My latest song "Into The Dark" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Listen or download as free mp3 at http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=12591624

Like my Facebook Musician page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mark-Tindall/125474904180434 and get more updates and information regarding my own original music plus music in general.


Into the dark
Tiny shiny stars
Into the dark
Moonlit scars

Into the dark with many cares in the world
Tiny shiny stars twinkle silently above
Into the dark with many cares in the world
Moonlit scars

There’s no surprise at the evil people do
There’s no surprise
There’s no surprise at the evil people do
There’s no surprise


//: F / C / G / C / F / C / G / G ://

Dm / F / C / G / Dm / F / C / C


My latest song "Call On In" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Listen or download as free mp3 at http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=12567730

Like my Facebook Musician page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mark-Tindall/125474904180434 and get more updates and information regarding my own original music plus music in general.


You’re caught in the traffic
Driving here and there
It’s too early in the morning
It really isn’t fair


Call on in
Come and say hello
Call on in
You’re always on the go
Call on in
Call on in

Get some tea or coffee
Get some friendly chat
Wind down and rest
Forgetting this and that


It’ll only take a minute
Just a little while
Enough to make you happy
Enough to make you smile
It’ll only take a minute
Just a little while
Come on in

Take time for yourself
Forget the daily chores
Focus on the present
Worry is a bore

Why are you waiting
Why don’t you go
You know that you’re welcome
You know it’s always so



It's been said that St Peter's mamma was a miser through and through. Never did she give to charity or spend a penny on her fellow man. One day while she was peeling leeks, a poor woman came by begging. "Will you give me a little something, good woman?"

"That's right, everybody comes to me begging ... Well, take this, and don't ask for any more!" And she she gave her one leaf of a leek.

When the Lord called her into the next life, he sent her to Hell.  The head of Heaven was St Peter, and as he sat on the doorstep, he heard a voice. "Peter! Just look at how I am roasting! Son, go to the Lord, talk to him, get me out of this misery!"

St Peter went to the Lord. "Lord," he said, "my mother is in Hell and begging to be let out."

"What! Your mother never did a good turn in her whole life! All she has to her credit is one little leek. Try this. Give her the leek leaf to catch hold to, and pull her up to Paradise by it."

An angel swooped down with the leek leaf. "Grab hold!" ordered the angel, and St Peter's mamma caught hold of the leaf. She was about to be pulled up out of Hell, when all the poor souls there with her and seeing her rise, latched on to her skirts. So the angel drew up not only her but all the others as well. Then that selfish woman screamed, "No! Not you all! Get off! Just me! You ought to have had a saint for a son, as I did!" She kicked and shook them from her, jerking about so much to get free, that the leek leaf broke in two and St Peter's mamma went plummeting to the bottom of Hell.



My latest song "Change Is The Game" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Listen or download as free mp3 at




Like my Facebook Musician page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mark-Tindall/125474904180434 and get more updates and information regarding my own original music plus music in general.



I was thinking
Kind of dangerous
I was dreaming
A nightmare


Change is the game
Nothing stays the same

CH 2

Follow me
Answer me
Question me
Dissect me

I was going
Got a feeling
Going somewhere
I don’t know

It was there
Now it’s gone
Growth  and death
Facing East

Heroes come
Heroes go
Some live long
Some get shot


//:D / A / E / E ://
F#m / Bm / C#m / A

SIBLING RIVALRY (You Dropped The Ball)

My latest song "Sibling Rivalry (You Dropped The Ball)" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Listen or download as free mp3 at




Like my Facebook Musician page at
and get more updates and information regarding my own original music plus music in general.



You always were so selfish
Scheming for your own ends
I remember that you told me
After two years dump your friends

You thought you knew the way
You thought you had it all
History has shown
You dropped the ball

You sprout your views like vomit
Everywhere you go
There’s no end to your gift
Of making endless foes

Don’t ever want to meet you
Now or when I’m dead
Everything you touch turns
Magically to lead

Father used to call you
The little “mee too” bitch
Mother used to call you
The silly green eyed witch

Brother called on over
With some bottled wine (vino)
You hung out the usual
“You’re not welcome” sign

Sibling rivalry
You were never in the race
You just followed us
Coming in last place


//:Em7 / A7 / G6 / A7://
/G6 / A7/ G6 /A7/
/Em7 / A7 / G6 / A7/


Tindall Family Motto

The Tindall family motto is “Nosce te ipsum” which is the Latin translation of the ancient Greek aphorism γνώθι σεαυτόν, meaning “Know thyself”. It was inscribed above the entrance to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.

