Though I agree to what was said to some extend, this article will not convince anyone else than agnostics or atheists because it takes a very aggressive stance against christians. The best you can hope from this is that they will either shrug it off or get angry.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Unfortunately, your strategy will probably work.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This tongue-in-cheek approach is spot on.  Our national electorate is not as interested in true governance through thoughtful programs as it is in seeking the protection of some phantom overseer.  We are frightfully susceptible to becoming a christian theocracy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This is no new tactic. I for one believe that half of America’s televangelists are themselves closet atheists who are motivated not to save souls but line their pockets. It’s like what P.T. Barnum once said: a sucker is born every minute.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Looking for campaign slogans? Try any christian bumper sticker. Ever.
“Jesus is my designated driver.”
“Jesus, try him, if you don’t like him Satan will always take you back!”
True, true sources of inspiration and insight. Also, the basis of most arguments in defense of faith.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I found this tongue and cheek article lacking in credibility.  I am particulary puzzled that an atheist, who should take pride in their reason, would make statements that lacks scientific proof.  Particularly curious to me was the following statement:

“God doesn’t speak to candidates. Because God doesn’t exist. It’s that simple. “

I would like to know who has the scientific evidence that proves God doesn’t exist.  That statement cannot be made with any absolute certainty and to do so is intellectually dishonest.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wouldn’t it be a waste of time and effort to put scientific methodology towards a hypothesis that was never proven? Claiming God exists no more proves he does than claiming Dawkin’s “Flying Spaghetti Monster” exists. The bible has proven fallacies and no other evidence has ever passed the test to be considered acceptable evidence for God.  So you can’t prove it, nor disprove it I suppose.

In retrospect however, blatantly claiming God doesn’t exist doesn’t make any better of an argument than claiming he does through faith. It needs to be prefaced by: Considering all the proof of multiple religions studied, all being expanded and created and justified by cultural development, it seems that religion is nothing more than old myths adapted to meet the uncertainties of human nature. Therefore, we can assume that any deity, including the God of Abraham, is simply a false rendering of a religious culture.

Right? I mean it’s not absolute certainty but it’s about as close as you can get. Besides, there is no certainty in philosophy and religion. It’s all just tricky wordplay and context I think.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Evolution is a beautiful theory, which when used right can help to produce the most profound vision of life’s unity.  This view of the world’s biosphere as being interconnected is what’s important.  How can we expect anyone to understand evolution by emphasizing the difference between ignorant human beings and those who were fortunate enough to have adopted to world view presented by science?  I think we need to steer this movement more towards education.  I think this article represents the combative approach, and is analogous to the effects of pesticide: a temporary solution.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Some of the comments on the site and here remind me of the “don’t be a dick” argument going on at the skeptic blog. I’m sure this article will not be read by a lot of religious types…but maybe, just maybe, a few fence sitters will come across it and once again see the madness that lies down the road for this country if we don’t wake up and kick out these politicians like Christine O’Donnell. Ridicule. It won’t work on all, but hopefully it will reach a few of the smarter ones out there. Hopefully??

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Waverider asks
“I would like to know who has the scientific evidence that proves God doesn’t exist.”

Waverider should know that this is silly. It is not for science to “prove” gods do not exist, just as it is not for science to prove fairies, goblins, leprechauns or santa do not exist.

If any one has any empirical evidence for any gods existence please present it. Once the evidence has been examined, scrutinised and verified it would be accepted by all rational thinkers.

As there is no evidence, zilch, nada, negatori, zero, none whatsoever for the existence of gods it is perfectly reasonable to say
“God doesn’t speak to candidates. Because God doesn’t exist. It’s that simple. “

And it really is that simple.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Col

I appreciate your comments.  However, I beileve the point of my comment was missed.  I realize that the God, cannot be proven to NOT EXIST anymore than he can be proven to EXIST.  I wanted to use that statement to promote further discussion.  I often hear from Athiests and agnostics that since the existence of God can’t be proven is is a waiste of time, or even foolish, to enterain the thought that he exists.  I think that it is prudent to conceed that just because we can’t prove his existence doesn’t mean he doesn’t.  This website is called “Project Reason” and all who use this site should use reason.  The statement by the author of the article that “Because God doesn’t exist,  It’s that simple” is an extremely irrational statement that is beyond proof.  A rational person cannot honestly argue against my point on that.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I agree with Waver Rider, but with a few minor changes to the content (albeit not to the spelling) to make it appropriate to all religions:

“I appreciate your comments.  However, I beileve the point of my comment was missed.  I realize that the Mish-Mish the pony overlord, cannot be proven to NOT EXIST anymore than he can be proven to EXIST.  I wanted to use that statement to promote further discussion.  I often hear from Athiests and agnostics that since the existence of Mish-Mish the pony overlord can’t be proven is is a waiste of time, or even foolish, to enterain the thought that he exists.  I think that it is prudent to conceed that just because we can’t prove his existence doesn’t mean he doesn’t.  This website is called “Project Reason” and all who use this site should use reason.  The statement by the author of the article that “Because Mish-Mish the pony overlord doesn’t exist,  It’s that simple” is an extremely irrational statement that is beyond proof.  A rational person cannot honestly argue against my point on that.”

