Who is playing make-believe? (Atheists or theists)

Posted on January 18, 2012 By

It is common to observe atheists making comments such as the following on online forums: “I don’t believe in God, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, fairies, unicorns, hobgoblins, or any other such make-believe creatures!”

But the truth is very much opposite to the atheist rhetoric. It is actually disbelief in God that requires adults to play games of make-believe …games that rival those of those of children in their measure of naive credulity.

This point is perhaps best illustrated by the contorted mental gymnastics that those who are ideologically inclined towards disbelief in God will resort. In his book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist, Norman Geisler notes:

It was 1916 and Albert Einstein didn’t like where his calculations were leading him. If his theory of General Relativity was true, it meant that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning. Einstein’s calculations indeed were revealing a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and all space. This flew in the face of his belief that the universe was static and eternal. Einstein later called his discovery “irritating.” He wanted the universe to be self-existent—not reliant on any outside cause—but the universe appeared to be one giant effect. In fact, Einstein so disliked the implications of General theory that is now proven accurate to five decimal places—that he introduced a cosmological constant (which some have since called a “fudge factor”) into his equations in order to show that the universe is static and to avoid an absolute beginning.

But Einstein’s fudge factor didn’t fudge for long. In 1919, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse which confirmed that General Relativity was indeed true—the universe wasn’t static but had a beginning. Like Einstein, Eddington wasn’t happy with the implications. He later wrote, “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me. . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole.” By 1922, Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann had officially exposed Einstein’s fudge factor as an algebraic error. (Incredibly, in his quest to avoid a beginning, the great Einstein had divided by zero—something even schoolchildren know is a no-no!)

…He subsequently described the cosmological constant as “the greatest blunder of my life,” and he redirected his efforts to find the box top to the puzzle of life. Einstein said that he wanted “to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

Einstein, in a nutshell, was forced by the weight of the evidence to abandon his desire to disbelieve in God….a desire apparently so intense that he was willing to resort to such a desperate measure as dividing by zero! Fortunately, the weight of the evidence eventually overcame Einstein’s “irritation” at the concept of God, and, in a display of integrity, he revised his views. The law of causation (without which science would be impossible) dictates that everything with a beginning requires a cause. This is why those ideologically inclined towards disbelief in God have clung so tenaciously to the idea of a “static,” or eternally existing universe.

Fast forward to the current day. The most famous living physicist, Stephen Hawking, in his book The Grand Design, attempts to demonstrate that the universe requires no such Grand Designer. He writes, “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing…Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God…”

Oxford University mathematician John C. Lennox responds in his book God and Stephen Hawking:

…His [Hawking’s] notion that a law of nature (gravity) explains the existence of the universe is also self-contradictory, since a law of nature, by definition, surely depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the nature it purports to describe. …Thus, the main conclusion of the book turns out not simply to be a self-contradiction, which would be disaster enough, but to be a triple self-contradiction. Philosophers just might be tempted to comment: so that is what comes of saying philosophy is dead! [Hawking says this in The Grand Design] In the above, Hawking is echoing the language of Oxford chemist Peter Atkins (also a well-known atheist), who believes that “space-time generates its own dust in the process of its own self-assembly”.  

Atkins dubs this the “Cosmic Bootstrap” principle, referring to the self-contradictory idea of a person lifting himself by pulling on his own bootlaces. His Oxford colleague, philosopher of religion Keith Ward, is surely right to say that Atkins’ view of the universe is as blatantly self-contradictory as the name he gives to it, pointing out that it is “logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being in existence”. Ward concludes: “Between the hypothesis of God and the hypothesis of a cosmic bootstrap, there is no competition. We were always right to think that persons, or universes, who seek to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps are forever doomed to failure.”  What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists. What serves to obscure the illogicality of statements is the fact that they are made by scientists; and the general public, not surprisingly, assumes that they are statements of science and takes them on authority. That is why it is important to point out that they are not statements of science, and any statement, whether made by a scientist or not, should be open to logical analysis. Immense prestige and authority does not compensate for faulty logic.

