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.
Another request.
Can you point me to resource(s) which do the best job at proving that death occurred more than 6,000 years ago? And extra points for a resource which specifically refutes the claims by young earthers.
Thanks again.
@ LostAndBroken
Wow, did you ever jump the tracks. From religion to earth science.
Is this planet over 6,000 years old? All of the archeological and geological and astronomical evidence all indicates this planet has been around for billions of years. And all the evidence the new earthers can produce? The bible told me so. Of these two positions, which is the most compelling and rational?
And do not forget the history and validity of the bible is questionable.
Once again, you strive to try to refute a wild claim. I don't have to try, I put the burden of proof on those making the claim, the young earthers. Ask them to prove their claim instead of asking atheists to disprove their claim.
There’s this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
I’ve never really used their site, but I know others have. I was raised with a creationist point of view.
Again, another common story... Adam and Eve. Quick question, did god create them to live forever?
Edited to clarify: I don’t hold a “creationist” POV but I sure had a lot to relearn. I was taught from a “creation vs evolution” book at home to counter my school science classes.
L&B,
Here’s another one that everyone is familiar with. The 10 Commandments. Gods starting point for morality and often used “against” atheists as a basis for us having no moral code.
Simple.
Basic outline of what happened.
Moses goes up mountain after Israel freed from Egypt. He’s getting Gods commandments for his new nation.
He comes down, holding the commandments and sees the Israelites, worshipping a “false god” that they made because they had already “forgotten” what God did for them (really?!?!? After just a bit o’time? and now-a-days they accuse us of having “short attention” spans)
Moses “forgets” Command #5 “thou shalt not kill” and has them slayed, after dropping and breaking the commandments.
Trots back up the mountain where God gives him a replacement copy “exactly as before” Exodus 34 One day the Lord said to Moses, “Cut two flat stones like the first ones I made, and I will write on them the same commandments that were on the two you broke. (continues with go up to Mount Sinai, etc)
So now God is using His memory to regive the
SAME commands (that were broke): verses 10-26 of Exodus 34...
Guess what? No mention of “thou shalt not kill” #5 and ends with #10 “not to boil a kid goat in its mother’s milk.”
28 Moses stayed on the mountain with the Lord for forty days and nights, without eating or drinking. And he wrote down the Ten Commandments, the most important part of God’s agreement with his people.
THESE commands were the ones carried around in the Ark of the Covenant.
So a quick question ... the 1st set, that was broken and nobody got to read...and God himself remembered and gave the replacement set... WHERE did they come from? WHO wrote them?
The bible is just a book of stories.
Just stories. No more valid or truthful or reflective of reality than any other myth.
Whitefire,
I know the Bible pretty well, and I'd say that it's only about 1 in 20 times that a supposed contradiction can't easily be explained away. It's my experience that most who reject the Bible do it on the basis of very, very weak claims.
But, ouch... He gives the words, then it says that Moses wrote those words. It also tells us which words were in the covenant, and it specifically declares that these are the *ten* commandments and that Moses wrote them on the tablets. I don't see any easy way out of this one! I rather doubt that even looking at the Hebrew would allow any defense.
EDIT: Actually, I do see one way out of this. God said that God would write the commandments on the tablet. Moses was also told to write on tablet(s). So there could have been two different sets. This explanation is possible, but highly unlikely; God would have had to write in half the space on these new tablets (or the tablets were twice as large), and Moses' writing would have been very similar to God's writing.
EDIT 2: Actually, it says that Moses wrote on both the tablets. This text is indeed very problematic.
"Explaining" a contradiction, does not remove the contradiction.
L&B ... “ Moses was also told to write on tablet(s). So there could have been two different sets. This explanation is possible, ”
A valid possibility, however, I would then ask “how reliable is His written word” then, if it was all recorded by man? Oops, maybe not as reliable as some people think it is.
@ LostAndBroken
"It's my experience that most who reject the Bible do it on the basis of very, very weak claims."
