My letter to an Atheist

alan,

Atheists do not use faith.

All we know so far is that nothing is ever created or destroyed. What we observe is that energy/matter are interchangeable. We have no reason to believe that the total of everything that exists has not always existed, but in an ever changing form.

Sounds like a religious type thought. What would any of that have to do with atheists?

Odd terminology, but if you want to suggest that complexity is not the result of past simpler things then you should give an example of something that is not the result of an evolutionary process.

Why must there be a reason or purpose?

This website will help with your education http://www.talkorigins.org/

I continue to be amazed at how this classic logical fallacy continues to be pushed. Your reasoning is like baking a cake and expressing amazement at how perfectly the cake is the identical shape to the cake tin in which it was cooked. Of course the conditions are perfect for life, if they were different then either we wouldn't exist, or we would be appropriately different. It is idiotic to think that we came first and then the universe was designed to fit us, as well as totally arrogant.

Where did this god thing come from? Was it created out of nothing? How could something incredibly complex as a god that can create universes come about by chance. Clearly something so complex would need a designer. So who designed gods?

Atheism = absence of theist belief, theism = belief in pure fantasy without a schred of credible evidence.

Take some science classes and then you will begin to understand how pretty much nothing ever occurs by chance. The universe has a wonderful set of laws and everything interracts and reacts according to these laws. No magic is involved or needed to cause what you observe.

A good definition of a mystic - one who is too lazy to study science.

Total nonsense. Name one thing that was created as a opposed to transformed from something else or evolved from something simpler? You can't, we have no examples of anything being created from nothing. And we have no reason to believe that the universe had an original cause either. Big crunches, cyclic universes, or multi-verses all present more credible speculations than the fantasy that a super being created it from nothing.

There is no reason to believe that the universe, life, and everything must be warm and fuzzy. More often than not life is harsh and unjust. We can improve on that by working totgether to improve our lives and our environent. Humam progress has moved us out of the caves to the current state of longevity and luxury far beyond what any of our ancestors could have imagined. It would be wise to help continue that progress rather than pray to a fantasy for help - one that has never in the history of man done anything. Apart from send floods, plagues, wholesale killings, etc.

There is no creator god - the concept is absurd.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe my English is not good.
An axiom is not a deductive logic.
Not a theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Faith" and "axiom" are incompatible, logically.

An axiom serves as the basis for a deduction, and as such, always operates in a logical context. Faith has no place in such a context.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes,that I wanted to say.Not worth to talk logically about religion.
For religious acts as an axiom, but not for me.

"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths."

 

Ah.
I see.
Sorry, I misread you.

 

The problem is exactly the waste of time and effort required. It's been done - decades ago. What needs to happen now is ridicule, not respect. These aren't serious arguments, and they haven't been serious arguments since before WWII - much less since the discovery of genetic information and quantum electrodynamics and so forth.

As this latest round shows, the promulgators of that crap will just wait a couple of weeks, and spam us with the whole decrepit mess again. The proper response is derision and dismissal.

 

iceaura,

No. The problem is the actual subject matter has been side-stepped by focusing on detail which has nothing to do with it.

That is the cowards way out.
Be a pioneer and explain why you disagree with the WHOLE of his
belief.

Even if his detail wasn't accurate (which details are?), what effect would
that have on his conclusion?

This is all terribly interesting, I'm sure.
But we are here, and now, and I am asking you to present your explanation as to why his conclusion is wrong, and if you can, give your own explanation.

Is that so hard?

jan.

 

James R,

What do you think caused God?

LOL!!!

Why do you guys insist on this silly line of questioning, when
you already know what the answer will be?

jan.

 

I'm not in a 'tizzy' I'm quite dispassionate.

His perception is flawed, and your appreciation of a flawed perception par for the course, I guess, as your are insane.

 

You know, I've been round the houses with Jan on this one before.

I find it frustrating that theists use a 'first cause' argument to justify belief in a creator, and then stop applying their own argument.

If the requirement can vanish, why apply it in the first instance. Makes no sense.

 

James R,

Actually, that question was a quote from your response, but I
didn't put it in quote marks. My bad.

The correct argument is:

1 everything that comes into existence needs a cause".
2 the universe came into existence
3 therefore the universe needs a cause.

Following the same argument:

1 everything that comes into existence needs a cause
2 God didn't come into existence
3 therefore God doesn't need a cause.

So you did, but the question is flawed, not to mention absurd, and unanswerable.

I agree with his argument, but the difference between you and I, is that
I understand his argument, and what is meant by "God".

But apart from all that, you know that God is understood as never coming into being. This is accepted by all serious practitioners of all major religions
and scriptures. So why default this absurd question?
Why not default to the obvious perception?

Is it because you don't want the discussion to progress?

jan.

 

So there is no God?

 

If that's your conclusion, no.
Hence you are atheist.

jan.

 

No Jan, I'm asking you how God could exist if your statement that God never came into existence is true.

 

I know you are, and I refuse to play your game.

jan.

 

God is the only Uncaused Cause the prime mover, the Alpha and Omega points the unmovable rock, the Infinite Eternal Sublime. Indeed god is not a being; God is Existence and you are part of this existence like it or not

 

Semantics, He still holds a firm belief in a god and as such claims in his opinion that a god exists. Thus it's his burden to prove such a thing exists. As such I find his claim unreasonable, without corroborating evidence. It's that simple.

How so!

Are you sure about that?

This is but one instant that you claim a god exists, there are a myriad of other instances, during your nine + years here. but one is all I need to counter you BS above.

Taken from this thread Deities do or do not exist?

Don't you think it's fair, that you back up yours first.

Are you a innatist? Do you think babies come fully equipped for the world or do they have to learn a couple of things first? and we are talking about knowledge not instinct. From the on set of our lives, we are taking in information via our senses. This knowledge/experiences is used by every part of our being to discern our world.

Is it. I think you'll find that has been done already several times.

Has he, it has been refuted here and numerous times in the past and he has yet to posit up some evidence to back up his assertion. So no he hasn't he's has only given his own poor supposition.

To wait for enlightenment from You or Alan.

Most definitely, he has yet to do that, just giving us his supposition without further corroborating evidence is asinine.

Ok so there isn't a movement independent of theism. and there isn't any folks calling for a different description of "atheist". Ok then thanks for eating your words.

What cult is that?

Well it a way of describing it, is it not. From dictionary.com
Label : a short word or phrase descriptive of a person, group, intellectual movement, etc.
a word or phrase indicating that what follows belongs in a particular category or classification:
I am seriously doubting you have enough brain cells to walk.
Jan I can't believe you actually wrote that. WOW!

 

To pin me down I do believe in god but not the god of religion, I believe in an intelligent universe that drives its own evolution, maybe a billion other universe all that is within= all of existence that is the god of my frail understanding


Thus God=Existence=God an intelligent existence or God if you like

Alan