174 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ganrossy's picture
Firstly, you are wrong.

Firstly, you are wrong. There is zero evidence that Jesus or any other God does anything to the world now or previously. By evidence I mean observable, repeatable phenomena, and observations that support concepts that are falsifiable (ie there is an observation or set of observations that could be observed that can prove your hypothesis wrong). There is nothing observed in this world which for which the idea of a supernatural being is the best/strongest/required concept Secondly, you use your erroneous, unevidenced ideas in ways that harm many people.

Calilasseia's picture
Although this is an old

Although this is an old thread, I think it apposite to contribute here ...

I am a follower of Jesus. If you'd like to know more of my reason and interest for being on this site feel free to read my profile.

I may indulge after my post.

So let me start off by saying, I respect all of your views and reasons for being Athiest [sic]. I am not here to convince anyone to believe in anything that they don't want to. I'm not here to hurt feelings or judge. I am here because I like a damn good discussion on the philosophical aspects of why we are all here on this earth as human beings! That's some good shit to talk about!

At this point, I have to tell you something important. Namely, that philosophy, when done properly, is not about finding answers to questions, but rather, determining which questions are proper to ask.

Unfortunately, philosophy has been, in some quarters, hijacked by the assertionist brigade. Nietzsche had his own insight into this matter in Beyond Good & Evil. My own copy thereof being the Penguin Classics Edition, ISBN 0 14 044513 7. The following quote is from page 36 thereof:

What makes one regard philosophers half mistrustfully and half mockingly is not that one again and again detects how innocent they are - how often and how easily they fall into error and go astray, in short their childishness and childlikeness - but that they display altogether insufficient honesty, while making a mighty and virtuous noise as soon as the problem of truthfulness is even remotely touched on. They pose as having discovered and attained their real opinions through the self-evolution of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed dialectic (in contrast to the mystics of every rank, who are more honest and more stupid than they - these speak of 'inspiration'): while what happens at bottom is that a prejudice, a notion, an 'inspiration', generally a desire of the heart sifted and made abstract, is defended by them with reasons sought after the event - they are one and all advocates who do not want to be regarded as such, and for the most part no better than cunning pleaders for their prejudices, which they baptise 'truths' - and very far from possessing the courage of the conscience which admits this fact to itself, very far from possessing the good taste of the courage which publishes this fact, whether to warn a foe or a friend or out of high spirits and in order to mock itself. The tartuffery, as stiff as it is virtuous, of old Kant as he lures us along the dialectical bypaths which lead, more correctly, mislead, to his 'categorical imperative' - this spectacle makes us smile, we who are fastidious and find no little amusement in observing the subtle tricks of old moralists and moral-preachers. Not to speak of that hocus-pocus of mathematical form in which, as if of iron, Spinoza encased and masked his philosophy - 'the love of his wisdom', to render that word fairly and squarely - so as to strike terror into the heart of any assailant who should dare to glance at this invincible maiden and Pallas Athene - how much personal timidity and vulnerability this masquerade of a sick recluse betrays!

The condensed version of the above, is that Nietzsche castigates those 'philosophers' who erect a metaphysic, in pursuit of the agenda of trying to impose an ethic on the universe and its contents, regardless of whether such imposition is actually warranted. Though the proper generalisation of the above, consists of castigating those 'philosophers' who erect assertions, with the intent of having those assertions regarded as "axioms" about the world, regardless of whether or not those assertions actually deserve to be treated thus. It is this latter category of person that I refer to as "assertionist" above: those individuals who are in the business of pretending that their fabrications dictate how reality behaves, regardless of how much reality disagrees with this. This is a dangerous path that anyone interested in genuine philosophical inquiry should avoid at all costs. Having seen the manner in which certain mischief makers (I'm thinking here of the neo-Thomist brigade led by Edward Feser) seek to warp philosophy into apologetics via such devices, I regard any such moves with the suspicion they manifestly deserve, and so should you.

Respect for your opinion, respect for mine as well.

Except, of course, that opinion is discardable with the same ease with which it is disseminated. Treating opinion as possessing equal discoursive weight to evidentially supported postulates, is another fallacy you should avoid studiously.

So, I would like to know what you guys think about people like myself who believe in Jesus Christ.

