There is no God. The Absence of God: Debate on Religion Pt II

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Debate on Religion Pt II

The following is a continuation of the religious debate I am currently having with a religious blogger (part 1 can be found here. What he essentially did was take my comments and one by one, responded to all my main points. Here are my respo

nses (market with the prefix: My Response).

April 21:

First of all, religion is most certainly appealing

to the human mind. It is our nature to want to know things that cannot be explained and the belief in God is a great example o

f that.
Sacerdotus writes:

Yes, but religion is not needed to attempt to find explanations for everything. This is why Philosophy exists. It is not a religion,

yet it seeks to find truth. Not everyone finds religion appealing. Only those who are willing to conform to its demands.

My Response:

While I agree that religion is not needed to find an explanation for everything, it certainly does a good job of doing so.

Not everyone finds religion appealing, but most certainly do. That is why, as you were saying earlier, religion is so widespread around the world.

What exactly do you mean by conforming "to its demands?"


You're right, religion is just too easy. There are so many questions that we want answered, which really should be looked at one by one, but instead, are all explained by the existence of a super natural being. It was an ex

planation that, until 300 years ago, stood its ground, but with t

he recent developments of the scientific age, have been put into question and rightfully so.

Sacerdotus writes:

You assume that people decided to invent th

is super being as a cause of existence, that is not so. We all are born with common sense.. well most of us. Common sense would tell us that an object living or non-living has a maker. Hence children always ask, "where do babies come from?" Things don't appear out of nowhere just for the heck of it. There is always a cause before the effect. This is where God comes in. The cause of a universe has to be a living being who is sentient, intelligent, self aware etc. The universe cannot create itself.Even Hawkings was reprimanded by other physicists for claiming the universe could have created itself. This universe is built on laws. Laws don't appear out of nowhere. They need a lawgiver. This universe is extremely mathematical. Mathematics is something only a rational intelligent mind can develop and put into practice. An unconscious agent cannot develop no

r use mathematics.
In other words, this universe is far too complex to be random. Now of course science won't say God did it because that is not the role of science. Science's role is to study the natural world and how it works, not where it comes from. It is like a forensics team that picks up clues to a crime scene, studies them and comes to conclusions. Those conclusions then are looked at by the prosecutor, defense, jury and judge.

My Response:

Here is a question that might just spoil the whole God theory. If everything needs a maker, who made God? Did He make himself, because everything you just said implied that He also would have needed a maker. So is their another super-being who made God? But who made this super-being? You can go on and on with that and still not come to a justifiable conclusion.

I absolutely hate how you say the universe is "random."

We know how parts of nature were built, the processes that the

y went through and whatnot. We also know that

these occurrences were not "random" as you claim them to be. For example, let us take the theory of plate tectonics. A recently developed theory, it states that Earths plates were all once connected to form a supercontinent called Pangea. Without going into the details, I can tell you that we know how t

he plates move, how earthquakes occur, how volcanic eruptions occur etc. These occurrences are not "random." They happen for a reason, a reason that science explains. Now, I'm not saying that we have absolute proof of everything that is going on in this world. Science

has never accepted the word proof. But we do have very good reasons to believe that such occurrences did happen.


Regarding morals, science won't just write our values out for us. But as an atheist, I can tell you that I am at no shortage of values. For example, I know what is right and what is wrong, without needing to be threatened by the prospect of going to hell. The point is, you do not need to have faith in something to be a good person.
You are right that many of todays prominent religions are similar in nature, and that all of those religions have survived for relatively long amounts of time. But that can be connected to the point I made earlier: religion is an easy way to answer our most pressing questions, and to fulfill the

human curiosity.
I'll pass over you trying to define atheism because that's just no

t a conversation worth having. I do not believe in God, that's atheism. Not believe = the absence of belief. I would think that to be obvious.
Finally the part I've been eager to get to. You seem to be saying that science being rewritten through every new discovery takes away its legitimacy. Are you implying that stubbornly keeping the same theories/beliefs for thousands and thousands of year makes religion more legitimate? Does it not bother you that a man living 2000 years ago believed the exact same things that you do now?
OF COURSE religion pretends to know ev

erything. It claims to know how the world began, the values I should hold, that a super-being is watching over us at all times etc.