Plato employs the maxim 'Know Thyself' extensively by having the character of Socrates use it to motivate his dialogues.Plato makes it clear that Socrates is referring to a long-established wisdom. Benjamin Jowett's index to his translation of the Dialogues of Plato lists six dialogues which discuss or explore the saying of Delphi: 'know thyself.' These dialogues (and the Stephanus numbers indexing the pages where these discussions begin) are Charmides (164D), Protagoras (343B), Phaedrus (229E), Philebus (48C), Laws (II.923A), I Alcibiades (124A, 129A, 132C).



We need homophobic Christian volunteers to undergo "heterosexual conversion therapy" in order to make them homosexual. This would provide definitive scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

We know from science that "gay conversion therapy"  does not work and that you cannot "pray the gay away" yet it may be possible to change heterosexual homophobic Christians to homosexuality as that has not yet been attempted.

"Heterosexual Conversion Therapy" would have steps such as:

(1) Participate in art museums, opera, symphonies, etc.

(2) Avoid activities considered of interest to heterosexuals, such as sports activities.

(3) Avoid men unless it is for romantic contact.

(4) Increase time spent with homosexual men in order to learn to mimic homosexual male ways of walking, talking, and interacting with other homosexual men.

(5) Avoid church and join a gay community group

(6) Attend heterosexual reparative therapy group to discuss progress, or slips back into heterosexuality.

(7) Become more assertive with men through flirting and dating,

(8) Begin homosexual dating,

(9) Engage in homosexual intercourse.

(10) Enter into heterosexual marriage (when it becomes legal in your country).


I LOVE YOU (For Bev)

My latest song "I Love You (For Bev)" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Listen or download as free mp3 at




Like my Facebook Musician page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mark-Tindall/125474904180434 and get more updates and information regarding my own original music plus music in general.


I love you

I love you with all my heart

I love you with all my soul

I love you with all my strength

I love you with all my life


I want you (I love you)



It is well-known that there is no positive argument for atheism. Atheism only has negative arguments against theism.


From William J. O'Malley "God The Oldest Question (A Fresh Look at Belief and Unbelief and Why the Choice Matters)" (Loyola Press:2000)

There are really only four persuasive arguments for a world without a Mind Behind It All.

The first argument - the most convincing - is the problem of pain: How can a good, knowing all-competent God allow the anguish of innocents?

The second argument - the most appealing to those with a naive idea of science - is Occam's razor: Beings are not to be postulated unless they are inescapable; to be truthful, we don't need a God.

The third argument - the most abstruse - is the meaningless of the term God, which denotes an objectively unvalidated entity, like unicorn or Santa.

The fourth argument is the most comforting for those with (often justifiable) complaints about organized religion: the negative consequences of  belief. If we can cure ourselves of the illusion of God, we can take back our human dignity and autonomy from the hands of a tyrannical Bogeyman and an arrogant clergy.  pp. 21-22

Just like theism, atheism is an act of faith - a calculated risk. No-one knows there is no God, nor can anyone prove that even the concept of God is contradictory. p. 31


Even if the four negative arguments were valid (they are not) the default position would not automatically be atheism. It would be agnosticism which is neutral. Atheism is not a neutral position but the direct opposite of theism as the etymology of the word suggests. Atheism would be correct only if there were definite proof that there was no God. Absolute proof that there definitely is no God is impossible to collect as one would have to have infinite knowledge of the infinite universe in order to know that God was not anywhere in the universe in any form whatsoever. (Of course, the atheist demand for empirical evidence of a non-empirical God is a category and doomed to failure from the start. The atheist would also have to provide absolute proof that there is no non-empirical God.)

Why does this matter? Why would one bother with a position with no positive argument for its validity if there was an alternative such as nontheism which does has a positive argument for its validity? Positive arguments for a position are far better than negative arguments against an opposing position. Positive arguments elucidate positive factors for the validity of a position and demonstrate benefits for holding and following that specific position. Negative arguments are only examples of why an opposing view is incorrect and shouldn't be held or followed.  A negative argument does not positively prove a specific alternative position.  It only demonstrates that the opposing view is incorrect. It is logically possible for both theism and atheism to be incorrect.


