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.
Atheist ≠ Evolutionist
Evolution + Creationism ≠ 100% of the possibilities out there
i would, but there will be questions
This is my first contribution to 'Atheist Republic', and I must immediately confess that I have not read all the posts so I apologise if I repeat what has already been said by another contributor.
What was immediately obvious on reading the original post and some of the replies was how familiar it all seemed. I have read many articles written by creationists and the pattern is very similar in all of them. Arguments are conducted as they would be in a bible study class. This means that in their mind it is acceptable to access any part of the bible to provide quotes to support their argument whatever the context of those quotes. You only have to spend 5 minutes watching a TV evangelist to see this in action. No-one seems to challenge this, but nowhere else do you see this out-of-context quote system being used and accepted as a valid vehicle for argument.
Even worse, they cherry pick it, as if all that is written is valid.
In reality they really need to cut like 98% out of the bible to get a semi decent "interpretation" to make that out of context argument.
Though i think they quote to make their argument valid and in accordance with what god said.
Even if you find apologetics admitting that not everything that is written is divinely inspired, the truth is that they are teaching the masses the inspired riddle anyway.
Just like lawyers need to lie to defend a guilty person, so do apologetics.
To be a christian you must be a hypocrite with yourself and others.
Good qualities for a lawyer career.
One of the most annoying aspects of this kind of argument is the refusal to admit that there is such a thing as scientific consensus. Reading some of Chuck's posts would lead one to imagine that there are raging arguments taking place within the scientific community concerning those points he finds it most difficult to reconcile with his beliefs. There is, of course, total scientific consensus that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old as there is about the origin of species by natural selection. And I'm afraid that using the 'I don't understand' defence in all its manifestations is not acceptable. If you post an extract from a scientific paper to support your argument then you must be prepared to argue scientifically. It is your responsibility to acquaint yourself with scientific methodology. If you are not prepared to do this then stop wasting everyone's time. Be honest and simply state that because your faith is big enough, facts don't matter.
Peace and love
VCB
,
@ Chuck "Travis
You apparently are claiming that everything started by some kind of big bang theory. In which I would agree that if that was the case, of course the earth couldn't be young. But there wouldn't be any life either. It is completely impossible for life to begin from non life!!!!!! Therefore with God no problem for any of it. He spoke and the world was created ready for man and all the living things to survive. Life from life, not from a bang. :)"
Chuck, please define for me at which level of biochemical complexity chemicals may be regarded as "life". Do this, and then I can illustrate for you how stupid your claim "life cannot come from non-life" is.
Thank you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
If you actually tried to understand the subject, and read just a small amount of the literature available, you might actually be able to write something slightly sensible instead of utter garbage. Whether you would choose to is a different matter.
@ Nutmeg "If you actually tried to understand the subject, and read just a small amount of the literature available, you might actually be able to write something slightly sensible instead of utter garbage. Whether you would choose to is a different matter."
Is this directed at me, or Chuck?
You of course.
Nutmeg, so you're telling me that my asking Chuck to define for me at what level of biochemical complexity chemicals can be regarded as life is "garbage"? Am I to think you're a creationist who can't understand simple concepts such as the chemical nature of all life, or that you read the first line of my reply to Chuck and failed to recognize it was a quote, therefore you're just too lazy to actually read what I wrote?
Oh for Fuck's sake. This OP is a travesty. Vomitous. Disingenuous. Crap.
This thread is very old. Most of these people are not around anymore. It is better to start new threads if you enjoy debating this subject matter.
Atheists are just disclaimers, we just disclaim the opinions that there's a superior being who demands worship and dislike how people are all bigotry about it , and the atrocities, stigmatization, and segregations religion has caused , all in the name of a God in the " skies "they think they know how to please . Plenty of facts has proved their holy books unholy and their response to it is " God works in mysterious ways " , that sounds like a big piece of crap logical people like me wouldn't accept, it's only in these religious Scriptures you are gonna find free will and predestination all imbued in man,
Imagine an adult pretending to be a child in, say, a written correspondence. The adult knows what a child's penmanship might look like, their simple use of grammar, regular misspellings, and what the heck, write it in crayon. An adult can write a convincing letter that others could easily believe was written by a child.
Now, suppose a child wants to pretend to be an adult and write like an adult. Give the kid a typewriter and anything they come up with is still going to look like it was written by a child.
Why? Because the child has no experience as an adult, and the adult has experienced not only their own childhood, but likely had known many children AND had experience in the adult world.
Here we have an author who claims to have been an 'evolutionist'. Ding. There it is. Anyone who has EVER actually understood evolution does not tend to call themselves an 'evolutionist'. 'Evolutionist' is the creationists' word for people who understand and believe evolution. This is an example of someone who doesn't know something PRETENDING to know something, and for all those who actually know it, it's as obvious as a writ of certiorari written in crayon at a third grade level.
