Hello World

152 posts / 0 new
Last post
In Spirit's picture


Stop lying and keep it real !!

Do you want me to go around stating that Cognistic believes in a deity?

You have a superiority complex and that's a fact. One more reason for you to make up lies about me and my beliefs.


Attach Image/Video?: 

terraphon's picture
Yeah, In Spirit claims to be

Yeah, In Spirit claims to be an atheist who worships the "spirit of love".

I'm still waiting for him to start a NEW THREAD to demonstrate that the "spirit of love" exists.

Don't you dare make another thread-hijack attempt to justify that crap, In Sprit.

arakish's picture
@ In Spirit

@ In Spirit

You have a superiority complex and that's a fact. One more reason for you to make up lies about me and my beliefs.

Wow! And this coming from a Religious Absolutist.

Here is a list of how one can spot a Religious Absolutist and they only need match just ONE:

  1. They LIE without ever thinking about the veracity of their statement.
  2. They LIE without ever providing any evidence of their statement.
  3. They LIE by believing inexorably everything they state, regardless of how inaccurate.
  4. They LIE by being absolute in their statements (either I believe you or I am worthless scum).
  5. They LIE by using beguiling dialectical semantics.
  6. They LIE by using distorted and perverted data.
  7. They LIE by creating irrational excuses.
  8. They LIE by utilizing whiney-ass pleas.
  9. They LIE by not realizing why they need to defend their beliefs.
  10. They LIE by utilizing presupposed conclusions with no evidence.
  11. They LIE by making accusations they never apologize for even when they are proven wrong.
  12. They LIE by changing the subject.
  13. They LIE by taking text out of context and twisting and perverting said text to fit their presupposed confirmation bias.
  14. They LIE by shifting the burden of proof.

Stop lying and keep it real !!

Why not obey your own command?


In Spirit's picture


Please read your own set of rules. You must have me confused by a perception of your truth.

Arakish...here you go....why don't you admit that you have 2 separate profiles. Do you prefer truth or lies about you? Will you be silent or rebut? Show me how different you are.

Cognostic's picture
Everyone knows I worship a

Everyone knows I worship a deity. Like some people. I have my Tin Man alter right next to a photo of Sheldon. And when I don't have access to them there is always the blue invisible universe creating bunnies. My Gods are all more real than yours. That's another FACT. FACT - a word you just don't understand. Hang around for a bit longer and keep spouting your nonsense and perhaps something will sink in.

dogalmighty's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

Looks like 12th century english, with its present meanings and usages. There is a germanic origin around the 4-5 century, with meaning closest, and derived from the term, "bad", in a moral sense. But, it looks like it was bastardized into the present meaning through 12th century christian monastic reform in england. It looks like it is likely a byproduct of christianity originally in germanic territory, and firmly honed into dogmatic belief in 12th century england.

arakish's picture
@ doG

@ doG

And thanks for listing the etymology. Me, I was going on the actual concepts. Guess we were both correct.


terraphon's picture
Are you theists paying

Are you theists paying attention?

This is what happens when two people who don't agree on something call it out, do research, present that research as mature adults, don't duck, dodge, wiggle or try to weasel out of it and are open to learning something new.

Shit gets learnt.

Cognostic's picture
Guys, I want to point out

Guys, I want to point out that Zoroastrianism with possible roots dating back to the second millennium BCE, and the suspected origins of our version of Satan, heaven and hell. " Zoroastrianism's creator Ahura Mazda, through the Spenta Mainyu (Good Spirit, "Bounteous Immortals") is an all-good "father" of Asha (Truth, "order, justice"), in opposition to Druj ("falsehood, deceit") EVIL.


During the exodus from Babylonia the Jews brought with them the idea of Good and Evil Gods and this apparently made its way into the Jewish faith and later modern Christianity.

My point is, when we look at the actual word "EVIL" we may be correct in calling it 12th century English. Surly; however, the concept is as old as humanity itself.

Still, another great example for Catholicity, When in question, go to the FACTS.

(edited for "Pagels") I just read this. Origins of Satan. She suggests that when the Christians separated from the ancient Jewish sects, the Christians took the idea of Satan with them. It was a point of division between Jews and Christians.

dogalmighty's picture
Fellow Chimp,

Fellow Chimp,
Did you find the origin word with the same meaning? I was not able to, prior to 4th century proto germanic time. My point was, to try not and use a word that has its origin/meaning in religion...it seems the meaning has its origin in religion, just further back in history. I always thought so as well. I have the same pet peev about the words satan or the like...soul...heaven...etc.

