Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
No it's not, it's the beginning of the road. Science doesn't know how something happens or works, so it tries to figure it out.
In theism, it's usually "God did it", and that's the end of the road. Or if you claim it's not, then can you tell me *how* God created life, or the universe? You claim 'I don't know' isn't an acceptable answer, so that would imply you know how God did this.
Or if theists don't know how God creates stuff, then what tests are they doing, or what experiments are they performing to try to find out? Oh that's right, they're not, because "God did it" and that's good enough for them.
Atheism isn't a belief, and scientific theories are broad explanations of natural phenomena established with objective evidence, so you'd have to be using blind ignorant bias to deny them, especially in favour of unevidenced archaic superstition. The bible is filled with erroneous fantasy, denying this is asinine. It's creation myth couldn't even get the most basic facts like the chronology of the formation of our solar system in the correct order. All living things evolved over billions of years, this is a scientific fact, any belief that requires denial of that is a pointlessness vapid delusion. Whenever I hear creationists like yourself I am initially stunned at such ignorance, but then start to feel sorry for them, then get annoyed by their wilful arrogant ignorant claims, then just end up pointing and laughing.
At least you didn't say evolution is just a theory, which has to be the most moronic creationist canard of all. If someone can't even be bothered to learn what a scientific theory is, then they ought really not advertise such stupidity and ignorance.
@ApocalypticHSent
What is the core temperature of our Sun?
You pose as if your bible has the answer to everything, what is the core temperature?
RE: My eyes are bleeding.....
"There is no absolute proof for any belief but evidence can be found in everything because of the 1+0 always = 1 source God who started everything." HOW LONG MUST THIS CONTINUE?
A nice association fallacy, but most atheists I know of and speak to have varying beliefs.
Most atheists online take the path of not committing to answering questions with their personal thoughts on the matter because it shifts the burden of proof.
We all may have different ideas to the condition of the cosmos prior to the big bang or T=0.
But that's not the point, the point is, you fuckers have to wedge your beliefs in where knowledge is limited by current understanding.
But everytime we hit a tough spot, science answers it accurately, as oppose to religion, which has offered precisely... Fuck all!
You're the ones trying to invoke some pan dimensional cosmic overlord when we are perplexed by something, where as most atheist will simply say, "let's look at the evidence!" And follow the causal links!
However, I'm not exactly the same as most of my fellow atheists, I'd most likely be labelled a non-theist... in that I'm positive there is no magical sky wizard, people weren't made from clay, there is no heaven, no hell, morality isn't objective, a race of beings cant come from two people (look up habsberg jaw for inkling as to why) and the earth isn't fucking flat or poofed into being by some bearded, totalitarian David Blaine.
The real reason you twats struggle on these sites is because we play the game!
You can only make bullshit inductive or abductive logical arguements and appeals to authority... no deductive arguments, no empirical or objective evidence.
You try to get us to take the bait, but no, you maintain the burden of proof, given the epic and gargantuan size of your nonsensical claims.
So how about, stop wasting our fucking time and offer your best piece of evidence to support the notion that there is a god....
Agnostic
noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Atheism
noun.
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
The two are not mutually exclusive. For some reason many theists make the same erroneous claim you have. Perhaps you're just too lazy to Google the two words, to learn the definition?
It's possible to be an agnostic and either believe or disbelieve in a deity.
Though why anyone would believe a claim they admit they can know nothing about is puzzling. Agnosticism would be an epistemological necessity for me, on all unfalsifiable claims. As would withholding belief of course. It's worth noting here that not claims made about deities and religious beliefs are unfalsifiable, thus an apologist would have to properly and accurately define what they mean by a deity before I could know whether their position is an undalsifiabel one, however at its broadest definition it appears to be an unfalsifiable claim, thus I am both an agnostic and an atheist.
Not sure you understand logic at all, or how to spell it, given you've pluralised it. If you have a logical proof for the existence of a deity you've managed to keep it very well hidden. I can find nothing on any news network about this paradigm shifting revelation.
Probably because you're talking nonsense, if I'm being brutally honest.
He has only been told this 25 times now. He does not give a shit.
Hello, brothers! It's been a long time indeed and I had terminated my contributions on this thread for a number of reasons
1. I saw that my postulates required some understanding of basic computer programming, electronics, physics combined with a lil dose of logics to make sense either for a solid rebuttal or corrections or affirmation
2. It seems most here are either more familiar with d humanities, biological science or d arts (of course we can't all walk the same way)
3. Apart 4rm d normal atheistic hyena-like behaviours when making fun of theists, there was nothing really equivalent counter-knowledge.
4. The average atheist read much more than the average theist, so I assumed u would be able to rethink my postulations. Unfortunately, i overestimated ur comprehension of things u have read.
I'll be back to make some responses to some of ur claims.
@redemption
You're a bare faced liar, your posts in this thread not only don't use logic, they contain multiple known common logical fallacies. You're simply parroting arguments you've seen elsewhere, but were too ignorant to recognise as woefully fallacious. Now you've been found out you're simply lying to try and save face.
