Very interesting and thought provoking response to the anti-God sages. If agnostic is defined as "someone who does not know or is unable to know if God exists", I wonder how many people are really agnostic to some degree and rely almost exclusively on faith to carry them through? How many scientists are agnostic in the other direction. Do not know or are unable to know if God does not exist? I know one thing, I will never be an atheist. They have no cool holidays.

An athiest is like a man sitting in a hole, refusing to even consider that there might be something else outside the hole.

This article and the thoughts of Professor Walker were a pure breath of fresh air. I have had my fill (and more) of the likes of "The God Delusion". We have a family member who has swallowed "the reasoning" and "the thinking" of this book (and those like it) hook, line and sinker (and rod, tackle box, hip waders etc etc and more.)
A few years ago, I thought the existence of (well, the actual, practical, serious influence of) "anti-christs" was minimal. Not anymore. And its not hard to find. You should see what your library shelves are stocked with. (well, at least outside of Utah)
Those authors/anti-christs like to frequently point out how gullible religious people are. What they forget is the consumers/believers of their own rantings are the absolute pros of gullible.

It seems Dawkins and Walker are just two knots in oppsite ends of the same rope. Neither of them have anything concrete to say, other than express their own personal views and emotions. Walker can't understand Dawkins and he can't effectivly contritict Dawkins. Dawkins can not make an effective argument for his opinons; so you have two rabid dogs snarling at each other trying to look important, impress someone and make a buck selling their bland veiws. Typical of so much of todays publishing.

My goodness "rabid dogs" Mr. Walker simply gave is opinion of the book, backed by his logic. If they are two knots on the opposite ends of the same rope, that is a very, very long rope.

It is religionists that are in a hole and don't consider outside possibilities. It is atheists that actually consider religion and then reject it for being another origin of creation fable of which there are many quite different tales based on culture.

You will know one for sure about athesists, that is that they are liars. To say there is no God, you would have to go through the entire universe to seek him, and for a person to do that they would have to be God

Think outside the box people!(box= mortality)When we r outside lookin' in, we'll c how myopic we humans can b. Faith is like a faint light in a dark sky.If u look directly at it you can't quite c it. There is a scientific reason 4 that (look it up 4 yourself)but science can't tell u Why we can SEE! Or Hear a rapsody! Science Is Knowledge. But ALL knowledge is Already Existing! We mortals can only discover it a teaspoon at a time, such babies we r. We then must figure out what's n the teaspoon. When Christ walked the earth, scientific knowledge of jet engine dynamics, Salk vaccine, nukes, etc and stuff we don't know yet was all there already. We just hadn't got to that teaspoonful yet. So it is with atheists. They just haven't gotten to that particular teaspoon yet. As 4 true Faith .. I'm still workin' on that teaspoon.. but I'm gettin' there!

Atheist don't know and believer don't know, but it is good that we have the desire and courage to search. It is the crazy fanatics that think they know that spoil it for everyone.

cg are you trying to say line upon line precept upon precept

Can you see gravity?
taste gravity?
smell gravity?
touch gravity?
hear gravity?

NO, or course, to all. Yet athiest still belive in Gravity.

Yet only know gravities existance by it's effects it has on other things of mass.

We can ask all the same questions of Evolution, yet athiest will believe in it even though you must believe in massive amounts assumptions to believe it.

It seems all things take a certain level of faith.

It just depends on what you choose to belive.

We can believe in God for the same reasons,

we observe his works, creations, the effects it has on others, the miraccles, the answers to prayers, how itcan effect change in people'slives, etc.

While in the past specific religious indivuals and churches were wrong on their scientific notions. (or even modern ones suchthat deny blood transfusions)

Justproves that specific views and interpretations were or are wrong.

None of this has disproven religion in general, scriptures, or Gods existance.

In fact one science progam on TV has shows that the 10 plagues on Egypt were a natural process.

HOw did moses know and get them all right and in the proper order?

Moses said God told him.

A believer says the non-believer is wrong. Neither can prove their arguments, and thus must rely on logic.

Logic belongs to the scientific world. Game called on account of one side having an edge.

Seriously folks, does a God need us to argue his or her case? Is that God so lame that they need us, little old us, to defend him or her?

If that is the case, then let me say your God is too small. Get a more powerful God. Get a Christian God.

What the heck are you talking about?

Comparing gravity with God is stupid. We can demonstrate gravity with scientific accuracy, time after time, case after case it can be measured and documented. It is not the same with God, if it were we would all be believers.

You just repeated what I said.

The we can only know gravity exists by it's effects on objects of mass and how it makes other objects behave.

But you cant see touch or smell or hear or feel gravity itself. (you don't see gravity just it's effect on object causing it to fall toward and object of greater mass)

We only know of it's existance by measuring it's effect on other objects.

