Answers needed

[Louis Chérubin]

Not enough fossil evidence! (you mean compared to none for god)
I think we both know that NO amount of fossil evidence will sway your belief. (otherwise your indoctrination would not be successful)
We also both know that proving evolution wrong does not make the imaginary skydaddy the next likely reason for our existence.
I you are a believer, you have no choice but to see the world through rose coloured glasses. Speak to the many here who have recently deconverted.
Your automatic subconscious agenda is for a god to be the creator. We, as atheists, don't care one way or the other. I'll change my mind tomorrow.
All you have to do is to prove that god exists outside your head ... There's a nobel prize in it for you.
Most theists proof lately has been "because the sky is blue" or "only god can make a beautiful flower"

catch...

Hey. You were supposed to ignore that!   Feel free to discuss the first two points I made if you'd like.

---

1. Human thought: When I believe that my thoughts are valid, I implicitly recognize supernatural reality. The problem is, I can’t not believe in the validity of my thoughts. Even if I say, “My thoughts are not valid,” I am trusting that my lack of trust in my thoughts is valid. (!?) If I say, “My thoughts are the result of chemical interactions,” I’m essentially saying, “My thoughts are not valid,” since what basis do I have to think that chemical reactions would produce rational thought?
   

I think that is the argument used by CS Lewis (though please correct me if I'm wrong), which I'll quote here for reference (from C.S. Lewis, Miracles, 1947):

All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really 'must' be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into the realities beyond them - if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work - then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the universe but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound - a proof that there were no such things as proofs - which is nonsense.

Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' (Possible Worlds)

I have to be honest it makes no more sense to me when you say it than when he does. I'm not trying to be obstinate here - I genuinely don't get it and accept that that may make me an idiot. I would like to understand it though so can you or anyone tell me a) what this means and b) if it's a valid argument. Thanks

C. S. Lewis did word it nicely. The very fact that he used it gives it tremendous weight, right?    I'm sorry you don't follow. We must be on slightly different brain waves.

---

Some people, it seems, have a desperate need to seek out the most powerful thing they can imagine and then prostrate themselves before it. It's even sadder when there's no reason even to suspect the thing is there at all.

Are you bashing Anselm, Descartes, and Leibniz!? Btw, did you ever look at that Dawkins video? I wasted at least four minutes searching for it. I'm still feeling miffed you thought I was lying.   JK

---

1. Does God exist?

Depends on what you think gods are.

2. Where did the universe come from?

The universe is very old, very large and the answers are hard to come by.

3. Does my life have a purpose?

That is entirely up to you.

4. Why do people suffer?

Design flaw.

5. Is there life after death?

So far, yes.  The names change but yes, life goes on after they bury your sorry ass.

6. Can I distinguish right from wrong?

Not if you're dependent on a holy book.  But it is easier than it looks.

7. Can people know truth?

It requires some care.  Once you pervert the meaning of "believe" to mean "assuming what you like", it becomes almost impossible.  If you care about the truth you've got to maintain standards.

Sorry for being point form.  copy/pasting from the internet.

Fixed that (the part I bolded) for you.

1. We've already had a messy god definition discussion. Please assign whatever meaning you feel like. . .

4. "Design flaw." Did you really mean to use that wording?


I actually didn't copy/paste, but why would that be wrong? Computers would be entirely worthless without such a function! I'm not claiming that these are original thoughts either. 

Thanks for responding anyway!