by Tom Koecke

Created on: December 22, 2007

In an article I wrote for the title "Can God be Disproved," I called Atheism a religion, and challenged any atheist to debate the topic based on scientific and mathematical possibility. A fellow Helium author took me up on the challenge recently, and it resulted in a friendly exchange of e-mails that ended with this conclusion: "I think we just think of atheism differently. You view it as only those who outright claim there is no god, to which I agree takes faith. And I define it as all who don't have faith in a god's existence."

During the debate, I was offered this definition of atheism: "Atheism simply defined is a lack of belief in god(s), very very few actually say there is definitely no god." While I agree that may be a simple definition, it is not the dictionary definition, which is "(1) the doctrine or belief there is no God; (2) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

This is one of the problem that self-declared atheists need to consider: a can opener can be proved to be a microwave oven if we accept the simple definition that both are kitchen appliances. It makes no sense to contend something is other than what it is, and, in fact, is a major problem with society today. People have no regard for words, and accept slang or altered definitions. I suppose they think it is "cool" to do so, or should I say "hot?" Oh well, it matters not because neither word means what is meant.

If two scientists often regarded as atheists denied they were atheists, why do atheists use their principles to prove the religion's point? The two scientists I am referring to are Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. When asked about his religious beliefs, Darwin replied that he had never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." Einstein not only said, "The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer," he also said "what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." It makes absolutely no sense to regard these two scientists' principles as infallible, and totally disregard their own beliefs about the existence of a God or gods.

Today's science is built upon these two scientists' theories. Darwin's model of Natural Selection is perfect. Whether you wish to accept it or not, you believe in it if you accept these two premises: (1) children of animals have characteristics of both parents,

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>