truthislight:

this is circular reasoninging.

The argument is that intelligent designs have a maker QED

look at how you are chasing cat and mouse!

They both are intelligent design QED.

If therhomer is not an intelligent entity, fine. An exception then.

In both we have variety/degree of intelligence but the fact is they remain intelligent designs.

Simply answer the question and spare us the childs play.
Imagine!

To you, if inteligent design does not deserved a maker fine, if it does, say so and stop the hide and seek game.

Child Play.

How is anything I said circular reasoning?

Well what makes you think that humans are intelligently designed?

thehomer:

By what criteria do you decide that a certain object is so complex that it must have been made by someone?



Who says there was ever nothing? Do you think there was ever nothing?



People answer questions not statements. Are you saying that time always existed?



Is consciousness reasonable without some sort of physical component?



Because there are several first cause arguments, you have to present one for me to show you how it is fallacious. I shouldn't be both formulating the argument for you and destroying them. If you expect me to, then you're just being lazy.



See my responses to MyJoe and Mr_Anony.

i think therhomer should also answer question in this forum.

Not by directing us to links.

Kay 17: ^^

If an intelligent designer is required for complexity, one can easily point to the process of rain formation and change in state of water according to varying temperatures.

you forgot the laws that govern all this.
How did they come about?

thehomer:

How is anything I said circular reasoning?

Well what makes you think that humans are intelligently designed?

what makes you think that your brain came by chance?

thehomer:

In that case, why present the phone alone? Why not present a phone, the base station, the circuit switched network, the packet switched network, the public switched network and the phone's factory of origin? In the case of humans, since no man is an island, why not consider the person, their family, their friends, their business partners, their country of location and the entire planet?

You see, rather than you comparing an object with another, you've arbitrarily decided that since you cannot show how you decide something is complex, you've decided to make anything you can encounter complex enough to satisfy you.

My friend, I gave you the reason why I wouldn't contemplate your question simply because you were going on reductionist tangent where by looking a parts of a system in isolation, we make them devoid of meaning. take for instance the moon. It is just a simple rock but it's purpose comes from the part it plays within the system it is situated. You are trying to make me look at objects in isolation, and that wouldn't do because my argument with you is that "where we see order, we infer an orderer".....but you'll rather create the strawman argument of "where we see an object we infer a maker". I am sorry I won't go on that tangent. That is why I decided to make a fresh argument because I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you misunderstood myjoe. . . .but now it is looking more as if you are purposely pursuing a separate agenda than the one you are being called to.

My question to you was simply; how do you decide that something has a complex organized order? I presented you with a list of objects for you to show me how you decide this but so far, you've not been able to do this. If you cannot do this, then your first premise is fatally flawed because you're making a circular argument.

Your question and the way it was phrased is irrelevant to this argument. when asking a question regarding order, you ought to provide systems for evaluation and not individual objects. Individual objects do not necessarily have order unless they are arranged so that they work and are understood a certain way. If you cannot provide systems for evaluation, then you you have not asked me relevant question. unless you are about to describe the universe as an object.
My argument is not circular. If you think it is then please tell how so.

The main problem here is that the universe isn't like any other object within it. So attempting to make this comparison is a fallacy of composition.
Other problems are your equivocation on "begins to exist" and "cause".

When things begin to exist around us, it simply involves a re-arrangement of the constituent atoms that have always been present but obviously in the case of the universe, this certainly doesn't apply.

Then by cause, in the first one you seem to be referring to a cause in time since that is how things occur within the universe but without the universe, is it even coherent to talk about events occurring without time?

For the first part, I am not committing the fallacy of composition unless you want to describe the universe as an object.
Secondly, I am not equivocating begins to exist with cause, I am simply saying that beginnings follow from causes.

Classic reductionism: for the part about the "rearrangement of existing atoms". Are you then saying that for the universe, atoms were not pre-existing or arranged but they began to exist without being caused to exist? If this is what you mean, then you would be saying that the universe has a fixed number of atoms which rearrange themselves all the time to form stuff. Are you saying that the universe is eternal?

If you agree that time has a beginning point where it started, then you must agree that time itself is caused or else you must hold that time is eternal of which it will also be incoherent.

Refuted above.