From J. Angelo Corlett "The Errors Of Atheism" (Continuum:2010) p. 225

... the errors of atheism.

First, they commit the straw person fallacy of thinking that theism is best understood in terms of the hyperbolic orthodox Christian conception of God’s nature (e.g., omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, etc.) and function.

Second, atheists tend also to commit the bifurcation fallacy in thinking that either orthodox Christian theism is sound, or atheism must be the result, when in fact there are more plausible conceptions of theism than the orthodox Christian one.

Third, they often tend to commit a fallacy of equivocation between atheism and agnosticism in attempting to stipulatively define “atheism” in probabilistic terms, and arbitrarily, when in fact agnosticism just is the view that construes the existence of God (among other things) probabilistically.

Finally, they tend also to commit the fallacy of hasty conclusion insofar as atheists reason that the orthodox Christian theistic view of the nature of God is representative, with its numerous attendant problems, of what a viable theism must be vis-à-vis the nature of God.


My latest song "I'm Hiding" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Listen or download as free mp3 at




Like my Facebook Musician page at
and get more updates and information regarding my own original music plus music in general.





I’m hiding
You can’t find me
You can’t see the forest for all the trees

I’m in plain sight, your eyes can’t see
Camouflaged, reach out and through me

I’m hiding
I’m hiding from you


//:F / C/ G / C://
G / C / G / C
F / C / G / C



My latest song "I Want To Be A Movie" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Taken from a quote by Jimi Hendrix.

Listen or download as free mp3 at






I want to be a movie
Caress the screen with my shining light




E G B D(G) C#(F#) D(G)
E G B E(A) D(G) E(A)

Em D9 A7
Em D9 A7
Em D9 A7
Em D9 A7

Bridge Riff: E(A) D(G) C#(F#) B(E) A(D) G(B) G6

Middle: Em7


RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE: Atheists / Theists / Agnostics / Etc - Facebook Group

I have created a new group for those interested. Join the group, add members and participate in the dialogue. https://www.facebook.com/groups/respectful.dialogue/

RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE is a safe haven for respectful dialogue between atheists, theists, agnostics etc.

1. No personal insult of members or individuals.
2. No insult of deities / prophets / spokespeople
3. No flooding threads with off topic posts.
4. No posting threads irrelevant to the aim of the group.

Not adhering to the rules will result in a permanent ban.



My latest song "White Man Living In A Black Man's World" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Listen or download as free mp3 at




Like my Facebook Musician page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mark-Tindall/125474904180434 and get more updates and information regarding my own original music plus music in general.



White man living in a black man’s world
( Coo-ee )


Part of the boat invasion crew
Didn’t know what black men knew

Thought the land was newly found
Slashed and burned the sacred ground

Concrete, glass and twisted steel
Obliterating Dreamtime feel

Traditional owners of this place
Heard my sorry, live in grace

Ignorant of the black man’s ways
Culture shock and mental haze

My pale white skin gets red and sore
Won’t be baking in the sun no more


G / D/ Bb / D

Bb / D / Bb / D

Middle: D / C / G / D/


MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISM: Part 6 The Richard Dawkins Delusion

From http://www.journeyonline.com.au/printView.php?articleId=977

Peter Harrison is a former Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford and is presently Research Professor and Director of the Centre for the History of European Discourses at the University of Queensland. He was the 2011 Gifford Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and holds a Senior Research Fellowship in the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford.


The delusions of Richard Dawkins

Peter Harrison


Unfortunately, Dawkins has blundered into a field he knows very little about. He misunderstands the logic of the arguments and how they function in a religious context. His own naïve and plodding counter-arguments would make a philosophy undergraduate cringe, and a number of reviewers have mercifully dispatched them (the arguments, not the undergraduates).

Philosopher and self professed 'hard line Darwinian' Michael Ruse has remarked that Dawkins' efforts make him 'embarrassed to be an atheist'.

The second theme of the book is that religious folk– ­'faith-heads', as Dawkins fondly calls them– are not only irrational, but plain dangerous. To support this proposition, Dawkins has compiled a catalogue of rabid fundamentalists and religious fanatics. These figures are presumed to be representative of the whole of the religious enterprise.

Here our author betrays a curious inability to distinguish between the suicide bomber and Mother Teresa.

The book contains more factual and logical blunders than can be dealt with here. However, it has two general weaknesses that are worth highlighting. First, the case presented violates a standard principle of academic debate– that the most powerful critiques are those that succeed against the strongest version of the opponent's position.

