How can you attack atheists? We need to work together to overcome the forces of religion and it doesn't do anyone any good to attack atheism when we all need to do is show a united front. You're making the life of the religious nuts that much easier. Thanks a bunch.

While discussing the difference between right and wrong is a very good topic, I feel like it is going nowhere. So since you basically asked me to show you proof that God exists, I will for the moment get off the topic of right and wrong to show you that God exists. Hopefully we shall get back to this topic soon.

I hope you know science because what I am about to say deals heavily in it. One of my aunts has a friend whose name is Micheal Hite. He has helped me get into proving that God exists through science. I give the credit to him and to God.

"Does God exist?" the question that most human beings ask in their lifetime. Either God exists or He doesn't. There is no room in between. What evidence, then proves which part correct?(Note: when I say prove, I do not mean by empirical evidence, a.k.a. the five senses. We cannot prove God the same way we prove a sack of tomatoes.)  While empirical evidence is very useful in proving something,  it is not the only way to prove that something is in being.

All legal authorities reconize the vality of the prima facie case. This is in effect when enough evidence is available to establish such a high probability of a fact being true that, unless taht particular fact somehow can be refuted, it is considered proven beyond reasonable doubt.The arguement of the thesist(me) is taht there is a huge amount of  powerful evidence which forms an unshakable prima facie case for the existance of God, one that is unshakeable. I would like to show you a portion of that evidence for the evidence of God.

The Cosmological Argument- Cosmological of course meaning cause and effect- is the most used argument for the existance of God. It says that the Universe is here and therefore can and must be explained. The universe exists. Anyone who is sane understands that. So pops up the question "How did the Universe get here?" Basic science says that nothing can create itself, otherwise called contingent because it is dependant on something else outside of itself to create it or explain it's existance. The Universe has not as of yet explained to us how it got here or why its here, therefore it is labled as contingent.  Here is where the law of cause and effect plays a big part in the cosmological argument. As far as scientific knowledge goes, natural laws have no exceptions.  This is definatly true of the Law of  Cause and Effect because it is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply, the Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have a cause that happens before the effect.

Material causes with no adequete causes do not exist. Also, effects never happen before the cause. In addition, the cause is always greater than the effect. This is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequete cause. For whatever effects that we see, we must suggust an adequete cause, which brings us back to the original question, How did the universe get here? there are only three possible answers to these questions: 1) The Universe is eternal it will always exist the way it has been doing for eternity. 2) The Universe is not eternal it was created out of nothing  or 3) the Universe is not eternal and it did not create itself , rather something (Someone) created it who was superior to the Universe.

All three of  these deserve careful consideration.

The Eternal Universe

The comfort zone for someone who does not believe in God is that the Universe is eternal. However, science today denies this fact, and says that the Universe had a beginning and an end.

Amoung the most important and well established laws of science are the laws of thermodynamics. The first law, also commonly known as Law of Conservation of Energy and/or Matter states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. The second law also commonly known as the Law of Increasing Entropy states that everything is running down or wearing out. Energy is becoming less and less available to use. Entropy, a measure of randomness, disorderliness, or unstructureness, is increasing. That, of course, means that the Universe is going to wear itself out. This end is referred to by scientists as the heat death. In other words, the universe is like a giant clock that is winding down from  the first time it has been wound up.  The conclusion from science which is inescapable is that the Universe is not eternal. Eternal things have no beginning or end, nor do they run down. A famous scientist, who happens to not believe in God, Robert Jastrow of NASA wrote "Modern science denies an eternal existance to the universe." He is correct. We now know that scientifically the universe is not eternal.

Created itself out of nothing

Not too long ago, it would have been almost impossible to find any reputable scientist who would be willing to suggest that the Universe created itself out of nothing. Every scientist as well as school children knew and understood that no material thing can create itself. The Universe is the created, not the creator. And until recently it seemed there could be no disagreement on this point. However, since the evidence is so strong that the Universe had a beginning some scientists stated that the Universe created  itself. Normally, a statement like that would seem absurb because it denies the basic principles of physics. Yet those who do not believe in God have been willing to defend it. This suggestion is of course in clear violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. As astronamer Robert Jastrow put it, " The creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science- the principle of states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact." Also, science is based on observation, reproducibility, and empirical data. Yet when pressed for the data that document the claim that the Universe created itself from nothing,they were forced to admit that there is no such evidence to confirm it. The idea that the universe  created itself is absurb, both philosophically and scientifically.

