Merry Christmas, Especially To You Atheists

Many of you have likely heard about how there was a series of widespread unofficial ceasefires that took place around Christmas of 1914 during World War I.  Apparently, during the week leading up to Christmas, parties of German and British soldiers began to exchange seasonal greetings and songs between their trenches; on occasion, the tension was reduced to the point that individuals would walk across to talk to their opposite numbers bearing gifts. It is said that on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, many soldiers from both sides – as well as, to a lesser degree, from French units – independently ventured into "no man's land", where they mingled, exchanging food and souvenirs. In some places it became so friendly that the troops played soccer against each other.

Sometimes on this blog, for understandable reasons, the rhetoric is the World War I equivalent.  I, for one, am calling a truce for the Christmas Season. I wish all of you, especially my atheist friends, a very Merry Christmas!

Oh, and one more thing. Most weeks I “participate” in an online church service.  It is held at http://campus.316networks.com/crosspoint.tv.  By participate I simply mean that I attend, although there is a “chat” aspect that I also do.  The people at Cross Point are authentic and, as far as I am concerned, represent what the Church should look like. Sometimes people who do not attend church will attend church on Christmas.  If you would like to check it out this Christmas in a very non-threatening way, it would be great.   The online service is December 23^rd at 5 P.M. Central time.  Would love it if you stopped by.

Again, to get back to the original theme of this post, I wish all you, especially you atheists, a very Merry Christmas.

Andrew the Atheist's Return

Hello All!!  Sorry I had to be away.  It appears Tim has been chewing the bit waiting for me.  I'm afraid as the holidays approach, I won't be online much.  Sorry again.

Okay, so, I suppose I'll start with this idea that everyone worships something.  I find this ridiculous.  Believe it or not, christians, not everyone thinks like you.  Some people are quite happy NOT worshiping anything.  That is not to say I worship nothing.  That is to say I do not worship anything.  I'd like to flip this around.

Everyone is skeptical of something.  Unlike Tim's assertion about worship, I know that everyone reading this blog is skeptical about something.  Let's take the dragon in my pants, for example.  Anyone actually believe there is a dragon in my pants?  I didn't think so.  Do you apply the same level of skepticism to your belief in your god?  Do you?

My point is that the questions I've been asked about my dragon have been very disappointing.  I've been asked for evidence, and I've supplied it.  Remember the sound of the roar and the stinky breath?  Scientifically reproducible, verifiable, measurable evidence.  When you rejected this evidence, did you come closer to understanding why I reject your assertion the placement of the earth from the sun is evidence for god?  Why not?   And I think that was it.  I was really hoping I'd get some kind of argument against the dragon, but I've nothing.

If we are not skeptical of one thing, that leaves us vulnerable to getting suckered by another.  For example, if I were a believer, more specifically a christian, more specifically a biblical literalist, I would have a hard time understanding science.  My gullibility in believing there is a god has lead to me not understanding properly the world around me.  I might think the world was only a few thousand years old.  I'd have to have wild fantasies about why science did not coincide with my religion.

I could think that  women should not be permitted to speak.  I might think that flying planes into buildings is a good idea.  I think you get my point.  When we are not skeptical about supernatural claims, we become vulnerable to being gullible to frauds.  The supernatural IS a fraud, after all.

Now, on to Hitch's sad passing.

Yes, Hitch was flipping awesome.  Yes, it is sad he is gone.  But atheism is not sad.  It is inspirational.

It is your beliefs I find depressing.  If all my work is for naught, and all I have to do is believe, then why do anything?  My beliefs, not my works, are important.  God's got it all in his hands; he's got some plan.  Why interfere?  Why make things better?  If god wanted to, he'd fix it.  Might as well just wait to die and go to heaven.  There, I won't do anything either.  I'll be happy all the time without a care at all.  Nothing I did in life would matter, and my existence would no longer matter either, as nothing would matter.  I'd just be happy.

No, I find atheism much more inspirational. Perhaps it is not atheism.  Perhaps it is Humanism.

The atheist does not look to the next life to find reward or consequence.  We look to this one.  We find cause to do good and avoid evil here, now, in this life.  WE are the ones who are responsible for our lives.  WE share this existence and have an obligation to make it the best we can.  We need no carrot and stick routine.  We find joy and satisfaction that our actions have real value in this life, no other.  THIS is the life we look to improve, not some fantasy in some other realm.  Why does this life so fail to hold our attention that we have to cheapen it with man-made myths and monsters?  This is the life we look to live and impact.  God isn't here; we are.

Atheism Is Depressing: On Christopher Hitchens

I am sure most of you reading this know that a few days ago Christopher Hitchens died.  For you atheists, he was one of your champions. He is known largely for his book, “God is Not Great.”.  Someday on this blog we should perhaps have a debate about that book.  In any case, that is not my purpose today. My purpose today is to focus on one of his quotes.  Specifically, when he was diagnosed with cancer, he said the following:

"I'm here as a product of process of evolution, which doesn't make very many exceptions. And which rates life relatively cheaply. I mean, most human beings who've ever been born would have been dead long before they reached my age. And I would think in most of the rest of the world — well, I know it — is still true. So to be relatively healthy at 62 is to be dealt a pretty good hand by the cosmos, which doesn't know I'm here — and won't notice when I'm gone."

For us Christians, this is an extremely sad position that you atheists are required to take, namely this idea that the cosmos does not know that you exist and will not notice when you are gone.  This is such a sad position because it has such negative consequences. If you are an atheist, and if you truly believe what Christopher Hitchens says then:

1. What is the purpose of life?

2. How can there be any basis for ethics?

If there are no consequences in the next life for my actions, then I am free to hurt as many people as I want in this life.  If there are no consequences in the next life, then I suppose the purpose of life is pure decadence.  If there is not life beyond the grave, then there is little purpose to this life beyond self-indulgence. If there is no God, you are on your own in life.  To us Christians, that seems so empty and depressing.

Don’t you atheists feel like atheism is a depressing philosophy?  If atheism is true, there is no point to anything.  If on the other hand, Christianity is true, life is rich with meaning.  What is holding you back from accepting that you are created, that your life has a purpose, and that eternity can be spent with God in heaven?  

The Measure Of A Man Is What He Worships

I do not know what has happened to our friend Andrew.  I have been waiting for him to respond to my last post, and nothing has happened. As a result, I want to continue the theme of my last post and address you atheists again.

The first thing I want to say, is that I overstated it in my last post. There are such things as atheists. Some of you may have been put off by the overstatement, and missed the point. That is why I want to revisit this idea.

