Dear I Declare:

I'm flattered that you should bend your rules for me. God is love, which is a logical conclusion based on the idea that if good and evil exist together, then freedom is the reason that evil exists, not because God is evil. Or doesn't exist. If God was either one (evil or nonexistent), we'd never be having this conversation. Of course this is all my own thinking. I don't say that anything I say is true. But if evil existed in a vacuum without love ... the human race, which evil wants to destroy, would not have ever had a chance. Which sets up a showdown, between good and evil, where good wins, which is precisely what the Bible predicts. If there are errors in the Bible ... Christian heretics put them there. And if Jesus is not a threat ... why would they bother?

Bless you, I declare. I have been where you are. My intense desire to know and understand reality (after being terrified by hallucinations and finding peace when I resolved God didn't like these things any more than I did, because his creation did not reflect hatred toward mankind, nature, etc.) has led me to find truth only by assuming this scenario and then that one. God is provable by who he is, but mostly because of who he obviously isn't. The cosmic drama, conflict will have a conclusion ... and I expect it to be geologically spectacular, for one. Based on Zechariah 14, when valleys become mountains and vice versa. Evil destroys, God uses that energy against itself to create.

I'm not going to go into your discussion of God, good, and evil in huge detail because it doesn't sound to me like you're looking for a debate (let me know if I'm reading you wrong on this). I would like to start out, though, by saying that you don't need to couch your words with "I don't say that anything I say is true." If you have a reasoned opinion, I think you should come right out and say, "this is what I believe." We all understand that nobody's opinion is necessarily true, that's why it's worth having these discussions. I guess what I mean is you shouldn't sound like you're not proud of your beliefs or if you think they are less than anyone else's. All reasonable people are equal in this sense.

A brief refutation of your argument -- from my standpoint, it appears to rely on "good" and "evil" being metaphysical forces in and of themselves that require balancing. I don't believe that there is good or evil without human thought, and I don't think there is any metaphysical requirement for balance of good and evil. So, because I disagree with your premises, I disagree with your argument.

Thanks for writing!

(your name here) :

Just occured to me that I don't know your name, back to basics, my name is Keane, you are? anyway, in no way was my message to you intended to condescend and insult you, and I apologize if it came off that way. Readdressing your points, maybe in a little different order :

1) I did take the time to go through your site, it was under comments where you rebutted to common points of conversation I guess you have heard alot. The responses im assuming (though I apparently assume wrong alot) were not serious and were not intelligent or insightful. I did read some of the blogs, which to your defense was intelligent.

2) Let me rephrase my questions for you: How do you believe the universe was formed? The "Big Bang" theory is most commonly accepted but what do you believe? I know evolution doesn't have to do with the formation of the universe, my points were unclear and jumbled.

3) Rephrasing yet again: Most atheists I have met mainly in person believe in the natural process of evolution. Do you?

4) Id like to focus on one thing at a time, right now I just want to understand what you believe, but my comment on evolution was that yes animals are genetically similar as well as appearance wise, but they have no been 100% DNA linked. I accept the theory of evolution on a more user friendly basis, I believe evolution occurs within species to help them adapt, but not that man evolved from gorilla's.

5) I just want to keep note of this, there are some real "theological" topics we could discuss, but thats for later.

6) Yes, I simplified it down alot, but then again thats what you get for not paying attention in highschool biology. Would you like to clarify for me from your point of view on this?

7) The bible comment was a joke, I guess somethings are only funny to the writer. Anyway I'm saying that the big bang producing over time a suitable place to live is coincidence (correct me if im wrong) and that the chances of that production are very slim.

8) The tilt of the earth's axis comment was to show the incredible odds of chance creating earth. The tilt of the earth is always the same, something like 23.5 but the earth changes in relation to the sun, not its axis. Again thats highschool biology for me.

I'm surprised by the fact that you responded in kind and I thank you for that. Most people on the internet now-a-days like to come back with insults. My comments to you were not arguements or for that matter challenges, they were comments and questions in which I wanted to understand your point of view on the formation of the universe, God and evolution. We could sit here and debate evolution forever to no result; its still a theory and one that hasn't been proven. So no, the purpose of my letter was not to challenge you with one liner arguements but to understand where you are coming from. Again I do apologize if my letter offended you, that was no its purpose what so ever. "The gross ignorance that they reflect," my kindergarten teacher used to say, "never judge a book by its cover", maybe that will apply here and you will realize im not as ignorant as you have assumed.

carpe aeternitas

1) You're right that the responses page is not meant to be intelligent or insightful. It's a joke.

2) Some version of the Big Bang seems to make the most sense, based on our current knowledge.

3) Evolution also makes sense to me. We still have a lot to learn about the details, though.

4) I'm not sure what you mean when you say that animals "have not been 100% DNA linked." We've found quite a bit of similarity in the DNA of humans and chimps, for example. It sounds to me like you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. Would that be correct?

6) I think we have a lot more options to explore before we have to resort to invoking the supernatural. To me, the supernatural should be a last resort.

7) The Big Bang producing a place like Earth is, in a sense, a coincidence and mathematically unlikely. It is possible that the chances of the Big Bang resulting in at least one place were life could form may be very high, though. I don't think we know enough at this point to answer the question.

I'm happy to discuss topics like these at great length, whether or not we solve anything.

As an aside, statements like "evolution is a theory that hasn't been proven" bug me a bit. Scientific theories, pretty much by definition, are never proven, but evolution is one of the best-substantiated theories we have.

Glad to hear you aren't as ignorant as I assumed <G>.

Hello again, and sorry it took so long to respond. I finally have a little bit of free time and would like to begin stating my case for you. I figured that a good place to start would be with the Intelligent Design vs. Naturalism debate. Please note though, that before I begin, I am not trying to say I can outrightly prove the existance of God, or completely disprove macro-evolution. If I could, I'd be famous. Realistically, in purely scientific forms (which is what the basis of this debate should be laid on) both Intelligent design and naturalism are theories. I've been irritated enough by people claiming that evolution is fact, and just as irritated by supposed theologists claiming that they have complete, 100% un-deniable proof of the existance of God. My goal here is to provide evidence based on fact, to present a logical case, then have you make the most rational decision based on it. Anyway, lets begin.