But the reason we know that this author was never an 'evolutionist', at least not someone who ever actually understood evolution, is because evolution is a learned thing. 'Learned' in this sense meaning 'acquisition of the facts and understanding of their significance'.
To say you are an 'ex-evolutionist' is equivalent to a microbiologist suddenly no longer believing that sickness is caused by microorganisms, but instead by 'evil spirits'. It is tantamount to an astronomer deciding that he no longer believes the Earth is an oblate spheroid revolving around the Sun, but that it is in fact flat, and the sun is an object the size of a basketball that passes over from one side to the other.
Both would be considered a sign of an acute psychotic breakdown.
No atheist would say they 'argue against the truth of God'. They don't have to 'argue' anything, and they know it. Do some argue with theists? Sure. But they know that they're not arguing 'against' god because you can't argue 'against' something that doesn't exist. No, atheists argue 'against' theists, not 'against god'. An atheist would also never say "when I found out that atheism was a religion..."
Actual atheists laugh when they are accused of being of a different 'faith'. That's the point, there is no 'faith' to an atheist. There is no 'religion' they adhere to. It's like telling someone they are an avid 'non-skier', and they have a serious hobby of 'not fishing'... it's simply ridiculous. Anyone who was ever an atheist would never say something so stupid.
But I think this was the part that just seals it:
"I realized that if evolution were true, there would be so much evidence that it wouldn't have to be argued about."
No one can 'become' an 'evolutionist' without actually studying the massive amount of evidence, and yes, proof, that supports the theory. Any ACTUAL student of evolutionary theory would already know that there is a ridiculously huge body of data and study that supports it. And no, no one can actually effectively argue against it because there exists ZERO substantial evidence to the contrary.
Basically, 'Chuck' here is stating that he used to be a grown up, but decided to go back to believing in a flat earth, evil spirits, and fairy tales.
No, this guy was never an atheist OR a student of evolutionary theory, and it's blatantly obvious to any of us who are.
There is no evidence behind atheism. It's the utter absence of evidence for the existence of a god that demands our rejection of the claim. It is our rejection of the claim that makes us atheists, not evidence that the claim is false.
Let me see if I can make you understand this.
Evidence is a by-product of existence. Nothing can exist without affecting anything else. It is the interaction between existing things that generates evidence of existence. You don't get any evidence if nothing exists. About the best you can do is to show that the evidence offered to support the one claim is actually evidence that another claim is true. That's what science has done...science has shown us that there are natural processes and forces behind the existence of everything in the universe, and that these things are not the result of a creator god. So, basically, if you present a claim without any evidence to back it up, it is the lack of evidence that undermines your claim and leaves open all other possibilities.
Atheism is NOT a religion. There isn't an atheist doctrine. There isn't atheist dogma. Atheists have no scriptures, no rituals, no customs or traditions; all things we commonly find in a religion. Atheism isn't even a belief. It's the lack of a belief; a singular belief. At best, atheism is an adjective that describes a person without a belief in god. I'm sorry, but you are badly confused and horribly disillusioned about what atheism is and isn't.
Necromancy at work!
I always find it difficult to believe when someone says they're an ex-atheist. More often then not when when everything is said and done, when questioned further. it tends to be that they were more agnostic then atheist. Or they had a slight belief in God, but never had an out-n-out disbelief as atheists will have. Not to mention if you were an atheist, you'd know that one can not have a religion without a belief in a higher power of some sort. Now, by being a disbelief in gods, that would mean that by definition, atheism is not a religion, though it is a view on religion.
Now, you said there were and I quote ""many lies in evolution with nothing to back them up."..... I would ask you what you think those lies are...
//I realized that if evolution were true, there would be so much evidence that it wouldn't have to be argued about.//
Let me ask you this... how do you define evolution? Because it seems to me that you have a different definition of what it means then how it's used in science and medicine.
//I knew that there could only be two possibilities, evolution, or God. //
I'd have to call a False Dilemma fallacy there. There aren't only two choices. I know many Christians who understand why evolution is true and see it as a process that God uses. And no, they don't see Adam and Eve as a true story, anymore then the original Jews did.
//It takes less faith in God than that nothing created something.//
So you find it takes less faith to believe that a magical mystical being of supreme power and intelligence created the universe then it does for atheist to not believe that any gods exist? I find when someone resorts to that type of comment they have nothing more to contribute because they have hit the wall in their argument...
//My thoughts on that as the most likely reason is people don't want a God of judgment to tell them that the sin they enjoy so much is wrong.//
And the same could be said for those who don't follow Thor... or Odin, or Bast, or Ra, or Imoptep, or Tiamat or Marduk...you don't wanting them judging you and condemning you to their version of hell, so you don't believe in them..
Duuuuhhhh. Atheism is not a religion so I stopped reading at that point.
Atheism isn't a religion. It's the lack of a single belief. The belief that a deity exists.
Just look the two words up in a reputable dictionary ffs.
When I was a christian I thought atheism was a religion too. What it really is, is just the way christians try to take atheism down to their level.
