A pair of sentences to disprove the existence of a God (or at least, a perfect one, which is the one most people refer to).

1. If the 'ingredients' are perfect, the product must be perfect - thus, the evidently imperfect universe could not have come from a supposedly perfect creator.

2. Perfection is doomed to stagnation - being both incapable of growth and decay (if it was perfect it would not decay, and you can't get better than perfect). Never minding the Laws of Thermodynamics, because of this stagnation, the perfect being could not create, or indeed do anything.

I hate to say it, but I'm going to have to disagree with your proofs.

1. A perfect creator could choose to create an imperfect universe (in the same way that a manufacturer could introduce planned obsolescence). Some apologists would also argue that imperfection in the universe is necessary for free will so, in a sense, a perfect universe would be less perfect.

2) A perfect being would be stagnant only in the sense that its own nature would not change. The act of creation would not, in and of itself, make a being more or less perfect. (And you're right that thermodynamics would not apply to a deity.)

Let me know if you disagree!

People of religion are as a whole, welcome to the idea of other religions, that, for example Christians believe in one God, but accept that the religion of Hinduism believes that there is one god in thousands, and thousands in one.

What I struggle to comprehend is how although these people can accept each other's religion, they cannot accept atheists in not thinking that if we stray of some 'path' that we will all be doomed forevermore to burn in an eternal hell.

To the extent that what you say is true, I think that many people equate religion with morality and believe that without religion you have no morals. I think many people also assume that atheist are anti-religion (and therefore anti-them).

This is unfortunate, and one of my goals in life is to demonstrate that atheist can be just as moral and non-judgmental as anyone else.

Hello there!

Just wanted to shoot you a comment to say thank you for the site and well done! The more I read here, the more I feel that this place is a wonderful refuge from the illogical incomprehensible nonsense so typical of internet forums...

I've found a peculiar trait in myself. At one level, I enjoy reading arguments for the existence of a god. I strive to consider all sides of any argument, and completely fail to understand how some people can be satisfied in not doing so.

However, I've also recently found that I really have to limit my exposure to religious and spiritual writing. An example is a guitarist forum I read regularly. I'm amazed at the things some people come out with. Apparently, a desire to help people is the voice of God inside you , and education is God's presence in the world . I'm not a confrontational type, so I tend to let people have their notions and just quietly leave, but I just can't get my head around these ideas. I suppose the best way to sum up my feelings was wonderfully expressed by the rather brilliant Douglas Adams:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

...I find the repetitive invocation of a god into already wonderful things always gets me feeling annoyed, embittered and a little depressed, which makes me completely unproductive. I think this stems from my feeling frustration at the illogical.

I wonder if this is normal. Or should I ideally reach a level of tolerance where I have no problem with it?

In any case, when reading just about anything you write, I feel calm, peaceful and proud to be connected (via beliefs) with someone cool, positive and logical. Also, I don't talk to strangers much online, but I must say this internet thing really is fantastic for reaching someone far far away...

I have a few things I'd love to hear you comment on, but I should do so over a few comments, or else this one will be the length of a small book...

The recent responses (on the blog) from the concerned Christian mother are horrific. I'm aware that such people exist, but seeing it real and current is shocking.

Is there any way to reason with someone who professes to know that even *thinking* about her beliefs will send her to hell? It is amazing to me that it's even *possible* to be indoctrinated into thinking this.

What an awesome wall of revulsion religion has constructed for itself!

I wonder if this woman, along with so many others, has passed a point of no return and no amount of reason could possibly get through. On the other hand, as people become more controlled by their beliefs, they become more desperate to have them unquestioned, and I wonder if this is because of a deep-seated doubt; the intelligent human buried under the rubbish.

Perhaps not. Perhaps the fear of eternal damnation is enough...

I also get tired of hearing people attribute all good things to God. It particularly bugs me when I hear, for example, that "it's a miracle" that one individual survived some horrible disaster, as the statement seems to imply that all the others who died were somehow less deserving of divine intervention.

How to reason with someone who refuses to even think about their beliefs -- that's a difficult one. I'd say that the method would depend on the context and the individual. In general, I would either let such a person be or see if I can get them to admit that their beliefs are completely based on faith and therefore not compelling to others. Some people are surprised that you would even think of questioning these beliefs, and sometimes your skepticism will (usually at a later date) lead them to some introspection.

But I have to admit that I generally take a "hands off" position on people who are this thoroughly indoctrinated into unreason (unless they are inviting discussion). I also include in this statement believers in other supernatural claims, conspiracy theorists, and radical atheists -- anyone who already "knows" the answers to the point that they will not entertain discussion. Such people don't need to be convinced, they need to be deprogrammed, and I'm not qualified to do such a thing.

