Is Richard Dawkins Right? Does Believing in God Make You Delusional?

richard-dawkins-god-delusion Search for “Dawkins” or “The God Delusion” on this blog and you’ll quickly learn that my de-conversion to atheism was connected to those two terms. Of course, I’m not alone.

But, does being a Dawkins convert also mean that I think believers are suffering from a delusion?

Answer: It depends.

One definition of the delusion is: “An erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary.”

I’m guessing there are a few possibilities for that “erroneous belief” of yours:

You have not heard all of the evidence. You might have been exposed to a lifetime of information from the believer side of the equation, with little to no exposure to the opposing viewpoint. In other words, you are ignorant of the arguments against your belief in God. You are NOT DELUSIONAL.
You do not understand the evidence – a sort of variation on ignorance. The best example here might be that you misunderstand how science refutes your belief – perhaps you are a creationist who misunderstands how evolution works. Based on this misconception, your beliefs in creationism and god are based on that misconception. You are NOT DELUSIONAL. Wrong, but not delusional.
You were raised to believe in God and have never really put much thought into it. God is sort of a default position that doesn’t occupy your thoughts to any meaningful degree. You are NOT DELUSIONAL. I think most people are like you.
You’ve heard and understood the evidence, have put considerable thought into the problem and still believe in God. Sorry, but you ARE DELUSIONAL.

So, now that I’ve only got 25% of you mad at me, let’s talk about why you might be clinging to your beliefs so firmly – even “in the face of evidence to the contrary“.

Belief is the lynch-pin of your entire world view: It’s known that, when their beliefs crumble, many fundamentalists don’t just abandon creationism, they go all the way toward atheism. That’s because the black and white all-or-nothing nature of their belief system leads them to reject all that they learned. Subconsciously, they know this, so they fight the evidence against their position tooth and nail. They are afraid that, if their belief system is wrong, their life is without meaning. (In contrast, when people whose world views are less literal have a crisis of belief, they tend to adopt even more liberal religious viewpoints. Some even become deists. Their religious views evolve, whereas fundamentalist views simply collapse.)
You are afraid of death: Yes, I know – it’s a blanket statement that makes some people angry to hear, but the fact is that most people are afraid of death (or the death of loved ones) and will do everything they can to avoid letting go of their hope for immortality.
Peer Pressure: Your family believes. Your friends believe. Over 80% of your country believes. It’s hard to go against the grain. After all, you’ll be an outcast – right?
To all you atheists out there, help me out – what would you put here?
I’m sure I’ve missed more than one reason. Please repeat the instructions shown in #4.

So there you have it. Some of you are delusional. But, you know, being delusional is not that bad. After all, many very smart people have been delusional about something. No one is saying you are stupid – just that you may have a logical blind spot. We also think that you have the capacity to reason your way through this. All you have to do is let go of your fear, embrace a more evidence-based method of understanding the universe, and try.

The rest of you may just need to do a bit more reading.

August 27, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism

Comments

109 Responses to “Is Richard Dawkins Right? Does Believing in God Make You Delusional?”

mjezell on August 28th, 2009 at 1:57 am

For a lot of people there must be a grand purpose to life is or mental health can not be obtained. To live a life to it’s fullest and do good for mankind and the planet doesn’t seem to be enough of a reason for being here. There must be a much grander plan. Alas there’s not.
Richard Collins on August 28th, 2009 at 10:04 am

You neglected to account for childhood religious indoctrination. This is the most powerful influence on people and it is well known that what people learn as small children stays with them for life. It is exceedingly difficult to overcome childhood brainwashing, especially when it is done by zealous believers. Later on the victim may come to realize the supernatural does not exist, but they can still continue to search for answers to the existential questions. The transcendent questions are nothing more than lures planted by clerics because they hold themselves out as having legitimate answers to why we are here and what happens to us when we die. So people may reject the original dogma, but they are left trying to fill a “spiritual hole”. mjezell is saying much the same thing.
Jon on August 28th, 2009 at 10:09 am

“It is exceedingly difficult to overcome childhood brainwashing, especially when it is done by zealous believers.”

Isn’t it more difficult to overcome when done by zealous athiests?
Jon on August 28th, 2009 at 10:28 am

It shouldn’t surprise you that I don’t have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins. One reason is because of the way the he describes people that believe in God has delusional. By your definition, there would also be “The Athiest Delusion”. There is evidence that Athiesm is not true, yet you and many others hold that believe in the face of evidence to the contrary. So, Dawkins is basically starting a name-calling war rather than finding a more effective way to deal with those that disagree with his worldview.

At least, Mark, you are able to make semi-reasonable points in your first section in pts 1-3, but I have to say that you are totally off base in pt 4.
40 Year Old Atheist on August 28th, 2009 at 10:34 am

Your evidence is what? That the Bible says so? If you dispute pt 4, you should be able to say why you dispute it.

Atheism claims nothing. You claim something exists. Show us evidence that your claim is true.

I wrote a whole post on evidence that explains my view on this idea that we have to prove a negative.
Richard Collins on August 28th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

I believe Jon is one of those people who will never understand how to have an intellectually honest dialog with atheists.

BODY { FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; FONT-SIZE:10pt } P { FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; FONT-SIZE:10pt } DIV { FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; FONT-SIZE:10pt } TD { FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; FONT-SIZE:10pt } http://onclepsycho.canalblog.com/archives/2004/06/05/35086.html#comments
Jon on August 28th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

Mark, I am going to come back to your comment later.

@Richard Collins – I don’t think you have the capability to be intellectually honest with yourself. A lot of athiests hide behind ‘intellectualism’ as their reasoning for being athiest, and they simply repeat “where is the evidence”, “where is the evidence”, “it doesn’t make sense” “it doesn’t make sense” and send links about how to annoy athiests (which I did find humorous). None of those responses demonstrate intellectual honesty.

Please Richard, elaborate on what you perceive to be the intellectual dishonesty of the non-athiest viewpoint.
Richard Collins on August 28th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

I am sorry Jon, you are not a person I would devote my time communicating with for the reason I gave. I have spent hours trying to talk to deluded people and never to any avail. Too many are simply trolls.
Jon on August 28th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Unfortunately Richard, that just illustrates a high degree of pretentious behavior on your part. If you are going to call out others as being intellectually dishonest than you should be willing to invest the time to justify your (in this case mistaken) claims.
Renshia on August 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

No jon, it is simply an acknowledgment that it is a waste of energy to talk with you…We say where is you evidence, what you say makes no sense. You say nothing really. In everything you have wrote on this blog, You just argue, never presenting anything. So where is, and what is this evidence that proves atheism is wrong…. Where.. come on where….. show us something. Give us a reference to this evidence. Or is it just behind your churches pulpit????
Jon on August 28th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

Actually Renshia, I responded to your questions and you responded childishly. If you would like to continue instead with a reasonable dialogue, I would be very happy to do that. Otherwise, I would prefer you let Richard speak for himself.

”You just argue, never presenting anything.”
The same could be said about you. You just think you can get away with it because you share the popular athiest opinion here.
Renshia on August 28th, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Like I said on the other post, just packaged little answers that are no answers at all. No explanation of those answers and no logic behind them.
You really should just go into a closet and pray, you would do much better in there, than out in the real world.
Renshia on August 28th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

So I will ask again

So where is, and what is this evidence that proves atheism is wrong…. Where.. come on where….. show us something. Give us a reference to this evidence.
Tinna G. Gígja on August 28th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

Jon: I hate to nitpick, but do you intentionally misspell the word ‘atheist’, or is it just a very consistent typo?
Paul on August 28th, 2009 at 8:22 pm

Jon,

Don’t take it personally. Dawkins is not being disparaging calling you delusional. He is simply using the academic definition of that term, which is, very simply, belief in something for which no supporting evidence exists. David Icke believes that the world is hollow, and populated by reptilian aliens who secretly run every government on earth. By your reasoning, he is perfectly lucid. By Dawkins’, he is delusional. If he one day produces a UFO full of reptilian aliens with fake US secret service badges, we will immediately stop using that term to describe him. And we would extend the exact same curtesy to you.
40 Year Old Atheist on August 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pm

Paul: Look how you said that so much better than I did in so fewer words. I need a lesson in being concise!
Jon on August 31st, 2009 at 9:40 pm

@Paul – Dawkins (and you apparently) is unable to apply his ‘academic’ definition of the term equally across other belief systems. The fact is that there is no supporting evidence for Atheism. There is far more supporting evidence for Christianity. So Dawkins would do much better to look in the mirror when talking about delusion. If you do want to make a case for Atheism, I would not use Dawkins as your poster child. His arguments are extroadinarily weak, and it is easy to see that he is simply an embittered character. Christopher Hitchens, while no less embittered, provides a much better discussion in his book ‘god is not great.’ While it is quite easy for anyone who applies simple logic to realize the faults of Dawkins, there is a little book by McGrath called “The Dawkins Delusion”, which I would recommend to anyone who is a Dawkins advocate.

@Mark & Renshia & Others – If you want to talk about evidence, let’s start with creation, the earth, our environment. That is very solid evidence for the existence of God.

Since you are so concerned about evidence, let’s think about evidence in respect to forming a worldview. You have no conclusive evidence for Atheism. Christianity does not ask one to have conclusive evidence to believe in God. So why would anyone focus only on “evidence”, particularly physical evidence when forming a worldview?