I regard adherence to any mythology as an exercise in exquisitely crafted absurdity. Because one of the features that mythologies have in common, is that they present blind assertions as if those assertions constituted fact. An important lesson for you, and indeed for every human being on the planet to learn, is that assertions, when first presented, posses the status "truth value unknown". Do not commit the elementary error of thinking that I regard assertions as not possessing a truth-value: every assertion is, at bottom, a proposition, and possesses a truth-value on that basis, but it does not possess a known truth-value at the beginning. In the interests of rigour, it is important to make that distinction explicit. What converts an assertion into a proposition with a known truth-value, is test of that assertion. Until such test is devised and performed, the epistemological deficit I have just described remains in place. The technical complexities of determining proper tests for different categories of assertion, I leave for another time, save to mention briefly two important classes thereof: [1] assertions resolvable by recourse to observational data (see: empirical sciences), and [2] assertions resolvable via proof procedures within formal axiomatic systems (see: pure mathematics).

Indeed, one problem endemic to mythological assertions, is that they purport to be postulates about the observable universe and its contents, but frequently fail to possess the necessary connections required to convert that posture into something other than a facade.

Having devoted much of this post to ideas, it is time to devote some of this post to persons, and to remind anyone unaware of the relevant concept, of the distinction between persons and ideas. Ideas are discardable entities, whilst persons most assuredly are not. This does not mean that persons whose ideas are in error are to be allowed to protect those errors from scrutiny. You can infer robustly from all of the foregoing, that I regard adherence to mythology as one of those errors deserving of ruthless scrutiny.

I would like to know why some Athiests [sic] seem to hate followers of Jesus. (Not saying everyone feels this way).

At this point, some more elementary concepts need to be presented.

What is actually regarded with contempt by many here, myself included, is not the persons themselves, unless those persons present evidence of being malicious by intent. Much more frequently, what is regarded with well-deserved contempt, is the malign influence that arises from two sources: [1] the insistence on the part of some adherents of mythology, that the rest of us should be coerced into the same adherence, and [2] the insistence, frequently arising from that expounded in [1], that policy decisions should be coerced into conformity with mythological assertions. Both of these invariably exert malign influence whenever they are allowed to run riot.

Indeed, that is an important historical lesson from Europe, that is applicable here, with respect to the maintenance of a secular society. All too frequently, supernaturalists commit a fundamental error, when railing against secularism. They treat secularism, wholly incorrectly, as some sort of "discrimination" against them, when instead it merely consists of preventing supernaturalists from discriminating against those outside the doctrinal pale. It's not as if European history lacks disturbing lessons to be learned, with respect to the willingness of supernaturalists to exhibit homicidally repressive tendencies in the absence of constraint, and, all too often, said homicidal repression was wrought by rival groups of supernaturalists against each other. As a corollary, supernaturalists are, seemingly paradoxically from a superficial view, the beneficiaries of secularism, because at bottom, secularism consists of two foundational principles:

[1] You are free to adhere to whichever mythology you wish, if such is your choice;

[2] You are not free to coerce others into the same adherence.

Of course, supernaturalists possessing the sense of entitlement that leads to them thinking that said coercion is some sort of "right" that they should be able to exert without restriction, tend to be the most vocal proponents of that fundamental error, forgetting of course that any failure to constrain such tendencies could backfire badly upon them, should a rival group achieve hegemony instead of themselves. But I note the manner in which supernaturalists frequently delude themselves that this will never happen, until it is too late, and they are the ones being thrown into dungeons by sectarian adversaries. It is these maleficent tendencies I have just documented, that attract the ire of myself and others here.

And also, why some Atheists mock, make fun of, and ridicule my beliefs?

Quite simply, another important elementary concept needs to be presented here, all the better to illuminate your understanding.

Mockery, which in its highest form attains the status of satire, has been a tool of choice for spotlighting absurdity since the advent of civilisation itself. Some of the most ruthless and exquisitely skilled practitioners of the art, were to be found in Classical Greek civilisation, the writers of Old Comedy such as Aristophanes being among the most stellar wielders of the requisite literary weapons. When performed with due finesse, mockery punctures pretensions, pricks pomposity and bulldozes bombast, in a manner that is not only highly entertaining, but educational. It has also been a suitably effective weapon for the highlighting of much more sinister failings, such as those arising from tyranny.

Next, another important concept needs to be highlighted. Namely, beliefs have the same status as opinion: they are eminently discardable. The reason for this being, that belief all too frequently consists of treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, a process that should be seen to be absurd the moment one recognises this essential aspect thereof. Quite simply, anyone who treats unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, is committing an error of such an elementary nature, that vigorous exposure and highlighting thereof is a public duty for anyone who has regard for the proper rules of discourse.

Feel free to say anything you want....I'm pretty much askin' for it hahaha

You asked, and thus you received.

