is a four-dimensional continuum.

The big bang was a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. Time did not always exist. Time emerged out of space in a continuous process. Continuous meaning time-like quality of a dimension, as opposed to space-like quality, it is not all space or all time; there are shades in between. This can be made as a precise mathematical statement.

Confused Christian said, "in a timeless and spaceless enviroment it means you are forced to accept that it must be a chain reaction of big bangs that created the universe, also since its all the energy together you are forced to accept that it turns to mass and gravity pulls it together so it can cause another big bang, however as mass the pressure will only apply to the centre of the mass, and the outside of the mass will not be pressurized and so will not turn to pure energy, like coal will turn to diamond when burried deep, but if you bury it a foot deep it will never turn to diamond as the pressure isnt enough. therefore the big crunch is impossible, therefore the big bang would not take place again, and so therefore it cant continue and be a cycle, therefore we must have a start, therefor god exists."

Space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. If there is something besides us it's in the universe (some form of biological life) not a supernatural being. There is nothing outside of the universe. At the big bang itself, the universe had zero size, and was extraordinarily hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased. One second after the big bang, it would have fallen to about ten thousand million degrees. This is about a thousand times the temperature at the center of the sun. About one hundred seconds after the big bang, the temperature would have fallen to one thousand million degrees, the temperature inside the hottest stars. Within only a few hours of the big bang, the production of helium and other elements would have stopped. And after that, for the next million years or so, the universe would have just continued expanding, without anything much happening. There are something like ten 1,000,000 to the 14th power or (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. Where the energy came from; the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. The gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space. This negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Now twice zero is also zero. So, the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. The universe is really completely self-contained. The universe had a beginning, but the fact that the universe had a beginning is not proof of a god. The rest of your stuff is conjecture about other big bangs that have not one shred of proof (there are theories that time will stop at the end) or there will be a (big crunch) these things are hypothesized but are not proven theories.

Confused Christian said, "2. NDE, In 1982, while a Fellow for the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Morse was working in a clinic in Pocatello, Idaho. He was called to revive a young girl who nearly died in a community swimming pool. She had had no heart beat for 19 minutes, yet completely recovered. She was able to recount many details of her own resuscitation, and then said that she was taken down a brick lined tunnel to a heavenly place. When Dr. Morse showed his obvious skepticism, she patted him shyly on the hand and said: "Don't worry, Dr. Morse, heaven is fun!." loosing heart beat for 19 minutes would mean that her brain, would be dead as well, her brain cant work without oxygen, noones brain can work without oxygen, so if shes been dead for 19 minutes we can make the acknowlegment through common sense that she was ofcorse dead, rather than daydreaming."

No claims for supernatural events have ever survived objective examination. If a person still wants to believe in the paranormal he does it without any evidence, and that is not a harmless pastime. The acceptance of things without evidence is dishonest. Belief in the Supernatural is an act of dishonesty to oneself. Facing what is true in reality is far more moral and honest, and would by far more advantageous to humankind. To face reality and understand that humanity is responsible for changing what is wrong in the world by eliminating the expectations or reliance on god/god or anything supernatural to fix it for us. Especially since nothing supernatural exists

The paranormal and (apologists pseudo-science) is the proof for your fantasyland religion that you hang your beliefs on. You really don't need to explain why you didn't answer our questions. There are millions of near death experiences that were propped up to prove that there is an afterlife. Not one presents any evidence that is provable through acknowledged science. The paranormal is not science nobody has proven one thing about life after death. Pseudo-science, astrology, the paranormal, UFOs, clairvoyance, faith healing, spirits, near death experiences, witchcraft, dowsing, reincarnation and the Supernatural are all in the same category. And there are endless experiments and wasted money going into this irrationality, flimflam, and superstitious nonsense that has produced nothing. Paranormal events are alleged phenomena that are not subject to scientific or rational explanation.

Confused Christian said, "3. and finally. it is evident that man is different to animals. im rather confident with the othr two alone, so for this point ill just say, howcome humans are so different to animals. why dont animals build houses, why are we more evolved that them. why is there 1 intelligent species on this planet rather than 2?"

A common ancestor to humans existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. DNA has proved a shared ancestry of all living things. Science has proven evolution with a great preponderance of evidence. That is why they now call it a theory and a fact. The study has moved from mere hypothesis to theory to fact. Unlike religious that hasn't produced on shred of evidence in it's favor.

A transitional fossil recently discovered named Ida is an important branching point on the evolutionary tree, the 47-million-year-old fossil suggests Ida is a critical missing-link species in primate evolution. The fossil bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs.

Archaeopteryx- is half reptile and half bird - do you think that means that the reptile and the bird evolved from a common ancestor? There are many examples of this kind of evolution in the fossil record. were many species that went extinct because they were unable to evolve to a higher level. That is evolution not a creation event. The idea of a giant magician in the sky who said, "let there be" and it all just appeared is far more dishonest than anything that any scientist has ever told anyone to believe is the truth.