The Created Universe

Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. All available evidence states that the Universe did in fact have a beginning. Logically and scientifically we can safely say that the Universe had a cause since it is here. Cause and effect states that wherever there is a material effect, there must be an adequate antecedent cause. Also, the fact of the matter is that no cause is lesser than the effect.

Since it is obvious that the Universe is not eternal, and the universe could not have created itself, the only remaining possiblity is that the universe was created by something or Someone greater than itself.

For now I must close. I will try and resume this later. I feel that at the moment your head must feel ready to bust, I know mine does with all this science.

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.

I was reading some correspondece concerning the question of agnostism versus atheism.  The best discussion I have read is in George Smith's Atheism: the Case Against God.  As my copy is on loan, I can only paraphrase.

Smith appels to the etymology of the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism".  Atheism is quite clearly a negative term denoting a lack of theism.  It's right there for everyone to discern A-Theism. Agnosticism is also a negative term and was introduced in the spirit of irony.  The "gnostics" were ancient pagans who believed they were in direct communication with the spirit world.  The term was later used to parody christians who claimed to have revelatory knowledge of the existence of god.  An agnostic is someone who does not believe this knowledge is possible.

"Atheism" is concerned with ontology where "Agnosticism" is concerned with epistemology.  Atheism is a passive lack of theistic believe (not an active belief in no god).  Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge of the divine is not possible for human beings.  It concerns the type of knowledge we can hope to gain, not whether or not we believe in god.  I think that it is safe to claim without research data, that most atheists are agnostic-athiests.

When I was first researching rigorous atheism, Smith's book was one of my favorites. He really does a great job of explaining some difficult concepts.

First i would like to shower heaps of astounded admiration on you!Reading through some of the more malignant comments on your site, I am amazed that you are able to maintain your sobriety at all times!! Next, a bit about myself and my perspective on things: I'm a Scandinavian (Dane)- a place where 85 % of the populations are members of the Lutheran state-church, even though a very slim proportion of these have any clue, or any interest in what their membership entails.

As an example, this Muhammad cartoon-thing explode in our faces all of a sudden (A lot of us saw it coming miles away) and people start taking interest in their supposed Christian faith, as a barrier against the evil Islamists. Sadly, however, what they are pounding out is not Christianity, in any shape or form, but Nationalism. Scandinavians as a group aren't religious - all studies show this. About 60% claim to believe in some form of god, but will not adhere to any religion, and refrain from saying anything about this deity. Mostly they fall under the category of agnosticism, because it's the easy answer. In reality we don't give a shit about religion unless there's something in it for us, and as long as we're not threatened on our borders by the "hordes of Muslims"

My point here is that it is very interesting to observe a lively debate about atheism from this crazy country, because nobody cares whether or not you're an atheist. You could even say that our state religion builds on an a-theistic theology:

Fom the 50s to the 70s Denmarks top theologians mostly agreed that morality was NOT to be found in any divine creature or authoritative text. They agreed that there ISN'T anything we can say about god, in any form, and most of    them were positive that there was no objective Truth to be found, that we - being mere humans - could say or do anything about. They actually said  that theology - as being the teaching about God, was an oxymoron - and we should henceforth use theology only to talk of our subjective UNDERSTANDING of gods message.

A lot of this is due to our influence from such Danes as Kierkegaard and K.E. Løstrup. I can strongly advise people to read some of the work of these two philosophers, if they are interested in how to combine their religious beliefs with a more humanistic call for respect and "good behavior" just as you have set down as a credo on your site. Especially those of your readers who find your site interesting, but not themselves sure if they can accept the "radicality" of naming themselves atheists.

Finally, when this type of attitude towards religion is my background, my culture, my upbringing, and also my college degree, it is just amazing to see a site such as yours, where all kinds of people that are from a nation pretending to be "the defenders of the free Western world" are so narrowminded, and unable to accept that other people may not have the same definition of truth as themselves. If this site does nothing but make clear to the world that tolerance, ethics, morals humanity and general decency are not dependent of ardent text-based religious orthodoxy, then it has earned due praise.

You can find the "limited omniscience" thesis here http://www.polkinghorne.org/, in the FAQ section

The website appears to be run by an acolyte of Polkinghorne's, and the philosphical and logical contortions in some of the answers are remarkable - but they do give a good insight into the reasoning processes of some of the more intelligent christiansYou will note that in the view of this person, we atheists are animals - not just in the biological sense, one gathers, but in a pejorative way.