I would suggest that ‘reason’ is a more appropriate channel for discovery of truth than ‘evidence’.
Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 12:49 am

‘reason’ is a more appropriate channel for discovery of truth than ‘evidence’.

Well jon when you start to use some let us know so we can brace our selves.
Exactly how is this evidence of god?? Creation is a myth – proven as a fact. The origins of the earth are explained within the origins of the universe. The environment is a result of millions of years of development.
Sorry, don’t see no god their. In fact with a little reason you can see a whole boat load of evidence for the no belief in a god…
Let’s start with this.. all evidence you offered as evidence of a god has been proven to be caused from some other source, the evolution of the universe.
Therefore no reason to accept a delusion construct and believe a magical fairy.. oh no I mean god created it all.
If you think you can use reason with no evidence to back it up, how do you know if your wrong?
Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 1:05 am

Christianity does not ask one to have conclusive evidence to believe in God.

Of course it doesn’t!!!! It can’t!!!! It has to all be made up in your head.
Do you not think they should offer up some.. even a tiny little bit.
It’s just like TV, just cause you see it on the screen doesn’t mean it real, or true. You do know not everything you see on TV is not real, don’t you.???

So why would anyone focus only on “evidence”, particularly physical evidence when forming a worldview?

You need evidence to verify what is true.
How else would you know if you are being told a bunch of bullshit?
You aren’t one of these people that bought ocean front property in Arizona are you?? Do you belong to the flat earth society?
Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 1:07 am

So I will ask again

So where is, and what is this evidence that proves atheism is wrong…. Where.. come on where….. show us something. Give us a reference to this evidence.
Richard Collins on September 1st, 2009 at 3:19 am

http://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/product-reviews/0767926145/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Jon on September 1st, 2009 at 8:06 am

@Renshia “Creation is a myth – proven as a fact. The origins of the earth are explained within the origins of the universe. The environment is a result of millions of years of development.”

That’s NOT a fact. What textbooks are you reading? And not reading?

“If you think you can use reason with no evidence to back it up, how do you know if your wrong? ”
I use reason, evidence, and divine revelation. Unfortunately, you don’t appear to be able to use any of those.

“So where is, and what is this evidence that proves atheism is wrong…. Where.. come on where….. show us something. Give us a reference to this evidence. ”
Go outside. Creation is evidence. I think that’s a pretty strong reference. If you need to examine that in a different medium, I suggest reading “The Language of God” by Francis Collins.
Jon on September 1st, 2009 at 8:07 am

@RichardCollins - Would you care to elaborate further than just posting a link to a book?
Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 3:37 pm

That’s NOT a fact. What textbooks are you reading? And not reading?

There are any number of references on the internet. Just ask your questions and search. It works great, you will even get a wide variety of ideas to examine. I would direct you to one book being released that condenses the issue quiet clearly.
I am not saying believe everything he says, but research it to find out what the evidence shows.
the greatest show on earth
Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 3:50 pm

Here is a simple yet very good presentations of the two arguments. The one section even has tours of some natural history museums.
Debate Creation vs. Evolution
Jon on September 1st, 2009 at 4:51 pm

There are any number of references on the internet. Just ask your questions and search.
There are a number of references on the internet for ANYTHING. That doesn’t make it true or prove anything. So, if you want to validate your statement below, you are going to have to do better than that.

Creation is a myth – proven as a fact. The origins of the earth are explained within the origins of the universe. The environment is a result of millions of years of development.

You suggest Richard Dawkins as a source. I am not familiar with all of his work, but, what I have read is hardly credible.

Additionally, I’m not extremely interested in debating Creation vs. Evolution b/c even if Evolution could be scientifically proven, which it can’t, that doesn’t mean that the process of Evolution did not involve a supreme being at some or many points. So, I still see creation, whether you just take nature in general, or the process of evolution, as strong evidence for the existence of God.
Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 5:22 pm

There are a number of references on the internet for ANYTHING.

Yes your right, there is. However credible information will have references to reliable sources. Not only that even the bogus information can add a spin to things that develop questions which can be tested for validity.
I am not saying go to doc shelocks site and believe everything he writes. Their are many credible places when the information is presented in non bias platform.
Just have a look and use your god given common sense to make the distinction.. Personally, I would stay away from sites that promote aliens and magical beings, but that’s just me.
–

even if Evolution could be scientifically proven, which it can’t

See this is that black and white thinking I am talking about.. why don’t you read it and then source his references and draw your own conclusions to what it is he wrote about.
How do you know it can’t? Where do you get this argument from?
What evidence does this argument have to support it’s conclusion?
40 Year Old Atheist on September 1st, 2009 at 5:37 pm

I’ll just add that, only in mathematics, can something be proven. In the rest of what we know, there are only varying degrees of certainty. With respect to evolution, there is overwhelming evidence in support of the theory leading scientist to have an extremely high degree of confidence that the theory is correct.

I never say, “We have proven that God exists”. What I say is that “no one has ever shown any evidence for his existence”. This is a HUGE distinction to make.
Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm

You suggest Richard Dawkins as a source. I am not familiar with all of his work, but, what I have read is hardly credible.

How do you know that it is “hardly credible”?
What do you base those conclusions on?
Is it simply because it is different from what you believe?
Have you examined his background his expertise in his field?
Maybe he is very credible and he has just spent more time looking at the facts than you have. Because he has spent more time on it he was able to come to new and better conclusions.
–
Here is part of his Bio:
He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen’s supervision at the University of Oxford, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966. Dawkins was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970 taking a position as a lecturer,in zoology. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science in the University of Oxford. He has been president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Balliol College, Oxford instituted the Dawkins Prize, awarded for “outstanding research into the ecology and behavior of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities”
sounds pretty credible to me.
Come on jump out side the box for a bit. It’s great out here.
Paul on September 1st, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Everybody slow down. First things, first: Renshia and Jon, stop throwing the word “proof” around like it had any meaning in this discussion. It does not. Proof is for mathematicians. In science, we can only discuss evidence.

Jon said:<blockquote><em>there is no supporting evidence for Atheism</em></blockquote>
What, exactly does that mean? Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief. It doesn’t need any evidence to support it, as it makes no claims. Atheists are not saying, “there is no God.” They are saying, “I lack your belief in a god.” Those two statements are only subtly different, but the difference is very important. Atheism is not a dogma.

Let’s say you and I look at a photograph that is a field of uniform white. You say, “goose in a snow storm.” I say, “I do not see a goose.” You say, “Neither do I, but I know it’s there.” Why would you impose upon me to prove there is no goose there? Neither of us can see the goose, but you want to put the onus on me to prove my lack of belief in the goose. What kind of sense does that make?

Jon said:<blockquote><em>Creation is evidence.</em></blockquote>

This is what we call circular reasoning, or begging the question. Creation is the question at hand, yet you would use creation as evidence to prove its existence. You are presupposing your conclusions. You believe in creation, because you believe in creation. That, my friend, is not the definition of, “evidence.” Don’t make me quote Inigo Montoya.
Paul on September 1st, 2009 at 7:44 pm

Oh, look. HTML doesn’t work. Next time I’ll use the quote button.
Jon on September 1st, 2009 at 8:05 pm

Paul…I must admit, I find it very frustrating when you comment about what someone has said and apparently haven’t even read it. Please reference where you think I have “thrown the word ‘proof’ around”.

Some people say “I lack belief your God.” That doesn’t neccessarily make them Atheists. Some people say “There is no God.” That does make them Atheists. Atheism IS a dogma. Many, many atheists are just as dogmatic, if not more so, than those of other religions.

Your goose analogy doesn’t really fly in this discussion. It’s too oversimplified and one-sided to have relevance.

The statement “Creation is evidence.” is not circular reasoning. Creation is not the question. I’m pretty sure everyone in this discussion believes that they exist. There is no presupposition of conclusions taking place. I don’t believe in creation because I believe in creation. I believe in creation because I can see, taste, touch, feel, smell, think, reason, etc…

Kudos for your reference to Inigo Montoya, but it was, as was the rest of your post, nonsensical.
Paul on September 1st, 2009 at 8:32 pm

Jon,

I apologise. In rereading the thread, I find it was only Renshia using the word proof out of place. You were very firm in your adherence to the word evidence. Not that you demonstrate any understanding of the actual definition of that word. The mere fact that we are here is no more evidence supporting the existence of God than the fact that peas are green is evidence supporting the existence of the Jolly Green Giant. Calling my reasoning flawed without presenting any strong rebuttal is no more than adolescent name calling. Just because you say it is so does not make it so.

I did get a good laugh when you said:

I use reason, evidence, and divine revelation.

As if the third term had any relation to the first two. That fact that you think it does is a part of your delusion.
Paul on September 1st, 2009 at 8:32 pm

Clearly, I need some practice using the quote function.
40 Year Old Atheist on September 1st, 2009 at 8:33 pm

Paul, there is something goofy about that button. I’m still trying to figure it out.
Jon on September 1st, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Mark, I have also felt that the quote button doesn’t work quite right. If there is some sort of an instruction on how to use it I would appreciate someone sharing that with me. Thanks.
Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 9:40 pm

The button works if you copy in the quote. Write what you want to, then go back highlight the quote and press the quote button.
It is the only way to get it to work right that I have found.
Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 9:43 pm

I find it was only Renshia using the word proof out of place.