I know that some of you do not believe in a god.  Thus, you are by definition atheists.  Still, here is the important point.  We all worship something.  Stop and think about that for a moment.  It is impossible not to worship something.  I suppose I should first define what I mean by worship. I suppose what I mean by worship is "adoring reverence or regard." You may not give reverence to God, but I am sure you give reverence to something or someone.  It may be yourself. It may be science. It may be a relationship. It may be your work. It may be money or fame or success.  The point is that everyone worships something.

I believe that the measure of a man lies not in his wealth, his abilities, or his success. Rather the measure of man is the object of his worship.

And here is the key.  We Christians believe that if you worship anything less than God (and everything is less than God), you will always ultimately be destroyed by the thing that you love.  The worship of money...I do not need to tell you where that can lead.  How about success?  What happens once you have succeeded?  What is next?  How about relationships?  I think we know that even the most cherished relationships can cause deep heartache and do not often last forever.

Examine your life.  At some point in your life, if you are not worshiping God, the thing that you are worshiping will hurt you badly. At that time, I hope you will remember these words, and remember how ready God is for you to accept Him.

What do you have to say about that?

There Is No Such Thing As An Atheist...

Here is the thing... there is no such thing as a real atheist.  We all worship something or someone.  Everyone has a god.  And here is the problem for you who call yourselves atheists.  Whatever you worship will, in the end, cause you heartache, pain, and ultimately will be the death of you.

Someone else said it much better than I did:  

“[I]n the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship — be it JC or Allah, bet it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles — is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you."  David Foster Wallace, Commencement Address, Kenyon College, 2005

What do you worship? 

Andrew the Atheist goes over morality AGAIN for Tim's benefit. Can we go back to how faith is irrational and you agreed?

Morality is a problem, but not one without a solution.  I just don't think religion holds the answer.  Further, I'd say religion holds the WRONG answer.  The idea is that we may not find the solution, but we never try with religion.  Christianity is especially a hindrance to finding real morals.

Tim, I will say your last post was much better than the previous ones.  Is there any chance we can get back to faith and trust and it's benefit to society?  I'm really interested in digging further into those, especially since you agreed my definition of faith renders it illogical.  

Now, your problems with atheistic morality:

First, I have to make a distinction, or my fellow atheists are going to be upset.  I personally find this to be a matter of semantics, but that's me.  Atheism, by its most popular definition, is not a world view, and therefore has nothing to say on morality.  Secular Humanism IS a world view, and has much to say on the topic.  I suppose for many atheists, the possibility that a theist could also be a secular humanist makes this distinction important.  In my experience,  however, I find most theists reject secular humanism.  I know I did when I was a believer.  To me, atheism may not be my world view, but it is certainly accurate to say my atheism colors my world view significantly.

"There are even moral norms that are not dependent on the age in which we live.  For example, it is wrong in every culture and in every age to kill someone without justification.  It is wrong in every culture and in every time for someone to steal someone else’s property, even if the person is justified."

Nope.  Not even close.  Let’s look at these a little.  Killing without justification may be wrong, but what is justification?  How do we determine what that is?  Is it okay to kill adulterers?  Is it okay to kill people who work on the sabbath? Is it okay to kill disobedient children?  These killings are justified in the bible.  If we do NOT think these are moral, how do we justify that? 

Stealing property is ALWAYS wrong?  Even if it is justified?  Really.  Why do you think it is okay for a person to allow his children to starve when he could steal a loaf of bread from the supermarket?  Is it wrong for the person to NOT want his children to starve?  What if there was a crazy person who threatened to kill you, your family and your neighbor’s family if you didn’t steal someone’s car?  Still wrong?  Still not okay? 

There are no absolute moral standards.  They are as imaginary as the god who is supposed to author them.

According to you, I am the sole determiner of what is moral.  Yet, if each of us is a moral island unto himself, then there will inevitably be conflict. And when there is conflict, how is one to determine which position is correct?

That’s not what I meant.  Maybe I didn’t do a good job at explaining this.  I’ll try again.  Everyone has the obligation to develop, maintain, and modify a personal code of ethics.  These individual codes must congeal into a code of ethics adopted by society at large.  The way to influence the code held by society is to change the codes held by individuals.  This is slow, difficult and painful.  There will be mistakes, errors and there must also be corrections.  Think of it this way.  You are not society.  I am not society.  But together, our individual sticks of morality form a faggot of morals.  I’ve been waiting all day to type “faggot of morals”.

Uh, are you trying to imply there is no moral conflict today?  Do you mean that if EVERYONE was a christian there would be no moral conflict?  That’s not true.  Just look at all the in-fighting that goes on within christian denominations today.  How are those conflicts resolved?  Usually, we see the birth of a new denomination or splinter group.  If we had a real way of actually finding a solution, instead of just segregating ourselves from those who disagree with us, that would be progress.

“We each have a conscience, yet a conscience serves no evolutionary purpose. Indeed a conscience actually is anti-evolutionary.  You feel good if you, without any benefit to yourself, help an old lady across the street.  Yet, opening a door for an old lady does not benefit you in any way or serve any evolutionary purpose.”

What the flippy dippy does morality have to do with evolution?  What does the non-random selection of randomly replicating replicators have to do with how these replicators treat each other?  Morality is as much an evolution question as geology is a question of ice cream flavors.

Even if I were to concede that atheism does not grant one morals, it is clear that religion does not either.  We’ve talked about slavery, which is clearly endorsed by the bible.  If you think that slaves in the bible were like prisoners in jail today, you are an idiot.  While I may agree there are issues within our jail system that does not mean prisoners are property of the state.  We’ve discussed racism which is clearly endorsed by the bible, especially in its laws about slavery.  I’ve mentioned in this post horrific examples of murder endorsed by the bible.  These are examples of the kinds of justification given for killing people.  If christianity WAS responsible for leading society AWAY from these things, which is debatable, then it seems clear that the religion is moving AWAY from the morality of its holy book.  How is that possible if the moral absolutes are given in that book?

And I think it is a GOOD thing that we are moving further and further away from the morality of the bible.  When we finally allow gays to marry, it will be a glorious day for moral progress, indeed.  Imagine my glee at watching all the christians who opposed gay marriage to try to convince me that they lead the way in getting these people equal rights and protection under the law.  Then we can get stem cell research going without nutty interference.  Then we can have science education get past fools who think the Flintstones was a documentary.  If atheism is the driver behind progress that pushes us further from the hideous morality described in the bible, then the consequences of atheism are not just good, they’re stupendous!  

Atheism Has Consequences...And They Are Not Good

Andrew, no offense, but your last post was such a mess that I will confine my comments to only one point. Prior to proceeding with addressing that one argument, however, I would point out that you still have failed to answer any of my questions. You mock them, but you do not answer them.