Sorry your attempt was unsuccessful, please try again

Mr_Anony:
My friend, I gave you the reason why I wouldn't contemplate your question simply because you were going on reductionist tangent where by looking a parts of a system in isolation, we make them devoid of meaning. take for instance the moon. It is just a simple rock but it's purpose comes from the part it plays within the system it is situated. You are trying to make me look at objects in isolation, and that wouldn't do because my argument with you is that "where we see order, we infer an orderer".....but you'll rather create the strawman argument of "where we see an object we infer a maker". I am sorry I won't go on that tangent. That is why I decided to make a fresh argument because I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you misunderstood myjoe. . . .but now it is looking more as if you are purposely pursuing a separate agenda than the one you are being called to.

Your comment on the moon actually demonstrates that you don't really understand your argument. The moon is in no way simple neither is it "just a rock" because when you say something is simple, without actually explaining the criteria by which you decide that something is simple, then you're just making arbitrary claims. Your claim on the "purpose of the moon" shows your hubris. Who told you that the moon has some purpose that it satisfies? The maker? How is what I'm pointing out to you a strawman? Please go back and read MyJoe's comment. Switching it to order won't really help you because my question will still be relevant. Or are you saying that none of those objects I mentioned had some underlying order?

Mr_Anony:
Your question and the way it was phrased is irrelevant to this argument. when asking a question regarding order, you ought to provide systems for evaluation and not individual objects. Individual objects do not necessarily have order unless they are arranged so that they work and are understood a certain way. If you cannot provide systems for evaluation, then you you have not asked me relevant question. unless you are about to describe the universe as an object.
My argument is not circular. If you think it is then please tell how so.

No it is very relevant. Please take a look at the point of an argument by analogy on Wikipedia. i already provided you with a link. When you request for a system, what then do you mean? Is a phone a system? Is a computer a system? But the sun, a virus, a malaria parasite, the moon aren't? If you don't think they are, then you need to tell us how you decide that one thing is a system while others aren't.

I already showed you how your argument was circular. Let me try again.

Mr_Anony:
Premise one: Everything that follows a complex organized order has an intelligence that organizes it and keeps it in order.
Premise two: The universe is complex, organized and works according to a set of laws
Conclusion A: The universe has an intelligence behind it.

Please take a look at the parts in bold. You'll notice that you've not actually told us what you mean by "complex, organized order" but you quickly attribute it to the universe and proceed to make that your conclusion. The objects I presented to you were to help you in clarifying this problem of arbitrarily declaring certain objects to be ordered as complex and others as simple. Without some sort of explanation, then you're just arbitrarily classifying things and that simply won't do for a logical argument.

Mr_Anony:
For the first part, I am not committing the fallacy of composition unless you want to describe the universe as an object.
Secondly, I am not equivocating begins to exist with cause, I am simply saying that beginnings follow from causes.

Well the very first word of that premise was "Anything" so it does look like you were considering the universe as an object. If you weren't referring to it as an object, then what is it supposed to be?

I didn't say you were substituting one for the other, I meant that your usage of those words and phrases in the various premises were different.

Mr_Anony:
Classic reductionism: for the part about the "rearrangement of existing atoms". Are you then saying that for the universe, atoms were not pre-existing or arranged but they began to exist without being caused to exist? If this is what you mean, then you would be saying that the universe has a fixed number of atoms which rearrange themselves all the time to form stuff. Are you saying that the universe is eternal?

This is one of the reasons why I said you're equivocating on "cause". From physics, we know of the relationship between mass and energy so the atoms are from the pre-existing energy but to say that this energy caused the atoms in the same way humans cause tables to be made is an error just as it is an error to say the universe was caused by this intelligent creator. Atoms form at high enough energies but the sort of cause you're talking about requires deliberation and conscious manipulation. That is the equivocation on "cause" and "begins to exist".

Mr_Anony:
If you agree that time has a beginning point where it started, then you must agree that time itself is caused or else you must hold that time is eternal of which it will also be incoherent.

Why should I agree to that? You're the one trying to make that argument which I must say is incoherent due to your use of caused here. By caused, do you mean that something before time made time or that something rearranged things to make time appear i.e make time begin to exist?

When talking about something causing something else around us, you mean that something came before the other and that it actually influenced something around it to make a second event occur.

Mr_Anony:
Sorry your attempt was unsuccessful, please try again

Actually it is your attempts at refutation that have failed again.

truthislight:

i think therhomer should also answer question in this forum.

Not by directing us to links.