How about approaching the bible from a skeptic's operational viewpoint, and the default position is that it is not to believed until proven correct? Approach it from a 100% fresh perspective instead of carrying any baggage or presuppositions. Read it as if you would read any book, be it a work of fiction of a technical manual.
When you approach the bible from this viewpoint, then it just doesn't make sense, all the "little" (which many are not, but huge) inconsistencies do matter, and the bible fails as a document of any value. Of course it carries some very lovely messages and instructions, but so does a Hallmark card.
Lost and broken . I would give you a quote from OS Guinness
Sometimes when I listen to people who say they have lost their faith, I am far less surprised than they expect. If their view of God is what they say, then it is only surprising that they did not reject it much earlier.
Other people have a concept of God so fundamentally false that it would be better for them to doubt than to remain devout. The more devout they are, the uglier their faith will become since it is based on a lie. Doubt in such a case is not only highly understandable, it is even a mark of spiritual and intellectual sensitivity to error, for their picture is not of God but an idol.
I would highly recommend reading “ The Road Less Travelled “ by M Scott Peck . It’s a book about love and broken relationships , physical and spiritual.
Really!?!??? Sailing swine?
Did this author meet god personally? Did he grab a snapshot or any tangible evidence? Who is he to say another persons idea of invisible sky daddy is “false” when he can’t offer up anything “true”?
Weird... is this guy an authority on god?!!!??? Hmmmm, he should get his “paper” “peer reviewed” so we can set it at some standard for evidence. Otherwise it’s just the babblings of a theist in love with his own mind-candy.
Whitey
If you don’t believe in God then you really don’t have any skin in the game do you buddy
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
—Albert Einstein
@ TheFlyingPig
I get it, your position is that since we atheists do not embrace a god, we are exempt from discussing it, or even trying to do anything about it.
Is your religion on such shaky ground that you fear that skeptical inquiry may shake it's foundation? I have the solution. Pray to your god so that when we wake up tomorrow morning all atheists will have forgotten everything about religion. Then when you return to this forum tomorrow, it will be empty. Go ahead, let's see how powerful your god is in protecting you and your faith.
TheFlyingPig, you have the arrogance and secretive manner of a pervert with child pornography telling the police they have no right to look through his computer because they aren't perverts themselves.
So pray hard tonight, that's what you god is for.
@TheFlyingPig
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
—Albert Einstein
(1) Albert Einstein was himself an atheist.,**so that's a rather elitist claim to make. An unsupported claim, not an argument . I think he also misunderstands Marx's quote "Religion is the opium of the people"
(2) To ascribe authority to such a claim because it comes from Einstein is an argument from authority fallacy. He was a genius physicist, not a philosopher. Imo the above claim carries no more weight than if from some idiot apologist.
**************************************************************************************************************************
***"A letter in which theoretical physicist Albert Einstein called God a “product of human weakness” and the Bible merely a collection of “primitive legends” is being auctioned off, and it’s expected to bring in between $1 million and $1.5 million."
The letter actually sold for just over $3 000,000
Again, only his opinion. Can't see a connection with him being a physicist. Perhaps I missed something.
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/10/04/albert-einstein-letter-ca...
@ Cranky, good post. $3M for a letter, now that must have been a fanatical science buff.
Its so tiresome to have theists quote famous scientists on religious issues as if we atheists regard them all like saints while ignoring the fact their scientific creds speak nothing of their theological authority.
Einstein was a brilliant creative physicist who also made some tremendous blunders. Some he was lucky enough to retract and correct before his propositions were tested. And he confessed that he fudged calculations to accommodate his assumption of a steady state universe model work only to have Hubble and Lemaitre reveal with mathematical and evidential proof the universe was actually expanding. No real problem, no-one got hurt and he had the dignity and grace to admit his errors.
Most Christians are certain all other people only have fundamentally false concepts about their God and all without any objective evidence. That's what I'd call fanatical.
