Atheism is pantheism

[EarthScienceguy]

Since atheist believe that "nature found a way" (to put it in Jurassic Park terms) to produce life against all odds. Belief that nature created life is pantheism. So, doesn't that make all atheist pantheist?

[Tcg]

You're right on both counts. Unfortunately there are also some popular atheists who engage in the same disappointing game as the OP,...

Given that you provided only one quote from one atheist, your claim, whether correct or not, can only be made about that single atheist. Using the plural here is not justified given that you quoted only one atheist.

…trying to redefine other people's beliefs in such a way as to claim them for one 'side' or the other:

I don't see any redefinition of other people's beliefs here. At best I see perhaps a re-categorization.

• “Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism…. Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metaphor.â€�
  
  ~ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Finally, I have no idea what your comments have to do with the obviously flawed assertion presented in the OP. Whatever flaw you see in Richard Dawkins' statement is totally unrelated to the flaw in the OP.


Hopefully you are not saying that flaws presented by an individual on one side of the argument should be overlooked because of claimed flaws by one individual on the other side.


I don't think you'd make such a fallacious argument, which leaves me puzzled as to what argument you intend with this irrelevant quote.



Tcg

[Mithrae]

You're right on both counts. Unfortunately there are also some popular atheists who engage in the same disappointing game as the OP,...

Given that you provided only one quote from one atheist, your claim, whether correct or not, can only be made about that single atheist. Using the plural here is not justified given that you quoted only one atheist.

I'm pretty sure I've seen other folk on this forum arguing that Einstein was really an atheist on more than one occasion; but given his popularity it is certain that there are more atheists who agree with Dawkins' views in any case.

Finally, I have no idea what your comments have to do with the obviously flawed assertion presented in the OP. Whatever flaw you see in Richard Dawkins' statement is totally unrelated to the flaw in the OP.

Hopefully you are not saying that flaws presented by an individual on one side of the argument should be overlooked because of claimed flaws by one individual on the other side.

I don't think you'd make such a fallacious argument, which leaves me puzzled as to what argument you intend with this irrelevant quote.

One of the most prominent atheists in the world largely agrees with the OP that pantheism is essentially atheism - "sexed-up atheism" - or that people who are really atheists might be considered pantheists when they're "using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense." I'm not sure why you think that's unrelated or irrelevant. Granted there's the nuance that Dawkins is trying to put pantheism under the atheist banner while EarthScienceGuy is trying to put atheism under the pantheist banner, but that really is an irrelevant distinction. And I am agreeing with you that it's not a reasonable perspective to hold; I'm simply making an observation, not an argument.

[Tcg]

Given his popularity it is certain that there are some other atheists who agree with Dawkins' views,...

You provided one quote from one atheist. Your conjecture is not evidence.

and I've seen other folk on this forum arguing that Einstein was really an atheist on more than one occasion.

Another irrelevant and unsupported claim.

Finally, I have no idea what your comments have to do with the obviously flawed assertion presented in the OP. Whatever flaw you see in Richard Dawkins' statement is totally unrelated to the flaw in the OP.

Hopefully you are not saying that flaws presented by an individual on one side of the argument should be overlooked because of claimed flaws by one individual on the other side.

I don't think you'd make such a fallacious argument, which leaves me puzzled as to what argument you intend with this irrelevant quote.

One of the most prominent atheists in the world largely agrees with the OP that pantheism is essentially atheism - "sexed-up atheism" - or that people who are really atheists might be considered pantheists by "using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense." I'm not sure why you think that's unrelated or irrelevant. It's simply an observation, not an argument; I'm agreeing with you that it's not a reasonable perspective to hold.

The OP states that atheism IS pantheism. Not that it is "essentially atheism." Please attempt to address the claim the OP actually makes.



Tcg

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 20 by Mithrae]

“Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism…. Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metaphor.�

~ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Dawkins understands that there is a connection between pantheism and atheism.

Atheism would say that there is nothing inputting energy or directing nature. But probability theory would say that life in our universe would be impossible. There is no naturalistic theory on origins that would say anything different than life has a low probability.