The disintegration of your post into juvenile text abbreviations strongly infers you're a moronic troll to boot.
Please don't bother coming back unless you have some interest in honest cogent debate, and are prepared to stop lying and trolling. Most religious apologetics becomes tedious after a while, because you're all so closed minded, but your level of idiotic ignorance and duplicity is a pointless waste of bandwidth.
Go away and learn what an argument from ignorance fallacy is., and stop embarrassing yourself man.
@Grinseed
RE: "They have been known to wilfully distort d truth and they declare atheists to be "dishonest" without reasonable explanation"
Have I in anyway behaved thus? If i have, it's not my nature: probably a slip of the flesh and i apologise
@Cognostic, @cranky47, @CyberLN & @Sheldon
I very well understood you all but i disagree with your submissions
You say:
1. I both do not believe the assertion that god exists
AND
2. I admit i have no way if they do or not
Statement 1 makes you an atheist BUT Statement 2 makes you an agnostic.
The implication of Statement 2 is that since you already admit that "there is no way to know" if gods exist or not, why argue with affirmation that "the gods don't exist". This to me is no more an agnostic position but a gnostic position.
An agnostic atheists truly have no basis for arguing with affirmation that "the gods don't exist".
@FUCK!
@reedemption: RE: " why argue with affirmation that "the gods don't exist". " Why must we do this 25 times for you. Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is not a position on the non-existence of god. Atheism does not hold the position, "God does not exist." Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. Why is that so frigging difficult for you to grasp?
RE: " Why argue with affirmation that "the gods don't exist". This to me is no more an agnostic position but a gnostic position." I am not aware of taking the position that a god does not exist. "The position is, Your claims of a first cause are unfounded."
Agnostic - there is no knowledge about gods. The logical conclusion is to "NOT BELIEVE UNTIL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED." Atheism - "Non-belief in god claims" It is the most honest position to take until such time as evidence for the existence of a god is provided.
@reedemption
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, why do you keep lying about that? Do think we want Google word definitions?
I posted them for you, and just because a claim is unfalsifiable doesn't mean you are obliged to believe it, quite the opposite.
Do you believe invisible unicorns exist? Can you prove they don't?
It's not that complicated, unfalsifiable claims are meaningless and easy to create.
I am an atheist as I don't believe in any deity, I am an agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, including deities. If they're falsifiable clams then present your method for testing them
reedemption, ffs, please point out where anyone has asserted that god(s) do not exist.
@Cognostic
RE: "Pretending you know an answer is just delusion. Supporting your delusional answer with more delusion only succeeds in proving you are deluded"
Unfortunately, my experience cannot convince you and i know that. So why assert that "I have experience" when it can at best be subjective? But even though my subjective experience cannot convince you, you can't proof that my experience isn't real to me. But that is understandable: because i will act with doubt if a person claims he has seen Big Foot. The only way i can logically reach an atheist isn't through my experience (which is real to me) but through science, logics and knowledge of electronics. However, "I know what i know"! It's you who don't know. So keep it that way. Atheists fault Theists mainly on the basis of science and logics
@Reedemption: "Unfortunately, my experience cannot convince you and i know that."
YEA!!!!
RE: The argument from personal experience: " You can't proof that my experience isn't real to me." No one denies your experience, just your interpretation of the experience without facts or evidence. If you presented this argument in a syllogistic form it would look like this.
1. My personal experience is infallible
2. I have personally experienced a creator God.
3. Therefor the creator god exists.
The beauty of science is that it takes such inane assertion out of the realm of pure thought and puts them to the test. Without facts of evidence there is never a reason for another human on the planet to believe you. No one argues that you did not have an experience. How do you know it is God. Why can't it be Satan convincing you it is God. How did you rule out insanity? You have literally nothing to base your supposition on but for the assertion "I think it was real." No one is calling you a liar. Have all the personal experiences you want. There is no reason for me to believe any of it. How do you know you are not being fooled?
@Cognostic
RE: "FALSE DICHOTOMY.... WE HAVE A STEADY STATE UNIVERSE, OSCILLATING UNIVERSE BLA BLA BLA"
This is just a rush in judgement with no basis whatsoever. You know my English isn't that good! Afterall you've all been mocking me about it (looking @Old Man shouts)
However, the word cosmos i think is a synonym of universe. Scientifically, there is nothing outside the universe. The boundary of the universe extends from +infinity to -infinity. If God didn't create the universe, then it's either the universe had always existed or the universe created itself. On this, every other argument can be built.
@ reedy
I don't know what language you speak as a native tongue, but I doubt you make much more sense in it than you do in English.
You attempt to redefine words, mix up concepts and serve us a magnificent word salad with no substance.
In short, Tommyrot, Piffle, Waffle, Bilge.
@reedemption: "However, the word cosmos I think is a synonym of universe." Helps to clarify terms. Universe refers to local time and matter in this universe while cosmos to everything beyond. Not that your assertion is wrong. Some theories use Universe for Cosmos and others separate them as in the many dimensions model or the multiple Big Bang Hypothesis.
