April fools’ day

Mike Ritt in his very limited knowledge thinks he is justified in renaming April fools Atheist day for the simple reason a book of not so good stories has in one of its many pages that the fool has said in his heart there is no god. And I readily admit that would be a fool. However, anyone who can say it loudly, with good reason, cannot by any standard of measure be called a fool. In this contest, Mike is the bigger fool.

First, Mike, argues poorly when he writes

Ironically, this would give the person claiming that there is no God, some of the very characteristics of God.

for all the atheist need to say in response is if the god is omnipresent but is not found in any one given place, then either this god doesn’t exist or the claim that it is omnipresent is a false attribution and should be dropped.

Mike, who thinks atheists are fools, tells us to know whether a god exists, he turns to the bible. A claim, as ridiculous as claiming the evidence for Batman is in DC comic. It is a bad argument.

The claim. made in Romans 9:20 that nature is divine can only be mouthed by an idiot. On the contrary, we must almost want to agree with Aristotle that nature is evil not divine. We will go beyond him and say, we being part of nature, albeit, conscious part of a whole, nature just is. Good or bad is a matter of judgement that comes only through knowledge.

And for Mike to display as his poster boy, Paul the fraud, we can only conclude he is of very limited intelligence and it is for people like him that April fools’ exist.



and explanations

Many a theist accuse atheists or judge atheism by what they believe atheism doesn’t/ can’t answer. I don’t know whether atheism is to answer why birds fly and whether failure to do this makes it false.

In this article by Eric makes it his main point to create a problem which the only way he sees out of it is to invoke the unknown. He asks,

Everything can be explained purely naturally through a study of the natural world. In short, nature exists “naturally,” not supernaturally.

If such is the case, however, then how did nature get here to begin with?

Why must he assume that Nature, which encompasses all there is, had to come from somewhere. This information cannot be given by experience. All we see is things changing from one form to another but never a thing arising out of nothing. To therefore ask where nature comes from is to leave the province of experience and delve into that which is better called speculative reason.

I contend that we have no way of knowing if there are any supernatural things. In fact, what is supernatural is not clearly defined.

Eric thinks he has argued against atheism by asking why anyone would believe something from nothing is possible while not realizing the theist believes that a being living in a timeless and space-less somewhere created all things out of nothing. If anything, the naturalists at least believes matter cannot be created or destroyed and could be eternal and that it requires no force outside of itself to transform.

Why the theist insists that the origin of life, if it had any, is supernatural is beyond my understanding. To claim that this and that are a result of this supernatural action, I think, requires evidence in their support.