Now to the one argument which to which I will confine my reply.  According to you, Andrew, atheists must develop their own moral code. Specifically, you have written, “It is the duty of every person to develop, investigate, construct, analyze and evaluate a personal code of ethics.  We must be able to look at our code, and modify it if needed.”  This is an extremely problematic position for you for two primary reasons.

First, where does your idea for what is moral come from?  There are moral norms that are universal, not dependent on any culture or societal influence.  There are even moral norms that are not dependent on the age in which we live.  For example, it is wrong in every culture and in every age to kill someone without justification.  It is wrong in every culture and in every time for someone to steal someone else’s property, even if the person is justified.  Where do such moral norms come from?  And, just as important, how are you able to perceive what is moral?  Moral absolutes exist, they come from God, and your ability to perceive what is moral comes from God.

The second issue with your position is that it smacks of relativism.  According to you, I am the sole determiner of what is moral.  Yet, if each of us is a moral island unto himself, then there will inevitably be conflict. And when there is conflict, how is one to determine which position is correct?  For example, a Palestinian believes it is moral to strap a bomb on his body, walk into a pizzeria, and detonate the bomb, killing non-combatant women and children.  Who are you to say that is wrong?  Or to use a more extreme example, Hitler believed it was his moral duty to exterminate Jews.  If it is as you say that each person determines morality for themselves, then you cannot say that Hitler was evil.

No, my friend, as much as you try to deny it, atheism cannot provide a basis for morality.  In fact, atheism fails to provide any idea on how you would even perceive what is moral.  Where does you idea for morality come from? It comes from God who instilled certain moral absolutes in each person.  We each have a conscience, yet a conscience serves no evolutionary purpose. Indeed a conscience actually is anti-evolutionary.  You feel good if you, without any benefit to yourself, help an old lady across the street.  Yet, opening a door for an old lady does not benefit you in any way or serve any evolutionary purpose.

Now to more particularly address your statements about Christian morality. Yes, slavery was once the norm; Christians were the ones who came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished.  They came to that conclusion based on what they read in the Bible.  Racism was once the norm, yet Christians were the ones who led the Civil Rights movement.  I challenge you to think of a single ethical “improvement” that Christians did not lead.

Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to 900 years in prison

On the other hand, what have atheists offered us?   It is thought that Stalin killed upwards of 10 million people; Pol Pot about 2 million of his own countrymen.  And they pail in comparison to Mao Zedong who is thought to have killed at least 20 million people.  Jeffrey Dahmer was a confessed atheist who brutally killed at least seventeen boys, dismembered them, stored their body parts, ate their body parts and indulged in necrophilia.  As Dahmer said, “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. He is right.  

Atheism has consequences… and they are not good.

Andrew the Atheist grows weary of Tim repeating arguments that have been refuted in this blog already.

Tim, you’re making me repeat myself.  That’s VERY annoying.  Try READING.  Slow down and flipping READ.  Get out a dictionary if I type a big word. 

Tim said, “Atheists' argument is that there is insufficient proof to believe in the existence of God, and therefore, a theist is somehow wrong in believing in God.”

Right.  There is insufficient proof for the existence of any god, let alone a specific god.  This is why I make the references to the dragon in my pants, the SMAD, Godzilla and the Dragonzord.  Would you not agree that you do not believe these things are real due to a lack of evidence?  Would you not say that the evidence I have provided for the existence of SMAD has not been convincing?  So would I say your evidence for a god has been unconvincing.

Tim said later, “We provide what we deem credible EVIDENCE for the existence of God. It is just that the atheist does not accept such evidence.  The real question is why the theist accepts such evidence, but the atheist refuses to accept such evidence.”

What you deem to be credible is not credible.  It does not become credible because it convinces you.  It must stand on its own merit.  Your evidence has failed every time.  Many times it is an argument from ignorance, but sometimes it is simple foolishness.

I think Tim was trying to produce evidence when he said:

1. How is it more rational to believe that the earth came from nothing than to believe that God created it?

2. Similarly, given the immense complexity of our bodies, of nature, and of the universe, how is it rational to believe that these systems were not designed?

3.  What is your basis for morality if you truly believe there is no God?

4. With some notable exceptions, a belief in God tends to make people better. Why will you not accept that as proof of God's existence?

5.  It seems that your standard for truth is science, yet I believe that science (a) does not answer every question, and (b) actually points to the existence of God.  Why do you believe differently? 

Well, what do we have here?  Crap we’ve gone over before.  Just re-hashing old refuted arguments, in the same dang blog, even.  Yes, folks, we have gone back to the same crap we went over when we talked about Thor.  Here’s another quote from my response to the “more rational to believe the earth was created” idiocy:

Let's say I concede.  I don't, really, but let's say for the sake of argument that I do.  We'll look past the first error.  So we are looking for a creator.  How do you determine which creator it is?  Was it Zeus, Jupiter, chtulu, a giant space turtle, a huge world tree, the flying spaghetti monster, Brahma, Odin, a magic bunny, leprechauns, pixies, invisible pick unicorn, Tiamat, etc?  How can you tell the difference?  If you could use this design argument for the existence of other gods, is it really that good of an argument?  If we could end up with the flying spaghetti monster as the creator, is that really the argument that supports the christian position?

Now in case you missed it, I don’t really concede this point.  I do so only to illustrate that if you start looking for creators, you get in trouble fast.  You eventually have to concede that the SMAD or the flying spaghetti monster and the christian god are all equally likely candidates for the creator of the universe.  And I would actually agree with that.  Your god is as likely to exist as the dragon in my pants.

Point 2:

If complexity only comes about from design, then it stands to reason that the designer would have to be MORE complex than the designed.  Who designed your designer?  No one?  So your god is LESS complex than my butthole?  No?  How does your god escape the logic of the argument that is supposed to support his existence?  He doesn’t?  Seems like a bad argument to me.

Point 3

I explained how morality works.  Here, I’ll post it again.

Finally, I want to get to why I think atheism grants a superior ethical and moral platform.  It is the duty of every person to develop, investigate, construct, analyze and evaluate a personal code of ethics.  We must be able to look at our code, and modify it if needed.   We have to be able to say that we were wrong.  Slavery was once the norm; now we are appalled at the notion.   Inter-racial marriage was once outlawed.  Now we see to outlaw this is immoral.  We must allow our morality and ethics to evolve and change, or watch them stagnate and fail.

If we think our morality is dictated to us in some ancient holy book, why would we ever attempt to grow?  If we think we can be forgiven of any wrong doing, why attempt to make amends?  If we think salvation is not granted by works, why work?

I find that atheism has its own “good news”:  it is the good news of personal responsibility.  We are responsible to each other, for we are the ones who will make the world what it is and what it will be.  Humans are not responsible to a god, but to each other.  God isn’t here; we are.  And while it has no bearing on the truth of that statement, it pleases me greatly.  It inspires me to get off my knees and roll up my sleeves. 