I accept the reprimand. I was using it as a synonym for the word evidence. I apologize and will pay more attention to semantics.
Jon on September 2nd, 2009 at 9:12 am

The button works if you copy in the quote. Write what you want to, then go back highlight the quote and press the quote button.

Thanks for the tip, Renshia!
Jon on September 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 am

Hmm…that didn’t work like I wanted it to. The “thanks for the tip” was supposed to be not in quotes.
Jon on September 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 am

quote

not a quote
Jon on September 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am

Renshia & Others – would you mind saying what browsers you are using? I have been using IE8, but it appears the quote function does not work appropriately in IE8. When I try from Firefox 3.0, it appears to work better.

Mark, feel free to delete these last couple of comments from me if you would like. I was trying to figure out how to use the quote function correctly. Sorry for the disruption.
Renshia on September 2nd, 2009 at 10:01 am

I use fire fox.
I find that having a space between the quoted area and the rest of the typing necessary.
and make sure only the words you want quoted get highlighted before you hit the quote button..
Renshia on September 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

So getting back to the conversation at hand.
First off Paul. I used the word proof within two contexts.
Asking jon for proof of his evidence. He stated that he had evidence atheism is false. I requested proof of that evidence. In this context I was not asking jon for proof as in validation, but in the act of supplying his evidence to that statement.
Of which he has never supplied, Because you can’t.
The second context was stating creation has been proven false. Know, I will admit that that is a is a personal conclusion and I will admit to a slight state of over confidence, However I have read and followed numerous ideas on the subject and do not feel my statement wasn’t in any way incorrect.

Atheism IS a dogma. Many, many atheists are just as dogmatic, if not more so, than those of other religions.

Jon is saying there is no tooth fairy Dogma as well??
I have evidence of the tooth fairy. Every time I went to bed with a tooth under my pillow, bang, in the morning I had cash. Now, when I was told there was no tooth fairy was that person being dogmatic?
Paul on September 5th, 2009 at 8:11 pm

Renshia,

Regarding the word, “proof”: I will say that my objection is mostly semantic. There is no such thing as proof in science. Some will say that is just pedantry, but I feel strongly that if we do not use language very precisely in these kinds of debates we do nothing but undercut our own arguments.

Regarding the word, “dogma”: Yes, there may be atheists who approach these kinds of arguments in a dogmatic fashion, but that is mostly just a reaction to those they are arguing against. Religion, however, is dogmatic by definition. Again we go back to the way Dawkins used the word, “delusion.” Religion is dogmatic because it claims, “this is the way it is,” with no discussion or disagreement allowed, even though said claims are based on zero evidentiary support.
Renshia on September 7th, 2009 at 7:33 pm

Paul, I agree on that as atheists, we can be dogmatic in our expressions.
jon, however was incorrect in claiming atheism is a dogma, I know people like to think of atheism as a religion, but it is not. Just like not believing in the tooth fairy is not a religion.
I also agree that, “There is no such thing as proof in science”, hense the reason I did not ask jon to produce scientific proof. Simply to produce proof of “the evidence that atheism is wrong.”This was only meant for him to clarify his statement, not to enter into a scientific argument.
But back to the heart of the conversation.
jon: you stated:

The statement “Creation is evidence.” is not circular reasoning. Creation is not the question. I’m pretty sure everyone in this discussion believes that they exist. There is no presupposition of conclusions taking place. I don’t believe in creation because I believe in creation. I believe in creation because I can see, taste, touch, feel, smell, think, reason, etc…

This is a presupposition, You do not believe in creation because you “can see, taste, touch, feel, smell, think, reason, etc…”. You could say you believe in creation because you, can see, taste, touch, feel, smell, think, reason, etc… the earth. Unless you were here to witness the act of creation taking place, it is only your assumptions that place “can see, taste, touch, feel, smell, think, reason, etc…”, as evidence it came into being because of creation. This is as much of an assumption as me saying I know we evolved because I can see, taste, touch, feel, smell, think, reason, etc…, this just doesn’t hold water at all.
Jon on September 7th, 2009 at 9:14 pm

Renshia – Please take a look at the word creation again. I think are singling in on one of its meanings and not considering its other meanings in your last comment. If that is not the case, then I will have to think about how to respond because at the moment, your comment simply doesn’t make sense to me.
Paul on September 7th, 2009 at 10:51 pm

Jon, what Renshia is saying is that the word, “creation, ” presupposes a, “creator.” Especially the way you use it. As atheists, who do not believe an intelligent agency had anything to do with the fact that we are here, your argument does not hold water. It is, in fact, circular. You cannot use the fact we exist as evidence for the existence of a god or gods. There are other ways our existence can have come about, many of which are supported by scientific inquiry. Failing actual evidence for the existence of a god or gods, we will continue with our own lines of inquiry, thank you.
Renshia on September 8th, 2009 at 12:33 am

Yes when you say go “Go outside. Creation is evidence”, I do think you are suggesting the mere existence, “our creation” as in being created, in following your line of conversation, created by a god.
That you are inferring creation is evidence of a god.

singling in on one of its meanings and not considering its other meanings

Yes, I would say I had singled out one definition, however, even if you wish to use the word in reference to the collective existence of life, then the answer is still the same. This is not “strong evidence for the existence of God.”
The only way this can be taken as strong evidence is if you choose to take all the scientific data that points to more rational explanations and ignore them.
If this is your argument, then you choose this belief not based on any evidence, but purely faith in light of rational evidence. I think it would just be better for you to say that than come up with a pseudo-science support system to fake being rational.
If you need to do that I understand. It is the one concrete thing you can give god credit for, like an anchor to your belief. If you take this away, you have nothing else, no miracles, no personnel appearances, no mass feedings of the hungry, No delivery from evil, just silence.
I remember the days, how lonely it felt, wanting to believe, but only having these thin tenuous lines to hold onto that make no sense.
I feel for ya man…
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 8:17 am

Paul – Thanks for that explanation – it was helpful for my understanding of the comments. However, while you are correct about the nature of language, whether you call it creation, or earth, or nature, or some other word, it is still evidence for a creator – not simply a presupposition. Yes, there are scientists that believe there was not a creator, but there are many others that believe otherwise.

Renshia – you say “The only way this can be taken as strong evidence is if you choose to take all the scientific data that points to more rational explanations and ignore them”

I would just turn this statement back around on you and suggest that it is Atheists that ignore the scientific data that points to a more rational explanation. But, you and I have differing opinions on what is rational. So, your statement doesn’t really work to support your argument.

All of this suggests that Dawkins doesn’t understand the words that are in the title of his book, and in fact he could be the one that is delusional.
Renshia on September 8th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

I would just turn this statement back around on you and suggest that it is Atheists that ignore the scientific data that points to a more rational explanation.

What data???
Show me one piece of data that creationists use that has not been refuted.

I have seen an enumerable amount of opinions on scientific data that form an opinion that creation is true. I have never seen one piece of data that is presented as actual evidence that has been able to be verified. At least not any that doesn’t ignore all the other surrounding evidence that contradicts those assumptions.
Look at everything you have written about evolution and god you always make bold statements, yet you never produce any tangible evidence of anything you say. Not once have you been able to point to any evidence to substantiate your claims.
You seem to think your claims of the existence of god and creation are on the same level as the claims of evolution and atheism. This is not true. The reason this is not true is the claims made are developed by very different principles that just aren’t comparable.
Your belief in creation for instance. The creation theory was developed in this way. You have a book that tells a story. This story claims god created the heavens and the earth. You accept this story as true. Then you go out into the world looking for evidence that confirms this story. You look around and take bits here, and bits from there and use it to confirm your story. This engineering of the story ignores the evidence that does not fit into the story. It also makes up more un-verifiable stories to explain the inconsistencies.
__
The theory of evolution doesn’t work that way at all.
A scientist makes an observation. He researches this observation. He the creates a hypothesis about this observation. He then tests and retests the conditions to ensure his hypothesis is correct. He then has outside sources challenge the hypothesis with tests. Once these test are confirmed accurate they are brought together to create a theory. If these tests show inconsistencies in relation to the hypothesis it is changed to accommodate for the new information.
The sequence looks like this:
# Ask a Question
# Do Background Research
# Construct a Hypothesis
# Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
# Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion (create the theory).
This is why creationism is such a shitty theory. Creation theory is a story that has had the evidence fitted to it. Evolution theory is fitted to match the evidence. No part of the evolution theory is beyond change to accommodate new information, new evidence.
Where as creationist sit upon there mighty throne saying we are right you are wrong so NAhhhh.
So jon come on down from your throne, lets be rational about this….LOL
Renshia on September 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

All of this suggests that Dawkins doesn’t understand the words that are in the title of his book, and in fact he could be the one that is delusional.

Your opinion on Dawkins is irrelevant. You have said you have not read his stuff. or much of it, and you immediately discounted what he said. Go back and read his books, check his information, then your opinion will have at least a little credibility. Until then your just talking out your ass.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

I have read enough of Dawkins to know that his opinion is irrelevant. You don’t have to go very far to realize how wrong he is. To use your crude language, you are the one “talking out of your ass”.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

Renshia – Show me one piece of data that evolutionists use that has not been refuted by creationists.

Personally, it does not matter to my theology whether God created the world using evolution, or whether he created using a different method.