Has anyone ever met a 'fanatical' atheist? Are they the same as Kirk Cameron's 'devout atheists'? I am still waiting to meet one of those 'genocidal atheists'...or maybe not.
...or the FACT that there are theist scientists....
Big deal. Doesn’t “say” anything about “god” -
Just what people believe.
Depends on what your definition of an atheist is . If it is one who doesn’t believe in the Christian personal god then you are correct , AE is an atheist . If it is that there is no god , first cause , creator then you are wrong , AE is not an atheist .
“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”
–Albert Einstein
(The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, “Science Resurrects God.”)
Whether my belief or AE matters not , we have a belief in a creator . It’s one thing to debate the existence of a creator but when it is a debate between believers on the nature of god the atheist has no skin in the game . OS Guinness’s insight to a person who has lost their faith and the reality of gods nature is of no relevance to an atheist .
Whoahhhh..... again, I don’t see the relevance.
We could (well, perhaps you could) trot out quotes from scientists and mathematicians and grocery clerks and clergy and housewives and ...
ALL FUCKING DAY - opinions are like assholes - everyone has one! Who cares!
This doesn’t get anyone closer to “god”... it’s like my boys trying to understand the backstory of some video game by throwing “reviews” of a game at each other -
LOL - however, if this is quality evidence for “god” (a scientists’ belief) well then, again, I would say your standard for what constitutes “evidence” is pretty fucking low. Not only that, would you be of the “Jewish” faith (only Old Testament stuff)?
EDITED TO ADD: @ flyinghighbaconboy
“...to a person who has lost their faith and the reality of gods nature is of no relevance to an atheist .” WOW that really “stuck to you” like shit on a shoe. God’s nature?!?!?!?!!!! LOL. FIRST: prove “god”
SECOND: “his” nature
I’m a girl, female, woman, vagina blessed person - so pray tell, how do I fit in with “his nature”... and where can I read up and devote myself to learning about it? Apparently the bible doesn’t cut it anymore - maybe the Koran - or it it the opinion of this guy who you keep quoting! Let me guess - he “knows” right?!?!?!
LOL ...ssshhhhh, quiet.....oohhhhhh....I think I hear god saying something to me.... quick pass me a pen and some paper, or a stone tablet or some hat and golden stuff ... the translation of what he says might be a little murky,
BUT I’ll do my best.... be patient friends, I feel his spirit ‘astirrin’
REPOST from below, somehow this got pushed to the bottom:
WOW - god worked fast on this one.
No mention of “soon”!
OK here it is.
Firstly, men are incapable of understanding her message. She created them first as a prototype for the next best thing (think upgrades)...and she gave them a penis because it’s ugly to remind them they were the first trial run.
Eve lead the way to knowledge and was given the ability to actually bring forth life (unlike men who hold only a potential and a contribution).
However She (sorry, I forget to capitalize, but she told me that’s ok because she’s humble and doesn’t give a fuck) saw that men were waving their parts around and decided to give them a further reminder...circumcision - the woman’s was “perfect”
Men were given the job to “support” the woman so she could lead the way, advance society, because of female curiousity and relentless quest for knowledge, but alas “man” took this to mean she was to just cook and clean.
Her genetic line was intact, no questions raised as to the “mother” but again, men took it to mean the offspring were “his” and the woman onlyproperty to produce it (hence concubines and many wives).
She’s forgiving though and nonetheless patient with the male version of herself, for she contains these same “male” qualities. And like her, we her female counterparts, are just waiting for the male side to recognize her infinite wisdom.
Once that is accomplished she’ll move us forward with her “plans” - but she’s just been waiting, for what, thousands of “earth” years, and “man” is starting to somewhat “get” it, depending on the culture.
THERE - happy now. Gods nature is now explained - strait from “spirit”.
EDITED to add: feel free to “paste and copy” any section and use it as proof of gods nature - ensure you wave it in front of men so they “know” they have “no skin in the game”
@ TheFlyingPig
"Depends on what your definition of an atheist is . If it is one who doesn’t believe in the Christian personal god then you are correct , AE is an atheist . If it is that there is no god , first cause , creator then you are wrong , AE is not an atheist ."
