The Atheist Delusion

G5,

You are misrepresenting the rational position that most atheists have. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you "deny" a deity, it can simply mean that you do not BELIEVE in a deity.

Your definition of atheism only applies to explicit/strong atheism, where the individual actively denies that any gods exists.

Implicit/Weak atheism (the more popular variety) is when the individual simply does not believe in a deity, for whatever reason (usually lack of evidence). Most implicit atheists don't believe in god they way they don't believe in fairies. They don't say with a 100% certainty that they don't exist, but refuse to believe in either without evidence.

The terms are confusing, undoubtedly, and it is difficult to determine which category a specific atheist falls into without discussing the issue at length.

Even more confusing, atheists can be strong atheists in respect to specific gods, while remaining weak atheists in respect to the CONCEPT of a god.

For example, you can be a strong atheist in respect to Zeus if you feel there is positive evidence that he does not exist (e.g. we understand lightning, he's not on olympus, etc.) and still be a weak atheist in respect to the general concept of a deity.

To build on your example: Radiation has always been present. But to believe in radio waves without any evidence of radio waves would have been irrational (even though it was true!). If I ran around in the 10th century claiming radio waves existed, no truly rational person would believe me without evidence. Just like if I ran around today claiming we were all in an elaborate computer simulation. That certainly could be the case, but there is no evidence that currently points to that conclusion.

Such is the position of (most) atheists on the existence of a deity. Most of us don't actively deny the existence of a deity to a degree of 100% certainty, but simply do not believe in god due to lack of evidence. All rational atheists would admit the existence of a deity if any actual evidence for it's existence was put forth.

Also,

The 5 senses comment is an oversimplification. Most rational and scientific people believe things based on evidence, not their own senses. For instance, our five senses cannot detect radio waves, but there is additional evidence for the existence of radio waves, so we believe they exist. I know this seems like a small quibble (as your senses are still required to interpret the evidence) but I just wanted to point out the difference.

This article is quite representative of what is required to still have religious belief in the 21st Century: ignorance, dishonesty, or a mixture of the two. There is no way to say that nicely; the author has no clue of any of the subjects he has written about - no idea what atheism is, no idea that being an atheist is just one facet of being a rational, intelligent person. Fortunately, statistics show that in every educated country, the trickle of people who are rejecting religion is turning into a flood. The grandchildren of most of the people who agree with this article will themselves be atheists.

Sam, I usually find your articles rather insightfull and interesting, but after reading this it's clear to me that you bash evolution without even a basic understanding of the theory. If you don't believe in it, that's fine, no problem. But your article shows that you know absolutely nothing about it. If you are going to write an article denouncing something, you may want to do some research about it.

From Florida's excellent new science standards for public schools:

Theory: "a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual" and "the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer."

G5, you proved you don't know what you're talking about right here: "That's all a theory is. If there is great power in an idea built on theory, and it is overwhelmingly convincing beyond reasonable doubt, then it becomes a 'Law' of science."

A theory is the highest level of understanding in science, higher than a law. You didn't know that because you're scientifically illiterate.

Here's three definitions of a scientific theory. You could have looked it up yourself, but like most know-nothing creationists, you prefer to make things up.

theory: Denotes the most powerful status that an explanation can attain.

theory: Comprehensive framework for describing, explaining, and making falsifiable predictions about related sets of phenomena based on rigorous observation, experimentation, and logic.

theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

By the way when I said "The author of this article is scientifically illiterate and he's not qualified to say anything about biology." that was not an "ad Hominem" attack. That was just an obvious fact, and it's obvious you have the same problem. You don't know what you're talking about it. You know nothing about science. You don't even know what a scientific theory is.

This opinion piece was a mildly interesting exercise in delusional thinking. It could have some value in a Psychology class, as an example of someone who is lost in a fantasy world of his own devising.

But outside of that context, what was the point? I could not find a single element of this particular fluff piece that bore any relation to anything in the real world. Was it intended as obscure self-referential humor, a commentary on the state of mental health care in this day and age? Or was it intended to poke mean-spirited fun at actual religious people, satirizing their beliefs and implying that anyone who is religious is psychotic and stupid? If this last is the intent of this writing, then I think it is uncalled for, and anyone reading this paper with real religious faith should write in and complain about this sort of thinly disguised attack on them.

One problem I have with the "if we're right/if you're right" Christian crowd is that they don't seem to notice that beliefs have consequences. Believing in a lie, even if it's a lie that makes you happy, has negative side effects.

One of which is that it predisposes you to accept OTHER lies without critical review. For instance, it's no accident that the strongest support for President Bush, or Sarah Palin, comes from conservative Christians. Despite both of them being liars, and ludicrously incompetent to hold office, neo-cons continue to suck up the fluffy, positive "image" the two project, and can't seem to see their flaws.

Another problem is that too many outspoken Christians seem to think that if there's no god or heaven, there's nothing to stop us from raping and killing at will. They can never seem to understand that compassion (love) is part of human nature, and that you don't have to believe in Jesus in order to save a kid from being run over by a car, or to open a door for an old lady.