Regardless, you seem to be quite naive in your impressions about how various scientists interact with the question of the origins of our existence. Their are some scientists that say, “I believe in God created the world in manner X”, and set out to prove manner X. Other scientists say, “I don’t believe their is a God, so I need to prove that the world came into existence by manner Y”. Still others say, “I observe Z, and that leads me to believe in the existence of a God”. Some even say, “I don’t believe there is a god, so I need to prove the world came into existence by manner Y. Oh wait, I’ve discovered Z, and that leads me to believe their is a God.” We can go on and on with the various examples of what believes led to what experiments and what experiments lead to what beliefs.

But it is extroadinarily foolish for you to think that creationists set out to prove something and atheists don’t. If you want to talk about this, please examine the situation first.

And, as I said before, it all comes back to Dawkins not being able to put forth any sort of logical argument, leaving anyone who wants to truly evaluate his work rather than indoctrinating themselves left thinking that he is the one who is delusional.
40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Show me one piece of data that evolutionists use that has not been refuted by creationists.

Jon, I don’t know what else to say but that you are completely, hopelessly WRONG. If you really believe what you just typed, I really see no point in arguing with you any further.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

Mark - If a statement is valid in one direction, why is it not valid in the other direction? I am only asking Renshia to do what was asked of me.

You may not want to argue with me further, but it isn’t because I’m wrong.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Additionally, as atheists you put so much weight on “thinking outside the box”, but apparently that is only wanting theists to think outside of their box, not requiring the same thing of atheists.

Might that be considered arrogance? Or delusion?
40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

Jon,

If you are saying that creationists have refuted science, we are done – there is no point in carrying on. I am not interested in carrying on a conversation with someone who would argue the earth was flat, or was the center of the solar system/universe or that the earth is 6000 – 10,000 years old. Once you make a statement like one of those, it’s exceedingly difficult to take anything you say seriously.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

So Mark, you realize that science has at points been wrong in the past, yet you are not willing to believe that science could be wrong now? And you think its difficult to take me seriously?

How are you able to take yourself seriously?
40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 2:10 pm

Of course science has been wrong in the past. The scientific method is what corrects bad or incomplete theories.

What you propose is that virtually insurmountable evidence – evidence that holds up most of what we know about the universe (genetics, physics, etc etc) – evidence that LONG ago proved creationism to be a fairy tale – is ALL wrong and that the earth is 6000 years old.

That kind of scientific correction – although possible – probably has about a trillion to one probability.

Good grief, Jon. You are a total loon. Either that, or a troll of the most epic proportions.
Renshia on September 8th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

I believe it is time to quit feeding the troll.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Mark, you fail to realize that the earth is SO old, whether its 6000 years old or 50 bazillion years old that it is IMPOSSIBLE say with any confidence what age it is. There is no way that the earth can be dated because there is no way to know what the environmental conditions were at various points in history.

As we talked about, you can’t “prove” things, so there is NO EVIDENCE that LONG ago “proved” creationism to be a fairy tale.

This evidence is only insurmountable to you because you live in an atheist box and the “peace” that you currently feel would be shattered if atheism was incorrect. So, to take a page from your playbook, step outside your little box…it’s so freeing.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Renshia, I’m sorry to hear you have given up. I enjoyed our discussion for the most part!
Paul on September 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Jon, you keep trotting out logical fallacy after logical fallacy. I believe you have used almost every single fallacious argument I have ever heard in support of theism. None of them are worth their weight in cat urine. The question I have, is are you aware that the arguments you are using are fallacious, or are you unaware. That is what I ask myself as I read your posts: “is he dishonest, or just ignorant?”

You keep trying to talk as if there was a level playing field, but there isn’t. God cannot be seen, he cannot be heard, he cannot be touched, smelled or tasted. Your assertion that there is as much onus on us to prove his non-existence as there is on you to demonstrate his existence is just plain wrong. We are not the one’s making a claim. You are. You say, “god exists.” We don’t say, “no he doesn’t.” We merely say, “show us.”

Show us, Jon. Until you can do that, Mark et al. are well within the bounds of polite and reasoned discourse to dismiss you. As Christopher Hitchens is fond of saying, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” Until you provide us with some evidence, Jon, we dismiss you.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Paul – I have demonstrated evidence. You, and others, dismiss it based on your belief in atheism rather than theism. Also, remember, that evidence is not neccessary for theology. I only provide it because you ask for it. It is actually foolish on your part to ask for it, because neither atheism nor theism are evidence-based.

I ask myself how stupid you, Mark, and Renshia are as well. Are you stupid? Are you stubborn? Are you ignorant? Did you eat paint chips? Did you ever go to school? Are you silly enough to think that air doesn’t exist?

We can go back and forth with crap like that all day. But its useless to the conversation.

You say:
God cannot be seen, he cannot be heard, he cannot be touched, smelled or tasted.
That is all incorrect. What might be correct is if you said “I, Paul, have not seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted God.” You could even add “Therefore, I do not believe God exists.” But what you can’t add is “and others are delusional for believing he does exist”. Because another can say, “I have seen God. I have heard God. etc…, and therefore I believe he exists”.
Paul on September 8th, 2009 at 4:57 pm

You have demonstrated evidence? I must have missed that. Can you provide me a link to that post or comment?
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

@Paul – For starters, scroll up.
Paul on September 8th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

Sorry, Jon, I don’t follow you. Oh, wait, are you still talking about your circular argument about creation? Sorry, you’ve been told that doesn’t wash. You are still dismissed.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

paul – you are still too stupid to realize what creation is?
Paul on September 8th, 2009 at 8:50 pm

Perhaps I am, Jon. Would you enlighten me?
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

In short, there are scientists that look at the earth, that look at various components of nature and believe that the way they are constructed is evidence for a creator.

You can disagree with them for various reasons…and I would be very interested in hear specifically why you disagree with them. However, their conclusion based on the evidence that they have observed is not a ‘circular argument.’ Additionally, they are not delusional – they are making a conclusion based on evidence, not against evidence.
Jimmy on September 8th, 2009 at 9:49 pm

Jon..
The reality simply is, without knowing about life outside of our box, no scientist can “prove” that complexity has anything to do with a divine creator. There is nothing to compare to, life may form the way it has because that’s what nature does. No one can say, and no scientist worth his weight should even dare to declare that a creator created anything..
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Jimmy – I’m not just talking about (and neither are these scientists) talking about complexity. They are looking at the way that things are constructed. They are looking at the way that it might be possible for things to evolve, or the way that it might not be possible for things to evolve. When you make the argument that you can’t tell if life formed a certain way because of God or another force, you have to realize that you are also making an argument counter to atheism.

A strong, or a true atheist belives that God does not exist. It is from that perspective that Dawkins calls others delusional. Strong atheism is extremely easy to counter, because there is no way of knowing and any onus of proof would be on the atheist.

When you get into weak atheism, than you start dealing with people who aren’t really sure about anything, and that describes many of these people who have commented so fiercely that any belief in God is irrational.
40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

Strong atheism is extremely easy to counter

Then how come you’ve done such a supremely shitty job countering?

Jon, you need to go do some reading and let the big boys play. I look forward to you joining our ranks when you get a little more seasoned in life.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Mark – how quickly you forget. Remember when we talked about Atheists having all knowledge, past, present and future? Remember when you said that their may in fact be a God, you have no way of knowing?

I know you are getting upset, but let’s try keep the ball in play here.
Paul on September 8th, 2009 at 10:10 pm

I’m sorry, Jon, but you haven’t answered my last question. You offered to explain to me “what creation is.” Could you do that please?
40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 10:11 pm

I’m not upset at all. I’m just convinced you are a troll that repeats the same mantra over and over. I am also convinced you are a man-child.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Actually Paul, I didn’t offer to explain what it is to you. I questioned if you were too stupid to understand it. And, I would suggest that you spend some time examining that topic if you want to have any sort of discussion about theism and atheism.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

So when proven wrong (and I don’t mean about atheism, I just mean about the conversation regarding strong atheism), your response is to call me a troll? Mark, I must admit that I am really dissapointed. From most atheists, they get to a point where they can’t make a logical argument, and therefore must back out of the conversation by name-calling. I thought that you had more self-respect than that. And I thought we had enough of a reasonable discussion that it could end more positively.
Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 10:21 pm

Clearly, you should know if you are upset or not. However, people usually don’t start name-calling unless they are upset. I’m glad to hear you are not upset, but I’ll have to evaluate that based on whether the name-calling or the discussion continues.
Paul on September 8th, 2009 at 10:26 pm

You’re right, Jon, you made no offer. You have no actual intention of ever arguing honestly. Mark is correct to call you a troll. Your intent here is not to argue your position. It is merely to be the center of attention. I won’t play any more, and I recommend Mark, Renshia and everyone else stop as well. Let Jon indulge in his intellectual masturbation alone.
40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 10:35 pm

Jon, you have not added anything new since the very beginning here. You repeat the same thing over and over and over and over. Why would I want to enter into the same points over and over and over with you? That’s insanity.

definition of troll

You are adding irrelevant comments and I have to ask myself why? Why are you here, Jon? Has there been ANY indication whatsoever that anyone here is buying your bull? In the absence of any progress on your part, I am pretty sure you are here purely out of a desire to disrupt the conversation – the safe place I am trying to foster here for people looking for an alternate view of the world.

There are thousands of churches where you Christians can share, and there are probably millions of Christian blogs where you can pat one another on the back.