…In the world in which most of us live, the simple law of arithmetic by itself, 1+1=2, never brought anything into being. It certainly has never put any money into my bank account. If I put £1,000 into the bank, and later another £1,000, the laws of arithmetic will rationally explain how it is that I now have £2,000 in the bank. But if I never put any money into the bank myself, and simply leave it to the laws of arithmetic to bring money into being in my bank account, I shall remain permanently bankrupt.

So this is what Einstein meant when he said that “the man of science is a poor philosopher!” Even if one were to grant that all of Hawking’s science is 100% correct (which is a very, very big “if”, as this video featuring Hawking’s former colleague, the Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose, explains), Hawking’s attempts to do away with God fall apart with even the most rudimentary philosophical inquiry, as Lennox demonstrates. Hawking clearly knows this (at least subconsciously), which is surely why he disparages philosophy in his book. He writes, “Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.”

Now, philosophy 101 students, what is wrong with the statement, “Philosophy is dead”?  This statement is itself philosophical!  (as Lennox points out). Therefore, it is no less ridiculous and self-contradictory than the statement, “I cannot speak a single word of English,” spoken with a perfect British accent. Hawking’s philosophy is that “philosophy is dead.” One should wonder who taught him philosophy! Notably, even the atheist philosopher Quentin Smith could not refrain from calling Hawking’s argument against God, presented in his book A Brief History of Time, “the worst atheistic argument in the history of western thought.”

Sadly, jaw-droppingly poor philosophy is not confined to atheist scientists. Prominent atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett reflects Peter Atkins’ above mentioned “Cosmic Bootstrap” principle when he claims that the universe created itself using what he calls “the ultimate boot-strapping trick,” in his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. As a sports car enthusiast, I have to ask: If the universe can “bootstrap” itself into existence, is it unreasonable to expect that shiny new car might “bootstrap” itself into existence in my garage? Is there any reason why Dennett’s philosophy would allow the universe, but not a car, to “bootstrap” itself into existence? I hope not.

Back to Santa Claus…it’s time to administer a little thought experiment so as to establish a measure of make-believe reasoning: Two kids sit under the Christmas tree waiting to open their presents. The first kid says, “Santa put the presents there.” To this, the second kid replies, “No he didn’t. There is no Santa Claus. The law of gravity caused the presents to create themselves from nothing.” Although the second child is using adult language to express his views, they involve a far greater degree of make-believe reasoning.

The law of causation (without which science would be impossible) dictates that everything with a beginning requires a cause. Forget for a moment the fact that, as Lennox above explains, physical laws are not creative, but rather merely descriptive and predictive. At least the first kid in the above example understands the law of causation. He may have gotten the cause wrong (it was actually his parents who put the presents under the tree), but at least he understands that a cause cannot bring about an effect unless that cause is already in existence.

Put another way, the second kid’s “nothing” is actually a version of something. The law of gravity is something, not nothing.  Either the universe emerged from nothing or it emerged from the law of gravity. One cannot have it both ways.

And even if the universe emerged “spontaneously” from the law of gravity, the question immediately becomes, “Where did the law of gravity come from?” Further, how can it be that matter follows natural laws so consistently if the the universe is fundamentally material?

Readers will recall from my essay titled God Is Real…Why Modern Physics Has Discredited Atheism that, historically, there have been two basic meta-scientific worldviews underlying science. One worldview (called naturalism or materialism) says that matter comes first (or is fundamental) and that minds such as our own are an eventual product of unintelligent, natural processes. The opposite worldview (which includes theism) says that mind (read: God’s mind) comes first and that matter is the product of this fundamentally existing mind.

In the theistic worldview, it is immediately clear why these natural laws (such as the laws of physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, etc.) exist and why matter so consistently follows them: The same mind which produces matter also directs it.