The Intelligent Design "philosophy" basically states that we (scientific community) has been able to trace the history of the universe back to the beginning of time to when it was made. Most people have a very generalized idea of this as the "Big Bang." In 1916, Albert Einstein first uncovered the concept of the expanding universe from calculations derived from his Theory of General Relativity. Actually, for him this was a big problem. The popular scientific viewpoint of the day was that the universe was eternal- had existed forever and will continue to exist forever. The problem Einstein had, was that if General Relativity was true and the universe was expanding, it implied that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, first of all, the "eternal universe" theory could not be correct, and second of all, it meant that it had to be made. Einstein disliked this concept so much, that he actually deliberately sabotaged his equation, adding what was known as a cosmological constant, which altered the outcome to what he wanted it to be, as opposed to what it was. In 1919, cosmologist Arthur Eddington (a theological skeptic himself) conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse, and reached the same conclusion Einstein had about General Relativity- The universe was indeed expanding. Like Einstein, Eddington wasn't happy with the implications of the expanding universe either, and was even quoted as saying, "I should like to find a genuine loophole [around General Relativity]." In 1922, Alexander Friedmann (a mathematician) had uncovered Einsteins deliberate error he had placed in his equions for GR (general relativity). And in 1927, Edwin Hubble actually first observed the universe expanding (via telescope of course). In 1929, Einstein (using Hubble's telescope) also witnessed the expansion of the universe, and admitted his error in deliberately and falsely changing the outcome of his Theory of General Relativity. Today, the Theory of GR has been proven accurate to 5 decimal places.

Now comes the fun part. Why does the expanding universe matter? Well, the scientific law of Causality states that everything that has a beginning (has come to be) has a cause (and in case you don't know, a scientific law is called a law b/c it is known to be true in all cases. Period. No exceptions). Thus, since the universe is expanding and therefore must have a beginning to it, we can deduct:

1- Everything that has a beginning (has come to be) must have a cause (Law of Causality)

2-The universe has a beginning

3- Therefore, the universe must have had a cause.

Now, some people may argue that the expanding universe doesn't mean it had a beginning, and up until the Theory of GR, atheists were perfectly comfortable with the "Eternal Universe" theory, as that would imply that the universe never needed to begin, and thus did not need anything to make it begin (to cause it). Unfortunately for atheists, scientists can now prove beyond reasonable doubt that the universe did have a beginning (A.k.a The Big Bang). There are 5 major supportive peices of scientific evidence for the big bang:

First, is the second law of thermodynamics (the study of matter and energy), which states that everything in the universe as we know it (including the universe itself) is running out of usable energy. Essentially that means that eventually the universe will run out of gas (like a car). So why does that mean the universe had a beginning? The answer is the first law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total amount of eneergy in the universe is constant. Now, if theres a constant amount of energy ( No matter how huge that constant amount might be) that can be used (usefully), that means that it would be impossible for the universe to be eternal- if there is a limited amount of fuel, it would be impossible for it to run forever, so to speak. Another hugely important thing the second law of thermodynamics (also known as the law of Entropy) brings to the table, is that over time, nature brings disorder. Everything wears down over time. Even our bodies, as we get older, lose more energy and become more disordered (thus, we cannot live forever). The fact that there is still usable energy in the universe, and that the universe still has order to it, tells us that the only way it could not violate the laws of thermodynamics, would be that it did indeed begin at some point, and is not eternal.

The second large peice of scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory, is the expansion of the universe. As mentioned earlier, Edwin Hubble was the first person to actually be able to watch the expansion of the universe via his telescope. The expansion if very important, as it provided scientists a way to calculate how fast it is expanding, and among many other things, matematically calculate where the expansion started, how long ago it happened, and the size of which everything exploded out of. Several different sources I've read from indicate that calculations determine that the initial point that the Big Bang occured from was nearly infinitely small. Also, it has been concluded (look it up if you don't believe me) that the Big Bang brought all matter, dimension and even time into existance. Before the big bang, there was literally nothing. Not even time existed. This brings up an interesting dilema for arguing atheists. If nothing had existed before the big bang, where did the big bang come from? As I mentioned before about the law of Causality, anything that happens needs a cause. So what caused the Big Bang? This is a huge problem for atheists, as they can find no rational explaination for it. Self-proclaimed atheist and scientist Peter Atkins once proposed during a scientific/theological debate that perhaps the big bang was caused by a swirling dust of mathematical points that recombined over and over again until finally, by trial and error (and pure luck of course) happened to create the outcome of the big bang. Unfortunately for him, before the big bang, matter, mathematics, time, and the laws of physics as we know them did not exist, thus it was impossible for that to happen. This is where theology, from a scientific standpoint, makes more sense. If the universe must have had a cause, and there was nothing at all the cause it, how did it come to be? The notion that an all-powerful, all-intelligent, eternal God that has existed before time itself (keeping in mind that time didnt exist until the big bang occured) actually created the universe out of nothing makes more sense than anything else. (Interestingly enough, the original Hebrew verb 'bara' used in Genesis 1:1 of the Bible literally translates "Created out of nothing" which matches exactly the theory of God causing the Big bang. This same verb was used 7 times throughout the Old Testament of the Bible to describe how God created the universe out of literally nothing. Also note that there are 11 verses by 5 different authors of the OT, that state God is literally stretching out the heavens, which is also consistent with the notion of the expanding universe). Some people may argue that even if God did cause the big bang, what caused (created) God. Unfortunately, the law of causality doesnt really apply to God, as the law states that all things that have a beginning (COME TO BE) need a cause. As stated by the Bible, God never came to be. God has always existed. He is eternal, the alpha and omega. If God never "came to be" (as the Bible states) the law of causality doesn't apply to him. No beginning = no cause. The eternal God, who created our laws of time and physics (and thus, is also not subject to them) is actually the most rational explaination for the cause of the Big Bang.

Our third major scientific peice of data supporting the Big Bang is what is called "Cosmic Background Radiation." Basically, knowing what scientists already did about the universe (its expansion, age, etc) they were able to determine that if everything in existance had essentially exploded out of a nearly inifitely small point, there would be signs of it via heat energy. Think of a bomb; When they detonate, they generate a huge amount of heat. Same concept here. Actually, Cosmic Background Radiation was first discovered by accident in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson (which ended up winning them Nobel Prizes). The CBR they detected was literally the afterglow of the initial heat from the Big Bang. (Due to the absolute immense size of the universe, everything, including light and heat, takes a great deal of time to travel from one place to another. Although this gets very complicated, its also very fascinating. Essentially, its actually possible to see into the past in the universe b/c of the amount of time it takes for light to reach us from another point in space). This was huge, b/c as early as 2 decades earlier, scientists had calculated that, if the big bang did occur, they would be able to detect such radiation. This basically laid to rest any still-existing theories on the universe being eternal, as and eternal universe would have no explaination for the heat (no cause), and b/c the heat detected had exactly the same wavelengths and pattern that scientists predicted they would based on the Big Bang theory.

