Neutrality and objectivity - concepts that are hotly debated. What counts as neutral? Certainly, as a critic of religion, few religious people would not describe me as neutral or objective. But from the point of view of a skeptic, my position is perfectly neutral and objective - I haven't accepted claims that are not backed by evidence. So, bizarrely, neutrality and objectivity are treated as subjective concepts! But I think I can make a case as to why skepticism is a neutral and objective position.

Skepticism, specifically empirical skepticism, can be shown as the best method for approaching claims of all kinds. By questioning ideas, it enforces a kind of natural selection on thought. An idea that is found to be entirely wrong will be discarded, an idea that is found to be incorrect in specific circumstances will be modified, and an idea that is found to be correct will be affirmed. However, even ideas that have been found to be correct will still be questioned, as we are constantly finding new evidence. This leads to our ideas not necessarily becoming true - we aren't sure yet if they ever can be completely true - but becoming less false.

So what is the reverse of skepticism? Dogmatism. The tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. Religions by their nature are inherently dogmatic - they have a central set of ideas that are never questioned within the religion. In light of new evidence, things rarely change. Instead the goalposts are shifted, so that the evidence suddenly isn't enough to challenge their ideas, or the evidence is outright dismissed or attacked. On the other side of the coin, they don't feel that they need evidence for their claims, or that their evidence is being ignored by those who disbelieve, or one of many other shaky arguments. With dogmatism, our ideas never change, only the excuses we make for them do.

So which system is more objective and neutral? One that modifies it's ideas based on the available evidence and proposes new ideas from the same? Or one that holds to the same ideas and ignores evidence altogether? You decide.

Here's a point we should all agree on - perhaps for different reasons, but nevertheless. The Universe. It's an amazing place, no matter how you look at it. Enormous spheres of continuous nuclear fusion scattered across space throw their light on interstellar dustclouds bigger than the solar system, onto giant gas planets covered in constantly raging storms, and even have it devoured by the inescapable gravitation of a black holes.

But what about our place in it? Most religions tell us to limit our view to this world. To them, it was specifically created, we were specifically created, and the rest of the universe is mainly scenery (I will note here that some religious groups, such as Mormons, have it as an explicit part of their doctrine that there is life on other planets.) Events of ultimate importance, they say, took place here - the resurrection of Jesus, the coming of Mohammed, the various children of Zeus, whatever. The various superbeings that they believe control reality all focus their efforts here, doing whatever it is they do.

But why would we think that? Earth is, on the grand scheme of things, insignificant. To us it is of vital importance, but if the planet were to vanish tomorrow, the universe at large would keep running the same as it had been. We are one planet orbiting one star in one galaxy. There are more than 7 trillion galaxies - large or dwarf - and more than 30 billion trillion stars (3*10^22) in the observable universe. So what makes us special? Nothing. Why would a creator god need to make so much extra stuff, if he has the power to create a universe? It doesn't make sense.

Whoacrap, missed some days. No excuses this time, it just slipped my mind. Shut up.

Today we'll talk about respect, where it applies, and what people think they have to respect. I'll begin with a short statement. I respect the right of an individual to believe what they choose. I would even be willing to stand up for this right, even though I may disagree with the belief itself. The right to free thought is one of the most important rights.

However, I am under no obligation to respect the beliefs themselves. If they are unjustified, it is my right to say that. If they're ridiculous, then I can point this out. This is the core of free speech  - to be able to say what others may not want to hear. People who oppose my beliefs are more than welcome to rebut my comments, or to make some of their own - they have exactly as much right to say what they want as I do. But the same process applies again - I will not hesitate to point out flaws in what they are saying.

Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are well established as basic rights. What isn't - and shouldn't be - established is freedom of action. Morally, you are free to think that homosexuality is bad, you are free to say homosexuality is bad but you are not free to enact legislation discriminating against them. You are not free to use your words to incite action against them. In a counterexample, I'm free to think religion is bad, I'm free to say it's bad, but I cannot legislate or incite action against religious people.

And if you dare claim otherwise, you'd better have some solid basis, or else I will tear your argument to shreds. I have even heard suggestions (from the US, where else) that preventing christians from discriminating against homosexuals is persecution. No. When your organisation doesn't have to pay taxes, is often automatically consulted in the public arena on any matters of ethics, has unparalleled access to world leaders, receives large donations from the rich and has entire governments listen to it's pronouncements...

You. Are. Not. Being. Fucking. Persecuted.

From carm.org, questions by Matt Slick. Warning - this guy is a total fuckwit. Seriously, avoid the site. He's a homophobic idiot whose reasoning skills are far smaller than his truly titanic ego.

How would you define atheism? 

As having the position of not believing in claims that a god exists

Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in
God)? 