LOL! Yeah, ok some holidays are a blast!!! Halloween for one!!! LOl dah! I see tour point and well taken..I never thought from your point of view...they HIDE behind the religion to prove something..from experience, I believe a lack of something in themselves or sheer want to do as they want and use church/religion as a way to repent.altho- it is not! I am remembering back to all my experiences...a baptist minister threatened to burn out my home with me husband and kids inside..because "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live" um..something lost in hebrew/english translation??? YES! in hebrew it was someone who poisoned wells to kill all the owners livestock etc..closest word that King James WANTED to use??? ahhh yep! WITCH. So this minister was going to deliver Gods justice..(again here we go judging, controling others) in the name of god.

You have a valid point with with learning but not learning to apply the 10 commandments..GOOD POINT!! I have battled with the christian religion, or really they with me for years, I am sure you understand...I believe in living peacefully, I should be able to claim my religion and not be burned, condemned or anything else..don't like me??? Steer clear!!! I leave you alone! Let me be in peace also.

Thanks for posting my comment..my son, also wiccan showed me your site and knew I would be behind you 100% ..even tho- we are of two different beliefs..if I can accect you and you I ..because it is how we live our life..as good people... why in the world can't others??? Good luck and best of wishes in your life endevors to open eyes and accomplish your dreams!!

The translation of "witch" is an interesting topic. Most modern translations (including the New King James) use the word "sorceress" in this passage. There are many items like this that the King James translation has inserted into our cultural vocabulary, and they are taken as gospel (if you'll pardon the pun) to the point that people are sometimes surprised that not every Bible agrees.

One problem we have is that some Christians assume that Wiccans and atheists are, in some sense, "out to get them." Atheism is not an attack on religion, it is just lack of religion. In the same sense, Wicca is not an attack on Christianity just because it isn't Christianity. At least in the U.S., too many people's view of non-Judeo-Christian beliefs comes directly from the media, and I think that leads to many of these problems.

You are correct that I am 100% behind you in your quest to live a good life. If we can all try to be moral, clear-thinking beings, then how we worship (or do not worship) is nobody else's business.

Oh, I believe very much that God is a matrix ... otherwise how could he be omnipotent, omnipresent, ominscient ... and answer prayers, and affect change, and hold nature, a fine balance, together. The great disservice many believers make is they don't think big enough, or small enough to see God. I had to find him when I was a kid, suffering night terrors from schizophrenia. When I sensed that it was not him who was terrorizing me ... my night terrors stopped forever, until my adulthood. Now I am having ... you won't believe this ... similar childhood lucid dreaming experiences ... and experiences of seeing displaced air, like heatwaves, even at night. Crazy? Nah, I've paid my dues. A believer since I was six. Abuse, sexual physical. I had no choice but to believe in God. It is a fine balance. Faith is not aggressive belief, but the hell you have to go through to be awarded it.

There are many people who, like you, feel compelled to believe in God or find comfort in that belief. I certainly wouldn't hold that against you, and it makes me sad that some atheists think theists should somehow be "forced" into disbelief "for their own good."

Thanks for the interesting correspondence.

Hi there! I stumbled across this site accidentally, and I really think you have one of the best pro-atheist sites out there. I'm a huge fan of how patient you are with the threats, personal attacks, and general hate mail unpleasantness that you seem to recieve on a daily basis.

I'd like to know your opinion about something, though: we live in a world where there are undeniably religious fundementalists inflicting serious harm on others either as a result of, or as somehow aided by their religious beliefs. Now, my problem with religious moderates is that (not always, but) by and large, they belive that it's ok to hold a worldview that is based on "faith" and not pure reason. And thus moderates are dangerous because while they will never strap a bomb to their chests or shoot an abortionist, they also won't go out of their way to stop someone else from doing these harmful things. They really can't (without being hypocritical); when it comes down to it, those extremists and moderates, both groups are simply going by a "gut feeling" that they're right. And if you don't need naturalistic evidence to justify your belifs, how can you argue that any of the extremists are on the wrong path without being philosophically inconsistent? And since we also live i n a world where some (if not many) of these extremists are in control of weapons and armies, it would seem that adopting a "live and let live" attitude towards extremism could be potentially very, very dangerous. So doesn't it follow that even allowing for religious moderation could be very dangerous in today's world? After all, doesn't everyone who wants to be ethical have a responsibility to do their best to stop others from blowing things up (if they can)?

While I agree that it's generally a good idea to be nice to others, I have serious trouble accepting the idea that religious moderates are harmless. Hope to hear any of your opinions!

Good question! Part of the problem, as I see it, is that some people feel it is not "politically correct" to say anything negative about the religious beliefs of others. (As an aside, many of these people don't have a problem with saying negative things about atheists, but that's a rant for another time.)

I personally do not have anything against the concept of faith-based beliefs. They serve some people well. However, I would argue that faith-based beliefs are only acceptable when the person with those beliefs a) admits that they are based on faith, and b) does not automatically condemn others who have contradictory faith-based beliefs. To say that you have faith in something is to admit that you believe in it without proof, and it is logically inconsistent to condemn another because their unprovable belief contradicts your unprovable belief.

With this as our basis, we should be free to judge people by their actions instead of by their faith. If a Muslim (for example) has faith that Christians are an offence to God that's (in a sense) okay up to the point of taking action to wipe out that offense. If the Muslim admits that this belief is faith based, then s/he must either take no action (because an unproven belief is not solid ground for killing) or be willing to say that Christians who think God wants Muslims wiped out are acting morally. The latter option invites the destruction of mankind, so my hope is that people will choose the former.

Your letter was a breath of fresh air, even though I don't quite believe everything you said or feel as optimistically as you do. My attempts to be smug and cynical have been thwarted. Heh. If there's one thing I totally agree with you on it's that information in a vacuum helps no one, and that it takes the efforts of those with the information to spread it to the people. Otherwise, most families just perpetuate their knowledge through their generations, often in ignorance. Anyway, thanks for being kind and gentle - and intelligent. It's effective.

Yes, there is some basic courtesy. Not much, but it's there. And when there's lack of courtesy it takes a real effort not to say, "Screw it, I'm not going to be courteous anymore; it's not doing any good." Also, those I find superior in the courtesy realm are those who manage to smile at others. It's always a warming shock to get smiled at by a stranger. And then I try to do it and it fails most of the time. So I stop. I don't know how they do it, those rare, impenetrable smilers.

Meat without the associated animal? I haven't heard about this, but if there's no nervous system I'd be all for it. I'll have to look into it. I wonder what sort of "karmic repercussions" this might have.

I'm idealistic about the pain issue. I think that believing another's pain is less important than one's own is the definition of violence. And violence, at least among civilized, enlightened beings, should necessarily be discarded without looking back.

The remedy case is also a bit idealistic. I would say, regarding diabetes, that we should focus more on our diets so we can phase out the need for [ab]using animals to get us out of our jams. Western culture, as you've no doubt seen, is far too interested in treating symptoms of diseases rather than their causes. This is an extremely lazy, unnecessary, irresponsible and ultimately very violent affair with vast repercussions. But I'm with you - it would be nice to see it go away.

My statement about the equality in ease and expense of vegetarianism was not meant to be universal. My mistake. Again, I feel there are many places in the world where an omnivorous diet is achieved responsibly. If I lived in one of these places I would partake in the gifts that animals have to offer us. America is not one of those places. But I can still get all my nourishment at the local chain grocery store for the same price, and with the same effort, as if I were omnivorous. We all at some point learned how to shop for consumables of all varieties. Many of us just need to unlearn some of that and learn it again if we're to be thoughtful about what we consume. So the inner-city mother, unless she gets her family meals at the McDonald's or KFC drive-thru every night, does not have to spend more time or money.

Your comment about the Creationist museum contradicts your last statement. The thinking involved in such an institution is a sort of virus in itself, and will have some affect on children (and many adults, surely) who pass through it, despite what their parents have been teaching them. The guy who created it is doing an admirable job getting his word to the masses, no matter what the liberal press has to say about it. But sure, like Iowa, a certain amount of our pointing and laughing will make a difference.

It's cool to hear that you're getting some advanced responses from the religious side of things. One of the people I work with is fairly open-minded when the subject comes up. Then again, one thing I've been noticing is that Catholicism is taking advantage of these recent situations with Evangelicals to claim their own sort of superiority. Funny.

Anyway, it's good to know you're out there, and it's been fun having this discussion with you.

:)

I can see the brilliance or craftiness rather in your site and respect it... people who stumble upon your website and are actually concerned by it obviously are struggling with their faith anyway, to exploit that, poking someone randomly on their deepest level is an awesome way to to stir controversy/entertainment. ahh the beauty of the internet and completely irrelevant and random contact with people and thoughts around the world. All hail connectivity, keep up the good wor... um fun....

P.S. I am no longer a Christian because of this site and am promptly divorcing my wife of 6 years so i can go live with my mexican gardener Mario(hottay) in L.A.

Thanks for the encouragement! Regarding your "P.S" -- I'm sorry to hear that you were forced into a less-than-desirable marriage by religion. I hope you and Mario will be very happy.

I like the main page you created, it made me laugh inside. the comments and questions you respond to are either made up, or created by 12 year olds, how a bout debating some real theology, even if this website is a joke, like it appears to be? anyway instead of bitching at you like it seems most people here do, i just want to ask you some questions. and hey, maybe if your lucky ill turn into someone like you.

- how do you believe the universe was created? assuming you are like most other atheists it would be evolution, and don't get me wrong, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, even though it hasn't genetically linked one species to another. but you reject the idea of a god influencing it. also the big bang. an explosion of substances and chemicals that creates life and a suitable place to live. the chances of which are the same as blowing up a book, in your case the bible, and the pieces landing in the same way it was originally. you know if the worlds axis tilt was off by one degree either way life wouldn't be able to exist? id rather believe in something outside of pure chance and coincidence. one more question .... if humans are more fit over monkeys to live, sense only the fittest survive, why are there still monkeys?

"If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, the I consent to be called a fool." Voltaire

i know your first immature impulse is to call me a fool, but try and resists.

Wow, you managed to frame some very tired questions with quite a bit of condescension and insult -- a rare combination indeed, and one that put me in a foul mood almost immediately. I'll address your points one at a time.

1) "the comments and questions you respond to are either made up, or created by 12 year olds" -- So either I'm a liar or all of the people who write to me are juvenile. I'm guessing that you didn't read very much of my correspondence. Quite a bit of it was intelligent and insightful. None of it was made up by me.

2) "how a bout debating some real theology" -- I am happy to do so and have done so repeatedly in the past.

3) "how do you believe the universe was created?" -- I don't see any compelling evidence that the universe was created. The universe appears to be the result of natural processes.

4) "assuming you are like most other atheists it would be evolution" -- You assume incorrectly, and I believe that you are wrong about "most other atheists" as well. The theory of evolution does not have anything to do with the origin of the universe.

5) "there is plenty of evidence for evolution, even though it hasn't genetically linked one species to another." -- I can't understand where you go the impression that there has been no genetic link found between species. There is a massive amount of data showing genetic similarity between species -- humans and chimps, for example, are something like 95% genetically identical. If you mean something else, you are not making yourself clear.

6) "but you reject the idea of a god influencing it." -- I only reject the idea of god influencing it because I don't see any compelling evidence for such a thing. If there is a deity involved, then that deity's actions are indistinguishable from natural processes.

7) "also the big bang. an explosion of substances and chemicals that creates life and a suitable place to live." -- This is an incredible oversimplification of the issue, to the point of near meaninglessness. The big bang did not create life and suitable places to live any more than (from an evolutionary perspective) ancient fish created my parents. The big bang is how our universe began. No chemicals (and, depending on the definitions used, no substances) were involved. It made possible what came afterward, but did not in any meaningful sense create those results.

8) "the chances of which are the same as blowing up a book, in your case the bible, and the pieces landing in the same way it was originally." -- You give the impression that I believe the big bang threw a bunch of matter into the air and it fell into place as planets and living things. I believe no such thing, so your Bible analogy is irrelevant. You also give the impression that I believe the Bible should be destroyed. I do not believe any such thing and have read the Bible many times.

9) "you know if the worlds axis tilt was off by one degree either way life wouldn't be able to exist?" -- If I remember correctly, earth's axis moves over time in relation to the sun (which is why the north star isn't always Polaris), so if this is true I'd be surprised. But even if it is true, it doesn't bother me. I would expect that any planet with life on it would be suitable for life -- if the earth's tilt was such that we couldn't be here, then we wouldn't be here to worry about it.

10) "id rather believe in something outside of pure chance and coincidence." -- I can't argue with your personal opinion, but opinion on this point is not compelling evidence of anything but your desire to believe.

11) "if humans are more fit over monkeys to live, sense only the fittest survive, why are there still monkeys?" -- No scientist says that humans are more fit than monkeys to live. In fact, under some conditions it is more "fit" to be a monkey than a human. This question seems to reflect a gross misunderstanding of evolution.

12) "i know your first immature impulse is to call me a fool, but try and resists." -- Actually, my first impulse was to call Voltaire a fool since he asked me to. My second impulse was to be insulted by your calling me immature. So, having been worked into a rather bad mood by the tone of your letter, I will respond in kind. Your condescending missive is nothing more than a morass of tired arguments that anyone with a smattering of relevant scientific knowledge would be able to shrug off with nothing but a bit of sadness for the gross ignorance that they reflect. You do yourself no credit attempting to "challenge" me with what sounds like a collection of anti-atheist, anti-science one-liners passed around among the unlearned for the sole purpose of congratulating themselves for thinking of questions no unbeliever could possibly answer without going to the trouble of actually checking whether they make any sense.

If you do have some real theology you'd like to discuss, I'd love to hear it. But if this is the best you have to offer, then I suggest you do a lot of reading before you again attempt to show off your debating skills. You do neither yourself nor your beliefs credit.