Point 4

I don’t think belief in irrational things is beneficial.  I thought I explained that.  Are you reading ANYTHING?!  Are all my posts now just going to be copy and pastes of my previous posts?  When are YOU going to address ANYTHING I assert?  Besides, this is really irrelevant.  Even IF belief is beneficial, that does NOT make it true.

Imagine I am a member of government.  Imagine I want to pass legislation that allows for SMAD doctrine to be taught in science class along with real science.  Imagine I think that universe was created when the SMAD laid an egg and out hatched the universe.  I want this theory to be taught as an alternative to evolution.  Is this detrimental to society?

Imagine I am a leader of a congregation of draconists.  Imagine I tell my congregation to vote for a particular candidate because they will uphold traditional draconian principles. I want to elect people who will acknowledge this is a draconian nation and it was built on the basic tenants of SMAD law.  Would this be beneficial?

Imagine I am a parent who has young children.  I want my kids to also know SMAD's eternal love and be saved from the Dragonzord.  I tell my kids that they must adhere to the strict teachings of the SMAD, or the Dragonzord will rise up and get them.  I tell my young kids that the Drgonzord wants to torture them for all eternity if they turn from the teachings of the SMAD.  Is this good for kids to hear?

I tell people that the Dragonzord is going to destroy the world.  I tell them that to stop this from happening, they must commit vile acts of violence and evil.  They do so.  Is this helpful?

I sell people dragon blood, which will cure all diseases from cancer to herpes to headaches to small penis size.  People buy the stuff by the truckload.  I make billions of dollars each year which I use to further the dragonic causes in politics and government.  Am I helping?

Point 5

Science does not answer every question.  Science answers questions that it can with a method to find errors and correct them.  Whenever you’d like to present scientific evidence that points to god, I’d be willing to consider it.  I’ll remind you: you have admitted that you do not possess such evidence.  Are you going to make up your mind?

And what the flippy hell is this?  “If you think about it, when the atheist says, "You cannot prove God exists, therefore He must not exist," this really is a form of an argument from ignorance that the atheists say the Christians are guilty of.”

If this statement were true, Tim, you would believe in the dragon in my pants.  You would believe in SMAD, the flying spaghetti monster, Krishna, Vishnu, Tiamat, Maat, Baal, Ra, Thor, etc.  If NOT being able to prove the existence of a thing is NOT a valid reason for DISBELIEF, nothing is.  You must therefore believe in EVERYTHING.  This is by far the dumbest thing I have ever read.  I can’t believe your head didn’t explode when you typed it.

This is what is called a strawman argument.

In other words, atheists argue that we theists are saying, "You, the atheist, cannot disprove God, therefore, a belief in God is rational."

That is NOT what atheists say.  What we are saying, and PAY SOME FLIPPING ATTENTION THIS HONKING TIME, is that you have no evidence of a god, nor of a particular god.  Without evidence, there is NO FLIPPING RATIONAL REASON to believe.  You may believe based on faith.  FAITH IS DELUSION.  You cannot have evidence AND faith.  These are mutually exclusive.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheist.  You cannot.  Atheism is the default position.  No one is born believing in a god.  We are all born atheists.  It takes instruction, or indoctrination, to believe in a god.  You make the positive claim that god exists.  The burden is on you to show this god is real.  Without the evidence you admit you do not have, there is no rational reason to believe a god exists.

Atheists, Not Christians, Are Guilty Of Making An Argument From Ignorance

This is one of the things that I do not understand about the logic of the atheists' position.  Atheists' argument is that there is insufficient proof to believe in the existence of God, and therefore, a theist is somehow wrong in believing in God.  Atheists, including my friend Andrew, try and say that, therefore, Christians are making an "argument from ignorance."  An argument from ignorance is where a person argues that because you cannot disprove something, it must exist.  In other words, atheists argue that we theists are saying, "You, the atheist, cannot disprove God, therefore, a belief in God is rational."  Yet, there are two issues with this thinking: (a) this is NOT what most theists argue, and (b) if an atheist were to put the shoe on the other foot, they would realize that THEY are the ones who are really making an argument from ignorance, not the theist.

First, Christians do NOT argue that because an atheist cannot disprove that God exists it is, therefore, rational for us to believe in God.  No, instead we provide what we believe to be very rational bases for a belief in God. We provide what we deem credible EVIDENCE for the existence of God. It is just that the atheist does not accept such evidence.  The real question is why the theist accepts such evidence, but the atheist refuses to accept such evidence.

I can tell you why I believe in God... yet, I have a hard time ever pinning an atheist down as to why they do not believe in God.  Rather, the consistent refrain I hear from atheists is, "you cannot prove it scientifically, therefore, it must not exist."  Which brings us to the second and most important point. Namely, it is the atheist who is guilty of making an argument from ignorance, not the theist.  If you think about it, when the atheist says, "You cannot prove God exists, therefore He must not exist," this really is a form of an argument from ignorance that the atheists say the Christians are guilty of.  

Andrew, you say that I have not answered your questions. I believe, actually, that I have and that you have yet to answer any of my more basic arguments.  For example, explain to me:

1. How is it more rational to believe that the earth came from nothing than to believe that God created it?

2. Similarly, given the immense complexity of our bodies, of nature, and of the universe, how is it rational to believe that these systems were not designed?

3.  What is your basis for morality if you truly believe there is no God?

4. With some notable exceptions, a belief in God tends to make people better. Why will you not accept that as proof of God's existence?

5.  It seems that your standard for truth is science, yet I believe that science (a) does not answer every question, and (b) actually points to the existence of God.  Why do you believe differently?   

Andrew the Atheist wonders if Tim knows how to read.

Tim, if you haven’t read my responses to your insanely ridiculous idea that atheists need to provide positive proof there is no god, you have not been paying attention.  I have addressed this over and over and over and over.  You keep stating this as though it is a valid point, and it is not.  You are not getting it.  I’ve tried to explain this to you nicely, using metaphor and example, over and over.  Here’s a quick re-cap.  You can find all these quotes in my previous posts here in this blog.

In my very FIRST post in this blog, I said:

"If we cannot prove the existence of god, we HAVE NO GOOD REASON for believing he exists." You may have bad reasons, but without evidence, you have no good reason for believing it.

In my post about Thor, I said:

Your argument is bad logic, and you seem to know it.  It is an argument from ignorance, just as you suggest.  The argument from ignorance fallacy is NOT that if the atheist cannot disprove god, then god must exist.  That fallacy shifts the burden of proof from the one making the claim to the one considering the claim.  The argument from ignorance states that if I have no answer for how the universe began, then it is rational to assume a god or deity is the reason the universe began.  That IS indeed the argument you make, and that is why it fails before you even state it fully.