I'm not here to teach you things you can find out for yourself. You're online so you too should be able to study on your own.

thehomer:

Your comment on the moon actually demonstrates that you don't really understand your argument. The moon is in no way simple neither is it "just a rock" because when you say something is simple, without actually explaining the criteria by which you decide that something is simple, then you're just making arbitrary claims. Your claim on the "purpose of the moon" shows your hubris. Who told you that the moon has some purpose that it satisfies? The maker? How is what I'm pointing out to you a strawman? Please go back and read MyJoe's comment. Switching it to order won't really help you because my question will still be relevant. Or are you saying that none of those objects I mentioned had some underlying order?



No it is very relevant. Please take a look at the point of an argument by analogy on Wikipedia. i already provided you with a link. When you request for a system, what then do you mean? Is a phone a system? Is a computer a system? But the sun, a virus, a malaria parasite, the moon aren't? If you don't think they are, then you need to tell us how you decide that one thing is a system while others aren't.

I already showed you how your argument was circular. Let me try again.



Please take a look at the parts in bold. You'll notice that you've not actually told us what you mean by "complex, organized order" but you quickly attribute it to the universe and proceed to make that your conclusion. The objects I presented to you were to help you in clarifying this problem of arbitrarily declaring certain objects to be ordered as complex and others as simple. Without some sort of explanation, then you're just arbitrarily classifying things and that simply won't do for a logical argument.



Well the very first word of that premise was "Anything" so it does look like you were considering the universe as an object. If you weren't referring to it as an object, then what is it supposed to be?

I didn't say you were substituting one for the other, I meant that your usage of those words and phrases in the various premises were different.



This is one of the reasons why I said you're equivocating on "cause". From physics, we know of the relationship between mass and energy so the atoms are from the pre-existing energy but to say that this energy caused the atoms in the same way humans cause tables to be made is an error just as it is an error to say the universe was caused by this intelligent creator. Atoms form at high enough energies but the sort of cause you're talking about requires deliberation and conscious manipulation. That is the equivocation on "cause" and "begins to exist".



Why should I agree to that? You're the one trying to make that argument which I must say is incoherent due to your use of caused here. By caused, do you mean that something before time made time or that something rearranged things to make time appear i.e make time begin to exist?

When talking about something causing something else around us, you mean that something came before the other and that it actually influenced something around it to make a second event occur.



Actually it is your attempts at refutation that have failed again.

Now I think I see your problem....I think your problem is with the nature of deductive arguments and not because there is a fallacy because frankly I don't see any in the arguments I presented to you. I'll come back to take your contentions bit by bit but first let me run a basic deductive argument by you and you can tell me if it is a valid argument or not.

Premise 1: all men are mortals,
Premise 2: thehomer is a man
Conclusion: Therefore, thehomer is a mortal

Does this look like a valid argument to you? If no, please tell why. Then we will move on to dissecting your contentions

Mr_Anony:
Now I think I see your problem....I think your problem is with the nature of deductive arguments and not because there is a fallacy because frankly I don't see any in the arguments I presented to you. I'll come back to take your contentions bit by bit but first let me run a basic deductive argument by you and you can tell me if it is a valid argument or not.

Premise 1: all men are mortals,
Premise 2: thehomer is a man
Conclusion: Therefore, thehomer is a mortal

Does this look like a valid argument to you? If no, please tell why. Then we will move on to dissecting your contentions

Yes it is a valid argument. The difference between this and what you proposed is that I know what you mean when you use the words "men" and "mortal". In the argument you're trying to defend, you never actually said what you meant by "a complex organized order". Until you're able to explain what you mean by that, then you're simply making a circular argument.

thehomer:

Yes it is a valid argument. The difference between this and what you proposed is that I know what you mean when you use the words "men" and "mortal". In the argument you're trying to defend, you never actually said what you meant by "a complex organized order". Until you're able to explain what you mean by that, then you're simply making a circular argument.

Thanks for clarifying what your problem was. but then you cannot rightfully say I am making a circular argument if you really don't know the meaning of the terms I used. (I smell pretense)

let me use synonymous language.

Premise 1: Every entity that works according to a sytematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts implies that there is an intelligence behind/responsible for it.
Premise 2: The Universe/Nature works according to a systematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts
Conclusion: Therefore there is an intelligence behind the universe.

I have laid out my argument again. Is it valid enough for you now?

truthislight:

you forgot the laws that govern all this.
How did they come about?

Yes, the laws being the character of the Universe, but they can possibly be omitted, why place them?