There is no naturalistic theory that can explain life or the origin of our universe. Naturalist have to have faith that nature did the impossible. That is a theology. So atheist or theist, they have a theology and they have faith in nature. That has to make them pantheist.

Especially at this point in time atheism is an impossibility. Men have to have faith in something outside themselves. And that this something outside themselves made the universe or universes and life.

There is no other option.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 20 by Mithrae]

“Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism…. Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metaphor.�

~ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Dawkins understands that there is a connection between pantheism and atheism.

Dawkins claims not to be an atheist. For him, an "atheist" is what I'd call a "gnostic strong atheist." But I'm happy to ignore his system of nomenclature, which would take the length of this thread--however long--to master.

I've never discussed pantheism with a pantheist, and therefore consider myself unsuited to make pronouncements on that subject. "But the pantheistic claim something like this: Everything is god; god is everything; the entire universe is god; god is the entire universe."

Theists believe in a personal god, a god who is somebody, a god with personality, a god with likes and dislikes and aspirations. Non-theists, atheists, don't have that belief.

Everybody falls into one category or another: theist or not theist; theist or atheist.

According to Plantinga, Jehovah knew from the beginning every decision that everyone (including himself) would make in every possible (and, according to Plantinga, every impossible) world. When he picked a world to create (or "instantiate") he knew everything he would do in that world. He could have picked one in which he intervened millions of time, or seven times, or never.

I don't like to speak for deists (I've met two of them) but if Jehovah created a world in which he never intervened, then he qualifies both as a theist god (one who is conscious, with attitudes) and deist god (one who never intervened after starting the ball rolling).

But deism is often contrasted with theism. Something must have started the ball rolling (according to people who can't fight their way out of a first cause argument) but if that something doesn't do anything afterwards then it must not be awake or alive or a person. It could be a natural force--like gravity or that thing that abhors a vacuum--rather than a person.

Deists of that stripe are not theists. Deists who believe in a creator person who sits alone happily playing solitaire forever are theists.

It's the same with pantheists. If a pantheist believes that everything is god and that god is somebody--a person--then that pantheist is a theist. A pantheist who just applies the word "god" to the totality of existence--without believing that that totality is a person--is not a theist.

In either case, there is no reason to suppose that an atheist is a pantheist.

Atheism would say that there is nothing inputting energy or directing nature.

No. Atheism doesn't say that. Some atheists probably say that, but some theists probably say that too.

But probability theory would say that life in our universe would be impossible.

You cannot support that claim. You've got nothing.

There is no naturalistic theory on origins that would say anything different than life has a low probability.

Suppose we roll a die and it comes up 3.

On a naturalistic theory, the odds were 1 in 6. That hardly proves a god.

On a theistic theory, either gods let that happen naturally, or they intervened. If they let that happen naturally, then the odds are unchanged, 1 in 6. What does this prove? Nothing.

On a theistic theory in which a god intervenes, you can invent/dream up/confabulate/fabricate that the god wanted a 3, and that that's why the die rolled a 3. But before you decide that affected the roll, you have to ask yourself what are the odds of a god who wanted a three.

1 in 6, right? We could have had a god who wanted a 1 or a 2 or a 3 or a 4 or a 5 or a 6. So there was 1 chance in 6 of rolling a god who wanted a 3.

Conclusion: No swing! Theism doesn't change the odds. Rolling a 3 on a six-sided die neither increases nor decreases the odds of gods existing.

This works the same with twenty-sided dice, million-sided dice, and 10**100**100 sided dice.

It works exactly the same no matter how many sides your add to the die. There is no tendency for the likelihood of gods to increase as the number of sides increase.

You don't have a case.

There is no naturalistic theory that can explain life or the origin of our universe.

There is no magical theory that can explain life or the origin of our universe or the origin of gods or anything else. If you invoke a god to "explain" the origin of other things, without invoking a second god to explain the origin of the first god, you are engaging in special pleading, a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies don't explain anything.

Naturalist have to have faith that nature did the impossible.