If I may venture it, may I suggest that the definition of right and wrong is inevitably conditioned by the civilisation, society, and community in which we live. I would think it wrong, for instance, to force my child into a marriage he or she didn't want. In other cultures, this is quite "right", and not always or even usually for religious reasons. (Sometimes it's to settle a feud, others to increase family wealth)

A basic ethic of not willingly harming others who themselves are doing no harm seems to me to be a good basis upon which to build a system of ethics and morals.

I don't mean to annoy you, nor to seem ignorant. And I would plead the case that any ignorance you detect leads directly from an argument I did not take the time to fully flush out. My apologies. I believe strongly in healthy debate, and I hope to walk away with an improved perspective whenever I'm lucky enough to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas.

We can argue semantics all day, and we won't be any further ahead. In every discussion I've ever engaged in on Atheism I have made the agnostic distinction, because I think it is unhelpful to have two such varying definitions, as you attempt to hold in atheism, under one flag. You may not be the kind of atheist that actively believes there is no god, but those atheists do exist. And I believe there is a problem there for the reasons I outlined in my previous emails.

There may also be a danger in the polar conflict between atheists and the church. Before I get into that, let me say I agree whole heartedly that individual responsibility is critical to social change. Religion is not alone in diffusing individual responsibility, science has created "psychology" to convince people that they act as they do because of their childhood, or a trama (I am speaking in generalizations about both religion and psychology, of course there are very useful and important branches of psychology for treating the truly ill, I am not Tom Cruise writing under an assumed name). I have also studied relationships between the work of Jean Paul Sartre, and Nietszche's "On the Genealogy of Morals" and believe that Nietzsche hit the nail on the head when he said that Christianity creates a debt that can never be repaid (Jesus died for your sins), and forces the once Noble man to internalize this guilt, thus becoming a slavish creature etc. etc. Sorry, lot's of summary there, but I hope you get the picture.

One thing is common in most Atheist arguments (as you would claim my above paragraph is part of) is that they are aimed at organized religions, and dead religious texts authored by human beings that wrote those texts partly out of belief, and partly to bring order to nomadic and barbaric societies. If we agree that organized religion, after doing us the favour of solidifying civilization against barbaric and nomadic cultures, has done more harm than good since then - does this settle the question of a higher intelligent power in the universe? No. They are seperate issues, and so many atheists seem to throw both issues in together. "I don't agree with Christianity or the bible, therefore I'm an atheist." In fact, to go back to Nietzche for a minute, I could use his ideas to say that the "belief" in atheism is a "negative will" as it is not possesed of a noble spirit to move forward, but rather is obsessed with tearing another idea down.

My fear is that as secular culture grows in power (though events in the U.S. make one wonder if the tide is turning against secular society) the stringent anti-religious anti-god sentiment will throw out the tiny baby in the foul bathwater. Yes, I would suggest there are some things wrong with secular society (shock!). Though I don't and would never attend church, I recognize that "church" as a function of religion created a "sameness" and community. Something that is being lost in non-religious society. Religion also stands as a powerful (if dumb and inconsistent) opponent of greed and selfish crime. What check will balance capitilist greed if we yank the underpinnings of religion? There are found even within the dead texts of christianity some truly beautiful and important philosophies.

So, why am I splitting hairs, or "waving my ignorant club" as you put it. I think that atheists need to learn to accept and welcome thinking agnostics (real ones, not just devil's advocates like myself) and even "religious" people who have left the church behind. All of these groups have reason to try to reform a society without the church. And if we ever truly expect that to work there is a lot of work to be done. That is why I object to those that have "faith" there is no god, and are happy to tear away at religion, seemingly so they can feel superior to the sheep in the church. There are much more serious problems to be tackled.

Oh, and to answer your question: there is no real philosophical reason to debate the existence of fairies. But very serious philosophical minds have debated "happy accident" vs. "creator/planned universe" for centuries. As I said above, this debate is profound and meaningful when removed from the soiled history of organized religion.

In the past, I've related to this website by making smart-assed remarks in connection with it. At this time, I just want to assure you that I am deeply impressed by your lucid and highly logical responses to the comments you get. At the same time, as a former evangelical Christian (I was NOT turned away from those teachings by your website!) I am appalled, but not terribly surprised, by the hatred I see in some of those comments from people who claim to be followers of Christ.

Your very obvious tolerance for the beliefs of others, along with your forebearance for the attacks of some obviously vicious people have been an inspiration to my own way of thinking and responding to those whose beliefs I do not share. I see the need to be a lot less resentful and a good deal more gentle with those who for whatever reason, choose to accept beliefs for which I personally am unable to find any good evidence. I am highly appreciative of the philosophic insights gleaned from reader's comments and more particularly, your gently humorous responses to them. Please keep up the good work.