The laws determine design, be it a jet engine, or a moving object, a bulding, electromagnetism, gravity, centrifugal forces etc. I wonder if the Universe came after God's intent to create, then it isn't designed! Because there was nothingness prior to the Universe!!

Mr_Anony:
Thanks for clarifying what your problem was. but then you cannot rightfully say I am making a circular argument if you really don't know the meaning of the terms I used. (I smell pretense)

It is your responsibility to use words meaningfully when you're making your argument. Besides, you need to keep in mind that in argumentation, a sound argument is more valuable than a valid one. in fact, a circular argument while valid still isn't a good argument. You're free to smell whatever you want.

Mr_Anony:
let me use synonymous language.

Premise 1: Every entity that works according to a sytematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts implies that there is an intelligence behind/responsible for it.
Premise 2: The Universe/Nature works according to a systematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts
Conclusion: Therefore there is an intelligence behind the universe.

I have laid out my argument again. Is it valid enough for you now?

Like I said above, validity isn't the only thing being sought in an argument so simply tacking on more words won't help you. Now is there any entity that you know of that doesn't "work according to a systematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts"? If there isn't, then what you're saying is trivially pointless. And that is why you need to show how you decide whether or not an entity "works according to a sytematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts".

Are you now saying that nature is synonymous with the universe?

Sure your argument is valid but it is still bad.

thehomer:

It is your responsibility to use words meaningfully when you're making your argument. Besides, you need to keep in mind that in argumentation, a sound argument is more valuable than a valid one. in fact, a circular argument while valid still isn't a good argument. You're free to smell whatever you want.



Like I said above, validity isn't the only thing being sought in an argument so simply tacking on more words won't help you. Now is there any entity that you know of that doesn't "work according to a systematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts"? If there isn't, then what you're saying is trivially pointless. And that is why you need to show how you decide whether or not an entity "works according to a sytematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts".

Are you now saying that nature is synonymous with the universe?

Sure your argument is valid but it is still bad.

An argument is only good if it's premises are true and valid. You accept that it is valid, would you mind telling me which parts of it are untrue. Also, you keep saying that it is a circular argument without showing exactly how it is circular.

secondly, you asked me if there is any entity that we know of that doesn't work according to a systematic order and is not composed of interconnected parts.
All I have to do is give you one: How about an electron for starters?

(Now we jump right into the reductionist bucket)

Mr_Anony:
An argument is only good if it's premises are true and valid. You accept that it is valid, would you mind telling me which parts of it are untrue. Also, you keep saying that it is a circular argument without showing how it is circular.

That's just it. No one can tell whether or not it is true unless you actually say how you decide that an entity "works according to a sytematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts". I already showed you how it is circular. It would be circular if that phrase is synonymous with the universe but again one cannot tell unless we have a way of parsing the phrase.

Mr_Anony:
secondly, you asked me if there is any entity that we know of that doesn't work according to a systematic order and is not composed of interconnected parts.
All I have to do is give you one: How about an electron for starters?

Isn't it interesting that you went to an electron rather than say a phone cable or a haemoglobin molecule? That's just by the way. Now electrons have to work according to a systematic order otherwise we wouldn't be communicating. In fact understanding this order is what drives modern telecommunications.

By the way, it looks as if you don't actually get the dilemma you're in. Let me make it clearer to you.

If you cannot present any entity that meets your phraseology, then what you've said is trivial and pointless.

If you can present an entity that does, it would imply that the entity wasn't intelligently designed. Are you willing to say that according to your conception of the universe, the electron wasn't intelligently designed (your conclusion)? So I'm not so sure that you'll want to gore yourself on either of the horns of that dilemma.

But the question still remains. How do you decide that an entity "works according to a systematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts"?

Mr_Anony:
(Now we jump right into the reductionist bucket)

Well you introduced the idea of systematic order and interconnected parts and all that.

thehomer: By what criteria do you decide that a certain object is so complex that it must have been made by someone?

There is no need for any criteria of any kind. All we need to know is that there is a considerable amount of interacting components.

thehomer: Who says there was ever nothing? Do you think there was ever nothing?

This doesn't appropiately reply my statement. I pointed out something that could be used as evidence and all you do is ask non-sequiturs.

thehomer: People answer questions not statements. Are you saying that time always existed?

People can REPLY statemants. I said time is abstract I never said it always existed. I note that you still fail to answer the statement about God being a necessity.

thehomer: Is consciousness reasonable without some sort of physical component?

