Comments on: A Letter to an Atheist – PART I: Do you “believe” in Atheism?

By: vic

vic — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:35:34 +0000

I didn’t read your banter about ‘belief’ but the too much coffee man comic was on digg and i felt compelled, no, God lead me to write directly to you (i keed)…with the faith that you would knock faith itself and, with bias, show atheism as reasoning to a better life. BUT, your showing that atheism and faith are one in the same thing is a conclusion i can agree with because the nature of the two are extremely similar.

the question that i always pose to myself when i have too much coffee is ‘how can one believe atheism to be right without considering the relationship it has to faith?’ if we consider the reasoning in science separate from the innate human component of faith, how can we as individuals know atheism is right without first believing that it might be right? how can atheism exist without faith? and if atheism cannot exist without faith, what is atheism exactly…which is what you tried to conclude to in your article above. well, the nature of faith is to believe in something… and from what i understand atheism doesn’t argue that believing in something isn’t wrong, but using faith to believe in something is not reasoning enough to believe in it. so where that leads me is that ‘atheism is a doctrine of faith that declares that faith alone is not enough to believe in something as fact’. it is here, i fear that atheism goes back on itself, and loses the whole notion of faith while doing so.

faith and fact are not the same, they do not stem from the same place and will not lead to the same place, no pun intended. Einstein talked a lot about religion and schience, but he said this also… imagination is more important than knowledge. if your knowledge leads you astray from your imagination, that’s a problem. but look at the scientific method. imagination leads to reasoning, which leads to fact, which leads back to imagination. if all of life is an experiment, wouldn’t it pay to have a little imagination? try having a faith, but don’t have faith in not believing in something (atheism).

By: Aldo

Aldo — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:38:57 +0000

Hello
I came accross this page and was incredibly surprise at how
archangel draws his conclusions.
Unfortunately to a large degree, they are grossly incorrect and also demonstate a comple lack of
understanding of what natural selection is and what its rammifications lead to.
The statement “…then our species would give way to a more sophisticated and biologically successful species …”
is a prime example .
Biological evolution / natural selection does not necessarily mean that the ‘next generation’ will be biologically superior or more
sophisticated” in actual fact , as it has happened over countless centuries, evolution can lead a species to
complete an utter extinction, or it can even create a generation which is less resistant to environmental impacts.
To surmise that the more evolved species is more sophisticated or ‘better’ is erronous. Evolution in a biological sense doesn’t necessarily
mean that it needs to be better, it can also be worse.
Before commenting of natural selection archangel should really understand how natural selection works.

By: Sumna Inc » Monday morning

Sumna Inc » Monday morning — Sun, 13 May 2007 19:26:18 +0000

[...] blog is also quite interesting, and covers many topics ranging from athiesm to [...]

By: Krystalline Apostate

Krystalline Apostate — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:42:17 +0000

Niran:
Niran defends the law of conservation of matter. Sorry, didn’t realize elementary comprehension was a problem.
No, beep’s right. Unless you don’t understand what the word YOU means.
Let’s not hash this out here. I’m sure Archangel’s getting a little tired of this. You know where to find me.

By: niran

niran — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:24:54 +0000

Niran defends the law of conservation of matter. Sorry, didn’t realize elementary comprehension was a problem.

By: beepbeepitsme

beepbeepitsme — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:35:19 +0000

Huh? Niran is the conservation of matter?

By: niran

niran — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:12:00 +0000

But you’re denying the Law of Conservation of Matter. If you debunk me, you debunk the law. Congrats,

By: Krystalline Apostate

Krystalline Apostate — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:46:40 +0000

Congratulations on debunking the scientific law of conservation of mass/matter.
No, I said YOU had been debunked.
This is really sad.
But I expected it.

By: niran

niran — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:40:09 +0000

Definitions of CONSERVATION OF MATTER on the Web:

* Matter may be neither created nor destroyed. A piece of matter may under go a CHANGE OF PHASE or may react chemically either within itself or with other matter, so it may not be recognizable in the same form, but the amount of matter does not change.
http://www.esse.ou.edu/glossary_st.html

* In any chemical reaction, matter changes form; it is neither created nor destroyed.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_a-d.html

* conservation of mass: a fundamental principle of classical physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Congratulations on debunking the scientific law of conservation of mass/matter. You’re well on you way on the road to greatness.

By: Krystalline Apostate

Krystalline Apostate — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:03:49 +0000

Hey niran: Consider yourself debunked. We will see if you are as graceless in defeat as you are in imagined victory.