If you keep making false and unwarranted statements, attributing beliefs to us that we don't really have, you know what we will conclude about you.

I recommend that you stop. Just knock it off.

That is a theology.

Naturalists believe in gods? That claim is not just wrong but stupid. Just stop.

So atheist or theist, they have a theology and they have faith in nature.

Just stop. Stop lying about what atheists believe.

We know our own beliefs. Don't pretend that you know better than us. You can never fool anybody about his or her own beliefs.

That has to make them pantheist.

No atheist believes in gods, by definition.

It is possible that some atheists use the word "god" to describe the totality of existence, but that "god" isn't a person. It isn't a theistic god. No atheist is a theist.

Most atheists don't use "god" to describe anything that actually exists. What would be the point of calling an orange "jalopy" or a carborator "pony" or a universe "god"? No point that I can see.

We don't think that way. We don't use the word "god" as a name for the universe.

We've explained repeatedly that we don't do that, so there isn't any way you candidly believe we do.

You know better. You know your claims are false. We know your claims are false. You aren't fooling anybody. You aren't helping your team.

Just stop.

Especially at this point in time atheism is an impossibility.

Stop lying about us.

Men have to have faith in something outside themselves. And that this something outside themselves made the universe or universes and life.

There is no other option.

You can't defend any of this. You have no case.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 8 by Tcg]

Atheist have to have faith that science will discover how life and the universe.




No, we don't.

Yes you do because we do not know how we or the universe arose.

Quote:



It is already understood that it would be against all odds for life and the universe to exist.





No, it isn't. The odds for it are in fact 100%.

Yes even if some people do not know what they believe.

Quote:

So they have to believe that nature preformed a miracle. (multiple events occured against all probability) That would make them believe that nature is some sort of miracle worker. IE a god.



No, we don't.

Belief in miracles is a must for atheist see above.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 8 by Tcg]

Atheist have to have faith that science will discover how life and the universe.




No, we don't.

Yes you do because we do not know how we or the universe arose.

No, I don't.

Quote:



It is already understood that it would be against all odds for life and the universe to exist.





No, it isn't. The odds for it are in fact 100%.

Yes even if some people do not know what they believe.

The odds are 100% no matter what anyone believes.

Quote:

So they have to believe that nature preformed a miracle. (multiple events occured against all probability) That would make them believe that nature is some sort of miracle worker. IE a god.



No, we don't.

Belief in miracles is a must for atheist see above.

No, it isn't. Please see above.



Tcg

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 25 by wiploc]

Quote:

Atheism would say that there is nothing inputting energy or directing nature.


No. Atheism doesn't say that. Some atheists probably say that, but some theists probably say that too.

What would be inputting energy into the universe or directing nature? I would definitely think that all atheist would agree to the above statement.

Quote:

But probability theory would say that life in our universe would be impossible.


You cannot support that claim. You've got nothing.

I can most certainly support this claim.

49-51

28-33

Quote:

There is no naturalistic theory on origins that would say anything different than life has a low probability.


Suppose we roll a die and it comes up 3.

On a naturalistic theory, the odds were 1 in 6. That hardly proves a god.

On a theistic theory, either gods let that happen naturally, or they intervened. If they let that happen naturally, then the odds are unchanged, 1 in 6. What does this prove? Nothing.

On a theistic theory in which a god intervenes, you can invent/dream up/confabulate/fabricate that the god wanted a 3, and that that's why the die rolled a 3. But before you decide that affected the roll, you have to ask yourself what are the odds of a god who wanted a three.

1 in 6, right? We could have had a god who wanted a 1 or a 2 or a 3 or a 4 or a 5 or a 6. So there was 1 chance in 6 of rolling a god who wanted a 3.

Conclusion: No swing! Theism doesn't change the odds. Rolling a 3 on a six-sided die neither increases nor decreases the odds of gods existing.

This works the same with twenty-sided dice, million-sided dice, and 10**100**100 sided dice.

It works exactly the same no matter how many sides your add to the die. There is no tendency for the likelihood of gods to increase as the number of sides increase.