So true. I can’t argue against that.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“We live in a secular democracy, and we’re better off because of it.”

We do?  I know that in theory we’re supposed to, but I think it’s far from a reality.  And I think Mehta’s point is just that.  our supposed secular democracy, built upon a constitution absent of God’s vision, has been taken by those who think it shouldn’t be; from the top down.  I know how unrealistic it would be for an openly atheistic or agnostic candidate to be elected to a high level of political office, but that’s what we need.  So the point should be made that, not only should candidates like O’Donnell be exposed for what they are, we should also be encouraging unbelievers to step up and move the barrier.  It may take a long time to win an election, but it needs to start somewhere, some time soon.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Puddingdongle

That was an interesting rewrite.  I would appreciate rational arguments to support your postion - i.e. that it is plausible to believe that God does not exist (I read between the lines).  Your entry more emotion than logic.  Again, the website is called “Project Reason.” 

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

WR—-interesting response—all PD did was subs M-Mtpo and use your entire statement verbatim——so WHOSE entry was more emotional and WHO ought to remember the name and manner/form of posting on this site—-believe you should look in the mirror.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Certainly. Would you agree that we gain understanding of the universe through observation and testing those observations? Reasonable enough? We establish rules and theories based upon these observations. If someone proposes something that seems to be totally at odds with everything we know, we ask them to demonstrate that. If they can’t, we move on. A magic entity that exists outside of everything we can see, test or objectively demonstrate requires some rather extraordinary evidence to be believable. No such evidence exists so we move on.

Personal accounts and holy books exist for many if not every religion so if you could start by outlining why any one is more believable than any other, preferably with objective, testable phenomena that’d make a solid beginning.

Also, I would appreciate if you can provide rational arguments to show that Mish-Mish the pony overlord doesn’t exist, then I’ll happily say we can stop our inquiries into at least that branch of equine overlords and move onto donkey demons and mule fairies next. There could be something in that.

If you can provide me with rational arguments to show that Mish-Mish the pony overlord doesn’t exists whilst any other diety does, then I’ll happily say we can stop our inquiries into at least that branch of overlords and move onto donkey demons and mule fairies next.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sorry, I don’t know why that last big got mashed into there twice. Now I can sound twice as annoying in a single post

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider,

While hilarious, Mish Mish and beings of the same caliber tend to distract from the message they are meant to send. What I understand your argument to be is essentially “We have the responsibility of disproving God for the sake of the believer.” This of course is nonsense. I would love to spare the feelings of people because no one wants to be the bad guy, but the defenders of faith are mostly people who do not accept rational argument and proof. If they did, they would be atheists….  I see ridicule, yelling, and general intolerance for ignorance the only way to get through to these people..

I am not trying to insinuate that you are one of them or anything. I certainly don’t mean to offend you either. We all have to cooperate on this thing.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

All,

A number of interesting statements have been made in response to my entries.  I would like to comment on all of them but it would take a book.  I will respond in general.  If I do not respond to any of the points any of you have made, and you would like me too, please let me know.
I think all of us agree that there is evidence that points to the origins of the universe.  Unfortunately, the complexity of the universe, coupled with gaps in evidence, makes it literally impossible for mankind to clearly comprehend what really happened in the beginning.  So we theorize.  Furthermore, I think it is very clear that most people base their interpretations (theories) of the evidence on their chosen world view.  For example, Charles Darwin could not come to grips with pain and suffering in the context of a loving God so he chose to move away from the faith.  In doing so, he adopted a theory that had been in existence since before the early Greeks and developed over time by many others including his contemporaries.  He then took it a step further in his book “Origins” in the sense he made it acceptable by providing the mechanism – survival of the fittest.  Most of us, like Charles Darwin, make the evidence fit our theory.  Darwin did not observe evidence and then get enlightened.  He found evidence to develop a construct to support the theory (remember he was influenced by many other evolutionists including his grandfather Erasmus Darwin).  Granted, some do investigate and are convince contrary to their original premise.  But I think they are exceptions to the norm.
Back to the discourse above.  The argument posited by me was merely that it is not rational to take the position that God does not exist.  The reason I gave is that you cannot prove he doesn’t exist anymore than you can prove he does.  This was to highlight that an atheist must believe on faith; just like a believer in God does.  And to point out that it is disingenuous to argue that believers are not rational.
Please note the argument presented is only one of many that can be presented as an apologetic (in this case to counter a bad argument from the opposing side).  If anyone looks at the universe realistically using the arguments of design, probability and logic it becomes very difficult to support a theory that the universe did not have a designer (God).  Particularly when all atheistic theories, and there are lots of them, have to hurdle the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics.  This is a huge hurdle because all atheistic theories have to rely on evolutionary ideas that are based on time, chance and matter only.  And outside forces are prohibited. 
I readily admit that I do believe in God.  And I argue that the atheistic statements proffered in the above discourse are not founded in reason.  This gets me back to my main point that the website is called “Project Reason”.  Unless evidence can be given to support the spontaneous generation of a complex universe atheist forfeit the right to claim people of faith lack reason.  And it is unreasonable to do so.  I am open to honest discourse that has substance.