Cognostic's picture
Not the exact word translated

Not the exact word translated. We know the ancient Greeks had a Hades. I found this "Hades is not evil. Hades is the God of the underworld and lord of the dead. He’s as necessary to the prospect of an afterlife is as the idea of a heaven or a hell." I think my impression was colored by Hollywood movies. We typically think of it as a place akin to modern Christian hell but it's just not.

On the other hand, Zoroastrianism,
EVIL, wickedness, harm, ill fortune.

i. In Ancient Iranian Religions.

ii. In Shiʿism.


In the eminently dualistic Zoroastrian religion the need to defeat evil was emphasized, and it was not by chance that Ahriman (q.v.) was one of the prototypes of the enemy (see DUALISM). In the ancient Iranian religious world evil was a fact, a condition of existence, as is apparent not only in so-called “orthodox Zoro astrianism” but also in Zurvanism and the various mystery religions and gnostic tendencies connected with it, notably Mithraism and Manicheism. The problem of evil was thus omnipresent, and the solutions to it took as many forms as the conceptions of dualism developed throughout ancient Iranian history. The earliest was apparently that of Zoroaster, which served as the basis for all subsequent elaborations.


Randomhero1982's picture
Greetings Ray,

Greetings Ray,

I do hope you can provide a voice of reason amongst the unrelenting tide of apologists we have seen lately.

As for your assertion, I will rebut with the following.

A lack of belief in any deity could due to the following:

- All other Gods (Poseiden, Zeus, Thor, Apollo... etc...) have all been proven to be man made, probability, causation and logic dictate its highly likely the abrahamic God is similar.

- Everything has a natural causal link, from the evolution of man to the formation of Earth, all the way to the big bang. A God, supernatural phenomena etc do not and are unfalsafiable untestable and have no rational founding.

- The laws of nature and physics do not require to be suspended in order to work, as oppose to a theistic world view.

- No deductive logical argument can be made for a God.

I have many other points but I'll stop here for now and hope you enjoy lively debate.

Craybelieves's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens
Top notch. As to comic books and the Illiad, there is a nearly unanimous consensus that the characters depicted do not actually exist. Not to mention that the authors claim copyrights and take credit for creating the characters created in comics and Harry Potter. Meanwhile, nearly one-third of the planet's population believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and roughly three-fifths of the world claims that the God of Abraham exists. While I agree that a majority is no measurement of accuracy, I would assert that it at least grounds to conduct further study. Furthermore, I wouldn't suggest that anything "separates" the Bible from the other works you have mentioned. I may reference those sources as well to debate you ;)

Well, there are several but I probably won't begin to deal with them all. For now, there is the claim that the man Jesus instituted a Church and there is preserved historical documentation that supports a connection between the Catholic Church and the New Testament. Further, until recent years the existence of Pontius Pilate has been questioned and in some cases outright denied. Archeology has changed that position.

Of course, Sacred Scripture is not merely a historical testimony. It contains many forms of literature. I am not arguing Scripture is purely historically accurate in its content. I am merely asserting that it is rational to study scripture and ascertain it's historical worth. To be honest, though I will probably only reference it if you use it against me.


dogalmighty's picture
@ Ray

@ Ray

"I am merely asserting that it is rational to study scripture and ascertain it's historical worth."

Not without proof of existence within reality. Is it rational to look for a portal at King's Cross Station?

Cognostic's picture

"nearly one-third of the planet's population believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and roughly three-fifths of the world claims that the God of Abraham exists."

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM: A fallacy of logic. It does not matter how many people believe a claim. The claim must be proved to be true. There was a time when diseases were thought to be caused by evil spirits. We now have the germ theory of disease. There was a time when man believed he could not fly. We now have planes. There was a time when the earth was said to be flat and have 4 corners (Biblical reference) We now know we are on a sphere. There was a time when everyone knew we were the center of the universe. We know better now. Asserting something is true because many people believe it is actually quite ignorant.

I would assert that it at least grounds to conduct further study. And we have had 5000 years of study with no results. Do you understand that it is the theists that have the burden of proof, not the scientists and not the atheists. It is your job to do the study and present the world with facts. We do not have to do your work for you. You are making the claim, you must do the study. You must then give us the facts. A good example are recent studies on prayer. It has been prove intercessory prayer does not work. In fact if the sick and dying know they are being prayed for, they do worse. I believe the study was done by Pew Research and it is the most comprehensive prayer study we have to date.