You don't have a case.

Actually there is. Because at some point the probability of an event happening becomes an impossibility. If a person were to win the lottery more than one time one would not think of them as lucky but of having some sort of system or force that can produce the correct answer.

Quote:

There is no naturalistic theory that can explain life or the origin of our universe.


There is no magical theory that can explain life or the origin of our universe or the origin of gods or anything else. If you invoke a god to "explain" the origin of other things, without invoking a second god to explain the origin of the first god, you are engaging in special pleading, a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies don't explain anything.

That is not true.
1st. Because that thought is based in the laws that are based in this universe. (see videos above) Laws outside of our universe do not have to be the same as those in this universe.

2nd. According to our the laws of physics of our universe. An eternal being can exist if He were all powerful, omnipresent and omniscience across all of time (this would make Him unchanging). This would make His entropy unchanging which is possible in adiabatic universe.

Quote:

Naturalist have to have faith that nature did the impossible.


If you keep making false and unwarranted statements, attributing beliefs to us that we don't really have, you know what we will conclude about you.

I recommend that you stop. Just knock it off.

No, What.


Quote:

That is a theology.


Naturalists believe in gods? That claim is not just wrong but stupid. Just stop.

They have to be that nature did the impossible. What would you call some thing that does the impossible many times over.

Quote:

So atheist or theist, they have a theology and they have faith in nature.


Just stop. Stop lying about what atheists believe.

We know our own beliefs. Don't pretend that you know better than us. You can never fool anybody about his or her own beliefs.

Lot's of people are fooled about their own belief system. Many atheist believe that Christians are fooled about their belief system.

And one of us is fooled about the our belief system. Either atheism is true or Christianity is true. Both cannot be true.

Quote:

That has to make them pantheist.


No atheist believes in gods, by definition.

It is possible that some atheists use the word "god" to describe the totality of existence, but that "god" isn't a person. It isn't a theistic god. No atheist is a theist.

Most atheists don't use "god" to describe anything that actually exists. What would be the point of calling an orange "jalopy" or a carborator "pony" or a universe "god"? No point that I can see.

We don't think that way. We don't use the word "god" as a name for the universe.

There are people that worship money. They would never call money a god but their actions show that they believe that it will bring to them all that they desire and want.

Men can make all kinds of things gods and yet not call them gods. In fact men usually have a whole plethora of gods that they turn to for happiness. Nature would be just one of the many gods that people worship.

We've explained repeatedly that we don't do that, so there isn't any way you candidly believe we do.

You know better. You know your claims are false. We know your claims are false. You aren't fooling anybody. You aren't helping your team.

Just stop.

I do not have a team. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

Quote:

Especially at this point in time atheism is an impossibility.


Stop lying about us.

Until there is some naturalistic theory that explains life and how the universe came into being there really is no way for anyone to be a true atheist.

Quote:

Men have to have faith in something outside themselves. And that this something outside themselves made the universe or universes and life.

There is no other option.


You can't defend any of this. You have no case.

That is current theory. That there has to be something outside of the universe that created the universe.

[Bust Nak]

Actually there is. Because at some point the probability of an event happening becomes an impossibility.

That point is when the probability of an event happening is zero.

If a person were to win the lottery more than one time one would not think of them as lucky but of having some sort of system or force that can produce the correct answer.

But you still cannot rule out simple luck. You can however say that it's probably not mere luck.

They have to be that nature did the impossible.

Incorrect, we don't.

What would you call some thing that does the impossible many times over.

Absurd?

Lot's of people are fooled about their own belief system. Many atheist believe that Christians are fooled about their belief system.

And one of us is fooled about the our belief system. Either atheism is true or Christianity is true. Both cannot be true.

That still doesn't give you the ability to say what atheists believe in, against what we are telling you.

There are people that worship money. They would never call money a god...

And that's all there is to it, you cannot call them theist for worshiping money.

Until there is some naturalistic theory that explains life and how the universe came into being there really is no way for anyone to be a true atheist.

False by counter-example: I am a true atheist.