Then I began the Dragon in my Pants argument:

You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheist.  You cannot.  Atheism is the default position.  No one is born believing in a god.  We are all born atheists.  It takes instruction, or indoctrination, to believe in a god.  You make the positive claim that god exists.  The burden is on you to show this god is real.  Without the evidence you admit you do not have, there is no rational reason to believe a god exists.

I said that because I said faith is delusional:

If you have evidence, what need have you of faith?  If faith is a way of knowing things, why is it ONLY employed when evidence is lacking?  For example, take the claim the sun is a star.  You have evidence that this is true.  Do you believe it  is based on faith?  Say you met a person who didn't know the sun was a star, and you assert the fact.  The person doesn't believe you.  Do you ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you present evidence?  Say you present your evidence does not convince the person.  Do you THEN ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you discover why the person is not convinced, and show further evidence?  When is faith needed?  When evidence is lacking

And in the next post:

Now, the atheist has no requirement to prove gods do not exist.  Remember what happened when I asserted I have a dragon in my pants?  What happened?  No one believed me.  People demanded real evidence and did not accept my anecdote.  So should it be with gods, and I think gods should be HARDER to prove than a dragon in my pants.

And the next:

Now, if you insist that I must disprove your god to be an atheist, please disprove SMAD, Godzilla, and the dragon in my pants.  Then, I’ll use your method.

And the next:

Now, I have also asked you to disprove SMAD.  When you can, I'll just use your method to disprove your god. Until then, by your logic, and your positions, you should believe the SMAD exists.  You have no way to show it does not.  I have provided evidence it exists.  So it should be more rational to believe the SMAD is real than to be an atheist in regards to SMAD.  You don't think so?  Why not?  I assert it is only because your god claims are more familiar than the dragon claims.  While they both hold as much weight as each other, you find your beliefs to be rational only because they are more familiar, not because they are actually rational.

Now that I look at all these, I wonder, did you ever really address any of these rebuttals?  Or did you just ignore them?   Did you just brush them off like you did with Mande’s beautifully written rebuttal to the question of purpose?  That was a phenomenal piece, poignant and insightful.  You pissed her away without even acknowledging her points. 

Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the definition of atheism you are using is only accurate when you address me, not atheists in general.  I am a strong atheist.  I believe god does not exist.  That is different than weak atheism, which would mean I do not believe a god exists.  There is a difference.  Strong atheism asserts no gods; weak atheism rejects the belief in gods.  The difference is subtle, but important, at least, to the atheist community.

Again, I am a strong atheist, so your point is valid but only to me, not to the other atheists on the blog.  And to this I retort, you don’t think dragons are real.  You think they are imaginary.  You are a strong adraconist.  Or are you agnostic toward the dragon in my pants? 

Oh, and the agnostic thing.  I don’t believe in agnostics.  I don’t think they exist.  Every self-described agnostic I’ve ever met has either been a pussy atheist or a pussy theist.  

I'm Calling Out The Atheists

I am calling you out atheists.  I believe that atheism is a dishonest position.  An atheist says, "There is no God."  The only argument that the atheist has for his position is that we cannot scientifically prove that there is a God, therefore, there must not be a God.  Yet, that is actually poor logic.  Atheism cannot offer any positive proof for its position.  Atheism cannot disprove the existence of God, thus, it cannot legitimately say that God does not exist.  A more honest position, one that I would understand, is the agnostic who can honestly say, "I do not know if there is a God or not."

Indeed, as a Christian I may not be able to prove via the scientific method that God exists.  I believe that there are "proofs" of God's existence, it is just that they are not proofs in the scientific sense.  Instead they are proofs in that it is more rational to believe that God exists that to believe there is no God.  

Theism explains every issue -- things that atheists cannot explain such as the creation of the world, or a basis for morality.  In fact, a belief in God gives meaning to life.  What do you atheists live for since, according to evolution, there is no purpose to your life?

Andrew the Atheist warns against mocking the SMAD

Yes, it's true.  I'm mocking belief with this SMAD thing.  But I'm doing so to make a point.  I think it is valid and a very true analogy.  In the last post I made, I turned all the apologetics around to favor the argument for the existence of the Super Mega Awesome Dragon instead of your god.  The point is that these arguments can easily be used to argue for the existence of OTHER gods BESIDES the christian god, and therefore fail to prove the existence of any specific god. 

Further, we've covered this before.  When you, Tim, first called upon the Design Argument, I objected because I asserted you do not believe in your god because of this argument.  I further asserted that NO ONE believes because of these arguments.  You'll remember:  you conceded this point.  You admit these are NOT convincing arguments, and yet you are still trying to use them.  Then you have the nerve to say that I am being silly for continuing with the argument from SMAD.  But you have yet to disprove SMAD.

But here's an interesting phenomena:  when I asserted there is a dragon in my pants, you didn't believe me.  You asked for evidence!  Congratulations!!  You have agreed that disbelief is indeed the default position.  Of course it is.  You have no positive evidence that the dragon is real, and therefore, you feel there is no rational reason for believing the dragon exists.  You are an atheist in regards to my dragon. 

Now, I'm going to tell you that I have indeed felt the dragon's presence in my life.  I have already asserted that I can hear the dragon roar.  I can smell the dragon's stinky breath.  You can too.  These events are common and easily reproduced.  I can make the dragon roar just by praying to it.  It's roar is recordable, and can be studied scientifically.  There is tangible, recordable, measurable, physical evidence of this dragon.  This is WAY more than what we have for a god, and yet you STILL don't believe I have a dragon in my pants, do you?

Why not?   Don't you trust me?  You say faith is really trust.  So trust me.  Trust that I believe there is a dragon in my pants.  Trust that it is really there.  Trust that there is a SMAD, that Godzilla is green and invisible, that the Dragonzord waits to punish non-believers, that the Loch Ness Monster was the last true prophet of SMAD.  Have faith.  You can even hope if you like.  Hope to escape the fires of the Dragonzord.  Hope Nessie will bear the weight of your dragon sins.  Hope for the SMAD to be real.  Does this sound delusional yet?

Now, I have also asked you to disprove SMAD.  When you can, I'll just use your method to disprove your god. Until then, by your logic, and your positions, you should believe the SMAD exists.  You have no way to show it does not.  I have provided evidence it exists.  So it should be more rational to believe the SMAD is real than to be an atheist in regards to SMAD.  You don't think so?  Why not?  I assert it is only because your god claims are more familiar than the dragon claims.  While they both hold as much weight as each other, you find your beliefs to be rational only because they are more familiar, not because they are actually rational.