You can measure the effects of religion, following scripture, prayer, existance of miracles, etc.

Word of Wisdom has been proven time and time again, healthy moderate diet with active lifestyle is most healty.

I do not know any one who grew poorer over time paying tithing.

people who serve other and love other first are moe happy tha self center people.

Society seeems to be much better and heallthier when everyone loves each other, don't steal, kill covet, smoke, etc.

Medicine has taken note the prayer does seem have an positive effect in the healing process. (Not everyone gets healed, but more do than don't)

I could go on.

If want to measure scientifically the effects of God on people you can that should prove as gravity.

Logic cannot discover truth; it can only eliminate error. One has to determine whether the premises used in a logical arguement are true or not. That can only be done by using the empirical method (science) or by receiving personal revelation. The empirical method is severely limited. What I was taught in high school science and about how to raise a baby is no longer "scientifically true" today. It was either totally erroneous science or partial truth. After the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics made it into science, I had my simplistic understanding of physics from my teachers completely reversed. The same will be true for those going to high school today. Science moves toward the truth but never gets there. Personal revelation alone will burn itself into the soul, but no one can transfer the knowledge to another person. Each needs to find out for himself. God does more than exist, He lives just as we do, and we are his literal children. God can be read about and meditated about, but only revelation such as Peter received about Christ's divinity is sufficient to cause one to know: "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

Why do we have the need for our ideas and beliefs to be "better than" or "more truthful" than those of others? Do we doubt our ideas and beliefs so much that we cannot rest until all other ideas and beliefs which do not agree 100% with our own are utterly destroyed?

It is much better for each to have his/her own ideas and beliefs, and only share them with others in a spirit of sharing, not one of conflict. Regardless of one's beliefs, culture, ideas, etc., attempting to over-rule, or rule over, other's thoughts and beliefs is bad for everyone. How many wars, how much suffering, how much death and misery owe their existence not to religion or atheism, but to proponents who insist on fighting with those who don't think the same as they do? I served a mission years ago. Never in those two years did I have the need to fight or argue with anyone. I taught those who wanted to be taught, I respected those who did not. Those who wished me to "bash" over interpretations of scripture or science or whatever, I didn't bother with. It was a wonderful experience.

God is, was, and ever will be.
Non-believers can argue that His existance is unprovable, thus He does not exist.
Yet, we believers still believe.
His influence in our lives changes us; emotionally, spiritually, psycologically, and in some cases physiologically. We become 'new' beings. How do these changes take effect if the 'thing' that caused the changes doesnt exist?

Larry H: What you are writing, that atheists won't rest until 100% believe what they do, and you are frustrated with that. Well guess what? That is exactly what many if not most of those of us who don't believe in Mormonism feel. You won't rest, won't stop coming to the neighbors door, and won't stop legislating to your own unique beliefs until 100% believe what you do. And it is frustrating. It really does go both ways, you just won't see it.

The basic problem with hard core atheists like Dawkins is that they think they own a patent on rationality. Historically, modern science and rational thought is a direct development of belief in a universal God who created the universe in a rational pattern. (See several books by Professor Rodney Stark) Atheism has claimed credit for all sorts of ideas that it had nothing to do with.

Two of the biggest questions in science directly point rational thinkers toward an intelligent Creator: First, there are several dozen physical constants that, under current science, have no specific reason to be at their precise values, but we know that, if those values varied by as much as 10% (sometimes 1%) up or down, life in the universe would be impossible. Why are they at the precise values needed for living planets? Second, the creation of the first cell is even MORE mysterious now than it ever was. We know that DNA and the protein systems that operate a living cell are exactly like an automated, self-replicating factory. Who programmed the first DNA computer? Anyone who has programmed computers knows that random changes in code just stop everything. Inanimate objects can't create living cells.

To the truth

You do not understand Atheism, so don't try to speak for us. Not all Atheists “believe in Gravity.” The popular concept of “Gravity” is merely an hypothetical construct employed by scientists as an epistemic placeholder for an unknown phenomenon or variable. It has no positive existence or ontological status. Scientists quantify and measure the rate of acceleration of one body toward another without needing to have “faith” in “gravity”. Only when they need to explain what they are doing to simpletons such as yourself do they need to use concepts such as “gravity” so you can have an inkling of what they are up to. Obviously, their “dumbing it down” is justified for your sake.

Only if you already believe there is a god can you “observe his works, creations, the effects it has on others, the miracles, the answers to prayers, how it can effect change in people's lives, etc.” Without god, the rest of us get along fine in a natural world, without “miracles” or prayers, and we change our own lives.

Your Moses logic is just laughable. You need to get a clue.