TheSolidMidget's picture
Just remember. You asked for

Just remember. You asked for it. I'm gonna go all out.

I just find it hard to believe that a virgin woman giving birth to a baby. Unless she got fucked in the ass and that cum dripped out and got in her pussy.

And then there's the talking snake. And how the fuck did Adam & Eve repopulate the earth? I mean. It's not like they fucked their kids... Did they?

Whenever your kind says they've spoken to God and it's like. Well. What's his number? But then that's the wrong thing to say? And why does your kind like to waste their time by telling others how they can and can't live their lives? Like. Doesn't your kind have anything better to do?

Your kind says Jesus is love. But why must that 'love' abuse people until they fall in line like mindless sheep or until that person ends up dead? Just because they refused your religion?

If the bible told you to jump off a cliff. Would you? And if money is the root of all evil. Why does the church want it?

Joke time. What type of choirboys do priests like? A-Minor *Rim shot*
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

Zaarbuc's picture
"Why we are all here on this

"Why we are all here on this earth as human beings?"

What makes you think there is a "why"?

"I would like to know what you guys think about people like myself who believe in Jesus Christ."

I think you have been indoctrinated to forgo rational thought when it comes to your religious beliefs.

"I would like to know why some Athiests seem to hate followers of Jesus."

The door swings both ways. Many (also not saying all) Christian seem to hate atheists... and Muslims, and gays, and brown people, and Democrats, and pretty much anyone who doesn't look and think like them. Even if an individual Christian does not hate, Christianity itself is a very hateful religion.

"Why do some Atheists mock, make fun of, and ridicule my beliefs?"

If you don't want you beliefs to be ridiculed, try not to have such ridiculous beliefs. Did you ever see the South Park episode about Joseph Smith? As ridiculous as Latter Day Saints seem to other Christian denominations, that's pretty much how all religions look to atheists.

ldpfeifer06's picture
If you truly want to

If you truly want to understand atheism, think of it like this: Just imagine that you found out that the person you are conversing with continues to believe in Santa Claus, not in a cute Xmassy spirit kind of way but ACTUALLY, TRULY, and WHOLEHEARTEDLY believed this jolly old elf from the north was ACTUALLY REAL. Think about that. Ponder the myriad of ways you may approach this person's affliction. Decent human nature usually dictates that you do whatever you can to help relieve this fellow human's delusions, but no matter what the tact you take, they hold steadfastly to these ridiculous delusions. Compassion and frustration make very strange bedfellows indeed. Every person has slightly different ways of dealing with such dilemmas. After a while the compassion and desire to help a fellow human shed delusionary illness - when almost always met with absolute disdain - will sometimes lead people to ridicule, some get angry, and some simply walk away. You are the Santa Claus believer...believe that or not. Santa Claus and Jesus are exactly as equal as Batman and Superman. Do with this information what you will.

Hendo's picture
I don’t hate religious people

I don’t hate religious people in general. I don’t really understand how people of normal intelligence can genuinely believe in ‘gods’.

Unlike yourself I don’t respect everyone’s opinions, merely their right to express them. I don’t respect religious beliefs, superstitions, myths etc but I respect people’s rights to have them, and to express them without imposing them on those who don’t share them.

You ask why some atheists ridicule religious beliefs. I ridicule them because I consider them ridiculous: talking snakes, 900-year-old people, divine immaculate conceptions and zombie messiahs - it’s nonsense, and worthy of ridicule.

And I don’t consider there is a ‘why’ inherent to our existence. I consider there is a ‘how’, ‘when’ and ‘where’. To me, ‘why’ in this context implies a purpose to existence and I am aware of no compelling evidence of it. That’s not to say one cannot imbue one’s existence with meaning.

BT3241's picture
The problem with religion is

The problem with religion is that it is fixed thinking - one you have accepted it you are trapped. Atheism is also fixed thinking and a trap as many other things are - its best to say I don't know which is no only the truth but leaves an open mind you just have to recognize when it has become fixed thinking and you can free your self from it - don't get caught in a trap.
What you are is a piece of the earth that has got up and is walking around - if all you are is dirt then you can believe that if you think your more than that thats ok too - but who can really be sure. One thing is sure you will return every last atom back to the earth when your done with it.
Life doesn't need a purpose your here to live , your here to experience what ever you want thats your purpose .
Religion is trying to put what ever life force this is within us in a box all neat and tidy and you can't.
No invisible person speaks to me and if they did i would think i was crazy.
At the end of my rant I would like to end it with I don't know - have you ever heard anyone argue with someone who says i don't know. I am not an atheist thats too fixed for me.

