1. Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Comment #218922 by powerboy on July 25, 2008 at 8:16 pm

The atheist's proposition is reasonable, and that is to say simply: it can't be said there is no God, however, it can be said there is no evidence to support the notion that one exists. In addition, the evidence given by those who believe, are explained through rational inquiry.

The agnostic's proposition is also somewhat reasonable, and that is to say: mankind's body of knowledge isn't adequate enough to know.

The problem is this; atheists are correct in their assertion that the God described in the monotheistic texts doesn't exist, because the description of him isn't congenial to the realities of our world and cosmos, and that the metaphysical claims of these religions have been proved false.

Anyone who thinks that this is "dogmatic", could confuse a brick wall with a bowl of jello; or as the British would call it, Jelly.

2. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #176711 by powerboy on May 7, 2008 at 10:22 pm

It seems to me that a simple evaluation of human history would lead a logically thinking individual to the conclusion that the burden of proof is on those who claim that morality is axiomatic with belief in God.

This question is an attack on a human beings deepest personal integrity. It suggests that I, or you before you found your faith, could not possibly decide upon a moral action. That we are totally incapable of deciphering the difference between good and evil. That we, individually, or collectively, would not know that murdering someone is wrong; that stealing from someone is wrong; that watching a child run into traffic without doing anything to stop that child is wrong etc.

If morality is only derived from religious faith, then why are young children sexually abused by their catholic priests? Why were the last words uttered by those who decided to kill nearly three thousand people on September 11, 2001 "Allah akbar"? Why do the parties of God continue to slaughter people indiscriminately in Iraq. Why were people publicly beheaded in Afghanistan, before a nation that SEPERATES CHURCH AND STATE intervened? Why does it take two women to be counted as one person in a court in the Islamic Republic of Iran? Why was there Islamic Jihad or Christian Crusades? Why were young children brainwashed and forced to marry middle aged men at a polygamist compound in Texas? Catch the drift?

3. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #176706 by powerboy on May 7, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Not believing you're created by a God doesn't make you a morally superior human being. Atheism is the refusal to believe that which cannot be substantiated with respect to the Universes' origin; not a moral guidepost with which to determine what things should or should not be done; what actions are justified or not.

Religion, however, does provide courage for evil acts and even motivation. People are willing to do things they otherwise would not do if they believe God is on their side.

4. A Rational Universe Implies a Creator, Science points towards Theism

Comment #176689 by powerboy on May 7, 2008 at 9:40 pm

This argument is made as if we didn't know the Universe is destined for destruction. The Universe is not "rational", rather we have observed the Universe and understand why certain events within it occur, which in turn allows us to develop rational explanations for things we see. That is not to say that the Universe is rational. Suicide isn't rational. It is the opposite. It is, at its root, the most irrational action one could take. However, if someone chooses to commit suicide, and does it by overdosing on medication, a police detective would be able to determine how the suicide was committed. He would be able to determine how a completely irrational event unfolded. He would, in essence, rationalize an irrational situation. Family members might also try to rationalize it by making the case that the man was distressed. It is still an irrational, but sometimes emotionally necessary action.

The Universe doesn't operate according to any rational logic. Everything that happens is a direct consequential result of its origins. Black holes exist because a star died that was so massive, when it collapsed it caused that region of space to become so dense that the subsequent gravity produced doesn't allow anything to escape. We can make sense of it, but it doesn't make what we are observing rational at all. This star, which would eventually produce the black hole, came from gas left behind from the big bang. Again, there is no rational logic with which the universe operates. There is only cause and effect. What the original cause was, we don't know. What we can be sure of is that if scientists don't know, theologians don't come close to knowing.

5. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #176201 by powerboy on May 6, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Who is in need of more qualification: a person casting doubt on the claim that something unprovable actually exists, or someone claiming that something that is unprovable actually exists. Believers go one further by claiming that not only does something that cannot be substantiated by evidence actually exists, but that they know his mind, what he wants, what he thinks, what he likes, what he dislikes; that he cares about you, cares about what you do, what you say, who you sleep with, what you eat, what holidays you observe etc. The only suitable qualification to make these claims as if they were a matter of fact would be to know God himself. Since that is impossible, nobody is qualified to make the religious claims they do. They proclaim that an collection of ancient books are their source of authority; I think that human intellect is a more credible source of authority, along with science and reason.

6. Why do atheists care about what others believe when it doesn't affect atheists?

Comment #176087 by powerboy on May 6, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Beliefs have consequences for everyone. The people massacred during the Christian Crusades, or Islamic Jihads, would beg to differ with your opinion that peoples beliefs don't affect others.

7. Atheists only promote divisiveness, as any other separatist movement.

Comment #176083 by powerboy on May 6, 2008 at 2:10 pm

The thoughts of human beings are not euphoric. Therefore, the collection of their thoughts will inherently be divisive.

Atheists, however, do not seek to divide, but rather are proposing that humankind reconsider its existence. Because something is divisive, doesn't mean that it is meant to be.

8. What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #176081 by powerboy on May 6, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Human beings, above all else, are creators. It is just what we do. It was predetermined by nature. Everything we are responsible for, from a lawn chair to a skyscraper, has an exact purpose. Therefore, it is inherent that we will always view things through the prism of creationism. Since we know we didn't create the Earth, something must have. Since we know we didn't create the universe, something must have. Since we know we didn't create ourselves, something must have. Furthermore, all of these things must also have purpose. There is no reason to believe that there is a purpose to life to begin with.

9. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #176077 by powerboy on May 6, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Again, you're placing an unjustifiable degree of trust in a claim that isn't trustworthy. Because someone said they had a "personal experience" doesn't make it true.

Rational inquiry dismisses this argument through the simple observation that Christians "experience" Jesus Christ; Muslims "experience" Allah; children "experience" the flying spaghetti monster etc. Logic dictates that not all of them can be right, and not all of them can be telling the truth.

Therefore, which God is real and which is not. Who is genuinely having a "religious" experience and who is being "deceived" by the devil? Perhaps none of them are correct. Perhaps they're having natural experiences and confusing them with religious experiences. Perhaps they are attributing to God, something that shouldn't be, out of loyalty to something they perceived as having helped them. Case and point; Pat Robertson claimed that in South America (of course somewhere remote where only he and his missionaries were) people were being "raised from the dead". Now, when pressed on this matter he admitted that someone had only died and was brought back to life while being rushed to the hospital from the inside of an ambulance while they were there. It didn't matter that emergency medical technicians were working to revive that person; it was all a work of God.

So you see, these "experiences" can, and should, be attributed to the truly wonderful reality of nature, and righteous intervention into the troubles of people by other people who care enough to help. If they were remotely inspired by God, then why aren't all believers saved from dying a horrible death, or suffering great tragedies? The most common response by the religious peddlers and personal kingdom builders of our time is that they were not paying their tithes! So you see, some things just don't deserve faith.