But the naturalist/materialist worldview severely struggles with these two questions: Where did the natural laws come from in the first place, and why is it that matter so consistently follows such laws? The only answers that naturalism/materialism can provide are “they just are” and “it just does,” respectively. How much explanatory power exists in either explanation? None whatsoever. This is why the naturalist/materialist worldview, upon which atheism depends, is rooted in make-believe, just-so storytelling.

In my essay titled Is There A God? (What is the chance that our world is the result of chance?), I mention the topic of the extremely exquisite fine tuning of our universe that was necessary for life forms such as ourselves to exist. In order to get around this, atheists (including Hawking and many others) have proposed the existence of multiple universes. So many universes exist, so the theory goes, that it is not surprising that one of these universes happened to randomly have the fine tuning necessary for the existence of life. A copy and paste  of two citations from that essay:

Distinguished former Cambridge University quantum physicist John Polkinghorne notes in Questions of Truth:

Answering an argument by a suggestion is hardly conclusive. One problem is that we don’t just need a hundred other universes, or even a billion, but an utterly immense number—some string theorists suggest that there are up to 10 to the 500th power other universes. If you are allowed to posit 10 to the 500th power other universes to explain away otherwise inconvenient observations, you can “explain away” anything, and science becomes impossible.

Further, as Oxford University Professor of Philosophy Antony Flew facetiously observes in There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind:

If the existence of one universe requires an explanation, multiple universes require a much bigger explanation: the problem is increased by the factor of whatever the total number of universes is. It seems a little like that case of a schoolboy whose teacher doesn’t believe his dog ate his homework, so he replaces the first version with the story that a pack of dogs—too many to count—ate his homework.

None of this is to suggest that there cannot be multiple universes. Rather, it is to suggest that, philosophically speaking, it is absurd to suggest that the existence of multiple universes can be used to explain away the exquisite fine tuning of our universe necessary for the formation of life. (I discuss this fine tuning in my essay titled Is There A God? (What is the chance that our world is the result of chance?)) Even if there are 10 to the 500th power universes, what was the mechanism that caused our universe to be so very, very extremely fine tuned? Further, what is the reason that ANY of these universes exist in the first place? How is it that we can assume that these universes are at all different from one another, so that one universe is fine tuned and the others (or most of them) are not?

Nancy Pearcey comments in her book Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from it’s Cultural Captivity:

David Gross, director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, recently admitted that his objection to the concept of fine-tuning is “totally emotional”: It’s a dangerous idea because “it smells of religion and intelligent design.” Convoluted theories of a conscious cosmos, or of countless unknowable universes, are little more than desperate attempts to avoid the obvious evidence for design.

And it is this desperation that causes certain prominent atheist physicists to resort to make-believe. Adult make-believe may be different from child make-believe, but it is make-believe nonetheless.


And Stephen Hawking is not the only atheist physicist making ridiculous arguments. This New York Times article gives a scathing review of atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss’ book A Universe From Nothing. As it turns out, Krauss’ “nothing” is actually the laws of quantum mechanics. So his “nothing” is actually something. Krauss admits that he has no idea where the laws of quantum mechanics came from. Declaring something to actually be “nothing” is an open-and-shut case of an adult playing a game of make-believe.

For more examples of adults playing make-believe in order to try to do away with God, please read my essay titled Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God. In this essay, I describe how atheists (including Richard Dawkins) have resorted to such explanations for the origin of life as intervention from space aliens, and piggyback rides on crystals. These are not typos.

Please also read my related essay titled I Believe In Science! Why Do I Need Religion?!




  1. Tracy Oguni says:

    This is a nice and interesting article although I’m worried about something.

    You start out with the argument that disbelief in God requires adults to play make-belief but you do not support this assertion. You simply illustrate it with examples from Einstein and Hawking. I don’t need to tell you that those two examples about people who ‘disbelieved in God’ do not count as evidence that ‘disbelief in God’ requires you to make-believe. So your claim is still unsupported.

    Beyond that, wonderful post. A bit over my head, but wonderful.