The fourth peice of evidence rides on the third one. With the knowledge now of cosmic background radiation, astrophysicists theorized that in able to form galaxies, slight ripples and variations in CBR would be necessary (had to do with the gravitational attraction of matter). In 1989, NASA launched a $200 million dollar satellite called the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) to find signs of this CBR fluctuations. In 1992, the results were released and very good (even referred to as the Holy Grail of cosmology). The COBE not only detected the ripples in CBR, but scientists found that the measured CBR fluctuations were nearly identical to their predictions. The kind of accuracy that doesnt come from luck. Being able to calculate something that precisely is a very good indication that your theory is correct. The findings also dictated that the explosion and expansion of the universe is so finely tweaked, as to matter to congregate to form galaxies, but not so much that universe would collapse back on itself. One slight variation one way or another, and life as we know it would not exist. This finding was so important, Stephen Hawking called it "The most important discovery of the century, if not of all time," and George Smoot (leader of the COBE expedition) referred to the ripples as "Fingerprints of the maker."

Finally, the fifth supporting peice of evidence for the Big Bang is Einsteinds Theory of General Relativity. From this, it was found that time, space and matter are all interdependent- you cannot have one without the other. Because of the theory of GR, scientists were able to calculate the universe's expansion, the CBR, and even the very exact ripples in CBR necessary for galaxy formation.

With the overwhelming amount of data in support of the Big Bang theory, other theories for the universe (I.e the universe is eternal, and the rebounding universe, which i didnt talk about) were basically disregarded by nearly every credible scientist. That isnt to say that every scientist in the world believes the big bang, but some people will believe whatever they want, dispite evidence and support. As i discussed earlier, the Big Bang is hugely important to theology, as when it comes to how everything in existance as we know it was created out of nothing, aethiestic science has no answers. Even before we talk about Darwinsim and evolution, aethiests have no explaination for how everything came into existance in the first place. In this case, the idea of God is actually not so absurd. To be realistic, to this day, any type theory for how the universe came to be, outside the creator, takes more faith to believe in than the premise of a God that created it all. Basically the choices are random, naturalistic causes (despite the fact that before the big bang, laws of physics, nature, matter, and even time itself did not exist) or that a supremely intelligent being created everything we know today, from absolutely nothing whatsoever (confirming the Bible's claim. Also, on that note, according to several different sources I've read from, the Bible by far gives a more accurate account for the original creation than any other 'holy' scripture)

Anyway, I know that was a great deal to read, so despite having a lot more evidence to give you (over many other topics), I'll stop for now. I'm honestly not trying to bore you (obviously I love this kind of stuff, despite not being a scientist of any sort myself) but rather, want to provide you with information you probably haven't heard yet. Also, I just touched the tip of the iceberg. The majority of the info I gave you came from two great books, "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Dr. Hugh Ross, and "I dont' have enough faith to be an atheist" by Norman L Geisler and Frank Turek. Both of these books I feel provide a great deal of information on the subject matter, and several others. I need to go for now, but I hope I do hear back from you (even if it is with challenges or questions) and I definitely have more info to share with ya. Thanks for reading, talk to you soon. Take care.

To start, you mention being irritated by people who claim that evolution is a fact when it is a theory. I think you'll find that, although evolution must be called a theory for reasons of scientific vocabulary, most knowledgeable scientists consider it to be a fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, does not appear to be falsifiable (at least not in any version of it I've encountered), and is therefore not even a scientific theory.

I believe you may be incorrect in your characterizations of Einstein's reasons for introducing a cosmological constant. As I understand it, he introduced it because gravity needed to be countered if the universe was to be in a steady state (as opposed to contracting), and gave up the constant when it was shown the universe was expanding. He was not worried that, if the universe had a beginning it would imply that the universe "had to be made." In fact, I can't think of anything in General Relativity that would lead to an expanding universe if there were no cosmological constant.

You might want to double check Eddington's quote about finding a loophole. I believe he was talking about the Big Bang, not General Relativity.

I also think Einstein's insertion of the constant shouldn't be characterized as a "deliberate error" or "falsely changing the outcome" of his theory. Rather, it was introduced to make his equations mesh with (what was then) observed fact, and when observations proved it unnecessary, Einstein admitted he made a "blunder." That's just the progress of science. (You also don't mention that some current theories of cosmology have reintroduced the constant.)

I am not familiar with a scientific law of causality as you describe it. I know that, in relativistic terms, any effect must be within the light cone of its cause. Is this what you are referring to? If not, then would you consider virtual particle pairs to have a cause? If you would, then I think we're good to go.

I think your discussion of thermodynamics has a few lumps in it as well. For example, the second law of thermodynamics does not imply that we lose energy as we get older. Our bodies are not closed systems so the second law does not apply. This is not a significant point, however.

You make a major mistake, I think, when you say, "Also, it has been concluded (look it up if you don't believe me) that the Big Bang brought all matter, dimension and even time into existence. Before the big bang, there was literally nothing. Not even time existed." I believe a more correct statement would be that "nothing in the observable universe existed before the Big Bang." I don't see how we can make any statements about what existed before the Big Bang since there is no way to get information from before the event. For all we know, the Big Bank took place in some unfortunate person's living room.

"What caused the Big Bang" isn't as big a problem for atheists as you might expect. Physics has a number of possible solutions. It is certainly a problem that is still being worked on, however.

Before we continue, let's step back a moment and look at how you are arguing. You keep repeating that scientists say nothing came before the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing that could have caused it. Even if your statement was correct (and I contend that it is not), why are you so sure that these scientists are right when they say there was nothing before the Big Bang? The simplest solution to the whole dilemma is that anyone who says nothing -- not time, not matter, not energy, but nothing -- existed before the Big Bang is just plain wrong. I'd say that the likelihood of this statement being incorrect is much higher than the likelihood of a universe-creating being existing, wouldn't you?

Back to your argument. I'm going to skip over the Bible citations, because they are really not relevant to the point (since we're not discussing the accuracy of scripture at the moment). You say that the law of causality does not apply to God because he never came to be. Well, there are at least two alternatives to God in this situation: 1) an uncaused universe -- for example, one in which there is an infinite series of Big Bang-type events, and 2) the Big Bang is an exception to the law of causality. Either of these, to me, is more likely than the existence of a universe-creating being. I also have to ask, if we can apply the concept of never having been created to something, isn't it simpler to apply it to reality (which we know exists) than to God (which we have not yet proven exists)?

You continue to spend a lot of time giving evidence that the Big Bang occurred. This gives me the impression that you think the Big Bang is some kind of problem for atheists. Actually, I can't think of a single atheist I've met or spoken to who does not believe that the Big Bang occurred. The only people I've met who disbelieve in the Big Bang were young-earth creationists, and they certainly don't need to be convinced that God exists. Just thought I'd mention it because you're expending quite a bit of energy on something that I'm not likely to disagree with.

You say that, "when it comes to how everything in existence as we know it was created out of nothing, atheistic science has no answers." This is just plain not true. Stephen Hawking has been quoted more than once saying that physics does not require God (although he also -- correctly -- points out that physics does not preclude God), and there are many theories of how the universe may have come to be that do not require God.

I appreciate your taking the time to write. The Cosmological argument isn't anything I haven't come across before, but it is entertaining to discuss and I liked hearing your version of it. I look forward to your next letter.