Now, to show how belief in irrational things is harmful to society:

Imagine I am a member of government.  Imagine I want to pass legislation that allows for SMAD doctrine to be taught in science class along with real science.  Imagine I think that universe was created when the SMAD laid an egg and out hatched the universe.  I want this theory to be taught as an alternative to evolution.  Is this detrimental to society?

Imagine I am a leader of a congregation of draconists.  Imagine I tell my congregation to vote for a particular candidate because they will uphold traditional draconian principles. I want to elect people who will acknowledge this is a draconian nation and it was built on the basic tenants of SMAD law.  Would this be beneficial?

Imagine I am a parent who has young children.  I want my kids to also know SMAD's eternal love and be saved from the Dragonzord.  I tell my kids that they must adhere to the strict teachings of the SMAD, or the Dragonzord will rise up and get them.  I tell my young kids that the Drgonzord wants to torture them for all eternity if they turn from the teachings of the SMAD.  Is this good for kids to hear?

I tell people that the Dragonzord is going to destroy the world.  I tell them that to stop this from happening, they must commit vile acts of violence and evil.  They do so.  Is this helpful?

I sell people dragon blood, which will cure all diseases from cancer to herpes to headaches to small penis size.  People buy the stuff by the truckload.  I make billions of dollars each year which I use to further the dragonic causes in politics and government.  Am I helping?

By the way, I do not have the ability to remove comments from this blog, nor would I do so if I had the power.  I'd like to thank the Human Ape for joining us.  In case you all haven't noticed, I'm ignoring all anonymous comments.  If I had control over the comments, I'd require a login for comments to post, but I don't. 
Oh, and that reminds me.  If you get offended by profanity, then you can just fuck off.  Grow a fucking pair and get the fuck over it.  Fuck.  Fuckity.  Fuckwhat.  Fucknuggets.  FucktuesdayFuckhammer.

The Dragon Example Makes You Look Silly...But If You Insist On Using It, Please Provide Some Evidence

Forgive me, Andrew.  Let’s back up a little bit.  I would love for you to try and argue that belief is a detriment to society.  I would also love to see you try and argue against the definition of faith both Biblical and secular sources utilize.  So, please in your next posts, attempt either of those arguments.

With regard to your silly “dragon in my pants” argument, I have addressed it by asking you for evidence.  You have yet to provide any.  I myself think it wise for you to stop using this argument. I know that you are attempting to mock Christianity, but I fear that it only makes you look foolish.  Our readers seem to agree.

So again, forgive me for going too fast. I would love for us to back up and address those issues. And if you insist on using the silly dragon example, please provide some evidence, any evidence.  I mean why do you believe there is a dragon in your pants?  Have you seen it? Have you felt it? Is there any evidence of him in the world?  Is there anything that it has created?  Does anyone else believe it exists?  

Andrew the Atheist wants more dragons!!

Gee, Tim, you’re moving awful fast.  I never got a chance to say why I think belief in itself is a detriment to society and not beneficial.  Nor did we fully explore your “faith=trust” baloney.  You want me to disprove god.  You’ve never addressed the dragon in my pants.  You just dismiss my evidence for “some reason”.  Now you want to go through all the apologetics I hoped to cover in the first post?  Slow down.  We’ve all the time in the world.

Hmmm..  Perhaps I can do a little magic here…..

Is it a red herring, or a dragon?

How’s this, Tim?  I’ve asserted there is a dragon in my pants.  I have just realized that I never explained how amazing this dragon is.  Did you know the dragon has a father?  Indeed, the dragon in my pants has an all-powerful, all-knowing, creator of the universe father.  He is the Super Mega Awesome Dragon, or SMAD, for short.  Further, Godzilla is also a major player here.  Invisible, yet green, Godzilla completes the trinity of dragons that rule the universe.  So if you insist on playing apologetics, here’s my rebuttal to them all:

1. The cosmological argument: There must have been a “first cause” or “prime mover” and this first cause we identify as SMAD.

2. The teleological argument: essentially this is the intelligent design argument. The world we live in is complex. Because it is so complex, it stands to reason that here must have been a creator. This creator was SMAD.

3. The argument from experience (includes the arguments from beauty, love, and religious experience): some experiences are best explained by the existence of SMAD.

4. The argument from morality: any objective morality depends on the existence of SMAD.

5. The ontological argument: SMAD is a "being greater than which cannot be conceived"; therefore, there must be SMAD.

6. The transcendental argument: logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of SMAD. Adraconic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

7. The will to believe doctrine: belief in a SMAD “works”, thus there must be a SMAD.

8. The argument from reason: Reason is not the result of physical phenomena. If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it. There must, therefore, be a SMAD.


Now, if you insist that I must disprove your god to be an atheist, please disprove SMAD, Godzilla, and the dragon in my pants.  Then, I’ll use your method.

And yes, you missed many.  Look here:  http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

The Top Arguments For The Existence Of God

In an attempt to define this debate better, below is a list of what I believe are the best arguments for the existence of God. I propose two things. First, I propose that you, the atheist, provide your top arguments for the non-existence of God.  As I have said before I do not think this is possible because atheists, rather than having reasons for their belief are defined merely by their attempt to poke holes in what theists believe.  Prove me wrong.

Second, I propose that I will begin a series of posts where I talk about each of the below arguments for the existence of God.  You can then present your argument against each “proof.”  I would ask that rather than simply dismissing the arguments out of hand or old hat, that you actually provide reasons for why you do not believe each argument.

If we are in agreement, then below is the list of what I believe the top arguments for the existence of God:

1. The cosmological argument: There must have been a “first cause” or “prime mover” and this first cause we identify as God.

2. The teleological argument: essentially this is the intelligent design argument.  The world we live in is complex. Because it is so complex, it stand to reason that here must have been a creator. This creator was God. 

3. The argument from experience (includes the arguments from beauty, love, and religious experience): some experiences are best explained by the existence of God.

4.  The argument from morality: any objective morality depends on the existence of God.

5. The ontological argument: God is a "being greater than which cannot be conceived"; therefore, there must be a God.

6. The transcendental argument: logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God. Atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

7. The will to believe doctrine: belief in a God “works”, thus there must be a God. 

8.  The argument from reason: Reason is not the result of physical phenomena.  If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it.  There must, therefore, be a God.

Have I correctly briefly summarized each of the above arguments? Do you agree to this plan to address each in turn?  Are there any major arguments that I am missing?

Tim, The Christian, Responds: Faith Is About Trust. Why Will You Not Trust?

