At any rate I find your arguments difficult to follow. You cannot blame Dawkins for using the word evolution…it entails all the particular mechanisms. Evolution is a solid theory, at times I am amazed by the sheer logical simplicity of it, summed up in “those that live and breed…..live and breed.” that I said earlier.

“Since atheism is not a self-consistent system,”

Hhhmm, atheism is not a belief system…its a single aspect of a persons world view. Do you mean to attack the rational, skeptical, and/or empirical world views?

I was just rereading your post, you seem to feel that peoples arguments do not matter in less they relate them to their own beliefs…If they have not shown this in their articles/books is it not possible that they just didn’t share their own views? Perhaps because it is fairly obvious that they believe what they are trying to convince other people of?

Instead, it is easier to go after key atheists who have a large body of written work, as for example Dawkins or Dennet or look at a general, commonly accepted principal among atheists such as “Darwinian evolution is a good tool for atheists”.

Also, for anyone like yourself who might one day come to question the certainty of your convictions, I offer some other techniques that could be tried in such a hypothetical case:

1. Since atheism is not a self-consistent system, it is not necessary to quote anyone aside from atheists to establish that it is invalid.
2. It is sometimes necessary to show an atheist that the reasoning being used to arrive at their conviction can be improved by examining a book on logic and reasoning, focusing on what sorts of conclusions follow from an inconsistent set of axioms.
3. Sometimes, as is the case with Dawkins, the argument is well written and researched, there is a slight flaw in Dawkin’s philosophy, namely the ability or willingness toi examine one’s own beliefs.

So without further ado,
Dennet doesn’t even write articles with reasoning in them, they are but manifestos showing no consciousness of the self-referentiality of what was written. Ref: In this month’s Psychology Now article Dennet wrote about atheism (and his life). He even admitted himself he was not looking for arguments (to present).

Dawkins’ views on evolution as a crane (instead of skyhook, as you astutely pointed out last month) for development in biology is the key issue. Here we note that the particular mechanisms *of* evolution are not noted to be the tool, but rather a single *word* (“evolution”). It is equivalent to magical thinking in many respects. To use something as a crane, it better have tracks, an engine and controls, to use an analogy. In other words, some random person such as myself better not be able to defeat the “5 million years is a long time” fall-back with a simple statistical equation.

Now it is true that this month’s Skeptic Magazine acknowledges that the theory of evolution is progressing and also notes that it is important to “keep the loonies away” while introducing these new ideas to the public or some such, but if a book written in 1993 can’t be held accountable to its assumptions about length of time required and particular mechanism for evolution, neither can the “tool” be considered valid for use in the propagandistic endeavor to which it is currently being employed.

Anyway, that was pretty long. Did I miss any of the major crumbled and shaky pedestals of atheism that you would like me to take quotes from any major atheistic thinker and examine?

I am curious, would you say this would be the death of your “god”?

“I will teach them about the Light that is God infused in All ”

Please, your children would believe you if you told them a fairy comes and takes there old teeth, don’t abuse this trust by teaching them unsubstantiated, unproveable, stuff at an early age (once infected with such a mind virus it can be difficult to remove…). If your so sure that your truth is so obvious won’t they see it the same way? Or is your brain just bigger than everyone elses and that is how you figured it out?

I am not afraid of an expanding universe. To me it is evidence that the universe started from a point of light. God. I am at peace – I am not afraid for my children and my children’s children. I will teach them about the Light that is God infused in All and they will be at peace with anything that comes. I will teach them the words that Jesus taught. And they will be happy, and they will not worry. I will not let them be misled by churches and religion. By the Pharisees and Saducees, by priests that teach Laws of man. The Kingdom of God is within me. It teaches me to be charitable to my brother. And you Devon are my brother.

Peace be with you Devon. I will pray for you. Even though you don’t want me to. God is movement and God is repose. God is Love. Love created this universe. We are here for 3 things, To Learn, to Love and to Create. Now get on with your business in these 3.

“When I say “Everything is God” therefore it is just as valid as you saying “God is Nothing” (or God does not exist)”

It is not just as valid, you are the one making the claim, you need to back it up with evidence. That would be like the folllowing claims, “that there is an invisible purple spotted unicorn” and “There are almost certainly no invisible purple spotted unicorns” being equally valid. I was making that point by trying to create a sort of mirror image of your statement.

Still no comment on the horrors of the expanding universe? Would you view the eventual dissipation of energy and matter as your god’s death? Is this why you have not responded?

P.S. You do have a way with words I bet by only twisting words you could prove almost anything…look up the right words in your thesaurus and presto! The holocaust never happened!

You cannot prove your side so me.

When I say “Everything is God” therefore it is just as valid as you saying “God is Nothing” (or God does not exist)

But in my viewpoint the statement that “Nothing is God” means the same thing as “Everything is God” Because in an infinite universe “Nothing encompasses everything” and everything encompasses nothing.

Whether God is something or God is nothing – all that exists in the universe either comes from something or comes from nothing.

Either Way proves that God exists. If you cannot understand this concept there is nothing more I can say.

“He does not hide himself – you are refusing to see him.”

That is a bogus argument, as though I have a motivation to not see him. It implies that either your all powerful god is so stupid he can’t think of a way to explain himself properly to me and billions of others, or that I am lying.

There is no evidence for his existence, the best way for him/her/it to show itself would be by evidence.

You just say there is evidence but don’t show a single scrap to me.

And you still have not acknowledged where your expanding universe leads!

“I have said plainly – “You are made entirely of God”.(Since He created everything) But since you do not see that — He remains hidden from you. ”

That is not, NOT, evidence, that is a statement/theory that you need to back with evidence. The last bit just sounds like a twisted version of “there is no evidence so you don’t believe” which is a perfectly reasonable stance.

I can say there is no god, we are not god, everything is not god, (There is no evidence) I have said it plainly, you for some reason think that there is even with no reason to believe so. Your logical reasoning skills are trying to show you this, but the mind virus has your logic carefully partitioned. There is no god.

I have said plainly – “You are made entirely of God”.(Since He created everything) But since you do not see that — He remains hidden from you.

He does not hide himself – you are refusing to see him. In everything. You have closed your eyes to Him. And He is trying to reveal Himself to you. In Everything – God IS.