An atheist lack s a belief in a god. Full stop. Don't attempt to redefine what an atheist is to suit your agenda.
"It’s one thing to debate the existence of a creator but when it is a debate between believers on the nature of god the atheist has no skin in the game ."
I am an atheist because I have skin in the game. Remember in the definition? I lack a belief in a god, but that does not exclude me from engaging in debate and the search for any evidence of a god. I was raised very theistic, left organized religion because IMO it was just a distraction in my being closer to my creator. And I spent the next forty years searching for a god. I wanted to find a god. But the more I learned, I realized that there was zero evidence for a god or jesus, and I had to redefine myself as an atheist.
Have you ever, in your piggish arrogance, ever considered that there may be some atheists who sincerely want to find a god, and are still open to that possibility? And they don't have skin in the game?
Your problem is that if you ever want to debate god stuff, the ones you engage with must presuppose the existence of a god. Not question it's existence. You don't even want to raise the thought that a god may not exist.
So in your compartmentalized mind, theists who debate the qualities of a god are legitimate, but atheists who question the existence of a god are ineligible. I have news for you, the qualities of a god are relevant in determining the existence of a god.
You just don't want your comfortable delusion challenged.
I didn’t define the atheist , I have no interest in that . You say you lack a belief , others will say there is no belief to lack . Whatever floats your boat .
Yes you have skin in the game when debating whether god exists or not but you have no skin in the game when it is between individuals who are agreed on the existence of a creator but are discussing the nature of that creation . You don’t believe it so you have nothing to contribute except - no no no no . OS Guinness’s advise was to someone who had a belief in a creator . It matters not what the atheist thinks about what OS said , they have no skin in that conservation .
AGAIN - hahahahahah
You narrow minded twit.
I just told you I was “inspired by gods spirit”.
Why don’t you believe what I wrote has any value?
Why are you so easily dismissive of “her”?
TWIT. penis doing your thinking for you?!?? OR have you just decided that god is male? AND what I wrote doesn’t matter.
HOW do you not know god has somehow revealed herself to me and I’m sharing her message ...that somehow you’ve been used as an agent to “open” my mind to her existence????
RE: “ no skin in the game when it is between individuals who are agreed on the existence of a creator but are discussing the nature of that creation . ”
Am I not a “creation”?
***Edited to add:****here, (pats you on head)
Feel free to use any of these past scientists’ “quotes” regarding my “gender as part of creation”
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/sexist-medical-ideas...
Ohhhhh, as a “woman”, I can’t “shut up”, so one more thought on your speculative “god nature” exclusion of atheists.
I am open to all possibilities. Why? Let me explain...
I exist. My existence was so “impossible” it probably ranks up there with the “existence of the universe”. All those little sperms fighting their way to my monthly dropped egg (or two). Only one makes it for “me” to develop. Now, had my dear old dad jerked off before mounting my mom, “I” would not be here. Talk about timing!!!! Follow this all the way back through each generation, and evolved species and “fuck me!” It “impossible” I’m even here talking to “you”.
But, alas “it is”.
I deal with “what is”. Not speculative none sense (which is useful and fun and expansive and etc) BUT not “real”...or “is”.
I beak a glass in the kitchen. Shards lay everywhere. Do I stand there “speculating” how it may not be broken, or think “hmmm, quantum physics offers up ‘weirdness’ so perhaps the possibility exists that it is still on the counter”, or in another reality it is whole laying on the floor, or the invisible thingy that “created” it might come along and “fix” it if I stand here and pray long enough - perhaps “soon”.... etc etc ...
OR do I reason that it is more likely that my kid is going to come tearing into the kitchen, and cut himself? So I sweep it up.
Don’t you dare be so arrogant as to “feel” you can limit who can converse about “god” and “it’s” nature!