Morton Kelsey, in his book, Set Your Heart on the Greatest Gift, tells a story of a man who came to the edge of a cliff.   As he stood there, wondering what to do next, he was amazed to discover a tightrope stretched across the abyss.  Slowly, surely, across the rope came an acrobat pushing before him a wheelbarrow with another performer in it.  When they finally reached the safety of solid ground, the acrobat smiled at the man’s amazement.  “Do you think I can do it again?” he asked.  The man replied, “Why yes, I certainly believe you can.”  The acrobat put his question to the man again, and when the answer was the same, he pointed to the wheelbarrow and said, “Good, then get in.”

Andrew, my friend, this is a great analogy to the definition of faith. I do not know why you are adamant about holding on to the definition that you are using.  Both faith sources and secular sources define faith differently than you, yet you refuse to accept either.  For the last time, it is completely unfair to say that faith means believing without evidence.  The above analogy is a perfect example.  The man had every reason to believe the acrobat could do it again.  He had just witnessed the acrobat achieving it.  Yet, the question is whether the man will trust the acrobat. Faith is more about trust than anything else.  We do not trust things for which we have no evidence. 

In your last post, you said that Christians do have reasons for their faith, it is just that they are irrational reasons.  That very statement, however, is contradictory.  By definition irrationality means, “without reason.”  Yet, you admit that Christians have reasons for their beliefs.  You are unfairly attempting to have your cake and eat it too. 

The issue is not rationality. Rather it is a test of will whether you will believe.  Belief is not irrational; there are plenty of good reasons for accepting the belief in a God; the only real issue is why you continually reject good evidence for the existence of God.

You attempt to analogize the belief in God with the presence of a dragon in your pants.  You like to talk about red herrings, yet that analogy is prime example of a red herring.  There is absolutely no evidence to believe that there is a dragon in your pants.  There is plenty of evidence that God exists.


Why do you refuse to believe?  Instead of taking pot shots at a belief in God, will you provide positive reasons for why you are an atheist?  I have asked repeatedly for you to do so.  I do not think there are any positive reasons for atheism. In other words, your belief in atheism is defined by what you think we cannot prove, rather than by what you can prove.  Accordingly, once again, theism is more rational. At least we can provide reasons for what we believe.

Andrew the Atheist says, "Paging Mr. Thurman. Mr. Thurman, you have a telephone call at the front desk."

Pee Wee:  I know you are but what am I?
Francis:  I know YOU are but what am I?
both: I know YOU are but what am I?
         NO
        Stop
        Cut it out
        Shut up
Pee Wee:  Why don't you make me?
Francis:  Why don't YOU make ME?
Pee Wee:  Because I don't make monkeys.  I just train them!
Francis:  Pee Wee, listen to reason.
               PEE WEE!
Pee Wee:  SHHhhh!  I'm listening to reason.


So we've decided to go for the red herring.  Now why did I say this is a red herring?  Because this is a distraction from the real issue.  Faith requires no evidence.  That is to say, if you have evidence, there is no need for faith.  Further, I stand by my definition of the term as it relates to belief and evidence.

Faith is not hope.  Hope is hope.  You can hope for something and have no evidence for it.  For example, I might hope to win the lottery.  There is no evidence that I will win the lottery.  There is good reason to believe I will NOT win the lottery.  I can hope, nonetheless.

I never said that believers believe for no reason.  I said believers do not have a RATIONAL reason for belief.  Believers believe on faith, not evidence, and therefore, the belief is not rational.  This is not unfair.  This is reality.  There was a commenter once who posted that if I asked 100 people why they believed, I'd get at least 100 different answers.  I'd agree.  I'd also assert that none of those reasons would be based on evidence.  They would be based on illogical thinking, irrational conclusions, or personal experiences or anecdotes that are unscientific or arguments from ignorance.  In other words, they would be based on faith.

I make no distinction between what you call "blind faith" and faith.  They are the same.  Like "no duh" and "duh".  All faith is blind.  There is none that is not.  All faith is irrational.

Now, the atheist has no requirement to prove gods do not exist.  Remember what happened when I asserted I have a dragon in my pants?  What happened?  No one believed me.  People demanded real evidence and did not accept my anecdote.  So should it be with gods, and I think gods should be HARDER to prove than a dragon in my pants.

My dragon is invisible.  It exists outside of our perception of time and space.  You cannot prove the dragon does not exist.  It manifests itself though my experience and through my life.  You can experience it too if you open your heart and nostrils at the right time and place.  Until you think it is more rational to believe there IS a dragon in my pants than to believe there is NOT, atheism is more rational than theism.  Deal with it.

Tim, The Christian Responds: Using Your Definition, It Is Atheism That Is Irrational, Not Theism

Andrew, unfortunately it appears that we are going to have to have a conversation about the definition of faith because you are right – if we use your definition, faith would be irrational.

The Bible defines faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”  (Hebrews 11:1).  Note that it says nothing about “blind” faith, that is, believing something without evidence. Frankly, a person would be a fool to believe something without any evidence.  Rather, the Biblical definition talks about having confidence in things that we hope for.  We hope in things only when we have evidence for those things.

Perhaps, I was wrong to have started off with the Biblical definition. The definition in Webster’s, however, supports the Biblical definition:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

So, as you can see, your definition of faith is the second definition.  The first definition of faith is the same as the Biblical definition, namely it means to “trust” or a “confident belief.”  It is unfair and dishonest to accuse Christians of being irrational.  We definitely have reasons for why we believe in God. There is plenty of evidence of the existence of God, it is just that the atheist, for whatever reason, chooses to reject that evidence.  Indeed, as a Christian, I would not ask you to put your faith in something that is irrational or without evidence.

By the way, if we used your definition of faith, then belief in atheism is irrational. In other words, there is no evidence of atheism.  Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God.  You would have to prove the non-existence of God, and an atheist cannot do that.  Therefore, using your definition of faith, it is atheism that is irrational, not theism.

Andrew the Atheist answers: Faith is not reasonable. Faith is delusional.

I'd say, Tim, we've come full circle.  I think the issue of faith is actually where we started, but you didn't want to acknowledge it.  You first asked, "Is science the only way to know what is real?"  While we both agreed science is indeed a fantastic tool to determine what is real, you never specified what alternative method could also be used to do the same.  I think you meant faith.  I think faith is delusion.

Before I go too far, let's establish a few terms.  By faith, I mean "to believe something without evidence."  This is to say that the phrase, "I have faith in myself," does NOT fit the defintion of faith I am using here.  This phrase should be re-worded to say, "I have CONFIDENCE in myself (based on evidence)." 

Now I realize I am limiting the defintion of a word.  But for this discussion, I think this is legitimate.  You may disagree if you like, but in the context of this discussion, one that is suited to address the topic of religion, words like "faith" need a clear definition.  So if we need to have a conversation about the semantics of the word faith, that's fine, but I think that is a red herring.