This little blog is not for people like you. I write for a specific audience – other atheists and people who are troubled with their beliefs (emphasis on the latter). You are neither of those people. You are a distraction and I will not spend another minute arguing in circles with you.

This is not about being upset. This is about making better use of my time.
Jon on September 9th, 2009 at 8:27 am

Paul, Mark – I have every intention of arguing honestly.

Mark, it is not correct that I have been adding irrelevant comments. Every comment I have made has been relevant, unfortunately, some of them have offended you because of your sensitivity to those that disagree with you.

Thanks for posting the definition of the troll – it clearly illustrates that others on your blog fit the definition of a troll much more than I do.

You have been shown that your post about delusional theists is extroadinarily inaccurate. So let’s move on to more productive converstation. Can we talk about something such as what, if any, common ground can atheists and theists find to relate to one another and work together for common good?
40yearoldatheist on September 9th, 2009 at 9:33 am

1. You ignored my declaration that I do not – in any way – write for people like you (for the record, I have now said this twice – once in a comment and once in a post).

2. You ignored my question about why you are here despite your lack of progress (that you ignore much of what is said here should by now come as no surprise to me but now it’s beyond a minor irritation).

3. You seem to have mistaken this for your own personal pulpit where you can choose a sermon of the day. This is my personal blog where I write what I want. There may be a day where I discuss a topic such as the one you’ve suggested, but that day is not today. You do not dictate the discussion here. Perhaps you should start a blog of your own?

4. I am perfectly comfortable with letting others be the judge of whether my post is accurate or not.

5. Likewise, I am also happy to let others decide who they think is a troll, and who is not.

I’m pretty sure we’re done here, Jon.
Jon on September 9th, 2009 at 10:01 am

Mark
1. I did not ignore your declaration that you don’t write for people like me. However, your blog is posted on the internet, which means anyone can read it, even if they are not part of your target audience.

2. I am here because I enjoy the discussion and believe that atheists and theists can learn from each other and have more positive interaction because of that.

3. I understand this is your blog, and I’m not using it as a personal pulpit. I am simply trying to have as productive as possible dialogue with you.

4. Agreed.

5. Agreed.
Julie on September 12th, 2009 at 12:06 am

Obviously we’re all just putting in our two cents.

Jon,

I personally will not believe in God until there is hardcore, absolutely undeniable proof.

Like one day I’m just on my way to work and then God just appears on top of an enormous building. To prove he’s really God he would do when of his miraculous acts. And thousands of people would witness it! People of all beliefs.

And God would say, “Listen up. This is it. Here’s your proof. Everyone shut up and quit your bitchin’ and start believing because obviously you all know where you’re going if you don’t.”

If I were standing beside you and that happened, I would turn to you and say, “I am sorry. You are actually right. God just smited that innocent pizza guy.”

Until that day. I just can’t believe something that appears to just not make sense to me.

Things have been tested. Carbon dated or whatever the hell it is they do. I’m not a scientist, I wouldn’t pretend to know that. I’m an artist, actually. : ) So I’m going to choose to believe that because what you’re suggesting makes no sense. Based on my life experiences, cultural upbringing, and different academic courses I’ve taken and things I’ve done to further my own personal education enforce my opinion. I’ll keep it until I’m proven wrong, just as I’m sure you’ll do with yours, and when the day comes of the smited pizza man… well then we’ll see.

These types of tests also seem to conclude that different parchments and what not date to times that would have been WELL BEFORE is even documented to have begun.

Did God put the dinosaur bones and ancient artifects there to fuck with us? If so, he’s not really nice. He’s started a lot of major conflicts and killing in his name.

If these things are supposed to be happening in to entirely different time periods, so there’s also really no reason to mixing them with each other anyways. Of course there’s no evidence of God during dinosaurs because he’s documented to start appearing and stirring up shit after dinosaurs died. Is it not plausible that maybe religion is a form of socilization.

Perhaps humans did evolve and were extremely primitive. They would see things in nature and be like, W.T.F. was that? That could seem very magical or God Like. The Earth is very beautiful and does weird freaking things. Over time as those people had kids and evolved they passed on all their stories. The volcano goes off at two because God is mad, Jimmy. We’ve found that if we take him a goat every Sunday he’s normally pretty good for longer periods of time.

After all this time, I feel that it’s entirely possible that as a human species we’ve developed religion into a tool to raise our young and try to instill in them things that we personally choose to believe. Values, morals, ethics, things like that.

A biggie among people seems to be that we shouldn’t kill each other. Most religions that I’ve personally heard of seem to agree that it shouldn’t really be done. It’s an awful dickhead move. But a lot gets done in religions name.

I don’t think anyone’s trying to personally attack you, Jon, but just trying to present to you different opinions that we’ve formed based on different things we’ve seen. Just as you’re trying to do the same to us on the other side of the fence. You’re serving up your thoughts on why he’s real.

Anyways. That’s about all I can think of for now. I know I probably sounded super sarcastic, but unfortunately I can’t seem to help. I swear I’m nice, but obviously I type how I talk. Not with proper grammar and sentence structure and I do use some sort of foul words. Sorry for that.
Julie on September 12th, 2009 at 12:14 am

I didn’t proofread that guys. : ( I’m sorry. It’s still understandable though. lol
Eddy McKenzie on October 28th, 2010 at 4:20 am

Ah,yes,it is quite simple. God does not believe in atheists either!

We think that great minds know all the answers?The fool has said in his heart there is no God, and God says to the fool, Where you when I lay the very foundations of the Universe?

How are the learned looked on in this delusion? Easy to see! Luke 3:15″In the 15th year of the Emperor Tiberius,when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea,when Herod was Prince of Galilee, his brother Philip was prince of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias prince of Abilene,during the priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John,son of Zechariah in the wilderness”

N.B.Right down through all the high and mighty and no doubt educated, God ignored the lot, and spoke to lone figure in the wilderness, the desert.

How does it work………..I’ll tell you! Take the words of St.Ignatius of Loyola,and what do we have? Two letters………..A.A! Ask A.A how Bob Smith and Bill Wilson used these words and the greater power…………….”turn water into wine” as happened at Cana, but A.A turns piss into a new man, provides food and respect for his family, reforms him, he then is welcomed back into society! Oddly many do not believe in God either………………But it works. Check it out with the millions who use it. Is it a delusion, if it is it is some delusion!
Paul on October 28th, 2010 at 7:29 am

Did you fulfill your requirements posting here, Eddy?
jjj on November 29th, 2010 at 7:21 am

“Atheism claims nothing. You claim something exists.”

Actually no coward, atheism claims there is no God. It claims that either the M-theory, or quantum fluctuation are correct. Even those theories don’t disprove God. NDE studies are evidence for God as well as neurotheology. You just walk around all day thinking you are intellectually superior because you found out how to use the “burden of proof” trick. That trick is getting old. God is the origin of all truth. To believe that the origin of all truth doesn’t exist just means your practicing mental masturbation. Not new.
Paul on November 29th, 2010 at 2:00 pm

jjj wrote:

“Atheism claims nothing. You claim something exists.”
Actually no coward, atheism claims there is no God. It claims that either the M-theory, or quantum fluctuation are correct. Even those theories don’t disprove God. NDE studies are evidence for God as well as neurotheology. You just walk around all day thinking you are intellectually superior because you found out how to use the “burden of proof” trick. That trick is getting old. God is the origin of all truth. To believe that the origin of all truth doesn’t exist just means your practicing mental masturbation. Not new.

Um, no. As a staunch atheist, I have no opinion whatsoever on the validity of M-theory or quantum fluctuation. Quite frankly, I have no idea what either of those things are. My lack of knowledge in that area in no way inhibits my ability to disbelieve in a god or gods. I am pretty sure, however that neither of those theories claim to “disprove God.”

NDE studies are nothing more than evidence that people seem to have extraordinary sensory experiences when their brains are deprived of oxygen. Those studies, however, have absolutely no ability to determine whether those experiences are real or hallucinatory.

Your last two statements pretty much just boil down semantically to, “I believe in God because I believe in God.” And you accuse us of mental masturbation…
40 Year Old Atheist on November 29th, 2010 at 3:16 pm

Oxygen deprivation and/or stimulating the brain in specific ways – it would also appear that NDEs and OBEs can be induced
Eddy on November 29th, 2010 at 9:25 pm

1 + 1 = 2, one what? Simply one anything, so here we have the nearest I can think of to God! Next, we have laws, they are not written……….! One for instance, The Law of Gravity! It is a definite law, amongst many unwritten laws. Who then created these laws?

Electricity, General Motors have a very high reward out for who can tell them what makes the car engine work? No,not the engineering side, the most simple of all, the spark between 30 thousands of an inch or so. No one knows, next electricity, a word coming from amber, a Greek word. Again we are stumped.

Let’s skip the nitty gritty bits and get down to common sense! common? not so! but we’ll carry on.

We are not here, we can’t be, I am not writing this, and you are not reading it. According to Dickie Dawkins! Why, simply because nothing, created nothing, therefore I am nothing, and there is nothing! As simple as the blue sky, which is nonsense, but you believe it,yet it does not even exist. Sky is an Arabic word for NOTHING!

You rocket scientists have some odd ideas. How does an aircraft follow North, which does not exist? What time is it? No one knows what time is, yet we work by it! And so it goes on ad infinitum.