All I’m saying is first prove this “god thingy” so we can get down to business.
If you're going to use an appeal to authority fallacy, you might want to quote someone who believed in the same deity as you, and not a secular Jew.
There are many more such quotes of course, though I don't worry particularly what Einstein did or did not believe. His genius as a scientists lends no credence to any unevidenced beliefs he may or may not have held.
Sheldon
What does Alberts cultural lineage and different view of God have to do with anything I have said ? . It perfectly suits the quote of OS Guinness that I posted for L&B regarding his loss of faith . We can still believe in a god and discuss gods reality while having different views about that reality .
What Albert is leaning at his that words are nothing more than metaphors and whatever view and perception we have of god is but like a grain of sand on the beach . The fact that Albert doesn’t agree with a personal god is meaningless to me and as you stated “ His genius as a scientists lends no credence to any unevidenced beliefs he may or may not have held.“
“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts; the rest are details.”
–Albert Einstein
(From E. Salaman, “A Talk With Einstein,” The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123).
@TheFlyingPig
You quote mined Einstein in an attempt to support your own religious views, using an appeal to authority fallacy. So the relevance of my response is self evident. The idea you know what Einstein meant, and it wasn't what he quite specifically said again and again, but some esoteric metaphor that rather conveniently supports your own beliefs, is as hilarious as it is predictable.
No metaphor there.
Then why quote mine him with an example that supported your beliefs? This is a rather silly goal shift, to just parrot my own post back at me. Even more bizarre that after this claim, you then quote mine him again, having just claimed his views onn religion have no relevance? It's clear you want to claim only his views that support your own position on religion are relevant, which as I and others have pointed out is the very definition of quote mining.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
All words are metaphors and nothing more . It’s self evident that we can only have a infinitesimal idea of the reality we call God . That’ is what Albert is saying .
Once again , the fact that Albert didn’t believe in a personal god is meaningless to me . However he believed in a creator , something he said had a mind and we can both agree on that . The atheist believes none of that .
#TheFlyingPig: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains>/cite>
Nice quote mining there!
To be sure, if people free themselves from the oppressive fantasy of religion only to be weighed down by resentment and regret, they are indeed imprisoning themselves to mind-forged manacles.
However, the act of freeing ourselves doesn't free the world. We can still see the awful things done every day in the name of some god or other. We can see religious nonsense holding back education and progress in science and medicine. We can see lives ruined by pointless religion-influenced laws that condemn people for the way they were born. We can see evil men using the power of faith to control, defraud and rape.
So I applaud the work of "fanatical atheists" like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. There's still a lot of work to be done.
Who or what defines what constitutes “ religion “ ? Is Secular Humanism a religion ?
Sailingswine....
That’s like asking “are all religions cults?”
Uh...how about a “tax free status” - the govt usually “decides”
People get together and “call” themselves whatever they want to and then others outside the “group” either “agree” or call them something else.
...fuckin’ female nature...can’t help myself...
OK, one more thought. My “internal alarms” go off (they are set to “reason”) when I read two words with contradictory meaning mashed together.
Secular. Religion.
Jesus fuck - what is being touted????? My mind goes “whaaaaaaa?!!!???”
Like, being creative, poetic, symbolic, etc somehow falls into a mystical “spiritual” realm of “unknown sky daddy” communicating with us!
Can an “atheist” practice yoga? Fuck yah. Can an “atheist” symbolically describe “things”? Uh, yah...read more about brain function and it’s many uses. Just because you don’t (or me or science) know “something” doesn’t mean it gets to neatly be categorized in some form of “god blanket”
Eg: Coronavirus. Emphasis on hand washing,
Sanitizing and toilet paper hoarding.
My “symbolic” societal “take” on a “higher” meaning?
The “virus of racial and societal inequities is infecting humanity requiring a washing clean of dirty hands and a thorough cleansing. Those not capable of dealing with their shit are in a panic and turning to the only thing they know.”
Pages