That is current theory. That there has to be something outside of the universe that created the universe.

Where does faith come into the picture?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 25 by wiploc]

Quote:

Atheism would say that there is nothing inputting energy or directing nature.


No. Atheism doesn't say that. Some atheists probably say that, but some theists probably say that too.

What would be inputting energy into the universe or directing nature?

Not sure I understand your question. But atheism doesn't say anything on this topic. An atheist is anyone who doesn't have the belief that gods exist. This includes people who have never thought about the question of whether something puts energy into the universe. It also includes people (if such people exist) who believe something does put energy into the universe. And it includes people like me who don't think anything puts energy into the universe.

It's same with "directing nature." I don't know what you're trying to suggest by that phrase, but regardless of people's opinions on that topic, they are atheists if they aren't theists.

I would definitely think that all atheist would agree to the above statement.

You make up opinions, attribute them to all atheists, and think we're going to agree? We have no reason to agree.

We are everybody who aren't theist. The one thing we agree on is that we aren't theists. Aside from that, we are a diverse group of people, having, presumably, representatives on all sides of all other issues.

Quote:

But probability theory would say that life in our universe would be impossible.


You cannot support that claim. You've got nothing.

I can most certainly support this claim.

49-51

28-33

I'm happy to have you try to support the claim. You have my attention. But you're going to have to do it yourself, not shop it out.

I used to click thru on video links. I used to spend hours writing rebuttals to video links. I used to be told that I had inexplicably responded to some part of the video that was in some sense the wrong part, the part that the person posting the link wasn't interested in.

I got better. I don't do that anymore. If there is some point made in those videos that you'd like to share here, I'm interested. You have my attention.

Quote:
There is no naturalistic theory on origins that would say anything different than life has a low probability.


Suppose we roll a die and it comes up 3.

On a naturalistic theory, the odds were 1 in 6. That hardly proves a god.

On a theistic theory, either gods let that happen naturally, or they intervened. If they let that happen naturally, then the odds are unchanged, 1 in 6. What does this prove? Nothing.

On a theistic theory in which a god intervenes, you can invent/dream up/confabulate/fabricate that the god wanted a 3, and that that's why the die rolled a 3. But before you decide that affected the roll, you have to ask yourself what are the odds of a god who wanted a three.

1 in 6, right? We could have had a god who wanted a 1 or a 2 or a 3 or a 4 or a 5 or a 6. So there was 1 chance in 6 of rolling a god who wanted a 3.

Conclusion: No swing! Theism doesn't change the odds. Rolling a 3 on a six-sided die neither increases nor decreases the odds of gods existing.

This works the same with twenty-sided dice, million-sided dice, and 10**100**100 sided dice.

It works exactly the same no matter how many sides your add to the die. There is no tendency for the likelihood of gods to increase as the number of sides increase.

You don't have a case.

Actually there is. Because at some point the probability of an event happening becomes an impossibility.

Impossibilities don't happen.

If a person were to win the lottery more than one time one would not think of them as lucky but of having some sort of system or force that can produce the correct answer.

Suppose a Mafia don's mother won every time. We would suspect that the Mafia had corrupted the system. But that's because we know such corruption is possible. The odds of one person winning over and over are low. The odds of the Mafia trying to corrupt the lottery seem to us considerably higher.

If you want to argue that gods are likely, feel free to begin. We're listening.

Quote:
There is no naturalistic theory that can explain life or the origin of our universe.


There is no magical theory that can explain life or the origin of our universe or the origin of gods or anything else. If you invoke a god to "explain" the origin of other things, without invoking a second god to explain the origin of the first god, you are engaging in special pleading, a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies don't explain anything.

That is not true.
1st. Because that thought is based in the laws that are based in this universe. (see videos above)

See videos above? No thank you. If they contain actual thoughts, and if you understand those thoughts, then you can reproduce the salient ones here.

Laws outside of our universe do not have to be the same as those in this universe.

"Outside of our universe," is gibberish. The universe is, by definition, everything that exists. If gods exist, they are part of our universe.