It's good to see that you can come up with defenses to "arguments" for God that actually have no substance to them. I wonder though how you would defend your atheistic position when faced with overwhelming evidence for the existance of God. Not every Christian relies on statements like, "Jesus loves you so you should love him too," and "But the Bible says so..." as "proof" of God's existance. Even as a Christian myself I realize how absurd statements like these are to someone who does not believe in God whatsoever. If you don't believe in God,and thus the Bible as the word of God, I know that you could care less about what the Bible says. However,if you are actually interested in a factual based argument for the existance of God I would be more than happy to have a logical discussion with you. Let me know if you want to take a shot at a real debate. Thanks.

The simple answer is that if I were faced with overwhelming evidence for the existence of God I wouldn't defend my atheistic position. I do not have faith in atheism, so I will no defend it if it can be shown to be wrong.

You are incorrect when you say that I "could care less about what the Bible says." I am, in fact, very interested in the Bible. It is an important cultural and religious document, and I have read it several times.

I am definitely interested in hearing what you have to say about the existence of God. (I'm assuming you mean the God of the Bible -- let me know if you mean something else, like a prime mover.)

How do we deal with infinity and awareness?

Thank you for this website which helps us persevere in our quest for truth and structure our thoughts about god, the purpose of life and all those things which might lead us to feel totally at a loss...Unless one adheres slavishly to some "revealed" religion

I'd like to contribute to the debate but I must apologize for my English, my first language is French.

In one of the conversations published on this website you state the following: "I don't say that god doesn't exist. I say that I see no compelling reason to believe that god exists. If significant evidence appears that there is a god, I'll change my mind."

It is therefore significant evidence of god's existence that would constitute for you a compelling reason to believe that there is a god. I share this view:- I do not feel I would need conclusive evidence to find a good reason to believe in god, significant evidence would be enough.

Now I'd like to submit to you two largely accepted facts which in my view might constitute that type of evidence which would give you reasons to believe i.e. to think that it would be reasonable to assert that there is a god in view of such significant evidence.

Those two facts are consciousness and infinity. The universe is infinite, or potentially infinite, this is something which science has accepted; it is infinite in time, space and size. And man is so equipped as to be aware not only of his finite existence but also of the infinite nature of the universe he lives in. This in my view explains the human production of deities and religions: men look for a truth and a meaning which transcend their existence because although ridiculously small at the scale of the universe, men have the capacity to grasp its infinite wideness and tremendous forces. Men are therefore able to scrutinize the infinity and interrogate their mind as to what is behind this wonder.

From the above facts 2 hypotheses can be formulated:- 1)Consciousness is an accident of biological evolution, a part and a product of men's physiology; the universe itself is therefore deprived of any awareness it is an empty thing , an infinite emptiness, unaware of its own existence, forces and subtle balance; in fact the existence of the universe took form and meaning only through the accidental apparition, within itself, of men's physiological capacity to perceive it; OR

2) Awareness is an essential component of the universe and men are the children of the universe: men's consciousness and intelligence are a part and product of the intelligence which impregnates the universe. Men's physiology does not produce awareness but is a receptacle of this component of the universe which is awareness; an awareness which exists independently from humankind.

I feel it is reasonable to make a choice between those two hypotheses which logically stem from irrefutable facts and prefer to believe in the second one.

This is an interesting question (although I believe it presents somewhat of a false dichotomy).

My feeling would be that option #2 is uncompelling. I see no reason why awareness and intelligence need be more than the sum of our parts. I also do not see any evidence that the universe itself has awareness or intelligence.

Even so, I could not refute option #2 in that (so far as I can see) it makes no testable predictions. I also imagine that believing it might bring some level of comfort, so I see no harm.

Thanks for writing!

1. Your blog is a series of sophomoric comments. Are you trying to attract people to atheism or repel them?

2. Your comment about atheism resulting in fewer wars (i.e. killings) than religion is certainly not backed up by the last 100 years of history.

Your coreligionists in the old Soviet Union killed over 15 million people. Your coreligionist Mao Tse Tung's killed millions more. We can add your coreligionists Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler et al.

Your corelgionists are a major driving force for abortions worldwide which average about 22 million a year.

For wars and killings we theists are pikers compared to you guys. Given the Stalinist nature of you guys, I'm sure you've just gotten started.

3. Atheism is illogical. According to your religion, chance and time produce everything.

Chance is probability. Chance is not a force, chance has no power in and of itself. Chance effectively is nothing.

Time is change within the three universal dimensions. It also is nothing within itself.

Therefore, NOTHING produces EVERYTHING. Great religion dude! How inspiring!

4. Our existence means that the eternal exists. Atheists, like yourself therefore have to (if they have the ability to think coherently) believe that the universe is eternal.

The universe we actually observe appears to have a beginning (big bang), be running down (2nd law of thermodynamics), and have been designed for us to exist (numerous physical constants like the strong force, weak force et al).

Your coreligionists, in order to avoid a creator God, which they cannot see, believe

a. In a "multiverse" they cannot see, nor can they ever observe. b. In "dark matter" which supposed- ly constitutes over 80% of all matter, which they have never seen, and which, remarkably if it really does constitute over 80% of all matter, has never been observed in or around the solar system or between the solar system and the galactic center 30,000 light years away. c. In dark energy, which wasn't "known" 10 years ago, but now supposedly constitutes 73% of the universe. d. In evolution as "fact", "fact" "fact", even though observed changes in genetic material over time almost always are detriment- al (consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)and observed mutation rates in astronomically numerous, short lived micro- organisms preclude Darwinian evolution much above the genus level in any way except by front loading (i.e. Directed Evo!) among complex organisms.

So unlike us superstitious theists, you atheists believe in universes you can't see, matter you can't see, energy you can't see, and miraculous positive creative mutations no one has ever seen either.

I know I'm only a superstitious theist, but I'm skeptical that your religion has any validity.

Ciao baby!

1. Sophomoric comments? I'm going to hope that you are confusing the comments of some of my less thoughtful readers with my own. If not, then I hope you can give me an example of where in my blog I am being "sophomoric".

2. I don't say that atheism results in fewer wars, but I would say that fewer wars have been fought for atheism than for theism. In fact, I can't think of a single war motivated by atheism. Atheists are certainly not all Stalinists. As for Hitler being an atheist -- give me a break.

3. Atheism is (by definition) not a religion. Your statement that atheists believe that "chance and time produce everything" is incorrect and therefore your refutation of that statement would be irrelevant even if it weren't filled with logical fallicies.