False dilemma. My stance on the existence or not of god doesn't drive my actions. My stance on
other issues, such as people trying to force religion on me, does.

Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist? 

Nobody is trying to show God doesn't exist. What we are trying to show is that there are no good reasons to believe in one. Different things

How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality? 

Reasonably sure.

How sure are you that your atheism is correct? 

Atheism is only taking the position that you do not believe a god exists, not that you believe that no god exists. We're disbelieving your claim, not making one of our own. 

How would you define what truth is? 

Truth is that which is based on, grounded in, and reflected by that which we perceive to be real. No, you don't perceive your god to be real. That would take EVIDENCE, something you seem not to understand.
Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold? Because theism is unjustifiable. Easy.

Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?

Physicalist.

Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not? 

Atheism is not a worldview because it is only a rejection of a specific category of claims - that gods exist. Is the non-belief in pixies a worldview?

Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism? 

Because you try and shove your stupid religion down our throats, make laws based upon it, and practice discrimination against social groups with no moral standing whatsoever.

If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence? 

I never was, but I can tell you why I deny his existence. Because the christian god, as defined, CANNOT exist. It's a logical impossibility. No all caring god would create hell, for a start. I've got more, but I'm only going to type this for so long.

Do you believe the world would be better off without religion? 

Yes.

Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity? 

Yes.

Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder? 

No, but I believe it's unjustified.

Must God be known through the scientific method? 

To be proven to exist, yes. The bible is not good enough, personal experience is not good enough, arguments based in their entirety on a single logical fallacy are not good enough. We need proof.

If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God? 

If he's immaterial, then he can't interact with reality. If he can't interact with reality he doesn't exist. QED

Do we have any purpose as human beings?
Nope. Not inherently.

If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?

We can choose our own purpose. That is what makes life worth living.

Where does morality come from?

Our minds.

Are there moral absolutes?

Nope.

If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?

See above.

Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it?

Not in the metaphysical sense, but there are actions that I find to be abhorrent, which I judge to fall into a category that I name evil.

If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?

By the standards of my own conscience. I just don't think that genocide, child murder, rape in marriage, and slavery are things that are morally good.

What would it take for you to believe in God?

Demonstrable, testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence of an event that could not possibly be explained any other way than a creator deity.

What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?

Demonstrable, testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence of an event that could not possibly be explained any other way than a creator deity.

Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?
Present it and then we'll see.

Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?

I think that issue is too complex to answer either way.

Do you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion [sic]).

I believe in the perception of free will. The future is not determined (see quantum mechanics), therefore we perceive the outcome as being a result of free will. Whether or not we truly have free will is, in my view, not yet determined, and possibly unknowable.

If you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?

I don't take a position on the existence or not of free will.

If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time? If not, why not?
Why would a physical thing randomly stop obeying physical laws? Even ignoring that, something that does not exist in space or time cannot be said to exist at all!

If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?

We're done here. Moron.

Aaaaaaand the last ones. Finally! I could feel my braincells dying one by one reading these questions.

41. There are many skeptics who didn’t believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.

The existence of converts is not evidence for the existence of god. Just like the existence of people who think aliens exist is not evidence for the existence of aliens.

42. Albert Einstein said; “A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind”.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. 'If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it'." - Albert Einstein

43. A speaker in Hyde Park who was attacking belief in God, claimed that the world just happened. As he spoke, a soft tomato was thrown at him. “Who threw that?” He said angrily. A cockney from the back of the crowd replied; “No-one threw it – it threw itself!”

An unsubstantiated anecdotal account of a suicidal self-propelled vegetable is not evidence for the existence of god. Duh.

44. It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.

It's easier to believe that subatomic things are either particles or waves. It's also wrong - subatomic things have properties of both waves and particles. Just because something is easier to believe doesn't make it correct.

45. Stephen Hawkins [sic] has admitted; “Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, but it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist?”

Where did he admit this? And the bible says nothing of why the universe was created either. At least science has an approximately accurate view on when and how the universe began.

46. We cannot confuse God with man. With God in the equation, all things, including miracles are possible. If God is God, he is Creator of all, inclusive of scientific law. He is Creator of matter & spirit.

So? That's just circular reasoning - you assume that god exists and try to use that to prove that god exists.

47. If we are the product of evolution – by sheer accident, chance, then we are still evolving. Does it just so happen that we exist here today with everything so finely tuned for our living. as we now have it?

This again.

48. Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!

Many different species of what we think of as 'missing links' have already been found. Besides, this just goes back to the "Evolutionary theory might not be right (even though it is), therefore God" argument that's been popping up all the time.