    • It is not just Einstein and Hawking that engage in make-believe. In this essay, I also explain how those (millions of people) who subscribe to the materialist/naturalist worldview, upon which atheism depends, must assume that the the answers to the questions, “Why are there physical laws?” (such as those of physics), and “How can it be that matter so consistently follows such laws?,” can only provide the respective answers of “they just are” and “it just does.” This theme of make-believe, just-so storytelling emerges repeatedly when you examine the atheist belief system. It may be an adult form of make-believe, since it doesn’t involve such things as Santa Claus or fairies, but it is make-believe nonetheless.

      And since you made this comment, I have provided a link at the bottom to my essay titled Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God, which describes how atheists (including Richard Dawkins) have provided explanations for the origin of life that include intervention from space aliens, and piggyback rides on crystals, and life came from space without alien intervention. None of this is to suggest that there can’t be aliens (it’s a big universe). Rather, it is to suggest that, even if it could be demonstrated that aliens brought life to earth, we are still left with the question of where the aliens came from.

      • Tracy Oguni says:

        Oh, I’m sorry. I subscribed to your blog so it sent me the post in an email but it only sent about half of it and that statement was the last line so my brain didn’t register it.

  2. GerryD says:

    Some of the many “knowdown” arguments/retorts I get from the “intellectual fulfilled atheist” :-

    “God is no more real than fairies, unicorns or Santa.”
    Anyone obsessed by the non-existence of fairies might be considered delusional, even an idiot. So why should we not think the same about those who waste what little time they have left trying to justify their disbelief in a “non-existent” God for which “there is no evidence”? Perhaps b/c that reality makes our lives accountable but it also gives us joy, hope, meaning & destiny to an otherwise purposeless life, (unlike Santa & unicorns.)

    “You cant proof that a “flying teapot doesnt exist. I say it does.”
    No, I cant prove that avatars exist on planet Pandora either. What I do know is, contingent beings real or otherwise, can’t create existence from non existence, nor do they invent immaterial laws & abstract math that defined a rationally intelligible universe. Neither do I believe in the absurdity of an eternal past of finite physical events. Such is the blind faith that atheist must embrace when mindless matter is the ONLY game in town!!

    “Why don’t u believe in Thor or Zeus?”
    Created gods are an oxymoron. Any being greater than God would itself be God. I believe in THE eternal, uncaused prime mover, the God who creates existence from non-existence & “man from the dust of the earth”, as well as all time matter & space, I believe in God not as a being among many, but as the essence of being, the source of all life, wisdom & truth, the one who created a finite, rationally intelligible, law-abiding & life-permitting universe, the one who gives us joy, hope, meaning & destiny. I live happily & oblivious to astrology, numerology, Taoism, egoism & all created gods.

    “There are too many Gods to believe in one”
    Trying to disprove God by comparing different concepts of God is analogous to trying to deny the existence of atoms b/c there are several competing atomic orbital theories & b/c we’ll probably never be able to “see” them. We dont have all the answers yet. We deduce the properties & nature of God like we do for atoms, we examine the evidence.

    “Which God is real? or There are too many Gods to believe in just one!”
    Is this a disguised admission that there is a God? God by definition is the eternal 1st cause & prime mover, the one who creates existence from non-existence. The Genesis 1 story is symbolic of man worshipping at the “tree of knowledge”, trying to be God. Not surprising today, the male ego continues to create his own idols. He worships at the altar of power, prestige, sex gambling, sport, drugs. And yes I too dont believe in any of the created gods that the skeptics do or dont believe in.

  3. GerryD says:

    The general consensus among young atheists is to typically claim God is no more provable than fairies or unicorns. In another way however, I think we should listen to, if not embrace the atheists’ argument for denying God. Personally When I listen to informed debaters who know the strawman fallacy, I find some arguments helpful in exposing any new forms of idolatry. The new atheists, who rail against the idea of God and religious believers, provide a starting point for knowing God. Moreover, they can clarify what the true God is not. And we should take their objections seriously. What I object to is those on both sides who have not considered, let alone understood the other sides arguments. The numbers of video clips that say something like ” Sam Harris destroys (who ever).” but fail to give the opponents view is typical of YT.
    Having said that, the fact that atheism feel the need to spend endless hours searching for ways to deny God is paradoxically evidence for His existence.