4. Both religious and atheist people must believe that eternity exists. You gain nothing from this statement. You are right about the universe having a beginning and having increasing entropy, but you are wrong about it having been apparently designed for us.

a. There are many theories of the universe that do not include a multiverse (as I understand the term).

b.-c. Dark matter, dark energy, and such things are theoretical constructs used to describe the motion of bodies in space and the expansion of the universe. Theists need something to describe these motions as much as atheists do (unless they attribute all motion to God's action). This is still a new area of science, but over the last year it is believed that dark matter has actually been observed. In any case, neither of these are articles of faith among atheists, and it's not a major disaster if they are later proven not to exist.

d. Note the "almost" in your first statement. Your second statement is, if I understand what you're saying, just plain wrong.

Of the four things you close by saying that atheists believe in, it's interesting to note that a great many scientifically minded theists also believe in at least the possibility of three of them.

I hasten to point out to my readers that, despite your letter, I don't think that all religious people are as pompous, self-important, and bigoted as you. And as for your last statement -- I have no religion, so you are correct that my religion has no validity. At least you got that right.

First off, brilliant website. Your responses, posts, everything shows that it has work put into it as well as thought, something I feel religion could use. Your idea to post hate mail is very good. They are humorous and show the ignorant side of Christianity, although that is NOT the only side of Christianity there is.

I am currently picking out a religion, Googlism seems to fit the bill just right for me. I would seriously be considered an atheist, but I'm sick of people like those who send you hate mail annoying me about being godless. Hearing, "You're going to hell!" over and over is rather annoying. It saddens me that, like most of the people responding to your site to complain, don't challenge my belief with anything other than "You're gay if you don't believe what I believe." So, I'm going to play devil's advocate (ironic, innit?)

1. The Cosmological Argument Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Since an infinite can't exist, and the universe is supposedly a beginningless series of events (which is an infinite), the universe must have been created by something or one. So, God could have created the universe.

2. The complexity of life. Not so much the beauty.. there are plenty of ugly complex things too. Our DNA strand is so long and so almost perfect. We can't even begin to talk about the brain without getting stuck somewhere, it's that complex. How can we have such complex things without a supreme being make us that way? Note that he could, probably, make us this complex at the snap of a finger, seeing how he could be so superior to us.

3. Miracles & Weird stuff Birth, specifically. The heart just starts beating, why? God could've made it start! And how about death? When we die, we lose a bit of weight. How do you explain that?! Huh!? HUH!!? (Sorry, had to)

4. Belief (honest debate) If all people believe in God, could that make him exist? If everyone believed that the sky was in fact red, then darn it, the sky is red. So, if everyone believed that God was real and existed, wouldn't that make him real? Now, let's shrink this down to one person. If I (for example) believed God was real, truly believed, then wouldn't he be real in my reality, which is all that matters? You can do this with a lot of things. To me, the sky could be red, if I truly believed that, then the sky was red, in my reality. I think you can't really prove that God doesn't exist in anywhere other than your own reality. It is like seeing something. You see it, but no one else does. Something is usually wrong with you, but there is something there, in your reality. I could also believe that 1=2. It wouldn't be true in other people's realities, but in mine, it would. It's a whole matter of perspective and your belief.

Thanks, keep up the good work. Don't let the close minded get to you, though you seem to be far better at that than I am. Enjoy and I look forward to a response, if not, I'll still read the site and laugh my butt off at the hate mail!

Quick answers to your arguments (with lengthier ones available if you deem them necessary).

1. If everything must have a cause then God must have a cause. If God can be uncaused, then the universe can be uncaused.

2. DNA isn't close to perfect -- there's a lot of junk in there. Natural processes are completely capable of making complex things, they just need a lot of time. And our DNA looks more like something thrown together and sifted through over time than it does like something painstakingly designed.

3. The beating of the heart doesn't seem that mysterious to me. It's part of biological development. As for losing a bit of weight at death, is that even true? I'm skeptical.

4. I've always contended that personal revelation is a legitimate proof for the existence of God, but that it is I uncompelling to others. Your argument #4 says essentially this.

And finally, when people say "You're going to Hell" how about answering, "Okay! See you later!"

I just had to send you some sort of comment after reading your site. First off, since the question your probably asking yourself (though if you aren't already thinking about it, then I'm amazed at your moral fiber) is am I an angry Christian sending you hate mail, an atheist, or someone else? I'm going to tell you at the end, so please, don't peek. Now, I'll speak from an 'agnostic' or analytical viewpoint so as to keep everything more...fair.

One of the excellent conceptions that I think you have is that religion is NOT evil, people are...when they hurt others.

One problem with the site is-there are so many conversations that go on forever and are redundant of other conversations and in giant, hard-to-read, text blocks.

Now to the real questions...

Does god exist? From an unbiased (or as unbiased as I can be) viewpoint, god is simply an idea that embodies one of three things. 1-The omnipotent creator of everything. Problem-No solid evidence. If god really exists then why doesn't he just openly talk to everyone? It would make more people realize that goodness is the correct path, and as children basically believe the first thing they're told, if god taught them goodness, the world would be better. 2-The incarnation of the human fear of death. Problem-There are too many explanations that 'alleviate' this fear to believe one is correct, at least logically. 3-An imaginary being of 'ultimate good' used to teach the world to be more moral. Problem-Drop the fakeness. People who think they're being deceived get angry. Then teach the morals without the lies.

If god does exist, will he (or she, it, or they) condemn every non-believer to hell? From an analytical viewpoint, no. In fact, a being of infinite goodness is incapable of rage or dislike/hatred. Especially the omniscient type. God would understand everyone's actions and why each individual believed that these choices were all right. God would forgive a man who hated him and always did, if God has infinite goodness, God cannot possibly hate Satan, because he understands and forgives him.

At this point I've realized that trying to hide my obvious atheism is impossible for someone so well educated and experienced in the subject. Yes, I'm an atheist. Also, if you did cheat and look at the bottom to see my religion (or lack of), the answer wasn't there.

Can someone be truly sure that god does not exist? No...of course not, you can't say that something can't possibly exist without being...oh, say...omniscient. Which is why science and scientists say that you can't ever disprove something (and yes, they do) although they do say you can PROVE things. The point I'm making here is that I don't believe anyone can be correct about 'knowing' there is no god because there's no evidence to prove that he isn't real. There is a distinct LACK OF EVIDENCE. Yeah, there's some there, for example the millions of people who believe he is real. That's sort of evidence, now they could be wrong, but they are there. And a religion is much more likely to be (partially) right if it has followers.

If I don't believe God cannot exist, I believe he probably doesn't, am I agnostic? No. Of course not. And anyone who disagrees with that statement, please, consider this... Is the world flat or round? You'll probably say round, I hope. But, if you haven't been in space and actually seen the round world then you're sort of 'agnostic' about the world being round. Though if you have been in space, what if the roundness thing was a trick of the light? Eh? Oh by the way, by roundness i mean spherical. A flat circle would be round, technically. And to everyone saying that "Science proves the world is round!" What if A.They're wrong (it's happened before, ex.the atomic model) or B.Making it up as a conspiracy. Yes, B is unlikely. But there is a minute chance it's true, so thus, you are agnostic about the spherical nature of the world, and agnostic about gravity, among many other things. If that's your definition of agnosticism then yes, all atheists are ignorant, and as happy as me suggesting that makes them, most 'atheists' are agnostic by that standard. I believe atheism is the belief that the existence of god is, beyond reasonable doubt, false.