Don't answer this with your dear lovable aunt blabby B.S. If you don't answer each rebuttal as I have done you lose.

confused christian said, "Sorry im very confused, atheism seems to be a bit contradictory to me, heres why, you deny the teleological argument and say that there is no design it was all going to happen eventually, looking at this we must say that anything significant probaly didnt happen first time, atleast in sense of must be perfect, must be this, must be that blah blah blah."

I don't know what everyone who "claims" to be an atheist is saying; I know what the scientists are saying. Intelligent design is creationism masquerading as science. It is a religious philosophy and there is no scientific evidence for this theological argument. Intelligent Design doesn't make any testable predictions and it doesn't explain anything. It doesn't matter what kind of creationism (young earth or old earth) it is not science. Theistic evolution is not feasible because saying that religion is compatible with science is simply to deny anything we know scientifically. It is religion that says god made a perfect world on creation week and it was finished. Evidently god created several species that couldn't adapt to their environments. A god (by the way) that only needed to say let there be (whatever) and it was done. Scientists know that the Universe and life in the Universe was not "created" and it's not perfect or finished. Intelligent Design was created to help the preachers convince the stupid that "god did it" and circumvent the scientific method in order to resolve questions about the origin of the universe and the origin of humans. But creationism is not science and there is no theory. If evolution is happening, Intelligent Design suggests that evolution is guided by a supernatural intelligence (that is not a theory) and it's not new. They have no evidence of this. A 'theory' is not credible unless it can be tested. For something to become a theory it has to have evidence, observations, make predictions and answers questions. How do you test something with no evidence? You would need a constant engineer to make creation science work. There is no proof of an Intelligent Designer or creation. Evolution is proof that there was no need for an Intelligent Designer. In 2001 the Human Genome was Mapped (ge·nome - one haploid set of chromosomes with the genes they contain; the full DNA sequence of an organism.) The human genome mapping provides indisputable proof that Darwin was right. DNA would have falsified evolution - instead it has confirmed it. Scientists have proven that there is no "abrupt appearance" we know this from the transitional fossil record. New findings from meteorites show that the raw materials to make the first molecules of DNA and RNA came from stars. Everything in the Universe evolved from the Big Bang. And the CMB is incontrovertible proof that there was a Big Bang.

confused christian said, "now id like an answer so dont delete this thread as soon as you see its not promoting atheism as thats just pitiful and would only look bad on atheists if they cant defend their argument."

Opinions like yours are (a dime a dozen) very prevalent on this message board. I'm sure they don't delete atheist's comments on Christian apologists message boards. I'm sure that atheists don't read them and that is why there are no atheist's comments.

confused christian said, "i want to put foward an argument but i going to try and put it from your point of view, or as near to it as i understand as i have difficulty understanding how you can deny design, heres why. starting with the cosmological argument, every educated man/women must know that the only thing that cannot be created is energy, now the big bang was formed by a bundle of energy in its purest form. (now you may correct me if i go off, but i dont believe anything too relevant to my argument is off) now if it was timeless and spaceless outside we must say that no collisions or build ups as thats impossible. (timeless means no build ups or why did it build up there blah blah, you understand what im talking about (im trying to hurry it up so ill not explain everything im sure you understand)"

You needed to put in some sensible information and less blah, blah. There is no space outside of the universe; there is no "nothingness" that the universe exists inside of. Everything is inside the singularity. We are inside the singularity. The Big Bang theory explains what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. At the big bang itself, the universe had zero size. Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. It is not necessary to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. The universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. New data from a NASA probe located a million miles from Earth has provided scientists with the information necessary to paint the most precise picture yet of the early universe. The long-awaited images support theories that posit that the universe underwent a tremendous growth spurt shortly after the big bang. Moreover, they pinpoint the age of the universe at very close to 13.7 billion years old.

If the creationist's want to make creation a science they need to prove that there is a complex 'god' that came from nothing. Everything that exists is either matter or energy. Did god make the Universe from something or nothing? If the apologists can't tell us what god is made of or what god made the Universe from than they haven't answered anything.

confused christian said, "then you are basically saying that the big bang must be on a collapsing and reexploding process and it continues to do this, (ill stop to check your followng before i continue) get back to me so i know your following.,"

"Land sakes alive" that is not the big bang theory. There is a difference in a theory and conjecture, and I have always pointed out the distinction. The big bounce is a theory that tries to get ride of the singularity (what might have happened) but is not based on anything that has been observed or proven. This is nothing like the big bang theory that is backed up by evidence and observations, has stood the test of time, and is accepted as a sound theory.

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today (including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies) was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago. What you are talking about is conjecture about what might have happened at the beginning of the universe as well as what laws were true at the beginning of time itself. That is what scientists are working on right now with experiments, but I think some of these theories will be proven wrong.

NASA's Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope has proved a new theory of gravity with space-time having a foamy aspect of that would cause higher-energy gamma rays to move slightly more slowly than photons at lower energies. This would replace Einstein's theory of (gravity) his relativity theory. It won't replace Einstein's theory because it was proven wrong.