LogicFTW's picture
The term is called agnostic.

Welcome to the forums!

I think the term you are looking for to describe yourself is "agnostic"

I personally think we are all agnostic. It is latin and it roughly translates to "without knowledge."

I also encourage you to look up the word "atheist" it is really not a committal word, to be an atheist is not like joining a group its not christian that becomes part of the christian church, followings etc, its just a way to describe something that you are not, not a theist. Or, like: "not a stamp collector."

boomer47's picture


" It is latin and it roughly translates to "without knowledge."

Sorry to be a noodge; right meaning, wrong language. The word 'agnostic' is from Greek; a=not/without gnosis=knowledge.

Apart from that didactic quibble, I agree with the sentiment of your post.

LogicFTW's picture

Whoops! I appreciate the correction. Much rather learn of my error then continue to repeat my mistake.


boomer47's picture


Whoops! I appreciate the correction. Much rather learn of my error then continue to repeat my mistake.



Imo, your post encapsulates a major difference between the arrogant and dogmatic theists we tend to get here and most of the atheists here.

I can't remember ever seeing one of our christian friends ever admit to a factual error. Or say something "Gee, I didn't know that ---or , I'll look into that" But then I'm old and forgetful and am probably wrong .

This latest one has denied Christianity is misogynist. He has been presented with a long list of biblical quotes proving the claim. What's the bet he will flatly deny the evidence?

LogicFTW's picture


He has been presented with a long list of biblical quotes proving the claim. What's the bet he will flatly deny the evidence?

If flat denial also includes simply avoiding and/or not responding to the post, then I would happily bet 10 dollars to 1 dollar to anyone (in my opinion) foolish enough to take the opposing bet.

David Killens's picture
@ BT3241

@ BT3241

"I am not an atheist thats too fixed for me."

I would like to know why you believe that being an atheist automatically qualifies you as having a fixed position on many life matters?

Personally, for me being an atheist was one simple thing, realizing that I was not convinced of a god. That did not alter my position on politics, even organized religion. In fact, I am open and willing to change if presented with a viable arguement.

BT3241's picture
Because its a small view -

Because its a small view - everything is linked as an example you have iron in your blood where did it come from - it was created when a stared died over 7 billion years ago - who would of thought a star that exploded over 7 billion years ago had a direct link to us. You breathe oxygen - where did it come from - single celled plant life converted all the CO2 to oxygen - at the time that plants life had no meaning - but it had a huge impact on the earth - it allowed us to be. When we exhale all the plant life inhales that balance is important. My point is there is way more going on that we can imagine and its in the big picture not the small ones. To bring it all down to one view is impossible. As I said I don't know and neither does anyone else. It will always remain a great mystery and obviously we are not meant to know.

David Killens's picture
@ BT3241

@ BT3241

"obviously we are not meant to know"

And this proposition is based on what? You ignorance and unwillingness to look beyond the next tree, or that your religious leaders told you not to be so curious?

That is what church leaders told the masses during the dark ages, and they stifled human advancements and enhanced suffering.

As long as you allow your mind to be contained in a box, you are no better than a worm.

boomer47's picture


"Because its a small view "

Oh dear ,you really don't have a clue, do you.

Atheism is about belief or more correctly the lack of belief ,it is not about knowledge. You may not assume anything about my world view because I am an atheist..

"You breathe oxygen - where did it come from -"

Why should I know that? I'm not a scientist.

As for your scientific views.I have made no claims so do not owe you an explanation. On the contrary, it is you who have made the claims ,about your god and about science. The burden of proof is with you.It is you who must prove you are right. It is not I who must prove you are wrong.

"It will always remain a great mystery and obviously we are not meant to know."

That is one of the more fatuous claims mad by theist and especially silly to make on an atheist forum, unless you are an emotional masochist or a troll. I suspect the latter.

My position is that no question is off limits. For who has the right to impose such limits? No government, and certainly not a deity in whom I do not believe. Nor any self appointed spokespersons. Have you ever noticed how the will of god always coincides with the hatreds and prejudices and of those spokespersons?

Science does not deal in absolutes. As with all human invented systems (that includes religions) Science makes no claims to absolute truth on any question. All questions remain open, always. All human beings and all of our systems remain ignorant about far more than the relatively few areas in which we think we know something.

You've asked why your beliefs are ridiculed. I answer only for myself; because you present absurd claims without any supporting evidence.

I ridicule your religion because it is ridiculous, anti reason and encourages blind belief .That makes you beliefs no more than superstition.

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

― Martin Luther

Reportedly from Jesus himself:

JOHN 20:29 .