Here in lies the problem. If the universe is the cosmos and there is nothing more. The universe is everything. Then there is no outside. There is no cosmos. You have eliminated the possibility of your ultimate cause.
How does infinity have a creation. By its nature, infinity has no starting point. You understand infinity is a description and not a finite number, right? There is the infinity of all positive numbers. There is the infinity of all negative numbers. There is the infinity of all numbers positive and negative. All these infinities are the same size. In an infinite universe, there is no place for a God. Unless perhaps.... you want to be a Hindu. Then, God is the universe playing hide and seek with himself.
You are still stuck in a bipolar dualistic, this or that, phenomenology. This is a FALLACY. You are, quite simply, not including all possible options. Why can't the stuff of the universe always exist but the universe itself come into existence? In a closed universe, gravity eventually stops the expansion of the universe, after which it starts to contract until all matter in the universe collapses to a point, a final singularity termed the "Big Crunch", the opposite of the Big Bang. So the universe is in a state of constant birth and death over and over and over ad-infintum. You are limiting the possibilities by pretending you know something. Stop pretending and go do some research.
@reedemption
"If God didn't create the universe, then it's either the universe had always existed or the universe created itself."
How did you rule out that the universe may have been created by an external force?
reedemption "This is just a rush in judgement with no basis whatsoever. "
Hahahahahahaha, good one. Now can you demonstrate anything beyond appeal to ignorance fallacies, and god of the gaps polemic to evidence any deity?
I'll give you a clue any sentence starting with "if god didn't create blah blah blah" is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Any sentence that postulates unknowns must be proved else godditit are likewise appeal to ignorance fallacies and nothing more than a god of the gaps polemic.
Coloured bubbles might distract children momentarily, but no atheist on here is unaware of these fallacies, so you're fooling only yourself. Though even that ship must surely have sailed by now as well.
Cognostic
RE: "DNA is a code = equivocation fallacy"
You worry about the word "code" when everyone who has written a computer program before understand the meaning as "program" and not "Encryption".
If u had a foggiest idea of computer program, ur argument will certainly not go in dis manner. It's one thing to say the DNA are chemicals but Programming can also be hard coded as logic gates within a computer. You have no idea of what you dispute against. Let me ask you a logics question: If we live in a 1D world, would we be able to comprehend a 2D world? In case we can't, can we conclude with certainty that 2D world doesn't exist?
@reedemption
Let me ask you a question about logic. Why do you keep completely ignoring the fact you are repeatedly using known logical fallacies in your polemic for a deity?
Even if you didn't know what they were before, you must know by know as they've been pointed out and explained to you again and again, yet you just roll right passed repeating the same fallacies.
Do you not see that any debate is over in the face if such duplicity?
Incidentally can you link any peer reviewed work in genetics published in a worthy scientific journal, that agrees with your unevidenced assumption that it requires a supernatural cause?
You needn't answer of course, as we already know your claim to scientific support is as ludicrous a lie as your dishonest claim for sound logical argument.
@reedemption: RE: "When everyone who has written a computer program before understand the meaning as "program" and not "Encryption"
And herein lies your problem. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT COMPUTER PROGRAMMERS. It is an ANALOGY. People are biologists are attempting to demonstrate what they are talking about through "analogy." " A comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human science"
They are not the same thing but are analogous in some ways. READ THE ARTICLE: "First of all, argument by analogy always fails. Analogies are a teaching tool. They are for describing a difficult concept to someone who has no experience with that concept. By relating that concept to something that they already understand, then they can begin to see how that concept works."
"To a 5th grade student, I would make the analogy that DNA is like a blueprint. It tells the cells how to make proteins. I would never use that “DNA is like a blueprint” analogy in a discussion with anyone who had the least idea about what DNA actually is."
https://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/09/10/dna-is-not-like-a...
Do yourself a favor and actually read the article. You will not sound as ignorant afterwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XmhoLINJt0 YouTube if you have trouble with the article.
ApocalypticHSent: "no one knows" "maybe" "could of" "probably" is always the end of the road answer in atheism"
It's the end of the road for you as well. You just haven't figured that out yet. The Bible is one more religious book in a long line of religious books asserted to be about a god in a long line of gods. No reason to take it seriously at all.
We have already done the personal experience and prayer thing. No one gives a shit about your personal experience.
What postulates? Could you list them explicitly?
@reedemption
"Unfortunately, agnostics come here feigning atheism and use science as a bases to knock down theism. That aside, it is logically possible to find the truth if one desires."
Yes, via the most effective method in determining and explaining phenomena, science. There is no other methodology that produces the most reliable and effective results.
"The position of "I don't know" seems to be a path of easy escape for anyone who refuse to exercise the use of simple logics."
If one does not have an answer, the honest reply is "I do not know" instead of taking the religious approach which is to pretend to know everything and just make up shit.
Pages