Paul Davies…”The Mind of God” was giving a lecture,he posed the question……..”The entire Universe, what does keeps it up?” Paul quotes: “A little old lady responded,it is on the back of a tortoise! OK said Paul I will accept that, and what is the tortoise standing on?” “That is a stupid question” she replied,”On the back of another tortoise!” And Paul said, that is the nearest thing I have have heard to that mystery,and can I disprove it? No I can’t!

So you great minded people out there, can you put Paul right, he is a good friend of Stephen Hawking.

In reality,how far we have come since Neanderthal times? Far do you think? Or are we still in them?

Even in dimensions,we only know of three, yet there are at least eleven!

Paul
November 30th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Um, no.

Sorry, Eddy, but just because you are stumped by these things does not mean that everyone is. Please do not lump us all together with your own ignorance of science and the natural world. Nothing you have said above is true.

The “law” of gravity is not an “unwritten” law. Whatever gave you that idea? And why do you think that there needed to be a person to create these laws.

It is not true that no one knows what electicity is or where it comes from. Again, just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean you have to paint us all with the same brush.

Neither Richard Dawkins nor any other scientist or atheist ever said that “nothing created nothing.” Or, that everything came from nothing, which is, I believe the point you thought you were trying to make. Nobody believes that. You regionists just made that up as an argumentative, strawman talking point. Abandon that strategy, it has no endgame potential.

What makes you think an aircraft follows North? I don’t even know what that means, but the last airplane I was on went east and south. Also, why do you say that ‘north’ doesn’t exist? Do you also believe that ‘down’ doesn’t exist? You have some funny ideas.

If we only know of three dimensions, how can you say that there are at least eleven? I don’t get it. If you say there are eleven, then you must know about them, which makes the first statement erroneous. You are confusing me. Probably because you are pretty confused yourself.

40 Year Old Atheist
November 30th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Thanks Paul. I am glad I wasn’t the only one confused about the verbal diarrhea.
40 Year Old Atheist on November 30th, 2010 at 11:27 am

@Eddie: It might be because I haven’t had my morning coffee, but I honestly can’t seem to figure out exactly what you’re trying to say.

That aside, it *sounds* to me like you are making an argument from complexity. ??

40 Year Old Atheist
November 30th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Then again, it might just be a poorly explained fine-tuning argument. It’s hard to tell…
Eddy on December 1st, 2010 at 12:32 am

Paul,take a walk to Damascus old son. You need to get some fresh air. An atheist is a walking contradiction,and will never get much further than their counterparts the flat earthiests.

Yes I am ignorant of science if you wish to think that, so be it. That makes you right.

Study Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” next,read
“Life” by Richard Forte…….history of the first 44 million years of life on earth, from when there was not even H20 around.

You like most of your ilk know it all and a bit more.

Your dismissive words suit your intelligence? The law of gravity is not an unwritten law? What nonsense is this? The where is it ‘Written’?

I did not say a person created it, YOU DO! I think a power created it like all things were created and took off from there. But you stick to the nonsense of saying nothing created nothing!

Well Paul brain of the world, tell us exactly what electricity is, then tell G.M.H and claim the millions offered. The rest of thinking folk do not know.No I don’t paint you with the same brush, you are simply too thick to absorb anything.

You use the word ‘regionist’ is that a typo error or does it mean something that I cannot find in my 23 volumes of the OED? I have been to many meetings of religionists the world over. Jehovah Witness Bethel’s in Craven Terrace. London. W.2. Christian Science in Beverly Hills, Unitarians in Sydney. Australia. Buddhists in Colombo, just to cite a few, to see if they have any argument that holds water, I like to get it first hand.

Why first hand? Since I was a lad, a woman once said to me the Bible is the dirtiest book ever written………..I asked her to be a little more explicit. She quoted the ‘Song of Solomon’! I asked her if she had ever read and studied the bible, she said she had not, it was too filthy! This taught me a lesson.

Regarding education etc. I did not have any to speak of. I was an evacuee in the second world war, and got little schooling. I left school at the ripe old age of 13. I had to pick it up from there.

Have you read and studied Hawking or Davies? You appear not to have done so.

Re: North.Pick up a compass, see where the needle automatically points to. So the pilot knows which way he wants to go. OK, it may be east,west or south. But he gets there. True north and magnetic north are two different points. If you stood on the top of the North Pole, could you go North? Are you really as nutty as you sound, or is it just your nature? I have funny ideas? Paul my son, you would get an Oscar for yours!

In time, inter-galactic travel will come about, when we don’t know, but we think it will. In doing so, the light years would make this impossible for mankind in his present form,hence the obvious need to find other dimensions, which is very obvious, even to (I was going to say you) most intelligent people.

I may sound confused,but you try telling someone 50 years ago about the things we have achieved today, you would be sent to see the man in the white coat.

Sure you are confused, just like a lot of people are, but you won’t find the answer by sticking your head in the sand and wagging your arse!

Get our, explore, as Emerson said, if we never meet, through the pages of this book we have indeed my friend. Read Thoreau,Walt Whitman, just to mention a couple that may help your thinking.

Try to find time to read Socrates,Plato,Aristotle,or the excellent Epicurus,Seneca,Cicero, your stilted thinking is on par with Schopenhauer or later possibly Friedrich Nietzsche. Before you shoot your mouth off again, tell me how you found the following as you studied them:

Anthroposophy
Babism.
Baheism.
Brahmanism.
Brahmanisiam.
Buddhism.
Christianity.
Confucianism.
Ethical Culture.
Gnostism.
Gymnosophy
Hinduism.
Judaism.
Lamaism.
Magianism.
Mohammadianism.
Moslemism.
Rastiafarianism.
Reincarnationism.
Sabacanism.
Saivism.
Shinto.
Taosism.
Theosophy.
Veldanta.
Wahabiism Yoga.
Zen.
Zoroastrianism.

On the alleged Christian Concept:

Adventism.
Anabaptism.
Anglicanism.
Anglo-Catholicism.
Antinomianism.
Arianism.
Antinomianism.
Bohemianism.
Calvinism.
Christadelphian.
Catholicism.
Christian Science.
Congregationalism.
Episcopalian
Erastianism.
Homoiousianism.
Homoousianism.
Jansenism.
Jehovah Witnesses.
Latitudinarianism.
Laudism.
Liberal Catholicism.
Lutheranism.
Methodist.
Moral Reamament.
Mormonsim.
New Thought.
Origenism.
Oxford Movement.
Practical Christianity.
Presbyterianism.
Plymouth Brethren.
Protestantism.
Puritanism
Puseyism.
Quakerism
Quietism.
Roman Catholicism.
Rosacrucanism.
Sabellianism.
Salvation Army.
Scientology.
Socinianism.
Spiritual Religions…Many varied.
Stundism.
Swedenborgainism.
Tractarianism.
Ubiquitariaism.
Unititarianism.
Uniniveralism.
Weslyanism.

Do you have a problem when you purchase a hat, I feel you would!
Paul on December 1st, 2010 at 10:34 pm

Eddy, you use a lot of words, but you don’t really say anything. It’s unfortunate that you were denied the opportunity to receive a proper education. We are having difficulty communicating because you are unfamiliar with the most basic scientific concepts that those of us with a rudimentary high school education take for granted. I’m not trying to call you stupid, because you clearly are not. But you are ignorant of the most elementary modes of critical thought, and it leaves you at a distinct disadvantage. Of course, as a believer in God, you are able to use your personal delusion to fool yourself into thinking that anything you have said here actually makes any sense at all. It does not.

jjj
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Eddy actually killed it. What do you know about proper education? are you a teacher? Egotistical jerk lol.

Why do we live in a universe which the things that lived in it need purpose to survive, to progress? Why would we live in a universe where goodness is better than badness? Why do we live in a universe where meaning is required to live a life, but the universe itself has not meaning? Your deluded, its fucking hilarious.

” But you are ignorant of the most elementary modes of critical thought, and it leaves you at a distinct disadvantage.”

One thing I notice atheist do. They say something without evidence, or even an example to demonstrate their point.

You are filled with Ad Hominems and straw men, my friend.

” Of course, as a believer in God, you are able to use your personal delusion to fool yourself into thinking that anything you have said here actually makes any sense at all.”

My goodness. You are a cult member! Dogma, and hypocrisy. You believe that the billions and billions of people who believe in god and who are educated are delude BECAUSE YOU SAY SO. Not healthy.
Eddy on December 2nd, 2010 at 1:10 am

Paul, as you say I use a lot of words, but you do not answer them.

Many great and famous men had very little education, and I have spoken on this before and answered, but no one here has or can refute it.

You must ask yourself Paul, where does education start………let me tell you, out there in the big world, that is where your real education starts. One may get a smattering of gen: at schools of various sorts, but in reality they amount to nothing! Simply because the older we get the more we realise the less we know, at 79, I am more than aware of this.

I don’t think I am truly ignorant, as I have cited the greatest Philosophers of the ages, and books that support what I have said, at no time have I ever referred to the Bible in support of what I say. I may quote from it in the philosophical way, but not religiously.