Now, since faith is believing without evidence, it is clearly irrational.  You claim there is evidence for your leap.  You cannot possess this.  You admit you do not possess this.  You cannot both have this evidence, and not have it, at the same time.  You need to make up your mind.

If you have evidence, what need have you of faith?  If faith is a way of knowing things, why is it ONLY employed when evidence is lacking?  For example, take the claim the sun is a star.  You have evidence that this is true.  Do you believe is based on faith?  Say you met a person who didn't know the sun was a star, and you assert the fact.  The person doesn't believe you.  Do you ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you present evidence?  Say you present your evidence does not convice the person.  Do you THEN ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you discover why the person is not convinced, and show further evidence?  When is faith needed?  When evidence is lacking.

Say your new friend is still not convicned after all the evidence you present.  The person tells you that they "know" the sun is actually the god Horus, because an ancient book of wisdom explains that Horus travels across the sky every day.  Suppose your friend has faith that Horus is real, and is not really considering your evidence because it contradicts what is already held on faith.

This is what I mean by faith is delusion.  It really does not matter that one person believes in Horus and another believes in allah and another believes in jesus.  None of these beliefs are based on evidence.  If they were, they would not be based on faith.  Faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.

If you happened to live at a time when germs had not yet beed discovered, and people thought that ailments were demonic possesions, and you asserted that germs were real, what would happen?  Say you had no evidence.  None exists.  The discovery has not been made.  Even though you are correct, there is no rational reason for anyone to believe you.  Rational belief is based on evidence.  If you have none, there is no rational reason to believe a claim is true.  This is why science adjusts it's views when new evidence is presented, and faith resists evidence so belief prevails.

We've discussed your evidence for thinking the leap of faith is rational.  It is not.  You have presented arguments from ignorace.  You want me to explain why atheists have morals without gods.  You suppose that if I cannot provide an explanation, god must be the explanation.  This is a fallacy.  Further, I provided you with the way morals evolve.

You've claimed the universe is too ordered to have come from nothing, and therefore, if I cannot explain why the universe is ordered, the answer should be that god made the universe.  Again, this commits the same logical fallacy.  Even if I could not explain it, that does not mean the explanation is supernatural.  And cosmology is a real science, with real answers based on real evidence.  And in no way does it point to a creator, much less a specific creator.

Now for the sake of further posts, I'll not address the question of the benefits of faith.  First, I want to estblish my position that faith is not rational, illogical, and delusional.  Faith exists only in the absence of evidence.  Why use faith if you have evidence?  You don't.  No one does.

Tim, The Christian Asks The Atheists: Why Are You Unwilling To Take The Leap Of Faith?

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is moderately important." C.S. Lewis

I finally feel like we might have come to the crux of the matter in our last two posts. Namely, I admitted that there is not absolute scientific proof of the existence of God and that a person must take a leap of faith, and you responded that atheists are unwilling to take that leap of faith.  Now my question is, “Why not?”  The leap of faith is not a blind leap. There is plentiful evidence that the leap is rational and logical.  What I do not understand is why an atheist does not understand or accept that.

Also, the benefits of making the leap far outweigh the alleged benefit of not making the leap. Yes, Christianity has its problems. Yes, evil is committed by people who claim to be Christians.  Nevertheless, on the whole, the Christian life is better for the person who believes and is better for society.

For the sake of the argument, if Christianity is false, what harm is there if you have believed it and were wrong?  You will only benefit yourself and society by believing.  On the other hand, if Christianity is true and you choose not to believe it, then the consequences are severe.

What part of what I have written above do you not agree with?:

1. Do you disagree that there is evidence that makes the leap of faith rational?

2. Why are you unwilling to take the leap of faith?

3. Do you disagree that the Christian life is actually more beneficial than the unbelieving life, both for the person and for society?

I hope that this will shape our discussion for the next few posts.

Andrew the Atheist answers, "You answered your own question, Tim."

Ordinarily, this is where I'd make some statement.  I don't think there is a need here, because Tim answered his own question right after he asked it. 

"You say that we Christians have no "proof" that there is a God. In a sense, that is true. Scientific "proof" for the existence of God may not exist (I think that is debatable, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume that it is true), at least not to your satisfaction."

Yup.  Seems you understand the answer very well.  You even drive it home with this:

" I do think that a belief in God requires "a leap of faith.""

Well, it seems my work here is done.  The atheist simply does not take the leap of faith you do.  The atheist prefers to stand on the ground of reason and logic, which is on the other side of the leap you take to believe. 

Oh, what the heck.  That post is too short.  Here goes.
You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheist.  You cannot.  Atheism is the default position.  No one is born believing in a god.  We are all born atheists.  It takes instruction, or indoctrination, to believe in a god.  You make the positive claim that god exists.  The burden is on you to show this god is real.  Without the evidence you admit you do not have, there is no rational reason to believe a god exists.

For example:  let's say I claimed to have a dragon in my pants.  (Did you read my posts like this on EA?)  I can hear it roar.  It has smelly breath.  I can let you listen to the roar and you can sniff the stink.  Have I proved to you I have a dragon in my pants?  The roar and smell are observable scientifically.  Why don't you think the dragon is real?

Further, let's say I claim all the things you attribute to god are in fact the products of goblins.  Goblins tell you what is right and wrong.  Goblins put the matter in the universe.  Goblins cause pain and love.  Prove there are no goblins. 

The atheist dismisses your god, and all other gods, deities, and supernatural things, as easily as you dismiss my dragon and the goblins.

Tim, The Christian Asks The Atheists: What Is Your Best Argument That God Does Not Exist?

OK, you atheists. Here is my challenge to you.  

You say that we Christians have no "proof" that there is a God.  In a sense, that is true.  Scientific "proof" for the existence of God may not exist (I think that is debatable, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume that it is true), at least not to your satisfaction. Yet, I would say to you that you do not have proof that God doesn't exist either.  And I would say to you that it is more rational to believe in the existence of God with the caveat that even though it is more rational, I do think that a belief in God requires "a leap of faith."

Why do I think it is more rational to believe in a God?  There are too many things for which atheists have no real explanation which a belief in God does explain:

I do not believe that atheists have any valid basis for ethics or morality.

I do not believe that atheists can really explain the origin of the world.  How does something come from nothing?  If you believe in the primordial soup, where did the primordial soup come from?  If you believe in the Big Bang, where did the matter come from that went bang?

I do not believe that atheists can explain the origin of the sensation pain. Or for that matter, I do not believe that an atheist can explain the origin of love. How can the sensations of pain or love be derived via natural selection?  

Atheists challenge Christians to prove that God exists. Well, I would ask you to put the shoe on the other foot. My challenge to you is, "What is your best argument that God does not exist?"  Or put another way, "Why do you believe it to be more rational to be an atheist?"