    • Gerry,

      When you say, “Atheists feel the need to spend endless hours searching for ways to deny God is paradoxically evidence for His existence,” you have hit the nail on the head.

      Some excellent examples:

      Atheist numero uno, Richard Dawkins, writes in The Blind Watchmaker:

      “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

      Atheists such as Dawkins spend endless hours inventing new hypotheses to explain away this “appearance.” But why is there an appearance of design that requires such a massive effort to explain away? And why must atheists resort to such transparently desperate measures as citing space aliens and piggyback rides on crystals (as I detail in Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God) as explanations for the origin of life?

      How could Dawkins make such an utterly egregious error as suggesting that the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection could somehow apply to that which is not alive? He suggests in the video that I link to that the aliens who brought life to earth “evolved, probably through some Darwinian means.” But what sort of “Darwinian means” could possibly apply to lifeless matter that has neither genes to mutate nor reproductive offspring to naturally select? The Darwinian mechanism is random mutation of genes and natural selection of reproductive offspring. That is what it is.

      And regarding the anthropic fine tuning of our universe necessary for life to emerge, why must atheists make wild inferences about 10 to the 500th power universes in order to try to explain away this fine tuning (as I describe in Is There A God…What is the chance that our world is the result of chance)? Further, if they are not truly desperate, how could they possibly have failed to notice that these other universes also need an explanation? If they are not truly desperate, how could they have failed to notice that this “multiverse” is subject to the same fine tuning? What is the mechanism that “tunes” any of these postulated universes?

  4. Beachbum says:

    Let me apologize up front for I haven’t the time to read this gibberish. I have read my fill of apologetic BS.

    Atheists don’t care about your deity. It is only a symbol of your infantile mental state and of no concern to most who lack belief based on a lack of evidence, you know atheist.

    What most of us are concerned with is that the origin of this cult is grounded in political manipulation through superstitious fear of an absolute authority inflicting eternal torture which is actually the construct of the theist’s imagination. When one says that someone must have faith, what they are really saying is that we must submit to the imaginings of the particular theist. Notice a Christian would never dream of telling an atheist to at least believe in the Hindu God, or Islam, etc., ha!

    Your absolute authority, your evidentiarily vacuous supernatural construct of abject morality, is actually a projection of you, but not how you would be choose to be governed only how you would govern others: dictatorially, repressively, unnaturally. Fortunately, atheists such as myself have taken the view that until it speaks to me personally, I will only politely refrain from staring at the afflicted. Prevent them, in their deluded state, from enabling or enacting repressive, totalitarian, militaristic insults to civil liberties. And, do my utmost to prevent them from inculcating defenseless children into that death cult which negates the value of this life in lieu of one that never comes.


      When one becomes experienced with debating atheists on online forums, one quickly begins to observe a recurring theme…many atheists seem to confuse two concepts: 1) a rationally constructed, fact-based argument, on one hand, and 2) forceful assertions laced with strident rhetoric and a priori (before the fact) assumptions, on the other hand.

      This is especially noteworthy when you consider that atheists usually present themselves as rigidly rationalist. But, if a person truly held their atheist views for exclusively rational reasons, that person would simply state those rational reasons in a gracious and calm manner. The spewing forth of angry rhetoric is highly suggestive of emotionally charged ideology underlying that rhetoric, not bare rationality.

      Beachbum, you have forcefully asserted that your “lack of belief [is] based on a lack of evidence.” My reply is that the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming. To support my view, I provide the following (introductory) evidence:

      1) The anthropic fine tuning evidence as presented in my essay titled Is There A God: What Is the Chance That Our World Is the Result of Chance?

      2) The facts surrounding the origin of life, as presented in my essay titled Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God.

      Please provide point-by-point, fact-based, logically constructed rebuttals to either or both of these essays. Doing so will demonstrate the rational basis for your views.