Dawkins has simply not bothered to familiarise himself with the vast literature on philosophy of religion and science and religion. He has not taken on the most sophisticated representatives of the religious viewpoint. Instead, he finds himself a few easy targets and scores cheap points.

On the same theme, as we have seen, his exemplars of religion are an assortment of religious extremists whom few persons of faith would recognise as fellow travellers.





Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK-NO13ajF0
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb8Ndk66gPs
Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrhbHn-dE40&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL6A77FA2E44589354


The Trouble with Atheism is an hour-long documentary on atheism, presented by Rod Liddle. It aired on Channel 4 in December 2006. The documentary focuses on criticising atheism for its perceived similarities to religion, as well as arrogance and intolerance. The programme includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including atheists Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. It also includes an interview with Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Atheism


The ideas in atheism were discussed in philosophy far before atheism ever existed.


There are many accounts of the history of atheism, but they disagree substantially over its beginnings and its main protagonists. ... Fritz Mauthner's Atheism and its History in the West [Der Atheismus und seine Geschichte im Abendlande] (1922-24), and Michael Hunter and David Wootton's Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment (1992), to name just two prominent ones, work with too broad too broad a definition of atheism, which besides strict negation of God's existence also covers various forms of religious criticism, heterodoxy and nonconformity. As the German contemporary scholar of atheism Winfried Schroeder points out, a 'history of atheism' can often in fact amount to something more like a history of various religious departures from orthodoxy than of atheism in any strict sense. ... Schroeder notes that in Hunter and Wootton’s view the church critic Paolo Sarpi, the deist Jean Bodin, the Jewish questioner of the authority of the Torah and the immortality of the soul Uriel da Costa and the strictly atheistic clandestine text Theophrastus redivivus are all lumped together under the broad catch-all term 'atheism.’ In fact only the latter text has a clear claim to being described as atheistic.[3] However, Hunter and Wootton's fusing of the history of atheism with the history of certain forms of heterodoxy can gives the impression that there has been a continuous history of atheism from the Reformation (or earlier) to the Enlightenment, a thesis which is open to question. By contrast, Lucien Febvre's Le probleme de l'incroyance au XVIe siecle (1942), and Paul Oskar Kristeller's The Myth of Renaissance Atheism and the French Tradition of Free-Thought (1968) employ a narrower (and more modern) definition of atheism that more strictly distinguishes blasphemy, heresy and anticlericalism from direct questioning of God's existence. [4] They conclude that there is no good evidence for atheism (in this stricter sense) prior to the seventeenth century. According to these historians, accusations of atheism in the sixteenth century and earlier amount to nothing more than an indication that the accuser was in some respect or other hostile to the position of the accused, not that there was any genuine atheism around.[5]

Depending on the history of atheism consulted, the interested reader can come away either with the impression that contemporary atheism has a long lineage stretching back through the atheists of the French Enlightenment, the Paduan Averroists of the sixteenth century, the middle ages and back to antiquity; or that it appears surprisingly late in history, no earlier than the mid seventeenth century.

From http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html


What is the one and only true history of atheism? Who is a "true atheist"? It sounds exactly the same as fundamentalist Christians fighting over their one and only true history and who is and is not a "true Christian". Just substitute "true Christian" for "true atheist".

I do not define myself as an a-murderist though I am against murder. Atheists do define themselves as being against theism as the etymology of the word demonstrates.

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).

From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist


Note that the etymology indicates that the term "atheist" did not exist before the 16th century. It is an anachronism to use the term "atheist" to anything before the 16th century.

MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISM: Part 4 Ignorance Of Contemporary Concepts Of God

Unlike atheism with it's single slogan and mantra "There is no God / gods", contemporary theology and contemporary philosophy of religion are extremely complex. Describing God to an atheist is like describing colour to a blind man.

One can indirectly describe God as theologians and philosophers of religion do regularly. They both use metaphor. The vast majority of contemporary theologians and philosophers of religion define God as non-empirical.

Atheism relies on extremely outdated definitions from the 19th century and earlier and erroneously assumes an empirical God for which there must be empirical evidence. The Christian trinity of Father God, the Christ of Faith and the Holy Spirit are all non-empirical. ( The historical Jesus of Nazareth is empirical.) The Jewish God Hashem and the Muslim God Al-Lah are also both non-empirical.