Walker's responses are a joke. Don't waste your time.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

- Albert Einstein

Now! Everyone cool off and go eat your cookies.

Raymond Takashi Swenson,
You are mistaken that “The basic problem with hard core atheists like Dawkins is that they think they own a patent on rationality.” Dawkins appeals to rationality and reason because he assumes it is a widely spread, natural capacity of all human beings. Only religion interferes with a person’s rational abilities. You testify of this yourself by trying to make your defense of god and religion “rational” so we will be persuaded to believe.

You are also completely mistaken that “Historically, modern science and rational thought is a direct development of belief in a universal God who created the universe in a rational pattern.” You are completely distorting Stark’s points, and misrepresenting him as though he was a Christian and apologist. He is not. Despite his claim NOT to be an “atheist”, he qualifies as one because he has admitted “I don’t know what I believe.” Atheism is exactly what it says: “a” = without + “theism” = belief in god. To be “without a belief in god” is not the same thing as believing there is NO god. An “agnostic” is one who is “without gnosis = knowledge of spiritual truths.” Stark is atheist.

To The Atheist:

Very interesting comments on the terms we so commonly use. Since I am not an agnostic or atheist but share the same planet with you I thought you may answer a personal question? Are you saying you are living your life 'without a belief in God' (excuse my capitalizing here) as opposed to living your life with 'proof there is no God?' I think many atheist claim there is no God but I find that just as impossible to prove (as opposed to knowing/believing) as it is for a person to prove there is a God. I can ask a person if they love their mother and if they say yes I can ask them to prove it. They can't. They can show me all the nice things they do for her but that does not prove anything. Only they know what they truly feel. It is those honest feelings within us that define us. We may differ, but we should co-exist with a mutual respect for each individual's right to feel as they choose. I personally find the differences in my wide range of friends both challenging and invigorating.

ramper

Yes, I am living my life 'without a belief in god.' I and other atheists have long recognized that the absence of a god cannot be proven.

Like so many “theists” who want to create a straw man of their opposition’s beliefs, you “…think many atheist claim there is no God”. You are wrong.

As for personal feelings, you operate based on stereotypes and assumptions that could use some healthy “airing out”. You say, “I can ask a person if they love their mother and if they say yes I can ask them to prove it. They can't.” Baloney!

“They can show me all the nice things they do for her but that does not prove anything.” Nonsense! It proves everything when it comes to love. The feelings are worthless without the actions.

Too many women allow their husbands and boyfriends to beat them while saying they “love” them, but the words are the lie. The actions tell the truth. A man who beats a woman no more “loves” that woman than Hitler “loved” the Jews! Your so-called "true feelings" are most often fantoms and meaningless sentiments that fail to produce action. Action is reality.

To continue the explanation, I also live my life without belief in ghosts, unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, astrology, leprechauns, and many other mythical fables and ideas. I am under no compulsion to "prove" that such things do NOT exist. Those who claim they DO exist have that task. They fail repeatedly, just as those who assert there is a god continue to fail to "prove" it.

In the same sense, if you assert that you "love" another person, you have the onus to “prove” it. Just saying it as an “expression of honest feeling” is trivial. People say things all the time that they fail to demonstrate by their actions. That goes for god, as well. If a god claims to “love” the human race, god has an odd way of showing it: death, disease, destruction, pain, suffering. It seems a lot like the so-called “love” the abusive husband or parent shows others. Such “love” is a fable, just like leprechauns.

To The Atheist:

Well, thanks for answering my question. I think.
I am sure you do not speak for all atheists because I have heard, and read, some (is that better than many?) who claim to be atheists say there is no God. As for my love example my point was actions can mask true feelings. A point you seem to agree with at some level. I certainly do not disagree with you that people have a responsibility to put their feelings into action. But action is not always reality. A person can show all the love they want but that does not "prove" they really feel it.
Are we all not actors, for better or worse, at times in our lives? I certainly would not ask you to "prove" your belief and I feel no responsibility to try to "prove" my belief. As far as leprechauns not being real, well, I think I've got you there. Explain to me who that little guy in green is running around at all the Notre Dame football games.

I sent a response to "the atheiest" the other day but apperently it was denied by the DN, while the "the atheiest" was allowed to call me names and talk to me in condescending attitude.

In retropsecpect i realize the "the atheiest" had nothing to offer but hid own opinion,

And his hatred for God and those who believe in a God.

All the while ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of wars, tortures, suffering, atrocites, rapes, murders, and otheer sorts of "suffering" were afflicted not in the name God or religion but for other reasons.

While those who believe in God and religion can explain all this by saying it is because Gaod gave us agency and many chose to mis-use it.

But if you don't believe in God what is the explaination?

SO, What's a believer supposed to do with what you say when all you offer is opinion, hate, and attitude?

