It’s me again…

Sorry for being so inactive folks. I’ve recently found a decent job with good hours and meh pay but I love it. Anyway, just a heads up, still working on getting that radio show started. I’ll do evenings to start at 2 hours a piece and move around from there. If anyone is interested in calling in, or knows how to set up a skype link let me know through an email at

Take it easy, be good to each other and remember. You CAN be good because its the right thing to do. There may not be a reward, but your time with us will be well spent.

The new guy.

Greetings to all you free thinkers and those who just come to see a perspective from the other side of the fence. I’m the newest addition here at Atheist Thought and soon to be Radio Host as soon as I get  that set up. I’ll post about that when the time comes.

In the meantime, I can’t wait to see what kind of conversations and thoughts we can stir up here. I hope you guys will enjoy or at least that what I have to say will provoke some thought.

I hope to speak with you all soon.


Where I’ve Been

I am extremely sorry I have not updated this blog in such a long time. I have been extremely busy and it seems like I will be for some time into the future but maybe I will have time to put in a few more posts. In fact, I have a nice post planned on the history of the Christmas holiday and the true “meaning” for the season.

On top of being extremely busy (and stressed out), I had to deal with some depression and suicidal thoughts for a while in there. I got through that without praying to some higher power for healing.

And of course, I forgot all about this blog. I am sorry to those of you who commented and I either did not approve your comment or I did not respond yet. I will try to respond as soon as I can. Thanks for waiting.

Re: Nonpoint energy field theory

Since I now have time to write a nice, high-quality blog post about nonpoint energy field theory, let’s take a look at it. You can find the logical “proof” here.

If A is only T, K and O
and if B is only T, K and O
Then A is B.
No, the logical proof is using properties T, K and O. So, we will reword it:
If A has properties T, K, and O
and if B has properties T, K and O
Then A is B
Now the fallacy is glaring. Imagine the following example:
If apple A is red
and if apple B is red
Then apple A is apple B
As you can tell, the problem exists when there are two red apples. They are clearly not the same apple just because they are red.
And further, because this “proof” uses god, it looks more like:
If god has properties T, K, O, A, and B
and if the 0th has properties T, K, and O,
Then god is the 0th dimension
In this example, I thought of A and B as answering prayers and preforming miracles respectively. Of course, you could always define away the problem by saying god doesn’t do those things but that is just another ad hoc explanation.
To further reject that possible ad hoc explanation, why call it god. Even if you fixed the fallacy, there is no reason to call the universe god when we already call the universe “the universe.”
I see no way out now. Nonpoint energy theory is dead in the water.

I’ll pray for you

Almost every atheist has had someone tell them that they will be prayed for so that they may find god. I noticed that there are a lack of good responses to a statement as simple as this. Of course, it is more of an emotional statement rather than a logical one but many theists seem to value emotions over reason.

The two responses I came up with are:

  • If there really is a magic god who answers your prayers, then why are you wasting your time praying for me. It would be much more effective to pray for world peace or something like that.
  • You’re going to waste time praying to a supernatural being asking him to make a person who doesn’t believe in him believe in him. Sounds like one of the biggest wastes of time.
And as of today I am  starting a list of people who are praying for me. I think it would be a really nice demonstration of how prayer doesn’t really work, particularly for converting atheists.

So much like myself

See a newer (and better) version of this article here: Re: Nonpoint energy field theory

I recently read a blog post “proving god” and partook in a very interesting Twitter debate about the logical proof presented by this person. Now I am sure this post will be ripped apart by the philosphical wizards that they are, but there are some logical objections I would like to make clear.

But before I get to that, I would like to explain that this person, @schicagos, is much like myself, or a post version of myself, who believed in pantheism. I once believed pantheism

Pantheism is the belief that everything is god. But why call it god? The argument was made that when you define god as “all knowing, all powerful, and all present” that you can prove his existence.

And yes, the logical proof given was a really redundant way of proving that what exists truly does exists and then assigning the label god to it. That is not productive at all.

I could call my water bottle god (sure, it isn’t all present or anything) and remove the additional definition of god but that would be excessive. We can already call the water bottle a water bottle.

This guy went out of his way to redefine everything to mean god. Having been here before, it seems to be out of denial that there is no god.

I’m sorry if my ideas are getting jumbled here, but it is hard to debate and blog at the same time. But in effort to keep this coherent, here are some of the points that have made that haven’t been properly addressed.

  • If this “god” can know things as was asserted and it knows this because it is in the state of what it knows, then a pen knows about itself because it is in its own state.
  • Why call everything god if we already call everything “everything”?
You know it is wrong when
  • It was asserted that rocks know things
  • 7 people are attacking the claim
  • The person defending the claim starts to repeat himself
  • The person defending the claim doesn’t know why to call it god
  • You just need to believe in it so it is true for you. (Kind of wondering why all the work was put into a logical proof if faith is required)

Further points will be addressed via edit or in the comments.

Understanding != Source

I recently read a horrible article filled with numerous fallacies claiming that Richard Dawkins is wrong above evolution because of quantum mechanics. Well, first of all, I must point out that quantum mechanics does not disprove evolution. String theory does not disprove evolution.

After this bold assertion the article went on to say that a god is the source for the laws of quantum physics because geometric figured like strings and triangles are mental constructs. Basically, it uses the same flawed intelligent design argument but it adds a few more assertions.

Because the article claims that strings and triangles are mental constructs, they must first have existed inside a mind somewhere, right? Wrong. The ability to understand something does not make any source for that something more probable. Also, I am shocked by the lack of people who can understand one dimensional space which these “strings” are. To consider a string to be an actual string (which I’m guessing this article did as it wasn’t exactly clear on that point) would be a straw man fallacy.

What did they achieve?

Nothing. They took the already refuted argument for intelligent design and added more unbacked assertions! Adding more assertions to a faulty argument does not make it true. Here is an example:

A god does not exist and the earth takes 317 days to revolve around the sun.

Does the unproven assertion that the earth takes 317 days to rotate around the sun have any affect on the validity of god? No. Even if I was right, it doesn’t matter how long it takes as it has nothing to do with god.


All intelligent design is absolutely crazy no matter how you put it. I think my debate with this guy on YouTube about intelligent design has come to an end because he has finally realized it is nonsense as well. There is no controversy. Evolution is an accepted fact; there is evidence for it. There is no need to “teach the controversy” when there is no controversy.