Sacerdotus writes:

I used to be an atheist so I know very well where you stand. The very fact that you know right from wrong can be used to prove an intelligent being instilled this into evolving man for self-preservation. Let's say God did not create us and everything happened randomly. How did this u

niverse, this planet, evolution - each unconscious agents- know that human beings needed a conscience?Other non-human animals do all kinds of violent things to each other without even thinking twice as human beings do. Would it not make sense to instill a conscience in every species in order to preserve life and order on the planet? Evolutionists hardly touch on this matter and I can understand why. It is hard.. very hard to find evidence of the "conscience" evolving in human beings.
One does not have to be religious to be a moral person; however, Atheism can often open up a person to ideas that devalue human beings s

uch as Communism, Socialism, Utilitarianism, and so on. It is very hard to find an Atheist who feels all human life deserves a chance to live, including the unborn, elderly and the sick. Many Atheists despite knowing Biology and Embryology, advocate abortion and infanticide. Nations with Atheist leaders do not have a good human rights track record.Religion will always exist in societies no matter what. Yes it may provide some answers to curiosities, but to believers they see something more.
I mentioned the definition of Atheism for a reason. Many Atheists are confused about what the word actually means. Atheism is a rejection of God/gods. That is what the word literally means. It has nothing to do with a

bsence of belief, or unbelief.
No, my saying that science is often rewritten does not mean that science is not valid. What I meant was that it is not absolute. We cannot rely on it as a means to an end. The difference between science and religious ideas that are old is that latter deal with morals not the physical

world per se.
There has been science out there claiming non-white people are not humans. Science created the atomic bomb, is the cause of the pollution we see today with its technological ideas and so on. I am assuming this man of 2000 yrs ago you referred to is Jesus and to that I say, how can ideas such as "love your neighbor as yourself, feed the hungry, clothed the naked, visit the sick

etc" be something bad for humanity?
Religion when practiced faithfully without human weaknesses, ambition and polemics is a force for good not evil. Where has science or anyone else done work similar to that of Mother Theresa? Where has science or anyone else fought for rights such as Dr. King, a Baptist m

Religion does not pretend to know everythin

g about the universe. It does not need to because its end is God not the physical world. During times of distress, sickness and death, science or any other academic field mean nothing to a person suffering. Religion is there as a comfort.

My Response:

You know how wolves stay in packs, well that's what humans did to0. Ancient humans did fight people who were not part of their packs so as to protect themselves. Such packs (or divisions of groups) still can be found in the forms of countries, ethnic backgrounds, and religions. If you think a dog doesn't have a conscience, then you're mistaken. True we are more advanced than any other species, but that unity took a long time to build up.

Let me point out to you that commun


m and socialism are much more idealistic systems that are meant to help the poor. Such types of systems are what Jesus would probably advocate, so it is ironic that they are tied to atheism.

There is no credible science out there that says that white people "are not humans." Yes, the atomic bomb was created thanks to science, but are you really trying to suggest that science is a bad thing?

Quotes like loving your neighbor as you love your self are great, but what about the parts in the bible where we are taught to kill our children if God tell us to, or that homosexuality is a sin, or that orders Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again. Much of the discrimination in todays society has been created by religion.


Okay fine, if my Santa Clause argument wasn't good enough for you I'll give you another example. Does the Boraflora mean anything to you? Well, I could claim him to be my God. How about the pasta monster, or Mr. Meatballs, or Palamania? I could come up with a trillion of those (hence the statistic).
Now, your right that proof was perhaps not the best word to use. But your paragraph about finding the proof of God at its source disgusts me. How do you claim to know all of these things about God if you indeed believe that religion does not claim to know everything? Also, the fact that I have to bow to him and do everything on his terms makes me a bit of slave doesn't it?

Sacerdotus writes:
People call God by any name, it does not take away from God. A father

in a family; one can call daddy, papa, old man, etc. Every society has called God by names their experience and linguistic limitations allow them to. However, calling God "pasta monster," "Mr. Meatballs," or "Palamania" would not make sense because you are defining God by using a created thing not a qualitative attribute. How can the creator be a created thing? This is why God gave Moses the name when asked, "I Am who Am" which basically means, He is the absolute.
Proving something does not mean one knows everything. I can prove to you that 2 + 2 = 4, that does not mean I know every mathematical concept in the universe. Having proof of God does not mean one knows everything about God. It means that one has ideas that show the belief in the existence of God is valid.
Bowing to God and doing things on His terms does not equate to being a slave. In America all registered voters must serve on juror's duty. This is mandatory. Does that make American citizens slaves? No, of course not. When one has authority over you, it is expected that you have deference and show duty to that authority.