David Killens's picture


"As to comic books and the Illiad, there is a nearly unanimous consensus that the characters depicted do not actually exist."

At one time in the distant past, the great majority of people, thus the overall consensus, did not practice christianity, but rather pagan beliefs. Does that imply that at that time your christian god did not exist? IMO your god displays as much evidence of existing as Thor.

Additionally, there are 6.9 billion people on this planet, and just 2.2 billion christians. Christians do not even make a majority. If 4.5 billion people (2/3) do not believe in your christian god then .......... by your own logic your god does not exist. Just like Spider man.

"Not to mention that the authors claim copyrights and take credit for creating the characters created in comics and Harry Potter."

Is the validity of a book determined by whether it was copyright? And are there any books in the bible that did not have claims to authorship (reference Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, and Peter)?

"Meanwhile, nearly one-third of the planet's population believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and roughly three-fifths of the world claims that the God of Abraham exists."

This argument is known as an appeal to numbers. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

Ask any old smoker, it was once believed that smoking was not harmful. Just because so many people believed it, that did not make it true.

Calilasseia's picture
Ah, the in tray is full once

Ah, the in tray is full once more. Let's take a look at this shall we?

Hello everyone I’m new here. I’m Roman Catholic.

I'll spare you the barbs you're doubtless expecting as a result of this admission.

I look forward to sharing discussions with you.

Be advised, the standards of discourse here are perhaps best categorised as ruthless.

There were only two options for subjects to post to.

I suspect this particular venus is spartan with respect to options by design. Possibly as a means of dissuading all but the most persistent and motivated among the usual suspects seen in other forums.

I just wanted to say hello

Past experience has taught many here, that small talk is usually the last item on the agenda of certain visitors. Which is why there is little provision for it.

but I don’t want to post a thread that doesn’t follow the subject. So I’ll start with the following.

Do continue ...

I assert that my Christian faith, while dependant on believing some things that I can not absolutely know, is as rational as holding the position that God does not exist.

First, it is refreshing to see a supernaturalist admit that he's presenting an assertion. So many of the supernaturalist ilk announce their presence here, by trying to tell us that the mythological assertions they treat as fact are fact, and that we are purportedly "deficient" in some manner, because we do not share their particular brand of mythology fandom. You may or may not appreciate the manner in which this becomes tiresome after an abundance of repetitions thereof.

Second, I'm going to drop some surprises in your lap. More on this later. But before that, since you have admitted that you are presenting an assertion here, you should therefore be aware of the proper discoursive treatment of assertions, namely, that they possess the status "truth value unknown", until subject to an appropriate test aimed at remedying that epistemological deficit is performed. You may find yourself surprised at how many of your fellow supernaturalists are either unaware of the basic principles of proper discourse, or knowingly flout them because they regard their outpourings as exempt therefrom. Pedlars of presuppositionalist apologetics are among the most egregious members of the second category.

Third, there are certain elementary concepts that are endemic here, to which you will need an introduction. Central among these is the treatment of various so-called "holy books" as being nothing more than mythologies, in the same vein as the dead mythologies of past civilisations that no longer have adherents. This treatment arises because of the numerous shared characteristics observable in all the relevant writings - [1] the presentation of extraordinary assertions as if said assertions constituted fact, with clear intent on the part of the authors that those assertions be treated as factual, [2] the presentation of one or more assertions centred upon the purported existence of various magical entities, [3] the presentation of assertions to the effect that said magic entities provided the authors with their source material, by means known or unknown, and [4] the presentation of assertions to the effect that the magic entities cited in [2], purportedly seek to regulate human behaviour.

However, there's a problem here. That problem centres upon the fact, that many mythologies also contain assertions about the constitution and behaviour of the observable physical universe and its contents, assertions that are, by definition, manifestly subject to scientific test, and which are invariably falsified the moment said test is performed. In short, if a mythology contains manifest errors with respect to testable assertions, then it would be foolish indeed to regard that mythology as being in any way reliable with respect to its untested or untestable assertions. This is, of course, far more of a problem for literalists and inerrantists than for anyone adopting a more nuanced view, but even a more nuanced view of a given mythology does not eliminate the problem, and gives rise immediately to the question of how one determines in a rigorous manner, how to distinguish between parts of a mythology to be treated as fact, and parts to be treated as 'allegory' or whatever. But, even an attempt to try and escape from the more embarrassing errors in this vein by recourse to "allegory", does not rescue that mythology from having those errors as part of its corpus. This essential concept will form a part of the surprise package I'll be delivering later, so diligent attention will be of value here as you continue reading.