Religion seems most like a mental illness. It can be mild, or it can be virulent, and the damage it does to you is in direct proportion to the degree to which you have it. Some people are so devout, so lacking in any sense of reality, that they're willing to let their kids die rather than take them to doctors. If that's not crazy as hell, I don't know what is.

Like I recently said:

If Atheist's be right, and this life is all we have, then none of us (you nor I) have anything to worry about. We live, we die, we don't exist any longer.

If we of Faith are correct, I have nothing to worry about, but you do; You die, I fly. Perhaps a better allegory would be: I inherit Fame, you inherit Flame. Either option, I have no problem.

Who is right, all the Scientists? They have the scientific knowledge, and tools; they need to figure it out. I already have, but then, that was with my scientific knowledge, and tools.

Like it or not, I will still pray that you learn the truth.

Arley, in service to Jesus, and my fellow man.

This article is so poorly written, I am forced to conclude that it is actually satire and people aren't getting the joke.

For the sake of brevity, I will limit myself to two points.

The author apparently does not know what evolution is or how it works, and is unaware of how science is done. Darwin's writings are not some hagiography upon which we rely for our evolutionary orthodoxy. In fact, we could get along quite happily without Darwin because we have so many fields of science in which evolution serves as the entire framework.

Finally, what must be obvious to even the most plebeian thinker, the argument that atheists don't really lack belief in god falls under its own ignorant weight. Though claims of disbelief in our culture are growing, religious claims concerning knowledge of god are yet legion, and constitute a deafening chorus. Christianity seems a monument to some neurotic obsession with faith. 'Believe in Jesus,' 'Have faith and you will be saved,' etc. Some even go so far as to attempt arguments based on non-existent evidence [William Lane Craig's argument for the resurrection comes to mind]. The Intelligent Design theorists are the worst violators, for they make a mockery of science by pretending to have a scientific theory [which ID is most definitely not] demonstrating the need for an intelligent designer. But these arguments are much like this article--poorly conceived, poorly expressed and woefully out of touch with reality. It is plainly the Christians that protest too much. Perhaps they have less faith than they claim. One can only hope.

Surely the McCook Daily Gazette can reach for a higher level of journalism than it secured by hiring Sam Eldridge.

Isn't it curious that for the anti-evolutionists "transitional species" always seem to take the form of some sort of chimera as if evolution must only proceed by the methods and means they determine. I guess the whales with legs and the nearly complete line of cetacean evolution laid out from the fossil record by Dr. J.G. M. Thewissen, and the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae precisely where the theory predicts such a fossil would be found mean nothing.

As for Intelligent design and the IDiots:

If the universe was designed for life,it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design.There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible:gravitational forces would be crushing,radiatiuon levels are too high for complex molecules to exist,or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bondsimpossible...Fine-tuned for life?It would make far more sense to ask why the deity designed a universe so inhospitable to life.

I tend to agree with Gandhi,I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

The Christian Delusion

I don't believe in Christians. There is no credible scientific evidence that any Christians actually exist. I know there are people out there who claim they believe in Jesus, but the evidence says differently. They are really just lonely and desperate.

It's like the My Chemical Romance song, "I'm (Not) Okay." Their constant professions of belief and faith only prove that deep down inside them, they know they are alone in the universe. You think that today's so-called Christians are the first to posit a supernatural belief system and defend it to the death rather than face up to essential isolation of humanity? Hardly!

Look at the feeble arguments these alleged Christians come up with to explain life and creation, I mean really, special creation and resurrection from the dead? Even the popes themselves have admitted that evolutionary biology is the only way to scientifically understand life on this planet. I can almost hear John Paul II saying, "you guys really believe this stuff?"

As another poster said, I could go on, but I think this makes the point.

Also, to the original poster: I don't mean this as an insult, but let me assure you that you have some large areas of ignorance when I comes to biology and science in general. I would recommend doing some serious research to give yourself a basic education on biology, the basics of evolution, and scientific principles. You should choose sources not affiliated with religious groups, since you seem to be already familiar with those. One thing you would learn is that the number of scientists who have ever had work published in peer-reviewed journals of biology who question the veracity of evolution is minuscule, estimated at seven. Not seven percent, not 70, not 700, but SEVEN. And all seven admit that their views are flavored by their religion.

It's Maher, Hank.

Science 'fact,' verses Intelligent 'design,' in center ring. Each thinking the other is 'stupid,' as well as 'dumb.'(There is a difference) Both are at least 'half' right, but who is counting?

I believe the attitude marker may well be attitude:

A. If the evolutionist is correct, that there is no God, and this life is all we have for our existence, then, none of us has anything to worry about, and the evolutionist could, if they desire, allow the ignorant ID folks to live out their delusion, and the delusion will die with the person.

B. If, on the other hand the ID person is correct, and God does exist, and there is something on the other side (some call it heaven), then the only people that have a problem are the 'evolutionist' type, non-believers. There would, then, be two directions a 'soul' could go: Believers to Fame, Non-believers to Flame.