A small point but an atheist can also be religious. Atheism however is not a religion. A Buddhist for example can also be an atheist, and therefore is both religious and an atheist. Atheism isn't a religion as it only means the lack of a single belief, not a collection of beliefs based on dogma and doctrine. I do love it when religious apologists get hysterical though and start claiming atheism is a religion as if denigrating religion strengthens their case.Just as it's popular now for prominent apologists to claim atheism requires faith, as if they think faith is a bad thing, what does that say about a religion founded on the basis of faith? Though of course it is absurd to claim not believing in something requires faith. I often wonder if they have different faith for all the deities they don't believe in? Bizarre reasoning, almost as bizarre as claiming atheism is a belief, they must also hold separate beliefs for every deity they don't believe in then? Do they hold a believe that mermaids don't exist, and is that based on faith? The mind boggles...
Faith is something that can't be proven. I can't prove God exists to you and you can't prove He doesn't. But one day when we take our last breath it will be very evident. If you don't get saved and God is real, you will have a big problem.
Pascals wager
"
Faith is something that can't be proven. I can't prove God exists to you and you can't prove He doesn't. But one day when we take our last breath it will be very evident. If you don't get saved and God is real, you will have a big problem."
So will you, unless you have been lucky enough to be indoctrinated into the one in a thousand chance of the correct version of the correct deity. As for not being able to disprove God, you can't disprove there isn't an invisible cat in front of you, do you find the claim compelling as a result?
“I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold; surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man's place in the world. Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanising myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own.”
Bertrand Russell
First off, calling Atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sexual position. Atheism isn't an ideology, it is the lack of belief is a deity or deities. This is a favourite (incorrect) arguement of the religious folk to try bring the reasonable down to the unreasonable level.
Secondly, there is plenty of evidence of evolution, all you have to do is open your eyes to it. I can give you living, breathing evidence of evolution. Dogs, all dogs decemt from wolves, but instead of survival of the fittest it was survival of the friendliest. And if you want a new breed of dog, take 2 different breeds amd mate them and bobs your uncle, a completely new breed of dog.
First of all you apparently haven't read other posts that have been on this subject or you simply object to them. But that doesn't make you correct.
The reason Atheizum is a religion is because you believe what you believe by faith. What you claim can't be proven, ie.. faith!
At least most of you claim that there is evidence to prove you are right. But as I've said many times, your conclusions are based on your world view. In other words to scientists can look at the same thing and come to to different conclusions based on how they believe everything started. Neither has anymore prof than the other. The one believes God created it and the other believes it started from nothing.
The reason the God theory is more believable is that matter can't be created by any natural means. It then would take a super natural means. It actually takes more faith to believe nothing created something than for God to do it!
Second apparently you don't truly understand evolution. The so called evidence you gave isn't really evidence at all. Many people call the simple changes within a species micro evolution, but it's simply changes within a kind.
You see true evolution is one kind changing into another kind, in which there is no prof of anywhere. Most people simply take the word of someone elses theory. And a theory depends again on your world view!!!!!!!
This is a good example of subjective truth. I've been on your side of the fence and I can tell you that it doesn't take any faith to not believe in your god. Atheism is freedom. Theism is bondage.
One day you will find out what true bondage really is. I hope for your sake it's in this life.
Atheist's believe they can be good and the bible is bad, though the bible shows to do good even to your enemies. Question, how can there be good without God?
I've read many of the posts on this site and I see the anger and hatred in many of the battles are Atheist against Atheist. And that is just in posts. Imagine if there were a country of just Atheist's. Wow that would have to be the worst murderous country in the world.
Look at Chicago with all the ungodlyness there. Blacks kill more Blacks than anyone else. There are more killings in Chicago than in the wars in the middle East.
Man kind is of the most wicked of all God's creation. It's only because of His law that caused people to truly want to be good. And for the most part that was mainly because they didn't want to get punished. Yet for many that is still not enough to keep them from wickedness.
The more that people believe there is no God the more wicked the world becomes.
Yes I know your going to say that there are all kinds of religions that are wicked also. But it's not religion that stops people from being wicked. It's only because God and only the true God.
Just for a few, the Muslims have a made up god that tells them to kill anyone that doesn't believe the Muslim way. Catholic's used to kill real Christians until they found that they couldn't kill them all or they couldn't convert them and true Christianity was winning out, so they had to change their ways. And yes there are false Christians in that have infiltrated into true Christianity also, but God told us that would happen. They are called hypocrites and God said they will all have their place in the lake of fire. So not even false Christians will escape judgment.
Conclusion, there is no goodness without the true God!!!!
Some men are wicked. Not all. I don't go to church or subscribe to religion and my children are at least if not more humble, kind, generous and loving than christian children. If what you say is true then christians should have utopia in their community. They don't, they lie steal and cheat just like the rest of the world. Probably a statistical tie between christians being evil and non christians being evil.
Pages