I use the metaphor "Ground of All Being" used by Christian philosopher and theologian Paul Tillich (as well as mentioned in the Hindu Vedas as a metaphor for Brahman). A non-theistic God does not exist but is the Ground of All Being - that which makes existence possible. It does not have the characteristic of that which it creates - existence.

All that atheists can say against such a non-theistic non-existent God who is the Ground of All Being God is that it is somehow "redefining" God and "moving the goalposts" as though both theology and the philosophy of religions must remain stuck in the 19th century or earlier so that atheists have a straw man to joust against. It is hardly "redefining" or "moving the goal posts" when that same God is mentioned as Brahman in the Vedas 3000 years ago as well as being mentioned more recently by Paul Tillich, John Shelby Spong and Karen Armstrong to name a few.

Theist Grandmother's God and Atheist Uncle's God is not a non-theistic God. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_ZML17tRx0

Atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. A non-theistic God who is the Ground of All Being does not exist. God's existence belongs to theism and not non-theism. Atheism is thus totally irrelevant to those who follow this non-theistic God. An atheist argument against theism is of no interest or concern to non-theists.

Atheists apparently do not know that which they are against against - "A-theism." It is like being an "a-blahist" and not knowing what "blah" means. For a movement supposedly built upon reason there is much unreasonableness, irrationality and illogical thinking involved.

I quote from Karen Armstrong "A History Of God"(Vintage: 1999):

Throughout history people have discarded a conception of God when it no longer works for them. p. 408.

[Carl] Jung .... whether he believed in God ... replied emphatically: 'I do not have to believe. I kniow!'Jung's continued faith suggests that a subjective God, mysteriously identified with the ground of being in the depths of the self, can survive psychoanalytic science in a way that a more personal, anthropomorphic deity who can encourage perpetual immaturity may not. p. 410

It is impossible for us to meet God in any anthropomorphic way. God is the Ground of all being, so bound up with our own existence that we cannot possibly talk to him, as though he were simply another person like ourselves. There are no words or ideas that describe God. p. 426

Paul Tillich (1868-1965) ... A God who kept tinkering with the universe was absurd; a God who interfered with human freedom and creativity was a tyrant. If God is seen as a self in a world of his own, an ego that relates to a thou, a cause separate from its effect, 'he' becomes a being, not Being itself. An omnipotent, all-knowing tyrant is not so different from earthly dictators who made everything and everybody mere cogs in the machine which they controlled. An atheism that rejects such a God is amply justified. Instead we should seek to find a 'God' above this personal God. ..... a God who, as Being itself, was nearer to the I than our own ego. Tillich preferred the definition of God as the Ground of being. Participation in such a God above 'God' does not alienate us from the world but immerses us in reality. It returns us to ourselves. Human beings have to use symbols when they talk about Being-itself: to speak literally or realistically about it is inaccurate and untrue. ... pp. 438-439

The mystics have long insisted that God is not an-Other Being; they have claimed that he does not really exist and that it is better to call him Nothing. This God is in tune
with the atheistic mood of our secular society with its distrust of inadequate images of the absolute. Instead of seeing God as an objective Fact, which can be demonstrated by means of scientific proof, mystics have claimed that he is a subjective experience, mysteriously experienced in the ground of being. This God is to be approached through the imagination and can be seen as a kind of art form, akin to the other great artistic symbols that have expressed the ineffable mystery, beauty and value of life. Mystics have used music, dancing, poetry, fiction, stories, painting, sculpture and architecture to express this Reality that goes beyond concepts. Like all art, however, mysticism requires intelligence, discipline and self-criticism as a safeguard against indulgent emotionalism and projection. ... The God of the mystics does not arrive ready-made and prepackaged. ... God does not exist in any simplistic sense, for example, or that the very word 'God' is only a symbol of a reality that ineffably transcends it. ... pp. 454 -455

Ever since the prophets of Israel started to ascribe their own feelings and experiences to God, monotheists have in some sense created a God for themselves. God has rarely been seen as a self-evident fact that can be encountered like any other objective existent. p.456


nontheist (ˌnɒnˈθiːɪst)


1. a person who believes the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant; a person who rejects as unimportant both theism and atheism
2. a person who rejects theism (belief in a personal God or gods), whether as an atheist or agnostic

From http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/nontheist


The following should also be noted as the "Atheist Mantra" of demanding empirical evidence for a non-empirical God is a category error. Few theists believe in an empirical God. The "Atheist Mantra" of demanding empirical evidence for a non-empirical God is thus a Straw Man argument.

a. Incorporeality

Incorporeality. God has no body (from Latin, incorporale), or is non-physical. This is a central tenet of monotheistic religions, which insist that any references to God’s eyes, ears, mind, and the like are anthropomorphic. ...