Agnostics are like a hung jury, or one that says the defendant is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, yet probably guilty.

Atheists are like a jury with a guilty verdict, they can't be 100% sure the defendant is guilty, but it's beyond reasonable doubt.

I could ramble on for hours, but it's late, and I have a movie to shoot with my friends and a party tomorrow. So I'll finish by saying I greatly admire you for many reasons, and wish that you would contact me via email so we may discuss this further.

You're right about the difficulty with following conversations on this blog and with redundancy. Much of the former is born from my need for an easy-to-maintain format, and I've put together an important conversations area to preserve some of the more difficult-to-follow threads.

Redundancy is going to come up because, to be frank, you tend to hear the same things over and over in this business. I don't want to turn someone away or not reply just because "I've heard that before."

Now to your real questions:

You ask why God wouldn't just talk to everyone, and argue that God would not condemn every non-believer. Both of these rely on an understanding of God's motivations, the nature of infinite goodness, and other really difficult subjects. They are not as cut and dried as they might appear on the surface. For example, you mention that God would understand why people did the things they did, but some religions (e.g., Protestantism) believe that such reasons/excuses for sin are as meaningless to God as acts of charity in terms of salvation. You also seem to be assuming that God would send only those He hates to hell, and I don't know that any Christian religion teaches this.

A little clarification is necessary when you say (rather firmly) that scientists say that you can't ever disprove something. Although I understand your point, the fact is that scientists disprove things -- theories, for example -- all the time. It's part of science. In fact, it might be more correct to say that science says you can never prove things, which is why evolution is still called a theory even though it's one of the best supported theories in science.

You say that a religion is much more likely to be right (at least in part) if it has follows. I would disagree. Truth, at least in this case, is completely disjoint from its popularity.

I also am not a fan of the term agnostic, and many people who use it use it incorrectly. You can be an agnostic atheist, for example.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. (And, by the way, the earth isn't a sphere. Just thought I'd mention it <G>.)

God damn you! (Pun intended) This is like Point counterpoint! You are too intelligent for me. While I will neither vouch for nor against the existence of God, You win. I am not proclaiming the existence of God, I will say that you have outdone me in this battle of wits. I have nothing more to say, no more examples to offer. However, I do think you should find a gender neutral name to put on your website (and perhaps some book recommendations?). That might work.

Signing off for good,

I hope I haven't scared you away from discussion. I certainly don't intend to bludgeon anyone into silence. Your suggestion for a list of good books (pun intended) is an excellent one. I'll think about that.

Hello, I am generally a non-religious person, although I sometimes pretend to be at Christmastime so I'll get presents from my dad.. I was reading your 'arguments against' page, and I found something I felt was kinda wrong. Your theist said, "God is perfect, and He couldn't be perfect if He didn't exist, which proves that He exists." And then your atheist replied, "No, it just proves he isn't perfect." I generally find that something that exists solely in my head is more perfect than something that actually exists outside of myself. For example, the bed that I hope to snatch up next year at college does not squeak, is soft and fluffy, is exactly the right height, and does not have questionable stains on the mattress. It is, therefore, perfect. Such a bed does not exist at my college.

So, if I was the atheist replying to that statement, I would probably say, "The fact that God is perfect proves that he(/she/it) does not exist." Of course, I would have to find another argument if the god my theist believed in was Zeus...

I see what you're saying, but wouldn't the imaginary bed be "more perfect" if it was exactly as you imagined it and existed?

I think the important point of your argument is that the wonderful imaginary bed does not exist at your college, and your ability to imagine it does not prove that it does exist.

As an aside, this is one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God, largely because it is so, on the face of it, silly that I'm amazed anyone ever uses (or used) it.

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!

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.

Interesting points.

My own scientific education was sufficient to make me understand the processes of evolution, and the title article in the June 2007 Scientific American about early replicators and their role in the origin of life pushes back my concept of what a creator would have to be responsible for even further. (It also contains an excellent paragraph or two on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and how living beings can increase in order.) Considering that I had already believed in a non-deific origin for life, this article was a godsend. ;-)

My sense of wonder and awe at the universe remains undiminished, but I do not believe that the variety of existance of life on earth some attribute to God required much more than the switch being flicked on. Life and the wonders of the cosmos are a natural byproduct of existence. I still don’t know how existence started, yet it is my thankfulness for the universe as it is that leads me to contemplation of the beginings of things and Deism, in the 18th centrury sense of the word.

I don’t think that I could reason myself into a strict interpretation faith in the Bible. I might be able to delude myself into such faith, but my reason rejects that position. I do not deny that there are other, more moderate postions that I might be able to accept, but I am not familiar with proofs that convince me of anything beyond Deism.

With regards to myself, I am more concerned with the negatives of religion, especially as concerns belief without thought and belief in things not supported by facts. My study of ethics leads me to conclude that moral instruction is important, but there exist alternatives to strictly religious instruction that do not have the aforementioned pitfalls. I find a critical mind one of the most important tools I use to confront the problems I face, and as a society I think that educating children to maximize these faculties is important if we wish to confront the massive problems confronting us as a species. And I agree that religion does not necessarily preclude free thought, but there are tendencies within most religions to oppose any thought which contradicts the tenets of faith. Revalation, in this sense, can oppose all the evidence science and reason can muster.

Self-rightousness and pride are sins as far as I can recall, and that contraditction is most telling. Though it must be admitted that many religious people do not display these behaviors, I feel that this silent majority does nothing to support rational thought as a pivotal societal value. I cite the decline of research funding, the policicalization of science, and the poor quality of education in america as primary evidence. Ignorance is on the rise.

I find the discussion of the cultural value of religion most interesting. I have a firm belief that groups of dedicated people can effect change within their communities, and I believe that many churches perform positive functions when they set themselves to good works. I also think that socialization is very important to the human experience, but when I look at (fringe) groups like the Westburough Baptists protesting homosexuality at memorial services for fallen servicemen, I have to wonder about the everyday impact of religion on our society. It’s a mixed bag, I suppose.

I suspect that the Unitarians are the proper organization to facilitate a prolonged discussion about the specifics of religion. I certainly enjoy the benefits of their community and the social engagement that their church facilitates.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, it has been most helpful.

I appreciate the follow-up and additional details about your philosophical experience. Regarding the origin of the universe, I think we are at a point scientifically where whether or not a reasonable person believes in a Deist-type creator pretty much boils down to your personal estimation of the probability of a supernatural being. I consider such a thing so unlikely in the face of so many non-supernatural possibilities that I don’t even worry about it. However, other people (perhaps including you) have their own opinions on the matter and I cannot say that my opinion has any more or less validity.