This leads in turn to another observable issue, namely the fact that as a direct corollary of core assertions being untested or untestable, either through accident or design, supernatualism is beset with anti-consilience on a colossal scale. Supernaturalists on a global scale, cannot agree among themselves which of the numerous mythologies to choose from is purportedly the "right" mythology, not least because the inherent epistemological deficit endemic to assertions I cited above, renders it impossible to devise anything resembling a reliable test, let alone a full-blown methodology. Worse still, adherents of a particular mythology are notorious for being unable to agree among themselves what that mythology is purportedly telling us. Again, that epistemological deficit endemic to assertions can be traced as a root cause of this, but this tends to be exacerbated enormously, by dint of mythologies being couched either in obscurantist language (again, sometimes by accident, though more frequently by design), or having been subject to translation, re-translation, abridging, editing, and a whole host of other text processing over historical time, to the point where whatever meaning the original author might have wished to present, has been buried under many strata of subsequent human activity, some of that activity being far removed from honest scholarly endeavour.

Given the abundant observable correlates in this regard, between so-called "holy books" and mythologies no longer associated with living adherents, it should not be surprising at all to find those writings treated in the same manner by those of us who have observed and studied those correlates.

As a corollary of all the above, do not be surprised to find material you present here being treated in this vein.

And now, it's time to move on to the "surprise package" I promised, which I present here as applicable to me, but which is probably applicable to a good number of others here, even if there is disagreement on some of the personally applicable fine detail I present below.

One of the most basic errors that supernatualists make, is to assume, either through ignorance or wilful ideological malice, that being an atheist means not merely rejecting the assertion that a god type entity actually exists as a real, concrete entity, but that it means asserting the contrary. The reason that this is an error, centres upon two pillars: one, the manner in which supernatualists, particularly in environments historically affected by past ruthless enforcement of conformity to doctrine, regard their mythology and its assertions as some sort of natural cultural default, instead of the product of powerfully motivated manipulation of that cultural arena, and two, the tendency of supernaturalists to skew discourse to fit their own reference frame, regardless of whether or not the actual observable data agrees with being force-fitted into that reference frame.

That error is, I assure you most emphatically, an error. Because, if one performs the requisite observation without the distorting supernaturalist contact lenses in place, the one readily observable feature, that is genuinely common to all atheists, is suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT, and as a corollary, I present that as the proper, rigorous definition of atheism, courtesy of the fact that said definition is grounded in that one common observable. Of course, one does not have to be an actual student of formal logic, to understand that one can be suspicious simultaneously of assertion X and its negation, but this elementary principle tends to be forgotten by supernaturalists confronted with suspicion of their cherished assertions.

In short, those of us who take the business of discourse within the atheist realm seriously, regard the question "does there exist a god type entity" as unanswered, and some regard the question as unanswerable even in principle (the pure agnostics fall into this category). I take the position that the question is unanswered, may be answerable in the future provided relevant developments take place, but most assuredly not answered by mythological assertion. Indeed, by now, you should be in a position to realise why I regard mythological assertion, and indeed the whole medium of mythology itself, as incompetent to provide an answer to this, or for that matter, to any substantive question about our surroundings. Quite simply, I don't assert that there is no god, but that any god out there isn't one of the fatuous candidates presented for the role in pre-scientific mythologies.

One of the reasons I have for taking this position, is simple: Abrahamic mythologies in particular are replete with elementary errors about the observable universe, its contents and its long term history, and underestimated the size and the age of the observable universe by a frankly woeful nine orders of magnitude. Carl Sagan presciently pointed to this when he uttered his remark about religions failing to latch on to the immense true scale of the universe as something to marvel at, instead preferring their gods to be little gods. If mythology underestimated the size of the universe by this gigantic amount, then it doesn't take much of a leap from this, to conclude that a similar underestimation of any actual god out there is also a feature of these mythologies, which present their little gods as, in effect, cosmic versions of Donald Trump: über-narcissists with a propensity for toddler tantrums, and sociopathic disregard for the suffering and misery arising from executive decisions formulated in the middle of a Twitter rant.