That's what we're talking about, isn't it, the beginning of everything? If we're just talking about some things (a "partaverse") then we can arbitrarily say that the world started with the first olympiad.

But, if you want to divide the universe into partaverses, we can call this part here the ourpartaverse, and we can call the rest otherverses. But, the thing is, you don't get to dictate the rules of the otherverses. You know nothing about them. Maybe their rules don't have to be the same, but maybe they do. We don't know.

2nd. According to our the laws of physics of our universe. An eternal being can exist if He were all powerful, omnipresent and omniscience across all of time (this would make Him unchanging). This would make His entropy unchanging which is possible in adiabatic universe.

Too much nonsense in there to take it one item at a time, so I'll just point out that you made it up.

Quote:
Naturalist have to have faith that nature did the impossible.


If you keep making false and unwarranted statements, attributing beliefs to us that we don't really have, you know what we will conclude about you.

I recommend that you stop. Just knock it off.

No, What.


Quote:

That is a theology.


Naturalists believe in gods? That claim is not just wrong but stupid. Just stop.

They have to be that nature did the impossible. What would you call some thing that does the impossible many times over.

I'd call it impossible. If your point is that gods are impossible, then maybe you're starting to make sense.

Quote:
So atheist or theist, they have a theology and they have faith in nature.


Just stop. Stop lying about what atheists believe.

We know our own beliefs. Don't pretend that you know better than us. You can never fool anybody about his or her own beliefs.

Lot's of people are fooled about their own belief system. Many atheist believe that Christians are fooled about their belief system.

And one of us is fooled about the our belief system. Either atheism is true or Christianity is true. Both cannot be true.

We know that Christianity isn't true, because it is shot thru with contradictions.

Atheism isn't truth apt; it is neither true nor false because it isn't a claim. You don't believe that I have an odd number of coins in my pocket because you have no opinion on that subject. Can your lack of belief be called either true or false? No. That wouldn't make sense.

Some of us are strong atheists; we believe that gods do not exist. That belief can be true or false.

Quote:

That has to make them pantheist.


No atheist believes in gods, by definition.

It is possible that some atheists use the word "god" to describe the totality of existence, but that "god" isn't a person. It isn't a theistic god. No atheist is a theist.

Most atheists don't use "god" to describe anything that actually exists. What would be the point of calling an orange "jalopy" or a carborator "pony" or a universe "god"? No point that I can see.

We don't think that way. We don't use the word "god" as a name for the universe.

There are people that worship money.

That's a metaphor, a figure of speech. It is not a literal truth.

They would never call money a god but their actions show that they believe that it will bring to them all that they desire and want.

Color me skeptical.

Some people are greedy. I can go with you that far.

Men can make all kinds of things gods and yet not call them gods. In fact men usually have a whole plethora of gods that they turn to for happiness. Nature would be just one of the many gods that people worship.

We've explained repeatedly that we don't do that, so there isn't any way you candidly believe we do.

You know better. You know your claims are false. We know your claims are false. You aren't fooling anybody. You aren't helping your team.

Just stop.

I do not have a team. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

I'm saying that you are an embarrassment to theism. Your stay-off-my-side quality arguments embarrass theists and empower atheists. You need better arguments, more honest arguments, because these dogs won't hunt.

Quote:

Especially at this point in time atheism is an impossibility.


Stop lying about us.

Until there is some naturalistic theory that explains life and how the universe came into being there really is no way for anyone to be a true atheist.

Stop trolling. You can't convince anybody that we don't believe what we know we believe.

Atheists exist. I am a true atheist. You are a lying theist. Represent!

Quote:

Men have to have faith in something outside themselves. And that this something outside themselves made the universe or universes and life.

There is no other option.


You can't defend any of this. You have no case.

That is current theory. That there has to be something outside of the universe that created the universe.

If, by "universe," we mean everything that exists, then you opine that what does exist must have been created by something that doesn't exist? That's just funny.

And if you use the word differently, then all you're saying is that some things were created by other things. Everybody knows that. That just leads to infinite regress, an infinite series of your gods creating each other.