Closing: So, why don't we all just get along, until we graduate to that Big-question mark-beyond? Either way, I cannot loose. I will mourn the loss of all them-thar scientists. One thing, though, they will have all that scientific understanding, and skill to keep the lake of fire operating, free from break-down.

Too windy, sorry. Oh-yes, Science, to be science, must be 'provable,' through controlled testing, which evolution, and yes, even Christianity, can not be. Christianity, at least, promises the provabile answer, at the end of mortality.

In Messiah, His Shalom, and science. Arley

If there are no such things as people who don't believe in the Christian god, how do you explain the non-Christian-god beliefs of the Greeks and Romans? The Navajo? Aborigines? The Chinese? The Egyptians? Scientologists? I guess other cultures don't exist, huh?

And actually, all the atheists I know are very clear that Islam (this is in reference to your mention of Mohammad), and all the other religions, are just as silly and mythological as Christianity.

I have met a few atheists I suspected "hated God." The majority of them, though, no more hate a god than they hate Santa ... which they also don't believe in.

And, uh, Gandhi? You do know he was a real person, don't you? We have pictures of him, writings by him. There are people alive today who knew him personally. I expect there are even surviving relatives. He died in 1948, and the location of his ashes are a matter of record. Also as a matter of record, he was a Hindu ... not exactly a believer in the Christian god.

If Sam Eldridge is serious about reaching and impressing people with the solidity of his reasoning, he'd start by getting his facts straight. The laziness of not bothering to look up the spelling of Bill Mahar's name is the least of it.

About that cowboy hat, Sam. I grew up in Texas with rodeo cowboys. I rode horses, worked cattle, hauled hay, rode bulls, packed mules, drove draft horses, hunted whitetail and mule deer and elk. I wear a cowboy hat too. The difference between us is, I don't let mine be a badge of ignorance.

by the way, when Sam Eldridge posts articles like this, does the paper become known as the McKook Daily Gazette?

Well MrsSmith the only thing in your post that is remotely true is the statement "plain fact that evolution does not account for the origin of life" . But then again evolution never claimed too. Evolution refers to how life has changed over time not how it began, so it makes no claims on how it started. That's a different field all together. The rest of your post is pure propaganda and misdirection.

I never said that all the transitional gaps are filled (even though it's arguable that they are.) I do however state that thousands of transitional forms have been found. None of which would be there if evolution were not true.

By all means, try and disprove evolution. That's the nature of science. But be prepared to be called on every lie, half truth, and misrepresentation.

Oh and for the record sameldridge.. there are very few scientists who believe in ID. Those that do , do so for religious not scientific reasons and are very few in relative numbers. I'm not saying that they are non existent like the author of this article foolishly states atheists are. But I do very firmly state that they are not arguing from a scientific stance when they argue for ID. No matter what PhD you hold, you deserve no respect if you lie, misrepresent data, ignore counter points, reuse disproven arguments, appeal to emotion, and ignore facts that counter your position. These all being the nature of ID and it's support.

The "richness of the fossil record" is scientific hype for the plain fact that evolution does not account for the origin of life, nor for the great number of species alive today. When I was in high school, the evolutionists were at least honest enough to admit that they hadn't filled the transitional gaps. Now, though they still have huge transitional gaps in every species, they merely deny that, and the brainwashed buy it.

Our "text" books still teach the disproven evolution of the horse and the disproven "all embryoes look alike" lie...and the gullible call that "science!"

I've read the articles online about evolution...and noted that none of them provide enough information about each successive species to prove that they are actually evolved from the one before. They simply assume that the evolution MUST be true, and point out how one bone changed to another. Yet it often happens that one creature in that "evolutionary line" happens to be 10x the size of the one before. Or there are other huge problems, such as those that arose with the horse - varying numbers of ribs, vertebra, etc. If there were huge government grants provided to prove that evolution cannot account for all life, there would be far more evidence found in proof of creation than has ever been found in proof that evolution accounts for all life.

I must admit that I do truly enjoy the articles written in support of evolution, however. Especially the ones that claim we can know exactly how some "ancestor of the human race" lived, what they ate, whether they lived in trees or on the ground...and then finally admit that the entire "evidence" they have is 2 teeth, a jaw bone, and part of one arm bone. Yes, the true "richness" of the fossil record at work.

I expect articles about science to be written by scientists, or at least written by somebody who knows what science is.

One does not need to understand the inner workings of a jet engine to hop on an airplane and fly.

There are many Scientists who beleive in Intelligent Design, but due to the Scientific and Educational Fascism that goes on today, that apparently you support, their voices are silenced. Fairy tale? You believe in Darwinism, and you want to lecture me on fairy tales?

Since you don't believe in the Bible, how can you pass any judgements on how it is used? You sound angry there Bob, "makes me wonder why his nonsense was published." Gee Bob, are you against free speech too?

And Bob "...childish idiotic belief in magic." Come on now, what would you call the big bang?

I still am waiting for some Darwinist' to show us all one species in transition. Just one Bob. If evolution has been going on for billions and billions of years, then there ought to be at least one species going through transition at this very moment. You know, a dog with wings or feathers, or a horse with gills, or some other fairy tale. Come on Bob, show me the one species.