My Response:

Well then, if I told you that I thought God was the equivalen

t of Satan. Someone who took life away from humans and was evil, what would you say? You couldn't disprove that could you?

A creator has to be created, because nothing can come out of nowhere right? I also think your jury example is misguided. If you were told that you had to go to jury duty for 2-5 hours every week, it would then be a different story.

And I will certainly not be submissive to any authority who probably doesn't even exist.


By saying that God is imaginary, I mean that the chances of him existing are not even worth considering. Again, if tomorrow I saw Jesus on T.V, I would say, "crap, I was wrong." But that won't happen. Your whole rant about needing to know all these things about the universe to know whether God is imaginary could be used by me to challenge the existence of God. For example, I could say:
"You say God is imaginary but that has no substance. What is your contrast for this? In order for you to make this claim you would have to know everything about everything. You would need to know about matter, space, time, dimensions. You would need to know for a fact that this universe is really all there is and there isn't a multiverse or other dimensions with other beings existing in other space/time continuum's."
This would give me the exact same affect. An argument that could be used on both sides of dispute is not a credible one.

Sacerdotus writes:

Why are chances of God existing not considerable to you?
By saying God is imaginary, that is making a claim that you saw everything there is to see in the universe and therefore concluded that there is no God. I doubt Jesus would use TV to show Himself, but He is expected to come again through faith.
Well the contrast is this: Quantum Physics. I am a science student, particularly in physics. In Quantum physics anything is possible. I do know about matter, space, time and dimensions. We can start a whole knew blog on this topic. It was actually physics that lead me to God, so to speak.
Do you know that all matter, all space, all energy is being held together by a force that we still don't know about? This force or particle is believed to be the Higgs Boson or "God particle." Moreover, subatomic particles called quarks and gluons disappear and appear out of nowhere. Where did they go? Where did they come from? It contradicts materialism/physicalism.
It is obvious there is more out there than this universe that we can perceive with our senses. The more we learn about subatomic particles, the more we see many things thought to be impossible are probably possible such as time travel, passing through walls, invisibility, bilocation etc.

My Response:

God could exist, I'm not claiming to know for sure. It's just that the chances of him existing are incredibly low. Again, I disagree that I would have to know everything to think that God doesn't exist. In fact, if anyone did, it would have to be you since you're the one claiming that he exists in the first place.

I do know much about Quantum physics, and what you say sounds interesting, but then again, God is an easy way out of the mystery.


Finally, your example of a wife is interesting but again, I don't think it proves anything. As a child, I could have loved Santa Clause (sorry to use this example again but its a good one) and wanted him to exist more than anything. But when my parents told me to dump him, I did even though I liked him so much. Loving God does not prove his existence.

Sacerdotus writes:

Well Santa Claus did exist as St. Nicholas. So children shouldn't get so depressed when they find out the exaggerated version of him is just for fun. The point I was trying to make with the rose vs diamond question is that proof is subjective. Instead of asking everyone for proof of God, ask God. Let your mind and heart do the research on their own just like your mind and heart knows how to show love to a wife or loved one in its own way.

My Response:

My Santa Claus example is a metaphorical one and your answering it as a literal argument. I do not care if he existed as St. Nicholas. It has nothing to do with my point. The point is, kids are willing to let go what they are told, while adults aren't.

Finally, your sentence on asking God is ridiculous. What do you expect to happen? Am I supposed to hear a voice answering right now? My heart and my mind do not need someone to lean on, to hope for favors from, or to spend time with. I am perfectly happy the way I am, an atheist.

Also, if God really could be anything, or the "unknown" as I like to call it. I would believe in such a God. But that is not what he really represents to most people, and you know it.

Quick Question: If God created everything, then why did he create evil?


  1. Response is here. Why not just comment on blog?

  2. Anyone needing to support their argument for evolution against creationism might like some of the stuff that is being written on themanicmessiah website. It offers compelling argument against Jesus as the son of God. As a non believer it's refreshing to hear la proper presentation rather than ramblings from a soap box