We run into difficulty when people consider a deity to be the most likely possibility and make a leap from there to the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. I don’t think that is a reasonable chain of thinking, and it is one that you nicely avoid.

Thanks again for writing.

You da man. You show great courage and insight. Here's a question I have: In an imperfect world, in which we so obviously live, how is it that electrons, et al, can revolve in perfect orbit, around its nucleus, in parallel to our own solar system ... with no outside help from man? I believe the energy that does that ... is God. Whaddya think? That's my best guess. Which, of course, is light years beyond anything some dick-head preacher might say (Not that all preachers are dick-heads. But oh so many are, n'est pas?

Interesting question – and one I hadn't heard before. Fortunately (for me, at least), it has an easy answer: Electrons don't orbit around an atom's nucleus like a little universe. That atomic model was replaced by a much more esoteric (but accurate) quantum physics model in which electron orbits have been replaced by an electron cloud that represents the probability of an electron being in a given place at a given time.

But let's pretend that your original statement was correct and electrons orbited around atoms in the same way that planets orbited around a sun. I'd say that the "god" that kept these orbits perfect (insofar as they are perfect) wouldn't be any supernatural deity, but rather the mathematics of a stable system. Different physical forces bind atoms and planets, but both of them are bound by the laws of mathematics.

What do you think about Aquinas' 5 vias (in order to prove God's existence)?

Now there's a big question in a small sentence!

In a nutshell:

First argument: Anything that is moved is moved by something. Since some things are in motion and we don't allow infinite regress, there must have been a prime mover.

My response: Physics allows both motion without cause (at least on the quantum level) and a non-deity prime mover (the big bang).

Second argument: Some things are caused. Anything that is caused was itself caused by something else and we don't allow infinite regress, so there must be something uncaused.

My response: Quantum physics (again) allows creation without cause. It is possible that the big bang was a random, uncaused quantum fluctuation. And while we're at it, I don't see why we have to rule out infinite regressions (of universes, say) since something out there has to be infinite.

Third argument: A "contingent" thing is something that may or may not exist. It's impossible for everything to be contingent because you can't get something from nothing, so there has to be at least one thing that is not contingent but necessary. That something is God.

My response: Again, many of the "givens" in this statement are invalidated by physics. You can get something from nothing, and an infinite regression of universes (among other theories) would fit the shoes of a contingent being.

Fourth argument: Things are more or less perfect. Being able to assign a degree of perfection assumes the existence of perfection. That perfection is God.

My response: This, at most, proves that perfection must exist as a concept. It doesn't prove that God exists in reality.

Fifth argument: Anything that is designed has a designer, and since the universe is designed it must have a designer. That designer is God.

My response: The universe isn't designed.

If I'm going to be an Atheist, does this mean that I have to now come up with my own set of answers in explaining the non-existence of a God. Is there a 'cafeteria' style set of beliefs in-place that I can pick and choose from to help me explain why I believe what I believe. I'm mean, the Christians seem to have it so much easier in having a book to refer to. With no organized concepts or guidelines to refer to, I'm afraid I'm going to say the wrong thing. And then I'd feel like a big jerk. Are there any particular times during the year, perhaps at the summer equinox or fall solstice, when atheists assemble to discuss their common beliefs and fellowship. I believe the theists would refer to this as a 'bible-study'. I think this would be just the thing to help us Atheists solidify our beliefs. I mean, we get enough of the predictable counter-arguments, but our arguments always seem to be rhetorical. I'm not smart enough to keep coming up with fresh counter-poi nts on my own.

Regarding the non-existence of God, there is nothing to explain. We don't need a book because we have no dogma. There's nothing "wrong" to say if you are sincerely talking about your thoughts and feelings. There are no atheists get-togethers (aside from annual Illuminati meetings for the elect). You don't need to worry about "predictable counter arguments" if you are not making arguments in the first place, and if you feel that you are not intelligent enough to engage in discussions about religion, then don't. You should worry less about snappy answers to theistic questions and more about your own beliefs.

By the way, one of your beliefs seems to be that it's funny to send a bunch of potentially inflammatory e-mails my way, but I intend to keep replying as if you are asking sincere questions. Let me know when you either get tired or want to have a more worthwhile discussion.

I read a reply about the four main ways people use to try and convert you, all of which prove insufficant because none seem to give the answers you would need. Most Christans believe simply out of faith something people like you (and me) simply don't feel is enough. I have always wondered how someone could do that and I've come to believe that it's in some way (small or large) because faith is your best choise. You have two options believe or don't believe. Now asuming that God dosn't exsist and your left no better or no worse when you die, with which ever you choise. Still asuming God dosn't exsist, when you believe you have a rigied time honored set of morals your, hopefully, going to follow under fear of reincarnation or of hell fire and brimstone, sure your not realy going to hevan or nervana but at least you had a reason to try and be good while you were here. Again still asuming God dosn't exist, if you dont believe than you have no pushing reason to be a good person (not saying that you wont be or that you aren't), you wont be juged when you die so you can do what ever you want free of eternal punishment, though it wouldn't be coming even if you did. So if god dosn't exsist were all better of if everyong believed in someing so they could have a reason to be good and to do good for others. Now asuming God dose exsist if you believe, well you get to spend the rest of time in happy, fun, sunshine, rainbow land praising God in all his/her splended glory. (maybe the descriotion of heven was a little much but I'm not trying to be to serious and I hope no one is offened). And if you don't believe well, cause God sent his son to earth to die for you and you still wont believe, you get eternity in hell or where ever God chose to send you. Now I'm not one to be tempted by sunshine and rainbows but this argument (writen by a more litterate persan than my self) is the reson I started considering maybe one day posibly giveing God a real shot in my life, I mean why not your only other options are, nothing, e as a worm, hell, and a couple of other icky places I don't want to go and things I don't want to be.

Also let me apologize for any vaugeness or bad grammer, I don't mean to be not perfect but no matter what you believe, you understand there is not much we can do about that. (though with dictionary.com and more free time I could probably could have fixed it)

What you are describing is referred to as Pascal's wager. It boils down to this: why not believe since if you are wrong you lose nothing but if you are right you gain everything.

Pascal's wager is a flawed argument for a number of reasons, including:

1) Most people can't believe something just because it would be in their best interest to do so. Could you honestly make yourself believe that Benjamin Franklin was still alive if his being alive would get you a million dollars? Similarly, I can't "just believe" in God the way religious people often urge me to. I find it scary (in a 1984 kind of way) that people seem to think we can adjust our deepest feelings so easily.

2) It assumes that there are only two options -- believe and possibly be rewarded, or don't believe and lose the possibility of reward. But there are many other possibilities. For example, there is at least one option for every religion that says it is the one true religion. Will believing in the Christian God get you to heaven if Islam is the one true way? Remember that many Protestants think that Catholics are not going to their reward, so just believing in God in general may not be enough. And what if none of the major religions are correct? What if there is a deity out there, but it hates people who are religious only out of self interest? Then you loose no matter what you choose for these reasons.