49. God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?

Why doesn't he simply do something to prove his existence? As we've seen so far, to call the evidence incredibly paltry is to exaggerate to the extreme! Many of these arguments are based on logical fallacies or are just outright attacks!

50.Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.

Or, he was partially or wholly fictional, maybe?

And even more!

31. Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.

Eyewitness accounts written 40 years after? Life expectancy in those days meant that if you lived to 50, you were VERY old. And with all the strife about heresies and apocryphal texts, confusion and anger is an accurate representation of what happened. Does this mean they aren't true?

32. From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaological [sic] evidence to confirm many details we’re provided with in the Bible.

In the future, there will be archaeological evidence of New York, and the Spider-man comics are set there. Does this prove that Spider-man exists? Of course it doesn't. Just because there is archaeological evidence for some of the things in the bible does not mean that all the bible is true.

33. Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.

Yes, there can. Here's a list.

34. The evidence from liturature [sic] & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.

There is no evidence that anything of the supernatural things written about in the bible happened. In fact, not a single non-biblical or non-church source verifies any of it.

35. From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.

So what if some scientists were christian? That doesn't prove the religion true. See the oppression of Galileo, Copernicus and others, and even your own comments on evolution for counterexamples.

36. Science can explain ‘how’ something works, but not ‘why’ something works.

Why presupposes a narrative, something which reality lacks. So the question is not relevant.

37. Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present ‘discoveries’ may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.

And this is EXACTLY why science is a more accurate picture of the universe than religion.

38. Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn’t explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.

Actually, it doesn't. Abiogenesis is the description of how life started, not evolution. And again, why presupposes a narrative. Plus many of your own arguments have been attempting to discredit evolution to prove god, which is entirely fallacious. Evolution has been proven, and god has not. Simple as that.

39. The two people who discovered Jesus’ empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn’t – we’re left with the historical & Biblical truth.

So what? What if they went into the wrong tomb? What about graverobbers? What if the people who wrote were just lying about the whole thing? Why must you assume the bible is accurate, despite the fact there is mountains of evidence to the contrary?

40. Think about Near Death Experiences. It’s naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn’t have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing “a dream”. We’re not silly – we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.

Obviously you have no imagination then, if you think you need eyes to generate visuals. You've never pictured something in your head? Besides that, you still haven't given me any evidence that any of that happened.

Another 10 from that list

21. The concept that life came about through sheer chance is as absurd & improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard, consequently assembling a Boeing 747!

This is arguing against reason 12 from the last post. Just because you think it's absurd doesn't make it wrong. I know quantum mechanics feels absurd, but it's an accurate - up to a point - representation of what we perceive to be reality.

22. We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work, yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.

I plug my computer, which requires electricity, in to the socket, and it works. I have evidence that it does - I can operate the device that demonstrably depends on it. But no matter how hard you will it, "supernatural God forces" won't power it.

23. Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.

Matter can organise itself - crystals are a prime example. And again, for what feels like the millionth time I've said this, EVOLUTION IS A FACT. DEAL WITH IT.

24. Our ‘inventor’ of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin had this to say to Lady Hope when he was almost bedridden for 3 months before he died; “I was a young man with unfathomed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions. wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire – people made a religion of them.” Darwin then asked Lady Hope to speak to neighbours the next day. “What shall I speak about?” She asked. He replied; “Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?”
This is ignoring the fact that that could have easily been sarcasm. Plus this story seems to be apocryphal - there is no evidence that any of it happened.

25. Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we’ve no-one to be accountable to.
Why can't we be accountable to those around us? And if you thought there was no God, would you go around murdering and raping all the time? If not, then you don't need a God to be moral. And if so, you are a scociopath.

26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn’t he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.
We are actually still animals - the idea that we are somehow separate from them is baseless. What does civilised mean? Are we really civilised? And why should that fact influence our belief in a god?

27. ‘Chance’ isn’t the cause of something. It just describes what we can’t find a reason for.

Strawman ahoy! Chance is merely what we say when an event is probabilistic in nature - that the outcomes are either intrinsically too complicated for us to work out, such as atmospheric turbulence, or that the event is inherently random, such as whether a particular atom will undergo radioactive decay.

28. Science & logic do not hold all the answers – many people are aware of forces at work which we have no understanding of & no control over.
Just because many people think they are aware of these "forces" does not mean they exist. Even ignoring that, just because we have no control over something does not mean science applies. We have a pretty good understanding of how black holes form, but we can't make one.

29. Look at the date/year on our calender – 2000 years ago since what? Our historical records (other than the Bible) record evidence of Jesus’ existence.

No. No they don't. Show me some contemporary accounts of this Jesus guy, and then we'll talk.

30. Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!

They didn't think it was a lie, did they? Nazis died for their ideology, so by that same argument their ideals must have been true.