While some regard God’s incorporeality as true analytically (that is, true by the very definition of the word “God”), others derive it from one or more other attributes. Accordingly, God cannot be corporeal because that would preclude his being eternal, immutable, and simple, for example. Furthermore, if God were corporeal and omnipresent, it would seem that all physical things would be part of God. Others derive divine incorporeality from an apparent incorporeal element of human nature, termed the soul or spirit.

From http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/



Atheism has not been empirically verified as true.

Atheists do make claims about God. Atheist signs appearing on buses (with official support from the British Humanist Association, atheist Richard Dawkins and atheist philosopher Philosopher AC Grayling) stated: "There’s probably no God.". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign

The burden of proof is definitely upon such atheists to give a positive argument with verifiable evidence that their extraordinary claim is correct. "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence".

Where is the scientific experiment conducted by atheists that definitively proved that God does not exist? How was the experiment conducted? Which science journal was it published in and who were the researchers? How did they define the God whom they state probably doesn't exist? What is the exactly measured probability and what calculation was used to get that probability?

Note that the above ad campaign puts to rest the incorrect notion that atheists never make claims about God. The ad campaign is a direct claim.


claim [kleɪm]
2. an assertion of something as true, real, or factual

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


I demand evidence for the extraordinary atheist claim that there is no God. The absolutist claim that "there is no God / gods" is a dogma by dictionary definition.

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The claim that there is no God / "There is probably no God" is quite extraordinary considering that the vast majority of people in the world believe in God / gods. Atheism is a minority position.  People sprouting that extraordinary claim should be able to prove it.

"He who asserts must prove." The burden of proof is upon the person who claims "There is no God / gods."

Quoting Christopher Hitchens - "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." If atheists cannot give positive evidence for their claims then their claims can be dismissed.

Why do the rules above not apply to atheist claims? Isn't a rejection of these rules for atheists a case of special pleading?

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself  (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S.

From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html


Dumbing it down for atheists ...

Atheist A accepts standard(s) S ["Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." & "He who asserts must prove." ] and applies them to those who are not atheists in circumtance(s) C [Statements of belief and / or nonbelief]

Atheist A is in circumstance(s) C [Stating the extraordinary claim of nonbelief "There is no God" / There's probably no God."].

Therefore Atheist A is exempt from S.


Although not all atheists claim "there is no God" many do and it is in the dictionary definition of atheism.

I quote http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism

Capitals for emphasis ....

a·the·ism (th-zm)
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


While the British Humanist Association, atheist Richard Dawkins and atheist philosopher Philosopher AC Grayling) have not given the calculations that they have made for the probability of God and their result, Stepehn D Unwin has and stated that the proability that God exists is 67%. See http://www.stephenunwin.com/ Complete his test at http://www.is-there-a-god.info/prgod/tt-pgod.shtml

MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISM: Part 2 Lack Of A Positive Argument For Atheism

There is no positive argument for atheism. It proceeds by the negative road of criticising theism. It states that theism is wrong but gives no positive viewpoint for atheism. When you mention that verifiable fact atheists then assert that they do indeed have a positive argument and then proceed with an argument that uses "no ... not ... none" and words with negative connotation such as "ïnvalid" and "insufficient". When you point out the verifiable fact that such an argument is in fact a negative argument using negative words and negative statements and not a positive argument using positive words and positive statements they act like a stunned mullet.

A negative argument against theism is not a positive argument for atheism. They both could be wrong.

Why would anyone want to join a group that is against theism when that same group has no positive argument for it's own existence? A-theism is as irrelevant to daily life as a-invisiblepinkunicornism or a-fairyism or a-flyingspaghettimonsterism or a-santaclausism or a-toothfairyism or a-leprechaunism.

Can atheists provide proof that atheism is 100% correct? If there is any element of doubt (something less than 100%) then there is a possibility of God.

Atheists should be able to prove there is no God if that is actually true as one can prove a negative despite the mantra of "you can't prove a negative" that floods atheism.


It is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Some people even think that it is a law of logic- you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all.

See http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html