3) Pascal's wager also ignores the costs associated with belief. Being religious means directing some of your time, energy, and money toward religion, and these are things that might better be used elsewhere if the religion in question is not true. Perhaps even more important, some kinds of religious thought and practice (allowing religious authorities to dictate your opinion or relying on feelings to make decisions instead of reason) can lead to difficulties in other areas of life (such as being taken in by fraudulent religious practitioners).

Thanks for writing. Let me know if you would like more clarification on any of this.

Heh, I think it's funny that on this page of your site [hate mail page] Lots of people are saying that there is proof of God everywhere, yet not one of them has named any 'proof'. Good work on this site :D It really shows how intolerant some religious people can be sometimes.

Frankly, I wish this site didn't show so well how intolerant some religious people are. There are plenty of tolerant religious people (and plenty of intolerant atheists), and I hate to be inadvertently reinforcing stereotypes.

I also wish more people wrote with proofs of God's existence. It would be instructional for all of us.

I'm Catholic but I still find this site humorous. I always find it silly how people atheists and theists try to PROVE themselves right. You can't do it. There is no proof that God exists. But there is also no proof that God doesn't exist. (sort of a paradox we got there eh?)

I don't plan on becoming atheist anytime soon but I'll admit I like some atheistic people. Why? Because they don't get up all in your face and make you feel like crap. Religous people (and I'm not saying ALL people with religon.) have a tendency to get all uppity.

But when YOU try to get uppity the religous people tell you to humble yourself. Also the techniques they try to use to convert people are not gonna work. Scare tatics, guilt trips, and all of that crap isn't gonna change people's minds. I know as a Christian (Catholic is a denomation of Christianity which is the religion. Anybody who says Christians and Catholics are different are dumbasses.) that I am suppose to try and "save" as many souls as I can. Well you know what I think? If people don't people what I believe and they end up getting burnt for eternity for it well then screw them and on the vice versa if I am wrong and they are right well then screw me! I admit I was raised a Catholic and there are probably a lot of you out there who I think I was brainwashed. They think I believe in Jesus because I don't want to go to hell. It's the opposite I don't want to go to hell because I believe that there is a Jesus (he lives down my street. Makes good burritos! Just kidding.) and a God and all that. Sure my parents probably did influence me but wouldn't society influence me too? Although there are more theists than atheists we live in a secular nonreligous world. Wouldn't that have some impact on me?

I believe that there is a God simply because of 2 reasons

1. There is no proof that he DOESN'T EXIST

2. If god does exist well then thats cool. and If I am wrong well then I lose.

It's all gamble. I'm really only hoping I am right.

Also even though I am Catholic I probably don't follow all the "rules".

For instance I don't read the bible.

Yeah I know that some religious people think I am gonna be influenced by the "non-believers" and all that crap because I don't know what the bible says. I don't think God really gives a crap if I read it or not. I believe in God and I don't want to kill anyone. What more could God want? a sandwich.

I don't believe in God because of what my parents, my pastor, my family or what anyone else thinks. I believe in God cause I feel like it.

You are right that an atheist can't prove that there are no deities in general (although it may be possible to prove that a specific description of God is impossible). This is why most atheists don't even try. There is no paradox because atheism (meaning simple disbelief in a deity) doesn't need to prove that there are no gods, it just doesn't have to be convinced that there is a god. It's up to religious people to prove that something supernatural exists, since disbelief is the default position from a scientific standpoint.

You say, "Anybody who says Christians and Catholics are different are dumbasses." You also say (essentially) that you believe in God because there's no proof of no God and if there is no God then you've lost nothing. The problem is, many of those "dumbasses" believe that Catholics are not true Christians because Catholics believe in salvation through works, meaning that you would be going to Hell if God exists.

So, let's look at a new way of deciding what religion to be:

1) Some Protestants (the "dumbasses" in question) believe that Catholics will go to Hell, even if they are good people.

2) Catholics believe that Protestants who are good people will go to Heaven.

3) If you are Protestant and Protestants are right you go to Heaven, but if you are Catholics and Protestants are right, then you will go to Hell. So shouldn't you be Protestant instead of Catholic?

Now, I don't for a minute think you should switch religions based on this argument. I'm just trying to illustrate a flaw in your thinking (which is essentially Pascal's wager).

I am also surprised that you haven't read the Bible. If you are a Catholic, then you believe that the Bible was written under the divine inspiration of God. It seems to me that if you believe this then the Bible would be the most important book in the universe. Isn't that good enough incentive to read the thing? And why would God go to all the trouble of putting the thing together if He didn't want you to read it? More importantly, by saying you are Catholic you are implying that you follow the Bible-- but what if there is some stuff in there that you disagree with? And are you familiar with Catholic doctrine (the eternal virginity of Mary, the sinfulness of using contraception, etc.) to know whether you agree with it or not?

There's nothing wrong with believing in God because you "feel like it." But if that's why you do, don't pretend that you have a logical reason for doing so (since you don't need one). I think you should also take a hard look at why you call yourself a Catholic. By saying you're Catholic you're saying things about yourself that may not be true.

I am 14 and a dedicated atheist, and I have a fairly simple question. I talk with my friends about religion often, and they're all pretty open to hear my beliefs- save one. He insists that creationism disproves evolution (it's just a theory... like gravity), and just laughs at the Flying Spaghetti Monster principle. Is there anything I can do to be heard sincerely? Or is this just a case of what I term 'religious brainwashing' by his incredibly Christian family?

Is there anything you can do to be heard sincerely by this person? May be not. But if this person is a friend, you might both benefit by encouraging intelligent, thoughtful conversation on these topics.

For example, it's very unusual to hear someone say that creationism "disproves" evolution. What evidence is there for creationism that is stronger than evidence for evolution?

If he says that evolution is "only a theory," you can point out that everything in science is referred to as a theory, and that evolution is backed by such a mountain of evidence (it's one of the best proved theories in science) that scientists treat it as a fact.

You might also want to ask him why he believes in God and if he thinks that these reasons should be compelling to an atheist. If he does have an argument for the existence of God, you may want to check with him that it's his reason for belief before addressing it (that is, see if he agrees that if you can disprove the argument then he will stop believing in God). If not, then this isn't really his reason for belief and he has to come up with something else.

Keep in mind that any way of thinking your friend uses he must allow you to use also. For example, if he says that he "knows" God exists because he can feel it inside, then he can't condemn you for saying that you "know" there is no God because you feel it inside.

Let me know if any specific topics of discussion with your friend are puzzling to you. And, most importantly, keep your conversations civil and intelligent -- it's good for everyone concerned and helps give atheists a good name.