Open letter to all Atheists.

If you ask any of them, they'll point out that they're saying no such thing.Besides which, theists are not limited to Christians. No. Hoyle's world-view was perfectly self-consistent, it was just crazier than a sack of badgers.

Well some of the oddities of your posts are explained if you thought that that was one argument, and that it was a good one.It is two arguments. The second one: "But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain." is just the old "Who created God?" argument rehashed. I leave it up to you to decide how good it is, but in any case it has nothing to do with the first argument.The first argument is this: "Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip." Now this is a bad argument, because of course there are plenty of other things that God could do, from the creation of the Universe to the Incarnation to frying unbelievers in Hell, that "might attract our praise, our worship or our fear".---Here, look at it this way. Suppose you die and go to Heaven. Suppose you see God sitting on his great white throne with Jesus at his right hand. Suppose he says "Well done thou good and faithful servant, by thy faith thou hast been saved".Suppose he then adds: "Oh, by the way, you were wrong about evolution. I appreciate your zeal and all, but, yeah, you'll have to rethink that." Would you at that point exclaim: "Oh, then the atheists were right all along --- there is no God!"---In any case, to return to our original subject, if that is how you would react, that would just be your opinion. Science teachers teach about evolution and why it's true. If you want to additionally teach people that this means that there is no God, and if you borrow your arguments for this from Richard Dawkins, then it seems unfair that you should complain that they are teaching atheism.

No.

Sure, if God wrote the Bible, and if you are correct in interpreting it the way you do, then God exists and has said something that isn't true. This observation does not lead me to equate evolution with atheism, because why on Earth would it?

Why? In what way? How?As you have not supplied an argument, it is hard to see whether you're right or wrong.However, I would point out that we can directly observe some evolution, which presumably you do not deny. So unless you want to become an atheist, what you need is an argument that a bit of evolution is compatible with God, but that a bit more isn't. G'luck with that. Again, this would seem to be your opinion. If a teacher teaches the reasons for thinking that evolution is true, and you teach that this necessarily proves that there is no God, which one of you is actually teaching atheism?If a teacher teaches that the sky is blue, and you teach that if there was a God it would be pink with green spots, who is doing more to promote disbelief?

If there is a God, you must admit that he has certainly allowed the world to be littered with misleading scriptures which have deceived billions of people, from the Koran through the Bhagavad Gita to the Gnostic Gospels. I leave it up to you to determine why, but clearly it's not something he feels he needs to put a stop to. As to whether he will apologize for this, again I'll leave it to you to conjecture.

There seems to be an inconsistency in your arguments. You write: But then you argue in your other posts that establishing certain purely natural propositions (such as the claim that evolution occurred) as fact, would definitively prove that there is no God. You can't be right about both these things.

What purpose? Does he get off on watching wars?

What riVeRat said was "Also who is to say God didn't create all religions for his purpose?". If God did this, and had "foreknowing awareness" of the consequences, then that is pre-planning. If I do X foreknowing that it will cause Y, then I planned for Y to happen.

I thought that was my point. In particular, if there is a God then there's no particular reason to suppose that you have got hold of the right interpretation of the right version of the right holy book and do in fact know his thoughts and ways on questions of middle-school biology. It was your idea --- you suggested that if your interpretation of your chosen Holy Book was wrong, he'd owe you an apology. Personally if God exists I'd settle for a good explanation.

I don't see why people keep saying faceman is a troll, I rather like him.

I don't think so. If, as you say, God "removed/masked all objective evidence pointing directly to Him, or how He did things", then teaching about the objective evidence, which is surely what schools do are meant to do, will surely inculcate doubt without anyone "teaching atheism" as such.It is not just "their way of teaching" that "leaves anyone with a rational mind no other logical conclusion". It is, according to your theology, God who has left a rational mind with no other conclusion, by carefully ensuring that the evidence leaves a rational mind with no other conclusion.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well yeah, that's because we don't violate your first amendment rights.You seem to think that saying this sort of thing gives you the high road, but actually it's a sign that we've already taken it; in America today a Christian boasting that he's not offended by atheism is like a serial killer saying to an origami enthusiast: "Hey, I don't criticize your hobby."

Maybe you should read it again.

Yeah. First Amendment, remember. "Have you seen a doctor?""No, just close minded people angry at religion."