Believer in God? Let us get this point clear. What I am saying and keep saying and get fed up of repeating myself, God call it what you like, but we had to start from somewhere,and it certainly was not nothing as atheists seem to imply and can be inferred. Call it what you like, if you then deny that,then that does not say much for education in the sense you quote. What was that power, I search for it in many ways. I am not dogmatic in my views, nor do I wish to be associated with people who call themselves atheists. On this aspect, I notice the Scot, Dickie Dawkins has used soccer,football if you like to take a slug at the R.C and the pope. He steps in as an expert on football now and blames the pope for what has happened in Scotland. This is as far surely as any person can go.

In Australia there is Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, a self confirmed atheist, shacking up with a boy friend who has a family. This to me is pretty grim as an example to any young person who is trying to live a decent life or follow one.

I reiterate what I said before and all along, I believe we,the Universe entirely just did not ‘happen’ anymore than the jets and modern discoveries did, they had to be made by someone, this is just plain common sense.

The atheist dogma, that the bits of metal etc, just collected themselves together and called themselves say……..the Q.E.2, or B747, or jump Harrier, this is utter nonsense. The had to be designed, and as such were. This alone shoots the atheistic claims down in flames as being so absurd as to really not mentioned in any intelligent conversation.

This is not delusional, but factual. The only delusion I really know of is the atheist delusion, todays version of the ‘cargo cult’ natives of the South Seas.

I am not proselytising, but as Billy Graham once said, I would cross the world to preach the Gospel, but I would not cross the street to argue about it!

Finally, all laws are oddly based on the 10 commandments as the basis of such laws. We can make a million and one amendments to them, but they come back to the fundamentals.

Christmas is coming soon, the feast of Christ, will the atheists ignore it and work over that period or will they join in, we need no answer, we know they join in, call it what you like, but is that not the height of hypocrisy?
Eddy on December 2nd, 2010 at 1:11 am

Paul, as you say I use a lot of words, but you do not answer them.

Many great and famous men had very little education, and I have spoken on this before and answered, but no one here has or can refute it.

You must ask yourself Paul, where does education start………let me tell you, out there in the big world, that is where your real education starts. One may get a smattering of gen: at schools of various sorts, but in reality they amount to nothing! Simply because the older we get the more we realise the less we know, at 79, I am more than aware of this.

I don’t think I am truly ignorant, as I have cited the greatest Philosophers of the ages, and books that support what I have said, at no time have I ever referred to the Bible in support of what I say. I may quote from it in the philosophical way, but not religiously.

Believer in God? Let us get this point clear. What I am saying and keep saying and get fed up of repeating myself, God call it what you like, but we had to start from somewhere,and it certainly was not nothing as atheists seem to imply and can be inferred. Call it what you like, if you then deny that,then that does not say much for education in the sense you quote. What was that power, I search for it in many ways. I am not dogmatic in my views, nor do I wish to be associated with people who call themselves atheists. On this aspect, I notice the Scot, Dickie Dawkins has used soccer,football if you like to take a slug at the R.C and the pope. He steps in as an expert on football now and blames the pope for what has happened in Scotland. This is as far surely as any person can go.

In Australia there is Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, a self confirmed atheist, shacking up with a boy friend who has a family. This to me is pretty grim as an example to any young person who is trying to live a decent life or follow one.

I reiterate what I said before and all along, I believe we,the Universe entirely just did not ‘happen’ anymore than the jets and modern discoveries did, they had to be made by someone, this is just plain common sense.

The atheist dogma, that the bits of metal etc, just collected themselves together and called themselves say……..the Q.E.2, or B747, or jump Harrier, this is utter nonsense. The had to be designed, and as such were. This alone shoots the atheistic claims down in flames as being so absurd as to really not mentioned in any intelligent conversation.

This is not delusional, but factual. The only delusion I really know of is the atheist delusion, todays version of the ‘cargo cult’ natives of the South Seas.

I am not proselytising, but as Billy Graham once said, I would cross the world to preach the Gospel, but I would not cross the street to argue about it!

Finally, all laws are oddly based on the 10 commandments as the basis of such laws. We can make a million and one amendments to them, but they come back to the fundamentals.

Christmas is coming soon, the feast of Christ, will the atheists ignore it and work over that period or will they join in, we need no answer, we know they join in, call it what you like, but is that not the height of hypocrisy?

jjj
December 3rd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Don’t bother with these guys. Let them have their dogma.

You know, I have a saying.

The way I see it, we are all theist. Its just that My god answers prayers, and your god write biology books.

cheers!
Paul on December 2nd, 2010 at 4:52 pm

So not worth it.

40 Year Old Atheist
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Agreed.

jjj
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:27 pm
I understand you guy’s point of view. It is allot easier to hold a world view when you don’t challenge it. Sleep titgh, you two!

40 Year Old Atheist
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:34 pm
jjj: I’ve challenged it. Challenging it is what led to my atheism. And now we have to listen to people like you and Eddie re-stating the same arguments over and over and over.

Your fairy tales are old to us – that’s why we become dismissive when you bring up points that aren’t worth arguing.

Have you challenged your world view to the extend I have? Do you have the courage to even consider reversing your most dear beliefs? I highly doubt it and, guess what? I have done exactly that.

At any rate, I’m done with you. Go argue with someone who enjoys it because as I’ve said COUNTLESS TIMES on this blog – I do not write to argue with people like you. I write to help doubting Christians who want a safe place to challenge their beliefs.

jjj
December 3rd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
(I know it seems long, but read it, you might learn something)

Atheist getting the last word in. A bulb of insecurity, not new.

“Challenging it is what led to my atheism. ”

Challenging atheism is what led to my theism. I’ve been an atheist, and I assure you that nothing that comes out of your mouth, as long as it comes from a material point of view, is new or original.

“Your fairy tales are old to us – that’s why we become dismissive when you bring up points that aren’t worth arguing.”

Fairy tale is an English language term for a type of short narrative corresponding to the French phrase conte de fée, the Spanish phrase cuento de hadas, the German term Märchen, the Italian fiaba, the Polish baśń or the Swedish saga. Only a small number of the stories thus designated explicitly refer to fairies. Nonetheless, the stories may be distinguished from other folk narratives such as legends and traditions.

Nothing to do with WHY we have morals or the origin of the universe. Some of us think about stuff like that.

“Have you challenged your world view to the extend I have? Do you have the courage to even consider reversing your most dear beliefs?”

Over and over again. I don’t believe in God because I want to, I believe in God because his existence is obvious to me. After being an atheist for a while I started to see faults with the philosophy. After months of inner honesty and radical humility I one day woke up seeing the world more objectively and the existence of a god seemed obvious. It was an interesting day. At 40 years old, I am surprised you haven’t had one like it yet. I’m only 18.

” I write to help doubting Christians who want a safe place to challenge their beliefs.”

No you don’t. You made it clear. You think that anyone who challenges their beliefs with the “evidence against god” (which does not exist, there exist more evidence towards the contrary) but keeps their faith is “delusional.” What evidence is there against God? Evolution? Yeah, for the naive, like you.
Why is it natural for us to exist in a world where a simple cell would manifest itself into a human over time? Why would this human have a biological desire to learn? To have meaning? If we lived in a Godless universe it would seem hardly unlikely that we would try to ponder whether God exist or not. We try over and over again to design robots that can become aware of themselves and find meaning but we can’t. God seems good at it though.

Now if you don’t like the interpretations of God that religion has presented than create your own! But if atheism is your safety blanket than I guess it is not my place to judge. But it is also not your place to judge who is not delusional when it comes to *WHY* questions. Science answers the *How* but *NOT* the *WHY*. Eddie brought up a large amount of very good points. You simply ignore him and justify it with what I perceive is lack of knowledge and just plain old laziness.

Atheist Physicist = I don’t believe in god.

Theist Physicist = I do.

Atheist Physicist = You are delusional.

Theist Physicist = Why?

Atheist Physicist = Because there is no proof of God, you and I both know about how reality works, yet you still cling to your Bronze age religious scripture.

Theist Physicist = I don’t understand how man could acquire proof of God. What would proof of God look like? God has to do with immaterial reality, I study material reality for a living. My studies do not interfere with my faith. I am sorry that it did for you. I also think that ones personal religion and philosophy is a private personal matter. No one knows for sure whether God exists. The fact that you think I am deluded for having a different belief system than yours shows both your fundamental immaturity and your dogmatic narcissism.

Atheist Physicist = You are deluded, so everything you say is the result of such. I am right, because the less I believe, and the less hope I have the smarter I become. Religion is myth…..live in the real world.

Theist physicist = I am glad your belief system is becoming so popular. Fifty years from now, people will look back at the atheist movement and laugh at it because of how counter productive it was…

Atheist Physicist = Please. Atheism is gaining popularity in Europe…..my country Germany for example.

Theist physicist = Germany has the highest suicide rate in the world, and contains the largest population of white supremest. Do you think there could be a connection? Why is it that the most greatest and more powerful country happens to be the more faithful one? And if it’s just a coincidence, why do we live in a universe where that would happen? Where faith equals power and success? Is it just because? Why does that work if faith is just a product of our imagination? Why do we have an imagination? If we are the result of chance, how do we know what chance means? Questions like these are why we have religion. There is nothing wrong with trusting your heart.

Atheist physicist = You are talking crazy. Trusting your heart is not scientific. You are a scientist, act like one. Religion poisons the mind you are a prime example. Goodbye.

Theist Physicist = (sigh)

See? You run and hide and shout delusion when you get uncomfortable. You make Assertions based on your own limited perception. Circular reasoning, and you justify it! A real atheist would laugh at you.