Another idea is to take Einstein's ideas about time and space (from the theory of relativity) and combine it with the known laws of quantum physics to develop a mathematical description of space-time that uses imaginary time. There would be no need to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. The universe would be a completely self-contained system.

There are ideas of all kinds in science, but it takes a very long time to find out what is true. Science unlike religion requires a great deal of proof before scientists will say something is true.

Scientists will continuously test scientific theories - to refine them or eliminated them. We never stop learning new things in science and there will always be things we do not know, but god and religion will never provide any of the answers. It is clear that throughout its history religion's main goal has been to protect it's own interest, and that was not necessarily what was beneficial to mankind. Even since Galileo violated a law that stood in the way of honest scientific work nothing has really changed that much. The history of religion throughout the world is a history of wonder-working images, and miracles that stands in the way of human progress.

Nobody should be too sure that the Dark Ages are over, since, even though a court ruled that Intelligent Design is not science there are those who still want to introduce it into education as science.

I don't expect you to contest this with real facts, but haven't we already met you before or is this pretty common stuff in Christendom

aight aight, well know this, the chances of existance is 10(to the power of -40) take that into mind, now take into mind that people all around the world are having religious experiences and agnostics and occasionally atheists (ive heard and met some) have been converted to christianity, if your theory is soooo bullet proof dispite the fact you cant really answer these simple points really. then that alone is enough proof that you guys are arrogant.

Existence of what? What is your evidence for the numbers you give?

One can have a religious experience by being put into a machine that will stimulate the brain a certain way. If a person can do this on their own or have some sort of brain glitch, it doesn't prove anything.

We've answered all your questions. (Admittedly, I haven't answered your last three because you backed out of the bet.) You've dodged most of my questions, meanwhile.

You're welcome to think I'm arrogant. I think you're a dupe who wants the claimed benefits of his religion, but who has lost his moral sense along the way and you feel no responsibility for the harm your religion has done and continues to do. I also think you're a coward for not putting anything on the line, even when you claim to have Christianity and your god on your side.

May you someday learn to think for yourself.

arrogant? atheists are now arrogant? is it arrogant to NOT ask for directions when you already know where you're going?

what exactly does confused christian think he has a monopoly on in his life that the average atheist lacks? happiness? healthy, positive relationships? morality? generosity and empathy for fellow human beings?

what does my life lack that religion provides a real solution for? the only thing it can offer is something it makes up...an after life. does belief in an afterlife make death somehow less scary? nope. it only makes it easier to talk about it.

one day (within the next 70 years i think its safe to say) poor confused christian will be dead. if he is buried, his body will rot and decompose and be fed upon by various insects. within 20 or so years of his death, no one will remember anything about him, except perhaps his name if they are relative. within 50 years of his death, even his name will be largely forgotten by his own descendants.

if that scares you, run don't walk, to the nearest church.

if not...if you can say "well, this time i have on earth is the only time i will ever have" and you can say that out loud and without fear...then you have the guts to be an atheist. atheist have guts. it is not arrogant to NOT be afraid.

From: confused christian (Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 1:40 pm) Reply to this message

"aight aight, well know this, the chances of existance is 10(to the power of -40) take that into mind, now take into mind that people all around the world are having religious experiences and agnostics and occasionally atheists (ive heard and met some) have been converted to christianity, if your theory is soooo bullet proof dispite the fact you cant really answer these simple points really. then that alone is enough proof that you guys are arrogant."

confused christian said, "aight aight, well know this, the chances of existance is 10(to the power of -40) take that into mind, now take into mind

MY ANSWER: You are telling us without giving any explanation of how these figures were arrived at - or upon whose authority these figures are considered facts. Everyone has to prove something is a fact like I have done or it's a waste of everyone's time. If you can't do that it is meaningless. I don't believe that there are figures about things without any evidence that it exists. There is 0 evidence of god.

confused christian said, "that people all around the world are having religious experiences and agnostics and occasionally atheists (ive heard and met some) have been converted to christianity,

MY ANSWER: That only proves that there are some more confused half-witted people. Hearing voices and having hallucinations can happen if people go off their meds.; or it could happen if they are on drugs, but it's not proof of god, we can't examine them or things we don't see or hear. Likewise, so-called atheists who become believers - most atheists were believers before they became atheists - very few atheists were never believers - I'm the only atheist I know that was never a believer - never belonged to any church - was never baptized - and never will. Finally, some people who claim to be atheists are fakes, but I don't know of any real atheist who ever went back to being a believer after they became an atheist.

confused christian said, "if your theory is soooo bullet proof dispite the fact you cant really answer these simple points really. then that alone is enough proof that you guys are arrogant."