"In the King James Version of the Bible it is translated as:

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

To claim anything will always remain a mystery shows an intellectual poverty and hubris that beggars belief .(IMO)

BT3241's picture
We are creatures that live

We are creatures that live only a moment on the cosmic scale - its not enough time to figure things out - even the existence of humans is but a moment in cosmic time - its not enough time even collectively over the period of time we have existed to figure it out.

David Killens's picture
@ BT3241

@ BT3241

"We are creatures that live only a moment on the cosmic scale - its not enough time to figure things out - even the existence of humans is but a moment in cosmic time - its not enough time even collectively over the period of time we have existed to figure it out."

Is that your excuse as to why theists claim their god cannot be examined?

BT3241's picture
I not making excuses for them

I not making excuses for them I don't believe in God. What I said is true. I guess you have figured everything out in you momentary existence congratulations your the only one. Mankind has just scrapped the surface. Just when has mankind solved the riddle of life I am unaware of it. Its still a work in progress as far as i know.

Neither side can prove their claim. I see atheism as another religion and as all religions the goal is money its the only thing that both atheist and religious people can offer. Sorry I am not a sucker you won't get a penny from me Like I said in another post its another trap that closes the mind just like religion and they want to keep you coming.. Atheist even have churches. Won't see me there.

In the end it does the same thing - you hate those who disagree with you and at some point believe it best to get rid of them - the thinking becomes fixed and violence happens history shows this to be true and we are living in a more polarized world making the world even more dangerous for someone to have an opinion . Humans kill each other over the clash ideas Atheism will be no different - just another belief system.

LogicFTW's picture


You underestimate humanity a lot it seems. We have already answered very large parts of why we are here. It seems to me more, its people not liking the answers. Or not having access to or being aware of the answers we already have.

As Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said, we are the stuff of stars. More complex, heavier elements, given the right conditions led to the rise of life, as life grew more complex, mechanisms like evolution led life on this planet to the point it is at now. We do not have all the finer details yet, but this broad stroke picture has been very well supported at this time. Making an alternative explanation highly unlikely.

I agree there is much we do not know yet, and certainly on an individual level, all i know for sure is I do not know a WHOLE LOT.

As others have said, atheist have no claim to prove. We just are saying we do not believe other peoples claims of belief.

Just like if I said: you owe me 1 million dollars, unless you can prove otherwise.

Do you say: well I cannot prove that I do not owe you 1 million dollars, and my "belief" is just like your belief that I do owe you 1 million dollars. Since neither of us can prove it, we will just split the difference and you pay me 500k?

Well lets just say I am not expecting a check for 500k in the mail from you anytime soon. Can you explain why I should not expect such a check in the mail? If you can, then maybe perhaps you can understand that being an atheist involves no claim on the atheist's part.

Hint: it is the very same reason why you will not be sending me a check for 500k, let alone a million dollars even if you cannot "prove" that you do not owe me 1 million dollars.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: BT3241 - "I see atheism

Re: BT3241 - "I see atheism as another religion and as all religions the goal is money its the only thing that both atheist and religious people can offer."

...*face palm*... *groan*... Call me crazy, but this guy's style looks quite familiar. Seems that we have already encountered another individual like this just a few weeks ago, and that individual got his ass booted into the Netherworld. In other words, I believe this yo-yo to be an atheist about as much as I believe the moon is made of green cheese. Ugh.... What is WRONG with people like this???... *shaking head sadly*...

On a side note... WHERE THE HELL IS ALL THIS MONEY WE (ATHEISTS) ARE SUPPOSEDLY GETTING??? Somebody has been holding out on me. Bad enough I never got any cookies by joining "The Dark Side". But NOW I'm being told we are suppose to be getting a bunch of money??? I demand to speak with the management!

David Killens's picture
@ BT3241

@ BT3241

"In the end it does the same thing - you hate those who disagree with you"

That is so sad.

I do not hate anyone who has fallen prey to a con job, their plight makes me feel sad. What I hate is those who prey on the vulnerable and perpetuate this con job in order for money or power.

Nyarlathotep's picture
BT3241 - Neither side can

BT3241 - Neither side can prove their claim.

But my claim is so simple it doesn't really require any proof or even additional evidence. My claim is: I don't think god is real.

I'll even go out on a limb and speculate this is why we are bombarded with theists trying to redefine atheism out of existence. Because once they acknowledge that there are people out there who don't think god is real; it becomes pretty easy to accept that I am just one of those people. So instead they intuitively realize they must attack the definition of atheism itself.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.