Come clean. Are you subtly trying to say my point was useless ?

thehomer: Because there are several first cause arguments, you have to present one for me to show you how it is fallacious. I shouldn't be both formulating the argument for you and destroying them. If you expect me to, then you're just being lazy.

You should know the main one. The one by Aquinas. Now answer it.

thehomer: See my responses to MyJoe and Mr_Anony.

You'll have to state them again. I do not have the time to go searching them out.

thehomer:

Which claim is wrong? The progress we make now is based on methodological naturalism which actually assumes that God has no say in what happens in the universe and so far, it has landed rovers on Mars.

Talking about scientists who believed in God is simply a genetic fallacy. The fact that they believed in a God doesn't mean that it was that God that actually did anything.

I'm pointing out that the progress first started with a realization that God created order & harmony when he designed the universe and that we could use organized science as a tool to inquiring into his creation. Christianity was the religion which bounded most of the people who founded the sciences which we now know today. When you talk of present day methodological naturalism you are simply moving into the 19th century when it gained its stronghold.

Kay 17:

In your view, you believe something can't be created by or from nothing, right? Why do we owe a spiritual being the creation of a physical world? Different characters from the way I see it.

Once again, as you wish.

thehomer:

That's just it. No one can tell whether or not it is true unless you actually say how you decide that an entity "works according to a sytematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts". I already showed you how it is circular. It would be circular if that phrase is synonymous with the universe but again one cannot tell unless we have a way of parsing the phrase.

but clearly the phrase is not synonymous with the universe.

Isn't it interesting that you went to an electron rather than say a phone cable or a haemoglobin molecule? That's just by the way. Now electrons have to work according to a systematic order otherwise we wouldn't be communicating. In fact understanding this order is what drives modern telecommunications.

By the way, it looks as if you don't actually get the dilemma you're in. Let me make it clearer to you.

If you cannot present any entity that meets your phraseology, then what you've said is trivial and pointless.

If you can present an entity that does, it would imply that the entity wasn't intelligently designed. Are you willing to say that according to your conception of the universe, the electron wasn't intelligently designed (your conclusion)? So I'm not so sure that you'll want to gore yourself on either of the horns of that dilemma.

But the question still remains. How do you decide that an entity "works according to a systematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts"?

Your argument here just got worse. I have satisfied your request. the electron is an entity yes, the electron does not constitute of elaborately interconnected parts yes. (Those are enough to make it an exception to the rule)
Based on my argument, does this mean that the electron is not designed? It doesn't follow. much like saying all men are mortal does not automatically mean that all that are not men are immortal.

Please come up with a better contention or accept the argument.

[size=20pt]deism is the logical truth for all enlightened people.atheism doesnt make sense.christianity is good enough for people of low mental capacity[/size]

atheism vs deism
hopeless vs hopeful

I see the thread has made front page

...........time to un-follow

(so I don't get stampeded by the crowd)

*i don miss road* sorry o oga atheists I didn't mean to barge In.

Callotti: Atheism. . .freedom
Theism. . . mental slavery

Atheism. . . progress
Theism. . . retro-progressive

Atheism. . .peace
Theism. . .war-mongering

Atheism. . .informative
Theism. . .STUPEFYING

Atheism. . .live and let live
Theism. . .live and let DIE

Atheism. . . free from BIGOTRY
Theism. . .full of BIGOTRY

Atheism. . .super-human intelligence
Theism. . .divine ijjiocy

Atheism. . . HAPPY life without regret
Theism. . . SAD life full of misery

Atheism. . . realists
Theism. . . HYPOCRITES

Bottom line? Everything good about Atheism.
Nothing POSITIVE about THEISM!


I endorse this message! Chief Mrs Callotti "THE PROUD CHOP AND CLEAN BETTER MOUTH AND NYANSH ADULTERER". . . AND STILL THE OSINACHI#1 OF MY DARLING HUSBAND'S VILLAGE!

_
Calloti da halloti da salloti!!! Nne mama! Carry go!