You found relief through non belief. Good for you. Most people don’t need to reject God to live in peace. Just because you have to doesn’t mean that anyone else who doesn’t is deluded.

God bless. Won’t be responding.
40 Year Old Atheist on December 3rd, 2010 at 6:56 pm

That entire post was worth a good chuckle. Have a good life, jjj.

Your Comments
- Jimmy: I’ve always been a live and let live kind of guy. If you believe in god, and it...
- Derrick: Actually I am a believer in God, but I kinda want to talk to someone who...
- David: I’ve been raptured. Anyone reading this has been raptured. We are not...
- Jimsey: Well, I could use a new stereo system. I’m just going to go around trying my...
- Harmonika Savingsbonds: Be wary of moderation in the movement, though. I just got kicked off...
Recent Articles
Amazing Atheists
- AnAtheist.net run by James Tracy who also looks after ‘The Atheist Spot’ (an atheist link sharing service)
- Atheist Climber Thoughts about science, nature and religion, as well as politics, philosophy, atheism and the occasional rant
- Atheist Revolution by vjack – an unbelievably prolific writer on the subject of atheism
- Attempts At Rational Behavior Godless liberal firmly supporting separation of church and state
- August Cline is the atheism & agnosticism author at about.com. He is excellent.
- Common Sense Atheism Awesome, awesome, awesome awesome atheist blog. End of story.
- Dangerous Talk an atheist/progressive blog discussing the three most dangerous topics of polite conversation: Religion, Politics, and Sex
- Daylight Atheism Night time is for dreaming. Daylight is for action.
- Friendly Atheist warmth and wisdom from the guy who sold his soul on eBay
- God is for Suckers! Group blog, providing commentary, news, and rants on the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky.
- Godless Girl Ex-christian sarcasm-a-tron armed with a vag and a brain. Curiosity killed the faith, not the sass.
- Greta Christina's Blog I don’t think anyone writes more powerfully about atheism than Greta
- Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes As the title suggests, HJHOP is a fun and quirky (but still thoughtful) critique of religion.
- Lousy Canuck He’s Canadian and he’s an atheist. Need I say more? ;)
- Monicks: Unleashed Monica is the tireless force behind the ‘Think Atheist’ community
- No Religion Blog Nice, clear explanations relating to historical accuracy/claims in the Bible, among other things
- Pharyngula by PZ Meyers – evolutionary biologist, heathen and communion cracker desecrator!
- Stupid Evil Bastard What the hell is wrong with you people? (I love that tagline)
- The Gaytheists group blog for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgendered) Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists
- Unreasonable Faith Excellent atheist blog (one of my favorites) by former evangelical Christian Daniel Florien
- Watching the Wheels see-er. do-er. writer. photographer. thinker. doodler. worker. lover. whiner. reader. cooker. planter. designer. laugher. cleaner (sometimes). remember-er. traveller. questioner. dreamer. organizer. learner. giver. crier. taker. sleeper. imagine-er. eater
Heathen Bling!
Awesome Atheism Websites
- Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Touch his noodley appendage!
- God is Imaginary 50 simple proofs for non-existence of god
- Iron Chariots Wiki Awesome encyclopedia of counters to Christian apologetics.
- Secular Web contains a simply fantastic article library from both modern and past atheist/agnostic writers
- Skeptic's Annotated Bible Great place to learn about the contradictions, scientific fails and absurdities within the Bible (and there are many)
- Talk Origins Archive Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
- The Freethinker Excellent secular focused site based on the magazine founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion.
- The Panda's Thumb excellent site focusing on evolution/creationism & the defence of science
- Why Won't God Heal Amputees? Is God real, or is he imaginary?
Skeptical Rulers of the Universe
- Doubtful “Skepticism is a process.” This is a great place to learn. Sharon really does her homework for our benefit.
- Grassroots Skeptics A volunteer organization promoting critical thinking and a reason-centered worldview by helping local skeptics groups to share tools, information and strategies, and connect with skeptical individuals and activists.
- ICBS Everywhere Knowledge, science, reason, education, philosophy, behavior, politics, religion, and B.S.
- James Randi Educational Foundation Not-for-profit organization that promotes critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today. Home of the $1 million paranormal challenge.
- Podblack Cat Science, Superstitions and Skeptical Life
- She Thought women. thinking critically.
- Skepchick A group of women (and one deserving guy) who write about science, skepticism, and pseudoscience. With intelligence, curiosity, and occasional snark, the group tackles diverse topics from astronomy to astrology, psychics to psychology.
- Skeptic North The first Canada-wide blog for skeptics. Its mission is to affect and promote positive, science-based change in mainstream media, Canadian culture and education, and in government policy
- Skeptic's Dictionary Definitions, arguments, and essays on topics ranging from acupuncture to zombies. Detailed information on the supernatural, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. Dozens of topics in logic, perception, science, and philosophy.
- SkepticReport Extremely well organized and laid out skeptic site. Lots of good information here.
- Skeptics Society A scientific and educational organization of scholars, scientists, historians, magicians, professors and teachers, and anyone curious about controversial ideas, extraordinary claims, revolutionary ideas, and the promotion of science.
- Skeptics Society Blog Official blog of the Skeptics Society, featuring the writings of Michael Shermer as well as many others.
- Skeptigirl dedicated to free thinking, critical thinking, science, and skepticism
- Woo Fighters Purpose is to promote critical, skeptical, and scientific thinking by inspiring students to become active promoters of scientific skepticism and defenders of science.
Health & Medicine
- Quackwatch International network concerned with health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct. Primary focus on difficult/impossible to find quackery-related information.
- Science-Based Medicine Exploring issues and controversies in the relationship between science and medicine
- Science-Based Pharmacy Turning an eye on the profession, separating fact from fiction on both sides of the counter.
- The Denialism Blog Discussing the problem of denialists, their standard arguing techniques, how to identify denialists and/or cranks, and discuss topics of general interest such as skepticism, medicine, law and science.
- The SkepDoc Retired family physician, former U.S. Air Force flight surgeon and skeptic who writes about alternative medicine and quackery.

Why I Blog
I'm here to help doubting believers let go of their fear and guilt, to provide an example of an atheist leading a happy, moral and fulfilling life, and to connect with fellow non-believers. Welcome!
Subscribe/Bookmark
Navigation
On Youtube
Podcasts/Radio
- For Good Reason Interview program hosted by D.J. Grothe, promoting critical thinking and skepticism about the central beliefs of society.
- Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Home of one of the longest standing skeptical podcasts.
- Skepticality Official podcast of Skeptical Magazine
- Skeptically Speaking Live radio/podcast hosted by everyone’s favorite geek girl, Desiree Schell “Call in. Question Everything.”
- The Atheist Experience Fantastic call-in atheist TV show out of Austin, Texas with big focus on talking with believers.
Great Reads
- Letter to a Christian Nation - by Sam Harris
- Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible & Why - by Bart Ehrman
- The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins
History & Statistics
- Adherents.com Excellent statistics and maps on the subject of religious adherence.
- History of the End of the World This is a great link showing the 220 times the world was predicted to end, but did not.
- Maps of War: History of Religion
- What Charles Darwin believed about religion an excerpt from his biography should clear things up
Favorite Articles
- Frequently Asked Questions for the Newly Deconverted is for new atheists wondering where they go from here
- Jesus Myth the case against the historical Christ
- Why are atheists so angry? Greta Christina has a post that sums the reasons up quite well!
Communities
Advocacy & Activism
Favorite Videos
- Atheist a simply made video with an incredibly inspiring message
- Intelligent Design on Trial An excellent documentary about the controversy that occured in Dover, Pennsylvania over the teaching of evolution.
- My Spirituality as an Atheist One of my favorite videos – truly poignant and beautiful.
- Pat Condell’s Youtube Channel is Atheism on the offensive (controversial, funny & brilliant)
- Potholer54′s Youtube Channel home of the amazing “Made Easy” series (evolution & natural selection, the scientific method, and history of the universe etc)
- Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? is an excellent 24 part Youtube video series by Thunderfoot
The Four Horsemen
- Christopher Hitchens author of “God is Not Great”
- Daniel Dennet author of “Breaking the Spell”
- Richard Dawkins author of “The God Delusion”, “The Blind Watchmaker” & more
- Sam Harris author of “The End of Faith” & “Letter to a Christian Nation”
Meaning of Life Type Stuff
- Ethic of Reciprocity “The Golden Rule” is one of things that guides my life
- One Source of Morality might be from our feelings of empathy
- Secular Humanism check out the Council of Secular Humanism affirmations and declarations
- Secular Humanism on Wikipedia atheism is what I don’t believe & secular humanism is, more or less, what I do
Kick-Ass Science
- Action Bioscience Promoting bioscience literacy. Great articles on evolution, genomics, the environment, biotechnology and more.
- Bad Astronomy My favorite astronomy blog! Written by Phil Plait
- NASA Image of the Day Pure awesomeness!
- Sense About Science responds to the misrepresentation of science on issues that matter
- Wired Science Nice, eclectic mix of science articles from a variety of fields. Always entertaining.
Fun/Entertaining
- Atheist Cartoons Best atheist related comics on the web!
- Jesus & Mo The adventures of modern-day Jesus and Mohammed. What could go wrong?
- The Onion News Network The best satire news on the web. Not an atheist site, but often satirizes religion and religious beliefs.
- xkcd A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language