Nothing of course.

Religious believers don't live in a limited world, but a limitless world of possiblities.

The only limits they face are limits others, like you, wish to place on them.

All the greatest thinkers, inventors, scientists and influential people were religious or spiritual.

the truth,

"...his hatred for God and those who believe in a God."

I never said I hated god (I can't hate what I don't believe in) nor people who believe in god. Why falsely accuse me? That is a hateful thing to do. Does your god condone that?

"the overwhelming majority of wars, tortures, suffering, atrocites, rapes, murders, and otheer sorts of 'suffering' were afflicted not in the name God or religion but for other reasons." False. You cannot possibly support that claim with facts.

"Religious believers don't live in a limited world, but a limitless world of possiblities." No, religious people live in a world limited by their absurd notions of god. Then they blame everybody else (the "sinners") for the problems in the world. How cowardly is that?

"All the greatest thinkers, inventors, scientists and influential people were religious or spiritual." Prove it. Name "the greatest thinkers, etc." and tell me what religion they belonged to. This is more religious mythology. It is not true.

I dont to give proo and eveidence, because you quite able to do your resear and study an find the answers for your self.

But as guide I will help on one point:

How many 10's of million were killed or put in gulags and forced slavery by communists. IN the name what religion did they do this?

All the conquering, killing, pilliaging and enslaving of others and other atrocities were performed by The Romans, the The Greeks, or Ghanghis Khan, in the name of what religion was that done? Or was it for the power and Glory of Rome or whatever empire they represented?

Russia Just attacked Georgia, in the name of what religion was that done?

When germany attacked the world and killed millions among other atrocities in world war 2 was that about religion? Or about power and the ideology of Aryan superiority and hatred of a religion? It was a war started by national socialists, is that a religion?

Need I go on?

I think this is a good start, you can easily find answers to the other points if you are willing to put forth a little effort and intellectual honesty.

Sorry, I didn't check the first line here's how it should have read:

I don't need to give you proof or evidence because you are quite able and capable of doing the research and study and find the answers for yourself.

To the truth,

Religion was a key part of most ALL of the atrocities you cited.

When political, religious, or other kinds of leaders decide to conquer, kill, pillage and enslave others, they employ religious justifications to mobilize the ignorant masses to do their bidding. That has almost ALWAYS been the case! The Romans and Greeks appealed to religious authority in EVERY case. They called upon their god(s) for victory over their enemies in EVERY war. Over the years that appeal may have been to “pagan” gods or to the “christian god”, but there was ALWAYS a religious appeal and justification. ALWAYS. Genghis Khan and the Mongol’s justified their expansion and warfare in name of Shamanism and Ülgen, the god of the Upper World, or Tengri, whose Western Children (the Khats) were the “good” ones and the Eastern ones were wicked. Germany’s expansion was justified and motivated by Christianity, including the Third Reich and Nazi movement. Quotes of Hitler’s appeal to christianity to justify destrying the “christ killers” are commonplace. And yes, National Socialism was definitely a “religion”. It drew upon the justifications of several “christian” theologians, and was only possible because of 1900 years of Christian-inspired anti-semitism!

the truth,

Furthermore, I HAVE done the research and found the answers for myself. Your saying that is just evasion because you have no argument. You are wrong.

Go back to school (at a real school) and learn history. You have demonstrated that you still cling to the 200 year-old, obsolete, outdated, wretched and erroneous views of history promulgated by Talmage and Roberts in the LDS Church.

RE: The Atheist

I assume you have conceded the leprechaun at the ND games is real?

Isn;t it amazing, if you what you say is true, how religion or spriutalism has has such great influence and power in every disparate culture in every place and time in the history of the earth.

HOw could something, as you claim, is so made up, imaginary, baseless, has no substance have such never ending influence in culturew and empirew governemnets, and all leaders, and all people.

If what you say is true that should not have been the case, and the effects religion and spiritualism should have died out long ago.

And Yet it has not and it's influence and power is as strong as ever.

BY Occam's razor if we have eliminated all other possibilities then what is left must the answer:

There must a basis or kernel of truth in religion, in a belief in A God or Gods, that a more spiritual way of living can gain us a higher state after death.

Atheist or not, I'm going with what 94% of all elite scientists of the National Academy of Sciences believe: There is probably no god. These are the smartest guys on the planet. But lets not discount the several studies conducted showing a very strong correlation between high IQ and lack of faith in a god. Why is this? Think about it!

Most honest Atheists will not say "absolutely" no god, but will say there "probably" is no god because there is simply no evidence. We give the same likelihood of yellow dwarfs flying in the sky as there is a male dictator and mind reader in the sky watching everything we do. It's truly absurd, if you are really honest and you really think hard about it.