MY ANSWER: You said the questions were to both of us - and then you said your points were not answered. One of us answered all the points - me. You have lost to me anyway. I gave a detailed rebuttal on every point you posted 1. 2. 3. Something that you have not done. It takes time and work to do that and I don't appreciate my work being disregarded in order to avoid answering my rebuttals. I did answer your points and you can't answer my rebuttals that were posted before you said, "you can't answer these simple points". You didn't answer my rebuttal to your stupid erroneous points. Answer them now! They are on this post right after my answers to your most recent post - you can answer them both - or just the one you call your points.

These answers were already on the thread. I re-posted them to prove what I'm saying. Now you prove what you are saying. I copied your points and I answered every point that you made. If I'm arrogant you are an arrogant phony. I also proved that you were wrong on every point - just read it and then address my rebuttals or shut up - because you have lost. So, you can just turn in that "authentic" bible. That cross big enough to crucify a small cat on that you are probably wearing - and no more fanatic dome "revivals" for the rest of your wretched life (you could use a better ethical guide anyway) if you can't give a proper rebuttal to each issue.

From: confused christian (Posted Jan 18, 2010 at 3:36 pm) Reply to this message: Below is my reply to that message and when it was posted: From: Linda (Posted Jan 19, 2010 at 10:54 pm) Reply to this message

MY ANSWER: I don't have a wager with you. It is logically impossible and logically contradictory to require another person to prove that something does not exist. We can only prove that something exists; nobody can prove that something does not exist. Nevertheless, I'll bet you that you are not going to answer my questions any better than you answered Don Baker's. I copied and answered each one of your questions and there is no rebuttal. If you don't answer my rebuttals I will assume you are not responding because you can't. That means you have lost the argument, so you can turn in your bible and that huge cross I'm sure you are wearing.

THEN YOUR POINTS 1. 2. 3. ALL ANSWERED confused christian "1. God is far greater than we can imagine and is totally nonphysical. This is no surprise to Bible students because those inferences have been in Scripture all along. Passages like "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16), "God is light" (1 John 1:5), "God is eternal" (Psalm 102:27; 90:4), "God is unseen" (1 John 4:12), and "God is not a man" (Numbers 23:19) make that clear."

MY ANSWER: Exodus 33:20-23, John 1:18, and 1 John 4:12 teach that God cannot be seen. In Amos, God is seen standing on a wall, holding a plumb line. In Genesis, Jacob sees God "face to face," and subsequently names a place after the event. In Exodus 24, the nobles of Israel saw God, and they ate and drank. In Exodus 33, however, only God's "back parts" are visible, since it's specified that anyone who sees God's face will drop dead. Later, in John, it is written that no man has ever seen God at any time." I'm sure there are plenty of apologist's explanations for these misunderstandings or prevarications.

confused christian said, "Even more clear are the biblical references that tell us that God is outside of time and outside of space (see Jeremiah 23:23-28, and Acts 17:22-29, and 2 Peter 3:8). The Bible portrays God as having existed before the Creation (Genesis 1:1, Psalm 90:4, Acts 1:7, 1 Corinthians 2:7, Revelation 22:13) and also as existing after the physical cosmos has dissolved (2 Peter 3:10-11, Revelation 22:13)."

MY ANSWER: There is nothing in the bible that describes space-time. If you are trying to make it appear that the bible is a source for scientific theories after the scientists develop a theory; forget it. The bible's creation story has failed miserably to explain anything accurately about the beginning of our universe or life in that universe. The scientists have explained everything we know about this universe not the bible. God cannot have created Time - in order for time to be created it must be finite, and god would have had to create time before there was time, which is not possible. Therefore, God did not create such things as the dimensions of the Universe, major physical constants and the mass/energy sum total. There is nothing outside the Universe for God to exist in. The universe is all there is or ever will be. Quantum physics does not require us to abandon the distinctions between information, reality, and irrationality. If we did that then nothing would make sense, but it doesn't. We are nearing the end of that time when dishonest people can claim that we don't know what happened at the beginning - it's going to become increasingly more difficult for games to be played any longer. The LHC experiments will assist in our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature and the universe. The time is very near that those who create their own reality that they are more satisfied with will no longer be able to fool anyone. Science discovers what is really there. Science can study reality, and answer questions, and religion never will.

confused christian said, "If the method of creation is that vibrating superstrings were created to produce the physical cosmos by a series of transformations, such a discovery would simply show us the profound uniqueness and enormous capacity of our Creator."

MY ANSWER: You think you can use that to prove god? What you are writing is pseudo-science mixed with religion and conjecture that you are calling "theories". My answers were based on sound theories backed up by observations and evidence. A model is actually a tool of science, as a means of allowing the testing of a hypothesis; such as M-theory string theory that are only models. This says nothing about a creator. This is purely mathematical (theoretical physics) model that has not been proven yet - string theory or M-theory - and even if they are it wouldn't mean a thing as far as proof of a creator or creation pseudo-science. If something is not an indispensable part of a theory (god is not any part of any theory) it cannot be applied to the theory to prove that it exists.

