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.

Hi.

I just recently found this blog (I think it was through I Am Bored), and it's realy good. It's great. It's simply fantastic.

Why? simply because somebody finaly bothers to answer the theists.

Religion isn't bad by itself, but the believers does a lot of weird things. First of all, they (well, many of them) never bother to try and understand our arguments. How many times haven't I heard "I didn't come from a monkey" or (quoted) "if that's true, why don't monkeys start turning into humans right now?

First of all, that's just plain stupid. The evolution theory is so much more complicated than any religion ever thought up. Theists (still not all) finds it hard to understand that this happened over a far longer time that we can understand. Million of years changed something slowly. So, yes, you came from a monkey. Your grand grand^200k parents looked more like monkeys than they looked like you.

secound, I get this feeling that they think that we have this weird kind of religion that centers around the evolution theory. We just believe that it's true, but most of us basicaly don't care. Like in our (norwegian) school, we don't learn shit about the evolution theory, we just learn how DNA works. That's cool enough. In countries where religion is taught at school, they hear a lot more about it than we do. Like in Israel, where the kids get questions like "what's the not-true theory about how the world was made called?" (our paper said that they get that kind of questions. Don't kill me, kill them).

Isn't that wrong? To tell the kids that "thinking that is wrong"?

Realy, I kinda get the feeling that many Americans (again, not all, not even most, but many) have this kinda weird belief in democracy. They have to bring this holy thing to all of the earth to make thing better. But still they are realy realy seriously afraid that their children will think diffrent ways, and chose other things. That they shouldn't be believers. But isn't democracy just about that?

At the end of this (long)... errr... tribute-to-you-thingy, I'd like to ask, is there anyone that isn't christians that post here? Other than Atheists and agnostics? Do you get mails from jews or muslims?

thank you for your time. And if you ever post this, be sure to let people see my mail adress (snalin_al_galindur@hotmail.com). If people have comentaries, let them send them to me.

I think it's unfortunate that much dismissal of evolution is based on incorrect descriptions of it. Similarly, many criticism of religion are based on a misunderstanding (or overgeneralization) of religion. We would all be better off trying to understand those we disagree with and attempting to find common ground where possible.

Regarding who e-mails me -- I publish most of my correspondence on this blog, so you can see that most of what I get is from Christians and the non-religious. I have heard from Jewish and Islamic readers, but only infrequently. I welcome everyone's e-mail, though!

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.

You propaply get lots of all kinds of mail and I doupt you have the intrest on answering (or reading) pretty much any of them, but I just kind of stumbled on your site and I just got this urge to ask you that how do you suppose life began? and how would you determine life?

I personaly am realy not sure, but I somewhat think that there isnt any line between living an non-living "things". For example, i dont basicly know if we are so different from some planet or other "system" for example (functionaly speaking - planets dont actualy reproduce etc. but i dont see why reproducing should be quality to measure life) But for example bacteria funktion already pretty similary to us - since as i see it, we are just one hell of an complex circuitry to all kinds of wires and chemical stuff. Eaven more problematic creatures are the viruses, since they dont "do" anything, since they just make our cells do crazy stuff - but so do drugs, so if drugs get enough complex, can they be called alive? I dont think so, but just a tought..

As for how life began, i just cant figure anything concrete, one theory that i have been thinking would be something like chemical reactions starting to loop, and get more and more complex (there was atleast lots of time, but.. ) Anyway, i am propaply litle too young and immature to grasp the concept, actualy, at all, but your site was just so inspiring that i had to try something.

I read all of my mail, and I welcome all of it -- particularly that which asks interesting questions like yours.

How to determine if something is alive is a pain, from both a philosophical and scientific standpoint. The textbook answer is that something is alive if it is organized, metabolizes, grows, adapts, reacts to stimulus, maintains its internal environment, and reproduces. One can argue that viruses, fire, and even some kinds of computer software have these characteristics, but they are not considered to be alive.

But enough with textbooks. You asked my opinion.

I'd say that there is a line between living and non-living matter, and that although the line is fuzzy there are some things that are clearly on one side (dogs) or the other (rocks). What's most important to me is not whether something is alive in a scientific sense but how we treat something that is alive in a philosophical sense. You touch on this when you point out that living and non-living things are much the same in a chemical sense -- the dog and the rock may have many of the same elements, just organized differently. What's important is that we assign moral value to living things because we, ourselves, are living.

I think before killing something I consider alive -- yes, even bugs. That doesn't mean I never squish a cockroach, but it does mean that I don't do it thoughtlessly. I have no problem putting out a fire, however, because to me it has no life in any morally important way. Viruses are a bit on the line, but the harm they cause makes me not worry about disposing of them, whether you can argue that they are alive or not.

How did life begin? There are plenty of theories, and unfortunately we don't have enough information right now to discover which is correct. At some point there had to be a set of circumstances that facilitated the organization of chemicals in a way that led to self-replicating thingies. Yep, that's pretty vague, and it's pretty much in line with what you are thinking. If I were a biochemist I'm sure I could give you a better possibility.

Thanks for writing, and for the nice words about the site.