The entire analogy of atheism is based on an ill-briefing on real nature of Deity and Spirit. Indeed, if one was to think that Deism is as taught by religion, then atheist have a reason to disbelieve the existence of Deity, but atheist become stunted in their quest for further knowledge by shying away from esoteric researches into understanding that there are intelligence higher than humans in this universe and other universes. By so doing they fail to know that energy beings exist on other planes of existences on a higher wavelength and frequencies, one can certainly attune to the consciousness of these energy beings and interact on a solar level. Such experiences in astral projection and psychic adventures are real life proofs of the existence of intelligent beings higher than man. The facts are, that the totality of all that there in all multiverse can be resolved to energy level. Theories of relativity, Wave-particle paradox and E=mc2 enery-matter convertibility are scientific proofs that all existence can be resolve into energy. The totality of all energies that there is, Is what Deity is. We are simply God-particulates. Show me an atheist, and I will show you a human who is shying away from Esotericism and mysticism, because they are afraid to know the real truth.

yeah right theist are war-mongering well the holocaust proves otherwise cuz ur friend also known as Hitler was an atheist...............who in his/her right mind would believe we came from rocks when biology clearly says new cell arise from pre-existing cells

MyJoe:
Simples. Looking at a computer and a phone tells you they have a maker, right?

Also taking a look at the maker of the phone suggest he has a maker. This only creates an endless line of makers! So, creator in a sense doesn't hold any water in such argument.

all4naija: Also taking a look at the maker of the phone suggest he has a maker. This only creates an endless line of makers! So, creator in a sense doesn't hold any water in such argument.

The word maker finds meaning in the mental consciousness, just like the concept of time. For astronauts at the International Space center, for that robot at Mars, TIME has no relevance, has no meaning, cos there is no day or night over there because they are outside the revolution and rotation of the earth around the sun. So the quest for maker lies in the lower consciousness called the mental plane. Maker/creator as a word doesnt exist in soul and spirit consciousness, because all is energy. And energy can not be created nor destroyed. The word maker is a psychic illusion.

From my little corner of the world,

The only thing surmise is that there is really no true Atheist (maybe save the mad men under the bridge).

What we have are Theists, Deists and Agnostics (and probably ppl who have not given much thought to such issues).

Believing there is no God will take far more 'faith' than believing in religion.

Its easier to believe in David Blaine's magic than to believe everything we see just came out of nothing (haba !)


and really what is 'Nothing' and what is 'no existence', really if there is no God, then life itself is a mirage. We really then do not exist.


The first tasks for anybody on this forum is to prove the existence of an atheist in the first place, before we go on to argue about the existence of God.

Now lets note that this discussion is not about the nature of God (or His form). That is an argument for another day and another thread but rather His existence

tevinsolt: yeah right theist are war-mongering well the holocaust proves otherwise cuz ur friend also known as Hitler was an atheist ...............who in his/her right mind would believe we came from rocks when biology clearly says new cell arise from pre-existing cells

Where did you get that from Hitler was an Atheist? He was born a Catholic and ended up being neither Atheist not theist. He believed in dictator's and supremacy ideology , which the Jews as well made their religion and tradition to look like when viewing non-Jews. The most questionable part of what Hitler's belief define who he really that's light on many Nazi who supported were Christians. The idea of why people view Hitler as Atheist was for the simple reason murdered Christians, Jews and non-Jews alike(Atheists,etc). Hitler himself associated Atheism with bolshevism, communism, and Jewish materialism --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler.

Please, steer clear of speculating and peddling false rumors about Atheist and Atheism.

all4naija: Also taking a look at the maker of the phone suggest he has a maker. This only creates an endless line of makers! So, creator in a sense doesn't hold any water in such argument.

Nice line of thought - all4Nig,
but you know what, disproving the earlier proposition does not in any way lend weight to the Atheist argument but rather the agnostic.

You see a lot of atheist argue that burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism but I totally disagree, it cuts both ways. The only group that can shift that responsibility is the agnostics.

In fact, as far as I am concerned the position of the atheist requires a far more larger set of assumptions, irrationality and blind belief than almost all the religions of the world. Ironic

all4naija: Where did you get that from Hitler was an Atheist? He was born a Catholic and ended up being neither Atheist not theist. He believed in dictator's and supremacy ideology , which the Jews as well made their religion and tradition to look like when viewing non-Jews. The most questionable part of what Hitler's belief define who he really that's light on many Nazi who supported were Christians. The idea of why people view Hitler as Atheist was for the simple reason murdered Christians, Jews and non-Jews alike(Atheists,etc). Hitler himself associated Atheism with bolshevism, communism, and Jewish materialism --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler.

Please, steer clear of speculating and peddling false rumors about Atheist and Atheism.

You are right on that again - Hitler actually believed in Divine Providence. More of a Theist than an atheist but wasn't particularly religious