      Do you, for example, agree with prominent atheist biologists such as Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick that the origin of life can be explained by the fact that life was created by aliens from outer space and then brought to Earth in their spaceship (as I describe in Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God)? Or do you agree with prominent atheist biologists such as Michael Ruse that the origin of life can be explained by a piggyback ride on crystals? (Also described in the essay). Or do you agree with prominent atheists such Chandra Wickaramsighe and Fred Hoyle that the origin of life can be explained by the fact that it came to Earth from space without the help of aliens? Or do you have a novel hypothesis that you would like to present?

      What our readers are looking for is a rationally sound reply to the points made in these essays, rather than forcefully stated, a priori assumptions. You have said that you “don’t have time to read this gibberish.” I will reply that your real reason for not reading and replying to these essays is that you cannot respond to them. Yes, that is a challenge (in case you are wondering).

      • Grace says:

        Yea, I’ve discovered that most of them do not participate on forums for intellectual reasons, but to insult, harass, bully, or even monopolize a conversation, as evidenced above by Beachbum who came to merely assert his opinions in a condescending manner. Beachbum is focusing on the person (Christians), trying to discredit them, which is an ad hominem fallacy-a fallacy that many, many atheists make. If he were really here for rational, intellectual discussion, he would put all his energy into focusing on the argument, not the people he is trying to discredit. There’s still time, Beachbum, to show us why you’re really participating on this forum. Do you have any rebuttals to Scott’s arguments?

        I will add that I have also asked atheists why they don’t try to disprove the existence of Santa Claus every week, and they replied that no one believes Santa Claus is real. So they try to disprove God because there is a possibility that God IS real? Now why are there people who believe that God is real? It is because we actually DO have evidence for God’s existence, and Scott named a few arguments.

        • Grace,

          Exactly. The use of emotionally charged, angry rhetoric is highly indicative that the person spewing forth such rhetoric has doubts and uncertainty about their views. Such rhetoric is what one resorts to when one cannot support one’s views with adequate logic. In other words, angry rhetoric and forceful assertions are crutches to support weak arguments.

          For example, let’s imagine that we decided to accuse Beachbum of being a bank robber. Do you think he would respond by saying things like, “Your accusation is indicative of an infantile mental state”? Would he feel the need to respond to our accusation with words like “evidentiarily vacuous construct”? Of course not…because it is safe to assume that Beachbum is not a bank robber, and he is powerfully confident in his belief that he is not a bank robber. (By the way, “evidentiarily” is not even a word). Only if he really were a bank robber (and wanted to conceal the fact) would he resort to using such language.

          Such unnecessarily fancy terminology indicates that Beachbum is making heavy use of intellectual posturing. In your debates with atheists, you will see the frequent use of this tactic…trying to pose as occupying the intellectual high ground. Sometimes this posturing or posing is done by using unnecessarily fancy terminology, and other times it is done by hiding behind scientific theories.

          Perhaps the best example of atheists hiding behind a scientific theory is Darwinian evolution. As I explain in my essays titled Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God and Why Evolution Cannot Be Used to Rationalize Atheism (in the “short takes” section), it is not the case that Darwinian evolution tries and fails to explain the origin of life. Rather, it does not even attempt to explain the origin of life. Darwinian evolution only attempts to explain the mode by which life diversified once it had already emerged (and in a very short period of time, in geologic terms). And the idea that this mode for the diversification of life does not have an intelligent source is a philosophical add-on, not a scientific conclusion.

          And, as I point out in my essay titled Doesn’t Evolution Prove the Biblical Account of Creation to Be False?, there is really nothing about Darwinian evolution that is inconsistent with the Bible. There are many examples of prominent Darwinists who are also Christian.

          Sadly, Christians often let atheists get away with hiding behind scientific theories.


      • Dan H says:

        Great point Scott. Me thinks he doth protest too much. It would be great to add “likes” or “did you find this helpful” ratings to the comments to see what your readers find most interesting.