Yes, I understand how the second law is no longer in violation. I simply meant that when evolution supposedly first started forming the universe, and when non-living matter first became living, that I do not understand how this (non-living becoming living) can be done if order moves to disorder. Thank you for your reply to my message by the way!

I see what you're saying. The explanation is that the second law of thermodynamics is about the average entropy of a system. It doesn't say that, in every instance, there is an increase in entropy. In fact, every time you run your car's air conditioner you're, in a sense, lowering the entropy in your car. This is not a problem for the second law because the increased entropy outside of your car makes up for it.

The same can be said for the first moments of life on earth. The amount of order in new life is pretty insignificant compared to the massive amount of entropy generated by the sun.

I was just thinking that when it was mentioned that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and you said in response "no, but God does" that you were wrong to start the response with "no." Whether or not God violates it, evolution still does also.(However, if there is a God then it doesn't matter whether or not He eviolates it because He is omnipotent and created the law of thermodaynamics in the first place. Then He wouldn't have to abide by it.) Just curious why you said that evolution didn't violate it though. By the way I am a Christian, my comment is a friendly one and in no way even implies that I believe that everything is a "happy accident"

I'm always happy to hear from my thoughtful Christian visitors!

Well, I said that evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics and it doesn't. The second law essentially states that entropy will tend to increase in a closed system. Earth isn't a closed system, it's part of a system that includes the sun. If it weren't for the sun, there would be no life on earth, and the sun creates so much entropy that even if life results in the loss of entropy, the sun more than makes up for it.

I applaud you for pretty much every thing said by you on this site. Very well thought-out and eloquent, or straight to the point as needed.

That being said, I can hardly believe how a large number of people go on in life, having 'faith' in whatever is conveniently taught to them by their parents, and taking it as unshakable truth, even after learning that Santa, the easter bunny and tooth fairy were all fake. Talking to these people about other possibilities is an exercise in frustration. Somehow though, you even seem to have perfect rebuttals to arguments I could never get past.

Hopefully, this site can spur the minds of those who actually consider the possibilities, and help them come to better, more educated conclusions.

On a final note, I noticed your statement that our existance is a 'happy accident.' This is my favorite subject brought up by people who have something to prove in the name of religion. The argument that 'a box of (insert item) parts shaken for eternity will never result in a whole (insert item)' has to be among the more thoughtless of claims involving science or math. Eternity is quite a long time, and since the universe is also thought to be infinitely large, those who speak in defense of our happy accident of spontaneous existance have the ability to say that they are right, times infinity squared. I hope that little line of logic does some good in future arguments.

Personally, I wouldn't even bother bringing up the infinite nature of time when refuting the "shake a box" or "tornado in a junkyard" folks, since that just gets into an argument about probability, which is what they want. What I say is that the analogy is false since there is no natural process whereby bits of metal and plastic naturally get together to form machinery, but there is a natural process by which things evolve.

First of all, your are stupid. You don't believe in what is real. If you believe in the theory of evolution, then why aren't monkeys turning into humans now?? God exists and there is nothing you can say to discredit that fact. There is proof everywhere that He exists and if you don't believe it you deserve to rot in the fiery chasms of hell. If you don't believe then you are no better off than the Buddists who put their faith in a fat guy!! Reincarnation isn't a reliogen! People who believe that believe old guys with white hair! Everybody who reads and believes this site, please turn to the right path. Thank you for posting this. I hope everyone reads this and sues this site. Good day.

If I may summarize your points as I understand them:

1) My are stupid.

2) I disbelieve reality.

3) If some monkeys turned into people, then why don't all of them?

4) I can't prove God doesn't exist.

5) There is tons of proof that God exists, so if I disagree then I deserve to be horribly tortured for eternity.

6) Buddhists are bad.

7) Reincarnation is not a reliogen.

8) Anyone who thinks reincarnation is a reliogen believes old guys with white hair.

9) Freedom of speech should be actionable in a court of law.

And respond:

1) My spelling and grammar aren't exactly perfect, but I can usually get through the first few words of a letter without incident. For future reference, this is particularly important when you are trying to convince others of your intellectual superiority.

2) Actually, my whole point is that I only want to believe in what is real, so far as I can determine what that is. Believing in things without evidence is called "faith," and we try not to do that around here.

3) I don't even know where to begin to answer this one -- although recommending a good biology book might be a start. Evolution doesn't require monkeys to turn into people. Your question is like asking, "If the wind knocked over a tree, why didn't it knock over all the trees?"

4) You're right -- nobody can prove that something doesn't exist. It's assumed things don't exist until evidence dictates otherwise.

5) I have yet to see any convincing proof of God's existence, so if you have some I'd appreciate your sharing it. In any case, I can't see how not being convinced by evidence is reason to be constantly tortured.

6) I certainly don't agree that Buddhists are any worse than other religious people (and in my experience they are in general better than many), and I get the impression that you don't know a whole lot about Buddhism in the first place.

7) Ignoring your spelling, I need to hear your definition of religion.

8) Okay, now I'm starting to think that you're just joking with me. Or doing serious drugs.

9) (Sigh.)