Confused Christian said, "I would hope that, as you read over the properties we just listed, you would also be impressed with the fact that the cosmos was not produced by methods and from substances perceptible by our senses. The person who claims to only be willing to believe what they can see, smell, taste, touch, and hear cannot accept a cosmos produced by entities that would not be perceptible by any of these devices." therefore before we understood the universe god had already described things like being outside time and space, a concept we use today over 2000 years ago."

MY ANSWER: A branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics deals with events that occur at the atomic level. We are not aware of them in ordinary circumstances. We know atoms exist because of scientific experiments and observations. That big bomb! On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

What we have learned from quantum physics is this: Sometimes shit just happens - this need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity. The spontaneous appearance of the singularity (universe) from nothing need not break scientific laws or be unnatural or unscientific, and it was not a supernatural event.

There is nothing in the bible that explains quantum mechanics and the only way apologists can get there is by giving non-technical concepts of the new physics. When they try to combine religion with the new physics they run into problems. They say that we can not say that an atomic particle exists at a certain place and we can't say it does not exist. The particle has a strange probability pattern to exist and not exist. We can't describe the state of the particle in terms of fixed opposite concepts, because the particle is not present at a definite place but it is not omitted. The particle does not change position or rest. What changes is the probability pattern.

This is not the same as saying something exist with no proof of it's existence. That's like predicting something could happen and then calling it an actual event. If we did say that it is not that different from transcending the concepts of existence and non-existence as is done with religion. A probability explanation of a quantum event is not proof of the existence until it is observed. What the apologists think of reality is supposed to have some kind of applicability to quantum mechanics. They are saying god exist without any evidence. I don't think so!

The authors of the bible couldn't do math, didn't know about pi and they knew nothing about quantum physics. There is nothing about the space-time continuum in the bible, which transcends the three-dimensional to a multidimensional reality. Albert Einstein's greatest insight was realizing that time is relative. It speeds up or slows down depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to something else. For perception of motion to exist at all, it must be what it is, in its entirety, over a non-zero period of time. Time began with the cosmic origin. There was no time before time. The big bang was the beginning of time itself; any discussion about before the big bang is meaningless. That includes your god.

Einstein found that space and times are part of the physical universe, and they are linked. In fact, space as one thing and time as another are not suitably valid concepts. Einstein's theory of space and time unified them in a space-time continuum. Space has three dimensions, and time has one, so space-time is a four-dimensional continuum.

The big bang was a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. Time did not always exist. Time emerged out of space in a continuous process. Continuous meaning time-like quality of a dimension, as opposed to space-like quality, it is not all space or all time; there are shades in between. This can be made as a precise mathematical statement.

Confused Christian said, "in a timeless and spaceless enviroment it means you are forced to accept that it must be a chain reaction of big bangs that created the universe, also since its all the energy together you are forced to accept that it turns to mass and gravity pulls it together so it can cause another big bang, however as mass the pressure will only apply to the centre of the mass, and the outside of the mass will not be pressurized and so will not turn to pure energy, like coal will turn to diamond when burried deep, but if you bury it a foot deep it will never turn to diamond as the pressure isnt enough. therefore the big crunch is impossible, therefore the big bang would not take place again, and so therefore it cant continue and be a cycle, therefore we must have a start, therefor god exists."

MY ANSWER: Space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. If there is something besides us it's in the universe (some form of biological life) not a supernatural being. There is nothing outside of the universe. At the big bang itself, the universe had zero size, and was extraordinarily hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased. One second after the big bang, it would have fallen to about ten thousand million degrees. This is about a thousand times the temperature at the center of the sun. About one hundred seconds after the big bang, the temperature would have fallen to one thousand million degrees, the temperature inside the hottest stars. Within only a few hours of the big bang, the production of helium and other elements would have stopped. And after that, for the next million years or so, the universe would have just continued expanding, without anything much happening. There are something like ten 1,000,000 to the 14th power or (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. Where the energy came from; the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. The gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space. This negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Now twice zero is also zero. So, the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. The universe is really completely self-contained. The universe had a beginning, but the fact that the universe had a beginning is not proof of a god. The rest of your stuff is conjecture about other big bangs that have not one shred of proof (there are theories that time will stop at the end) or there will be a (big crunch) these things are hypothesized but are not proven theories.

Confused Christian said, "2. NDE, In 1982, while a Fellow for the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Morse was working in a clinic in Pocatello, Idaho. He was called to revive a young girl who nearly died in a community swimming pool. She had had no heart beat for 19 minutes, yet completely recovered. She was able to recount many details of her own resuscitation, and then said that she was taken down a brick lined tunnel to a heavenly place. When Dr. Morse showed his obvious skepticism, she patted him shyly on the hand and said: "Don't worry, Dr. Morse, heaven is fun!." loosing heart beat for 19 minutes would mean that her brain, would be dead as well, her brain cant work without oxygen, noones brain can work without oxygen, so if shes been dead for 19 minutes we can make the acknowlegment through common sense that she was ofcorse dead, rather than daydreaming."

MY ANSWER: No claims for supernatural events have ever survived objective examination. If a person still wants to believe in the paranormal he does it without any evidence, and that is not a harmless pastime. The acceptance of things without evidence is dishonest. Belief in the Supernatural is an act of dishonesty to oneself. Facing what is true in reality is far more moral and honest, and would by far more advantageous to humankind. To face reality and understand that humanity is responsible for changing what is wrong in the world by eliminating the expectations or reliance on god/god or anything supernatural to fix it for us. Especially since nothing supernatural exists

The paranormal and (apologists pseudo-science) is the proof for your fantasyland religion that you hang your beliefs on. You really don't need to explain why you didn't answer our questions. There are millions of near death experiences that were propped up to prove that there is an afterlife. Not one presents any evidence that is provable through acknowledged science. The paranormal is not science nobody has proven one thing about life after death. Pseudo-science, astrology, the paranormal, UFOs, clairvoyance, faith healing, spirits, near death experiences, witchcraft, dowsing, reincarnation and the Supernatural are all in the same category. And there are endless experiments and wasted money going into this irrationality, flimflam, and superstitious nonsense that has produced nothing. Paranormal events are alleged phenomena that are not subject to scientific or rational explanation.

Confused Christian said, "3. and finally. it is evident that man is different to animals. im rather confident with the othr two alone, so for this point ill just say, howcome humans are so different to animals. why dont animals build houses, why are we more evolved that them. why is there 1 intelligent species on this planet rather than 2?"

MY ANSWER: A common ancestor to humans existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. DNA has proved a shared ancestry of all living things. Science has proven evolution with a great preponderance of evidence. That is why they now call it a theory and a fact. The study has moved from mere hypothesis to theory to fact. Unlike religious that hasn't produced on shred of evidence in it's favor.

A transitional fossil recently discovered named Ida is an important branching point on the evolutionary tree, the 47-million-year-old fossil suggests Ida is a critical missing-link species in primate evolution. The fossil bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs.

Archaeopteryx- is half reptile and half bird - do you think that means that the reptile and the bird evolved from a common ancestor? There are many examples of this kind of evolution in the fossil record. were many species that went extinct because they were unable to evolve to a higher level. That is evolution not a creation event. The idea of a giant magician in the sky who said, "let there be" and it all just appeared is far more dishonest than anything that any scientist has ever told anyone to believe is the truth.

Don't answer this with your dear lovable aunt blabby B.S. If you don't answer each rebuttal as I have done you lose.

P.S. Apologist's arguments concerning science have no credibility - they are simply trying to make what they already believe fit scientific theories - it doesn't work - and that is not how science works.

Even if we suppose that the odds you give are correct (which is not actually clear, because statements of odds like that usually have a whole lot of assumptions), it doesn't matter, because you're fundamentally assuming that there are a low number of trials.

In actuality, we either know that there are a whole lot of trials or we don't know at all how many trials there actually are (depending on the context of the odds argument). And you need to know that, because long odds with a lot of trials can become near certainties.

And, reading this thread, your points have been answered, so it somewhat seems to me like you want to call people arrogant, just because you want to.

Right now you do exist, so the actual chance is 100%, but the predicted likelihood in the past of you being born is at most 1 in 1.8 x 10e403167.

So first things first, what is the probability of a Psychic predicting something that has happened? 100%. Predicting something that hasn't happened? Well then that depends on the prediction. If a Psychic 250 years ago predicted your birth the odds are 1 in 6 x 10e100.

You asserted a chance for existence, 1 in 10e40. You then implied that this was unaccountable by Atheists(Which I just explained). Positing a God does not remove the chance for existence. God could still have created the universe in 10e40 different ways. In addition you have added a new variable that you call God. Now you take the chances for God and multiply them against the chances of existence.

Here is the key, we have no evidence that a God does exist. Meaning you are trying to predict the possibility of something. Meaning your position has not beaten the odds. Whereas the Atheist position has already beaten the odds.

When I think of creationalism I imagine grown men leaving their homes in suits and reconvening in a tree house with a sign "NO REAZON ALLOWED!"

I'm convinced it's where they hatch their plots.

I have a book that's older than your book and it says my god with three arms is the real god.

That is the logic that we are dealing with, age doesn't make anything true. If that was an argument then why not bleed ourselves when we get sick....

Ummm antibiotics, no way, I'll bleed myself...it's a much older form of treatment. See how that argument sounds ridiculous.

Did you seriously just refer wikipedia?! That is a logical fallacy on your part. How do I know that you didn't hop on wikipedia and type that definition yourself?

Here's your evidence: go outside and look up.

Christ said, let those with an open mind and open heart understand these things.

Also, you ask for evidence for the point in which time began...look up the LAW of Entropy. That calculates the rate at which our earth is decaying. That rate is constant so we may know how long our earth has been alive. Seeing how time is only relative to we, the prized creation of God, the creation of Earth begins the origin of time and then man.

I ask you, what evidence do you have that our Universe has always been?

just because something is outside the realm of our understanding doesn't mean god resides there.

we do not need a conscious being being to create the big bang. we need a certain amount of random energy in a certain amount of space.

we are not in a timeless and "spaceless" environment. your understanding of cosmology is not correct as, "eventually all the enegy turns into mass as the universe expands, gravity pulls all the mass together and the mass pressurizes to create pure energy on the inside, but there isnt any/enough pressure on the outside and so isnt enough to explode." is not an accurate description of what will eventually happen to the energy of the universe.

At the Big Bang (time is zero) and (mass had to be zero.) The singularity had to be mass less. If there is no time (beyond Planck time - smallest amount of time possible), mass does not exist. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe we have to consider its energy equivalent as the initiator. According to the Big Bang Theory, the notion of time does not exist in singularity. Time is a property of space-time universe. In the energy-time version time as a computable element cannot exist in singularity. Singularity is not time-bound.

The Big Bang theory that the universe started with a huge and rapid expansion of a singular zero size condensed point about fourteen billion years ago.

Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose the British astrophysicists and mathematician worked on the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding the notion of time. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.

Singularity by definition is zero size. There are many evidences that zero point contains energy. Casimir force and Lamb shift are proof for the presence of energy in point zero.

According to the Big Bang Theory the simplest form of matter (quarks) first appeared after cosmic inflation. The vacuum energy transformed itself into particles and anti-particles of matter in equal number. There is not evidence that at the beginning of time mass was present. With the ultra-dense mass model, we have to assume that the matter turned to pure energy before the reformation of mass particles. We can assume that universe started with a burst of energy and creation and expansion of space. With this assumption, starting point does not have to contain matter. In such a scenario, we will not have positive gravity force for singularity. If mass is removed from singularity. Zero is representing the singularity. The real value of matter has to disappear at singularity; Singularity does not contain matter (with common definition of matter.)

If there are no dimension in singularity, we can assume that the singularity does not contain space. Space is not a property of singularity. Space and time are bendable and play a very active rule in the universe Einstein mentions that singularity cannot contain topological space. It means there is no spatial dimension in singularity. In other words, singularity is a mathematical point.

If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe then its energy equivalent is the initiator. There are arguments that support the claim that space did not exist in singularity, and that mass was not the origin of the universe. Enormous energy was the initiator. The Big Bang Theory, space started at time 0 and has been expanding ever since. The Big Bang was the expansion of everything and energy was before.

With quantum mechanics things happen spontaneously and only their probabilities are determined.

If the cause is meaningless it doesn't need to be considered. The point of energy that started the expansion if it happened (spontaneously) the cause is meaningless.

From: confused christian outside time and space is timeless, because its not in time. so if its timeless then god would b timeless (he always existed).

This one always cracks me up. Add to this that Christians also claim that their god is "changeless."

So, how exactly can something do anything without time to do it in or with? Everything requires time. Thinking. Doing. Creating. All require time. When Christians say that God exists--the act of existing--outside of time they are saying nonsense. Something that can't actually do anything is rather a poor definition of exists, isn't it? The only statement that can make any sense is that god came into existence at the moment of the creation of time, which happened at the big bang. But that is just adding another level to the situation--an unnecessary level, at that. We have everything coming into existence at the moment that time came into existence so we just don't need to postulate god.

Consider that if Christians are right, there wouldn't be anything!! Something that doesn't change, somehow exists when non-existence is equivalent, doesn't think 'cause that requires change, doesn't do anything because that requires some flow of events--means that nothing does nothing 'cause there's no time to do anything.

The fact is, by defining god the way this Christian has--and other Christians as well--means that the universe, because it exists, is proof that the Christian god doesn't exist. Or if he "exists" that existence is one of illogical inconsequentialness and provides nothing for us to discuss.

So christians, can you come up with a way that something that can't do anything could do something?

They already did my good man, thats the whole concept of God, he can do anything out of nothing when there's no time to do it and no reason anyway. And he exists although he doesn't and he only takes a break from it on sundays.

From: Jayhennem They already did my good man, thats the whole concept of God, he can do anything out of nothing when there's no time to do it and no reason anyway. And he exists although he doesn't and he only takes a break from it on sundays.

<!smiling>

This simple paragraph sums up the "timeless/changeless" Christian god wonderfully and needs to be on a billboard somewhere.

And the bit about Sundays...yeah, absolutely all-powerful 'cept when he gets a little winded creatin' and shit. You gotta give him that. Spider webs, neutron stars, and auto-erotic asphyxiation were a bitch.

I think these conversations are funny. It's like a "who has the biggest dick contest". I think most of the people typing furiously on these boards in defense of their worldview are ignorant of much of what they type about. Don probably watched "Curiosity" the other night and thinks he is in the position to say "there is nothing prior to the BIg Bang, especially a god". That may be true, but I tend to wonder why there is all this space? How did it get here? I am not talking about the universe, but the space it occupies. The problems with humans, especially those of the atheistic variety is there lack of curiosity and imagination-- two traits Einstein thought was essential to scientific thinking. Remember, this site is run by agnostic atheists and not strong atheists. So, they believe it is possible d they are wrong. If you do not accept the cosmological argument as being true or at least possible, then that is okay, because it could be true or false despite what you believe. One thing that needs to be clear is there is nothing wrong with a reasonable theistic belief, especially deism. It is religious theistic dogmatic belief that is the problem. You do not belief in god, then fine. But do not think for a second your interpretations of the evidence makes the possibility unlikely. Let's be intellectually honest. Remember, atheists argue from ignorance as well. We all do.

Alex,

I don't think I ever made any positive claim about the time before the big bang. If you're interested in factual information on it, cosmologist Victor Stenger has written a number of articles and books on the subject.

You say, "But do not think for a second your interpretations of the evidence makes the possibility unlikely."

Please tell me how to measure the likelihood for something for which there is no evidence.

Also, can you please expand on how you think atheists argue from ignorance. I personally try very hard not to fall into logical fallacies, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm always successful.

Well Mr. Baker, we are all completely imperfect humans who are prone to make mistakes, can't blame you if/when it happens to you as well.

However i wish to add my humble 2 cent about atheists... we are no sect following a common goal and sharing 3 braincells. Also we don't take our "wisdom" and opinions out of a book, we take our knowledge from books, but what we do with the knowledge is up to us, unlike most believers who take their "vast knowledge and enlightment" out of 1 book and close their eyes whenever something might even remotely scratch on the bubble which is protecting their version of reality.

No atheist should be able to say that he denies the POSSIBILITY of the existence of an omnipotent being, however we pretty much all agree that all given versions and explanations are pretty much ridiculous on one hand, dangerous on the other.

Many of us investigate more about religions than most believers would ever do, and over and over again we fail to find a single piece of evidence which would support the mesmerizing teachings from thousands of years ago. Moreover, at least in my case, i find it less and less likely that the ones writing those books and promoting the religion in the past, even believed in what they were feeding the masses.

It is sad to see that after so much time people still stick to the obsolete knowledge and the demagogic teachings of people who enslaved the minds of the illiterate masses and by force spread their reign over the world. We take science as our teacher because it provides explanations for us without forcing us to use our own imagination or other people's imagination or even hallucinations.. And without threatening us that once we die we will have to suffer forever if we don't believe what our physics book says.

We stick to reality and i personally don't want my boundless imagination to be my wire to reality.. might get me into the mental house sooner or later, or at least bring 10-20% of my income to some institution which never did anything useful for me.

Alex said:

"The problems with humans, especially those of the atheistic variety...lack curiosity and imagination..."

I was curious about god so I read as much on the subject as I could, talked to theists and non-theists, studied and thoroughly examined the information--there was no empirical evidence for the existence of god or gods therefore I'm an atheist. I was also curious about science and did the exact thing, researching and finding out whatever I could. And that still goes on today--I still want to know. I take what I've learned and imagine the possibilities which are only limited by science, logic, and reason. Or maybe I imagine worlds with different laws of physics and imagine all manner of incredible stuff--but I don't believe what I'm imagining is real. I like fantasy novels and science fiction and books about fictional histories but at the end of the day I'm entertained not gullibly declaring religiously that John Carter of Mars is real.

I then imagined that various theist interpretations of god were true and what that would mean and found these possibilities troubling. The god of Abraham is a rather despicable character. Consider that he created jews and made them some promises and then sent Jesus down to basically supersede what he told them but didn't make sure that they were provided exactly what they needed to latch on to the "good news" and then allowed Mo--or possibly directed Mo--to form a new religion that made the other two obsolete and simultaneously damned billions to hell.

Thanks, bunches.

And deism, why? It just means that there's a god and he doesn't really give a rat's ass so, have a nice day, or not, whatever.

Thanks, I guess?

<!shrug>

My point is that I'm an atheist and I'm curious and imaginative plus Einstein was an atheist and you'll never meet a more curious or imaginative person so...there goes your premise.

But you seem to be saying that curiosity and imagination are satisfied, if you don't know the answer to something, as soon as you invoke "god did it." We don't know X therefore god did it. God of the gaps, rears its ugly head.

How unimaginative.

Ok so can I get some answers? Atheism is simply the "lack of " belief in a deity or God just as cold is simply the "lack of" heat. We know cold can't exist by itself meaning it needs the heat. Without theism there is no atheism I mean right? So if I may, doesn't the term atheist, in a way, mean that there IS a God?

No atheist denies that there is BELIEF in a god. We're still looking for a reason to believe, ourselves.

That is utterly flawed logic, let me try to explain why, maybe you can answer your question on your own then. There are people (mainly children i hope) who believe in Santa, all the other people do not. Let's call the people who believe Santists, and the ones who don't believe are asantists, that is basically the same situation. Does the term asantists mean that there IS a Santa (in reality)?

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

From the officers:

The audio and video from Steve Bratteng's July 13th lecture are now available.