      • Terry S says:

        Still using the same old worn out header: “READERS PLEASE TAKE NOTE BECAUSE THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE:” in a failed attempt to make yourself look credible.

    • JanetC says:

      Dear Beachbum,
      I really think it’s the philosophy of atheism that devalues life.
      We are all of infinite value as individuals, and life is about
      taking care of one another.
      For me, it’s the incredible complexity and beauty in the universe
      that makes me believe in God.
      I don’t understand why the fact that many of us believe in God,
      makes you so upset.


      • Terry S says:

        Janet: I don’t understand why the fact that many of us believe in God, makes you so upset.

        911, The Crusades (still in progress), Fraud, Lies, deceit, deception. That is just the short list.

        • JanetC says:

          Hi Terry,
          Regardless of what some other people have done in the long past, or in the recent past,
          I still believe in God.
          There were some people who rejoiced and danced in the street after the 9/11 terrorist
          attacks, but most of the rest of us, who believe in kindness and moral decency, were horrified.
          When the 9/11 attacks happened, God was not responsible.
          Human beings with hatred in their hearts were responsible.
          Jesus said to feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, clothe the naked, and to care for the orphans and widows among us. I want to follow him and increase the kindness quotient in the world.
          I appreciate your thoughts, Terry.

          • Terry S says:

            Of course Human Beings were responsible but their intentions were to please their god or do gods bidding. Without the delusion of a god these kinds of horrific crimes would have and still could be avoided.

            • Terry, I wrote an essay titled Doesn’t Religion Cause Killing in response to sentiments such as yours (click here). What is your reply?

              Also, you seem to think that belief in God causes killing because people sometimes kill in the name of God. But if you look around just a little, you will realize that human beings kill in the name of a lot of things. Many, many people have killed in the name of love (such as when murdering a romantic rival). Does this mean that love causes killing and that we should do away with love? The vast majority of wars have been fought over political disputes (as according to the Encyclopedia of Wars). Does this mean that politics cause killing and that we should do away with politics?

  5. Terry S says:

    I see you are still trying to use other peoples opinions as if they were somehow evidence to support your imaginary friend. I guess it works on Doh Doh Heads that can’t think for themselves. Looks like this type of mis-reasoning worked on you. Look at how deeply it has control over you. Look at the effort you put into trying to validate that which can not be validated. It is so sad to see so many so misguided by so little.


  6. Terry S says:

    Scott: human beings kill in the name of a lot of things.

    Terry S: So that makes it OK by you? Of course people kill for many reasons but no one should ever kill or be killed because of a belief. Especially a belief in something there is no evidence for.

    Scott: Does this mean that love causes killing and that we should do away with love?

    Terry S: Define love.

    Scott: Does this mean that politics cause killing and that we should do away with politics?

    Terry S: Lets start with religion. We can move on to politics after that. Politics and religion share the same bedroom. If life is so precious, why wouldn’t we? Or are you saying life isn’t as precious as most people make it out to be? Not precious enough to stop the political campaign, right?

    • Terry,

      I discuss this issue in Doesn’t Religion Cause Killing? (Click here) Please read and respond. I eagerly await your reply.

      Further, I think it will be readily apparent to any third party viewer of this conversation that your last reply was evasive.

      You tried to evade the questions that I asked you, so I will restate them:

      Many, many people have killed in the name of love (such as when murdering a romantic rival). Does this mean that love causes killing and that we should do away with love? Asking me to define love is an attempt to evade the question. Don’t you have a dictionary?

      The vast majority of wars have been fought over political disputes (as according to the Encyclopedia of Wars). Does this mean that politics cause killing and that we should do away with politics?

      Please respond to these questions and the above mentioned essay. There is a clear cut difference between responding to a question or an argument, on one hand, and trying to evade it, on the other.

      Lastly, as I have pointed out to you before, restating an assertion over and over again will not make it true. You continually assert that there is no evidence for God while simultaneously ignoring the evidence presented to you. Persuasion is the result of cohesiveness of argument, not the result of the restatement of an assertion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *