Hello everyone

183 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tin-Man's picture
@Q Re: Curious

@Q Re: Curious

I'm with you, buddy. Something off about this guy. He's inconsistent. Like somebody acting or intentionally trying to sound "simple". Personally, I'm not buying it.

mickron88's picture
then he disagrees on what i

then he disagrees on what i am skeptic of..hahahah..my fucking god..


looks like he's not done on what he is trying to know about this forum..

do the research bro..don't be a spoon feeding shit and ask questions about these..
jesus fucking christ....get a life

Sheldon's picture


If you have any objective evidence for the existence of a deity then I have started a thread for apologists to post it in. It's been going for some time, but so far not apologist has been able to offer any. Just logically fallacious arguments, and common logical fallacies, or blind assertions. If you can demonstrate any objective evidence that would be a far better introduction than asking people why they disbelieve the claim there is a deity, and after 11 pages it would be a nice change of pace.

xenoview's picture

Do you believe in any god? If you do, can you prove it is real? If you can prove it is real, can you prove which of the gods of humanity it is?

I have not seen any evidence that a god is real.

algebe's picture
Even those who claim to

Even those who claim to believe in gods can't agree on their definitions of those gods. Despite billions and billions of prayers to countless different gods, there's not one verified piece of evidence that any god has ever intervened in this world. The things put forward as evidence are risible. Visions of Mary witnessed by young girls, a few alleged "cures" among the 10s of millions of people who've been to Lourdes, and bits and pieces of saints that supposedly undergo miraculous transformations. And don't forget the weeping statues. It's all rather pathetic really.

The various "logical" arguments concocted by people like Anselm and Aquinas are hollow, too. However elegant your argument about first causes, etc., you can't logic a god into existence.

If god was real, our notions of what god is like would be more uniform and consistent. Instead they differ widely in different eras and different regions. All the many volumes of esoteric theology are like an inverted pyramid balanced on a vanishing point of ignorance and superstition.

So I've concluded that at some point absence of evidence does actually become evidence of absence. After several millennia of unanswered prayers and fruitless searching for evidence by billions of people, we have found absolutely nothing. Science has meanwhile explained lightening, earthquakes, floods and all the other events once attributed to gods, inexorably eliminating the gaps in which gods can exist.

On that basis, I'm certain that there's no god, no heaven/hell, no afterlife.

LogicFTW's picture
As always, I can count on

As always, I can count on other atheist on this board to write what I also believe, in a much more eloquent way then I can. Hats off to you for an excellent, concise, and well written posting.

Cognostic's picture
@ Curious

@ Curious
"isn't this the way it works for almost anything...getting people to believe in something for whatever reason?"


CONGRATULATIONS.. In an effort to distinguish the difference between that which is real and that which is made up or based solely on belief. YOU HAVE ACCIDENTALLY INVENTED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Anonymous's picture

The amount of responses and range are very diverse.
the Assumptions made of me are interesting too.

But the assumption that I'm some other individual doesn't sit well with me. I understand that like most group of people, that untied in one belief can become worst then a Hornets nest with very little agitation. and have tried to keep it simple and respectful, as to not agitate yet learn.

it's saddens me that you have to get this type of defense mechanism. but understandable

Also, the question posted to me since the beginning is to choose a side. When I do is not a valid side because "insert opinion here"
even though i stated i'm on the fence and have neither believe or disbelief. I'm still being asked to prove God existences because the chances are slim? so what does that signify you asked for prove on things you know are not easy to do and then what a rush of contempt as a reward?

mykcob4's picture
You're a lost cause Curious.

You're a lost cause Curious.
1) You keep referring to atheist as people that BELIEVE that there is no god!
2) You can't seem to get anybody's answer or reply to you straight.
3) You claim to not be decided but yet your questions are loaded and advocate christianity in nature.
4) You keep lumping us all together as if we are all the same.
You smack of a sock puppet or a plant.
I don't trust you. I don't believe you. I think Quasi and Tin-man are correct.

Anonymous's picture


Believe as you wish, isn't that the point you keep repeating.

I got it already you don't believe in any religious or scientific idea as presented without concrete prove given to you by a concrete God ( who I doubt will think of most of us as worthy of such favor as how much is your worth to ask for such things!

why not put it in human terms and asked anyone in/with power to show you proof of anything. they too will just say not worthy.

tif my response seem christian in your opinion that is also your right to believe.

if you are done acting childish and immature by calling names and taunting, spare me your responses as I consider them highly suspect of lacking credentials due to the presentation of the messenger.

Tin-Man's picture
@Curious Re: "if you are

@Curious Re: "if you are done acting childish and immature by calling names and taunting, spare me your responses as I consider them highly suspect of lacking credentials due to the presentation of the messenger."

Aaaand with that statement right there toward Myk, you just sealed the confirmation of my suspicions about you. Thanks. *Big Grin*

Anonymous's picture


I don't really care about your suspicions, thoughts, and/or conclusions.
their are your right to believe.

I gained nor lose anything because of your and others suspicious projections onto others.

I can see how some are more then ready to start bashing, guessing there are some uncontrolled anger issues that subject the person to lowering themselves to silly actions.

Please excuse me if I don't give you much value regardless of the value you give yourself.

I don't know anyone here nor their reputation on the forum but i'm glad to see you stick together to defend what you value.

Tin-Man's picture
@Curious Re: "....guessing

@Curious Re: "....guessing there are some uncontrolled anger issues...."

Anger issues? I politely said "Thank you" with a smile. You actually make me laugh. Nothing for me to be angry about. *grin*

LogicFTW's picture
Always cracks me up when

Always cracks me up when people that simply answer the question for an OP like this goes mainly unanswered or ignored, but when the thread gets sidelined, they will reply to that, instead of the postings that actually answer the OP.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Curious - didn't the slit

Curious - didn't the slit test prove...that the energy, had some kind of intelligence?

Don't get your science from Newagers.

Dave Matson's picture
(With apologies to mykcob4

(With apologies to mykcob4 for a long post!)


If you value reason, then here is one good reason for rejecting supernatural claims. In a nutshell, my argument is that careful attention to sound reasoning does not support supernatural conclusions. That is, supernatural conclusions, given the present evidence, are bad conclusions in that they seriously buck the odds. Playing the odds like a pro is what sound, investigative reasoning in the real world is all about! For instance, that's what Occam's Razor is all about. Betting on the highly improbable is as bad as it gets for arguments about the real world of atoms and energy. (If you want 100% certainty stick with mathematics or other systems of pure, deductive logic that never reference the real world.) The real world deals in degrees of credibility--not certainty. If you have consciousness, that may be the only certain thing you can know.

For the convenience of the reader I have retrieved this old thread to which minor changes may have been added.

Thread: "Science Gives God The Bump!"
08/07/2016 18:47

"Often we are told that science can't disprove God. It depends, of course, on what is meant by those terms. If "God" is taken as a being with magical superpowers that violate the laws of nature, and if "proof" means reaching a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence, then it seems to me that science gives God the bump!


A careful search for truth begins with what we know best, working from the known (basic facts) to the unknown. We begin, as Sherlock Holmes does, by collecting the relevant facts. The better we know the subject, especially the research of others, the further we can cast our net. Sherlock Holmes then applies his brilliant insight, imagination, and good judgment to generate the most reasonable explanations. If those don't pan out, then he will look at the more exotic ones. Begin always with the party-pooping, everyday explanations that have the best track records! Your quarry is likely there.

Before us are several explanations for our crime scene, the most likely scenarios. What now? Using the time-tested principles of reasoning and pure logic, Sherlock Holmes identifies a number of predictions that each hypothesis makes, predictions that can be checked out. (An explanation must be potentially falsifiable. If it can't be checked it's worthless.) Part of his genius is in having a huge, mental database of explanations for numerous details, connections that would slip by a casual observer. Part of his genius, based on long experience, is his ability to weed out those initial explanations that have poor track records. Hence, Sherlock Holmes immediately zeroes in on the most promising explanations.

An explanation that contradicts an important fact must either be modified or, if already crumbling beyond repair, rejected. Since patches can always be found for an explanation in trouble, which effectively dismisses the contradiction without benefit of reason, factual support for that patch is mandatory. Applying patches without that further verification is what is meant by an ad hoc argument. The question is whether the patch or the contradiction is the heavier weight on the scales of reason, and one cannot justly short-circuit that decision. That's why ad hoc arguments, even though logically possible, are worthless. That's also the main reason why those tomes defending biblical inerrancy are worthless. They are largely collections of ad hoc arguments. It's the any-loophole-will-do mentality where loopholes are patches.

After further sleuthing, Sherlock Holmes solves his case! One explanation stood heads and shoulders above all others in explaining the data, in making good predictions (which led to an arrest), and no other suspects are in sight. If we are confident that have exhausted all the reasonable explanations, and one explanation towers above all others, then we have found our conclusion. But, we don't write it in stone since we must always be open to new data. Neither do we reject that conclusion on the blind hope that future discovery will overturn it. (No better is accepting a rotten explanation on the blind hope that further discoveries will confirm it.)


It's logically possible that one might receive a revelation from God or an advanced alien, but that revelation can't be self-verifying. In the end, evidence and reason decide. Did that prophet receive a revelation? Maybe he is delusional (illness, doctrinal blindness, substance abuse, deprivation) or has a deep-seated need that generates or interprets those "voices" in his head. Catholic revelations happen in Catholic countries; Muslim revelations occur in Islamic countries; Hindu revelations are reported in India. Prophets consistently project the fantasies and beliefs of their respective cultures.

Psychologists tell incredible stories about doctrine influencing what people hear and see. If you expect to see the sun spin in a circle on a certain day, and you are a member of a cult that deeply believes as much, then you're gonna (with some exceptions) see that sun spin around! A newspaper reporter actually documented such a mass event in Texas. If you (as part of a large group) can see the sun spin around, hearing voices or seeing heavenly signs is no big deal, especially if you are ill or stressed out.

How does a prophet know where his revelation came from? Why not the devil, some other power, or even a technically advanced alien? Prophets also contradict one another. At best, only one prophet can be right, assuming conflicting messages. Therefore, virtually all prophets, despite holding the most sincere, deeply felt feelings, are WRONG. Feeling right is not being right. And, why should we believe that the last apple in a barrel of rotten apples is good? Most likely it's rotten as well. Prophets supposedly receive divine knowledge, but it never exceeds their gross ignorance of science, their fantasies, or their cultural expectations.

We cannot escape the need for evidence. A revelation that says nothing verifiable (and surprising) is a worthless revelation. Far worse is a revelation, lacking verification, that challenges what we know best about our world! We have no reason to believe that kind of revelation and the best of reasons to reject it.


If you choose to investigate a doctrine, but are not mentally prepared to reject it, are you really seeking the truth? In your mind you already have it; your search is almost certainly a cherry-picking operation designed to prop up that doctrine. Admit it! And, plenty of cherries will always turn up! Just dig a little deeper and ignore those troubling facts, however probable, in favor of those cherries, however improbable. Soon, your basket will be full of cherries!

If you choose not to investigate a dearly held conclusion, because it provides emotional support, because you are not sufficiently knowledgeable, or because you put all your faith in a cherry-picked website, then don't assume you are sitting on the truth! Most likely you are not. Of course, some things don't cry out for more investigation. It is silly for a creationist to demand another investigation into the fact of evolution as though it were in doubt. At some point conclusions about the Earth's shape or the fact of evolution (as versus theoretical explanations) are accepted by reasonable people.


What do we know best, by actual test, about our world? Behold! The laws of nature, tested repeatedly by a small army of experts using incredibly accurate instruments, tested under extreme conditions at different times and places, and subject to a worldwide peer review. Nature's laws, especially those that forbid certain actions, stand with much greater certainty than many people imagine. For example, the law of conservation of energy holds (established to extreme accuracy and limited only by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) for the 4 known, fundamental forces. Hence, every interaction governed by those forces--namely reality as we know it--must obey that law. Short of finding a 5th fundamental force yielding contrary results, a force that would have to be pretty weak or of very limited application to have escaped notice, the overthrow of nature's law of conservation of energy ain't gonna happen! Well, okay, let's put it this way. Particle physics has pushed certainty to a whole new level that makes "beyond a reasonable doubt" look iffy!

God's magical powers are, therefore, curtailed. Water cannot be turned into wine. God cannot create loaves of bread, animals and man, or planets from scratch. He cannot send forth a thought and create life in the sea. God cannot quickly visit the distant parts of his universe, project his power there, or even know what is going on there. (Neither God nor Information can go faster than light.) And, so on.

What do we know about God? (Consider Christianity's god though almost any god will do.) Look to various interpretations of the Bible, an ancient book (anthology actually) written almost entirely by unknown authors, a work filled with scientific, moral, historical, and prophetic error, a work floating in a sea of contradictions which sometimes reach the level of whole books. Apologists Gleason Archer and Norman Geisler notwithstanding, such error deprives the biblical God of any credibility. God got the rest of his magical powers by the stroke of a pen. Theologians, in a pre-scientific age, imagined the greatest being they could think up and accordingly penned in God's powers!
When rank speculation is weighed against the best-tested knowledge we have about this world, the heavier weight is obvious. Only a fool would throw away the things we know best for pure speculation. Science wins hands down!

But wait! God (fill in the reasons) is above the laws of nature. The laws of science don't apply, silly!

But, aren't we using "God" before "God" is established? The question is: "Is the God hypothesis reasonable in light of the evidence?" The whole point of the evidence is to see if the conclusion is reasonable. We don't start with an unproven conclusion (the God hypothesis) and use it to dismiss the evidence. Evidence comes first!

Look at it this way. Suppose Mark claimed that a 50-foot, scaled up version of a 1 inch spider is hiding out in the Amazon jungle! "Scientific nonsense," you say, "The cross sectional area of its legs, which determines their strength, goes up by a factor of 360,000 whereas the weight of that spider goes up by a factor of 216 million, meaning that each leg would have to hold 600 times more weight than normal! That spider ain't going nowhere!" "Not true," says Mark, "Its legs are made of an unknown material that can handle that load."

Of course, Mark can't use that "fact" since he has not yet established the credibility of his spider with the super legs. Furthermore, it's an ad hoc argument because it lacks factual support for those super legs. The best conclusion based on the evidence given is that, in fact, Mark's spider doesn't exist.

Doesn't this unfairly rule out God? As Carl Sagan put it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Far from a mere platitude, it is a fundamental principle of good reasoning. Provide the evidence and then we can talk about God's magical powers overruling natural law. Until then, it's a case of rank speculation versus what we know best by test--the laws of nature.

A highly readable, most excellent book showing why science can't easily be dismissed, a book that may give your thinking a tune up, is still available on Amazon. "A Physicist's Guide To Skepticism" by Professor Milton Rothman.


So, what's a believer to do? 1) You can just ignore the evidence by putting your faith in silly websites, avoiding any form of objective study, and doing a lot of cherry-picking. Take your rightful place beside the flat-earthers! 2) You can do as Luther did and abandon reason altogether. But reason took us to the moon! It has earned its stripes again and again. Abandon the only proven guide to truth about our world at your own peril! 3) You can declare that you have found the truth and that you are not in search mode. Good luck! Lots and lots of people have so declared--and only one group can be right. Are you feeling really lucky right now? 4) You can argue that scientific thinking doesn't exhaust the truth, that there's room for other truths. As Einstein said, describing violin music as a series of pressure waves may be scientifically correct, but it is not the whole story. The human interaction must be considered. Maybe some types of religious views can be justified, but they cannot violate the laws of nature. Welcome to reality."

mykcob4's picture

No apology needed!

Dave Matson's picture


Good to see you in action again!

Anonymous's picture
Seriously, this post has gone

Seriously, this post has gone from friendly to slowly moving to intolerance of ignorance which I didn't deny having it. (didn't know about atheist) and yes I was still having confusion understanding your point of view. and I asked to be educated by you.

From that to some assuming I have a religion, my sex, level of intelligence, and whatever else your imagination can provide.

well is very interesting but not surprising.

mykcob4's picture

It isn't surprising because you made things that way.
It's simple. We have been played before. The fact that you have been told that atheism is NOT a belief and yet you continue to state the opposite. You didn't come here to be "educated". You came here to have a platform. And that is okay but be fucking honest about it.
I could give a shit about your sex or your orientation. What I will not abide it an underhanded attempt at proselytizing.
As atheists, we do not believe in any god and there has never been any proof of a god only excuses and apologetic nonsense. There has been crap like "intelligent design", and "The universe seems to be organized so there must be a designer" bullshit, even an attempt to say "we desire a god, so there must be a god", and EVEN the revision of redefining "energy" as a god.
Atheists don't believe in a god. Which is NOT the same as "believing" there is not a god. There is a huge and wide difference!
maybe you "feel" the hostility because christians have been defining atheists ever since they made up their god. Even the term "atheist" is just a label made up by christians to demonize people that don't believe in THEIR bullshit.
Atheism is the natural state of people. You have to be indoctrinated to be a believer.

Tin-Man's picture
@Myk Re: To Curious - "It

@Myk Re: To Curious - "It isn't surprising because you made things that way."

Excellent response. Couldn't have said it better myself. Although, if you don't mind, here is a bit of trivia I learned not too long ago in correction of your statement, "Even the term "atheist" is just a label made up by christians to demonize people that don't believe in THEIR bullshit." I think you might find it amusing. If what I learned is correct, the term "atheist" was actually first used by the ROMANS to describe the CHRISTIANS, because the Christians did not believe in the Roman gods. Therefore, technically, Christians were actually the first atheists. Oh, the irony! LOL

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Curious, I do not for one second believe you are as "ignorant" as you are trying to act. Juuuuuust sayin'......

mykcob4's picture
Awesome Tin-man I am waiting

Awesome Tin-man I am waiting for installment 3 on the other thread! Maybe you and I were in Iraq at the same time or Afganistan. Thank you for your service BTW!

Tin-Man's picture


I was in Afghan 2002-2003. Iraq 2006-2007 (based in Taji). Iraq again 2009-2010 (Primarily with SpecOps in Anaconda, but also spent some time at Camp Liberty.)

May be another day or so before Part 3. Still trying to decide how to best explain it. Gonna be a little more "complicated", which is why I saved it for last. It would be easy explaining it to you, naturally. (Well, actually, you already know, so I don't have to explain it to you.) But I need to make it easy for "non-experienced" readers to understand.

mykcob4's picture
I was in the USMC Tin-man.

I was in the USMC Tin-man. The Corps doesn't have a Special Ops division. We kind of think of the entire Corps as special ops. I may or may not know what you describe. I have worked with a number of special ops units, namely SEALS, British SAS, ROK Marines from South Korea, some Army Airborn and Rangers.
I was a Scout/Sniper that basically provided cover for unit advancement.

Anonymous's picture
ROTFL! Thanks I needed that!

ROTFL! Thanks I needed that!
so the scoop is you pick up a label used to dehumanize people of different believe and used the label and rebel against a religion that was first called atheist for persecution?

Please share the link to info I considered it very intriguing!

"Oh, and by the way, Mr. Curious, I do not for one second believe you are as "ignorant" as you are trying to act. Juuuuuust sayin'......"

Thanks for your opinion about my intelligence or lack thereof if it wasn't coming from you I'll take it as a compliment....but I know it's just the frail jabs of someone needing to feed a gap within.

after all this years you guys still haven't found a better label yet?

Tin-Man's picture
@Curious Re: "after all

@Curious Re: "after all this years you guys still haven't found a better label yet?"

Uh, in case nobody has told you, WE (atheists) did not "give ourselves" that "label". It is the Christians who use that "label" towards us. We honestly couldn't care less what you are anybody else calls us. Call me a "flingleflooper" for all I care. Makes no difference to me.

By the way, be careful. When you get angry your intelligence starts to show. Speaking of which, you are starting to sound a lot like another fabulous individual who has honored us with his presence in the past. Just can't quite place who. Hmmmmm.... *scratching chin*

Anonymous's picture


"Uh, in case nobody has told you, WE (atheists) did not "give ourselves" that "label". It is the Christians who use that "label" towards us"

Then why do you accepted the label to this day?

Tin-Man's picture
@Curious Re: "Then why do

@Curious Re: "Then why do you accepted the label to this day?"

Because the Grand Lodge of the International Atheist Coalition voted down my suggestion we call ourselves "Flinglefloopers". They said it would be too expensive and a logistical legal nightmare to redesign the logo and revise all the company letterheads. Personally, I believe they were all just jealous that I came up with the name before they did, and it got voted down for spite.

Anonymous's picture


a platform for what? I don't know what type of people your forum attracted earlier but you are just doing the same to me by lumping me with other stranger that you feel have the same ideals.

and your unquestionable prove of what you claim as my agenda is what?

CyberLN's picture
Well, I would find it sad if

Well, I would find it sad if you decide to paint all folks identified as atheist with a broad brush. You said you're not surprised. Not surprised by what? Do you think that an individual or two speaks for a multitude? If I were to say all curious people are ignorant jerks because one of them did something rude, would you appreciate being included in that? To not be surprised that a person who is identified as atheist would behave in a certain way is evidence that you came looking for confirmation rather than to sate curiosity. Is that the case?


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.