I apologize in advance for typos and grammatical errors.  I am just an average guy.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think the idea that atheists employ faith to believe that there is no god is a very interesting premise. I’ve never considered that before. When you break down general belief,  be it religious or otherwise, it can be based on anything, including faith.

You say you believe in God, waverider, but you didn’t say that you were christian or catholic or whatever. Which is a completely different thing to me.

I mean I only have arguments against organized religion. I used to call myself a deist or whatever you would call it. Many physicists including Micho Kaku would call the force behind the Big-Bang “God” or the force of unknown creation (that 3.5 x 10^45 seconds after or whatever the number is) so thats reasonable.

Nothing Wave Rider has said goes against reason or anything, we just don’t like jesus so as soon as anyone mentions an entity of faith or whatever we hate it. The god of the physicists doesn’t give a shit if you eat pork, believe in him, or have a clitoris.

If you’re a christian or something like it, fuck you.

:D

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

If God existed we wouldn’t have to prove it did and it would show itself and be as evident as anything that is. If i have to look for it then it cant very well be omnipotent. If i have to pray to it to tell it i’am concerned for my dying relative or lover or any problem, then it must not be all knowing because i had to tell it before it did anything or chose not to, yet it loves me(I think). I can assume it created everything and imagine it revealed it to me in a dream but thats all it was…... an imaginary concoction i myself created based on the assumption of an imaginary paternal creator possibly driven by the willingness to not be alone and the comfort we had as child. We were all born atheists for a reason, none was born with the knowledge or desire for a God or gods, we had to learn it from someone elses idea and accept or reject it, accept it more easily if we are emotionally distressed or depressed and having nothing else to turn to. We believe in a God because we have an emotional need for that false comfort. When we graduate and use our brains and lean on reason, truth, and the progression of ourselves with understanding we can return to that purer state we were born with… ATHEISM

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider,
Your statement “Unfortunately, the complexity of the universe, coupled with gaps in evidence, makes it literally impossible for mankind to clearly comprehend what really happened in the beginning.  So we theorize.” is akin to people’s beliefs 600 years ago that thunder means God is angry.  I suspect that most deists today understand what causes thunder, but because they refuse to doubt the existence of God, they are now using the beginning of universe as an argument for God’s existence. 
I totally agree with Puddingdongle’s Mish-Mish analogy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Mitchell P.
I do have a specific faith that I adhere to but it is not germaine to the discussion at this point.  I will probably comment on other topics within this websit.  You will most likely be able to determine my belief’s from them.

Sean,
I disagree with you on the point that we are all born atheists.  Unfortunately, I do not have the time to respond right now.  If you are interested in further discussion let me know and I will opine.

nikkorman
I must respectfully point out that your statement that my comment” is akin to people’s beliefs 600 years ago that thunder means God is angry”, should be developed further.  I can only surmise what you mean and prefer not to respond on assumption (I do enough of that already).  If you mean what I think you do, I might agree with the statement but would take it to a different conclusion than you apparently are (see an assumption).

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider,
I agree that we may never fully comprehend what really happened in the beginning.  But why not just say that we will never comprehend it because of our limitations, rather than assuming that it proves the existence of God.  Before the discovery of electricity, people believed that something as awesome as thunder and lightening had to be caused by God.  I assume that the people of the past felt the same way about thunder and lightening as you feel today about the universe.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

nikkorman,

I don’t assume that just because we can’t fully comprehend the beginning of time (or existence) that it proves God exists.  I merely argured that science cannot disprove that God exists .  I would never assume that anyone can absolutely prove God exists.  However, I do believe that a logical case can be made that the universe cannot exist without a designer.  But that is another line of thinking . 

I also don’t think there is a valid parallel about how people felt about thunder and lightening in the past vs. how you perceive that I feel about the origins of the universe.  It is true that man did not always understand the phenomena of lightening and thunder and developed some pretty wild explanations.  However, mankind has always been able to observe thunder and lightening.  As a result, we have been able to figure out a great deal about it. 
The origin of the universe is a totally different matter.  No one will ever be able to observe the origins of the universe.  As a result, we can merely observe the universe as it is now and try to work backwards in time in our attempts develop theories that we will never be able to scientifically prove.  It will always be theory that is merely supported buy mankinds interpretation of the data.  Data that is buy all accounts is massive and extremely complex.  Bear in mind that all the current theories concerning the origins of the universe are based on extremely complex math.  And all the mathamatical constructs still have to rely on assumptions that cannot be proven.  And these mathematial theories are in reality only understood by a few.

But I don’t think that we need to understand the origins of the universe to provide logical evidence that the universe requires a designer.  I believe this evidence of a designer is everywhere.  The complexity of individual biological organisms, the complex bio systems of the earth, the subatomic building blocks , the massive expanse of the universe, etc.along with the inderdependent need for balance logically screams out for the need of a designer.  The more man studies the universe we discover complex designs that continually amaze us.  And our leading scientist often ask us to believe that this happened spontaneously, by chance, out of nothing merely because they can’t prove it in a test tube.

Sorry, I know that was long winded. 

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.