My view, and several here may or may not agree with this, is that [1] finding genuine evidence for a god type entity, will be such a monumental undertaking, that success therein will guarantee the participants therein a Nobel Prize; [2] The moment this occurs, it will be headline news around the world; and [3] when that moment occurs, the data obtained will falsify all of our mytholgies at a stroke, and as a corollary, the people with the greatest amount of egg on their faces will be those supernaturalists who were so certain, that the little gods of their mythologies would be the ones stepping out from behind the curtain. Indeed, I am on public record here and elsewhere, as hypothesising that the data, once reliably in our hands, will point to an entity so radically different from all previous human experience, that the people best placed to understand the data will be particle physicists, because they handle counter-intuitive results on a routine basis in their research. I am also willing to bet that you never expected to see an atheist present views of this sort to you.

Thank you again for having me.

Enjoy the above. Which should come as a welcome break from some of the barbs you'll almost certainly be facing.

Craybelieves's picture
Hello RandomHero1982

Hello RandomHero1982

I disagree that a logical argument can not be made for the existence of "a" God. I believe the cosmological argument satisfies this well enough. While it does not outright assert that "a" God exists......

Before I continue I just want to suggest that the term God hinders my argument here. You may have much negativity associated with the term. I would suggest that it is merely a term used to summarize various attributes. Proceeding, I would rather use the term eternal being for now...

So I think the cosmological argument suggests quite nicely, that an eternal being exists and that being is not caused. I've pondered whether gravity could be the eternal being. Regardless, belief in an undefined eternal being is not illogical.

Edit: deleted the word of

Randomhero1982's picture


I did implicitly state a 'Dedutive' arguement cannot be made for a God, perhaps even an inductive... at best an abductive claim can be made.

While it does not outright assert that "a" God exists......

That sort of leans to my point.

Moving on to the cosmological arguement, it is underpinned by theoretical physics and natural causation but then calls for something an entity that cannot be tested ina any way, shape or form...

Furthermore, the cosmological argument relies on a general relativity notion of the universe and does not adhere to quantum mechanics.

Thank you for the reply.

Sheldon's picture
"I disagree that a logical

"I disagree that a logical argument can not be made for the existence of "a" God. I believe the cosmological argument satisfies this well enough."

The cosmological argument contains known common logical fallacies, nothing that contains known logical fallacies can be asserted as rationally true. There are countless threads on here debunking it, and elsewhere come to that, and all highlight the logical fallacies inherent in it.

> Special pleading fallacy.
> Argument from ignorance fallacy.
> Begging the question fallacy.
> Argument from incredulity fallacy.

All are used in the Kalam cosmological argument.

No argument by definition can be claimed to be objective evidence.

Randomhero1982's picture
Well put sheldon! May I ask,

Well put sheldon! May I ask, do you think it also contains a black and white fallacy in that it often says essentially theres two choices...

Natural cause (which they try to refute)
Super natural cause (which leads to God conclusion)

It hasn't used QM to get to this and hasn't covered all avenues.

Sheldon's picture
I'd say that was an argument

I'd say that was an argument from incredulity fallacy, as they usually phrase the claim as we can't believe everything exists by natural or material forces, thus there must be another explanation, and then they make the assumption that it is their deity, which is of course a begging the question fallacy, as they're using the deity and the attributes they assume it has in the same argument they're making for its existence.

Though you're absolutely right of course, even if they were justified in ruling out natural or material causes this would not justify an unevidenced assumption about the actual cause. However we know as an objective fact that natural material causes exist, and evidence them in every single thing where we currently understand the cause, yet this woeful cosmological argument tries to use the law of cause and effect as an absolute applying before the temporal condition of the physical universe & as we know it, even existed. Then risibly does an about turn to claim the universe needs a supernatural cause, which we have never evidenced even once, and of course is not supported by that law of cause & effect, and which of course is a special pleading fallacy.

It's a woeful argument, and whenever a theists uses this as their opening gambit, in the same post they claim their belief is rational, I know they haven't even a basic grasp of informal logic, and what's more it shows unequivocally they haven't done even the most cursory research.

Put bluntly catholicray just showed without question that he is biased as hell, and not interested in questioning his beliefs in any objective way. How hard is it to type objections to the cosmological argument into a Google search?

Randomhero1982's picture
Agreed Sheldon, with most

Agreed Sheldon, with most theists they do not have the physics knowledge to make a firm premise, hence arguement from incredulity.

But say those like William Lane Craig who affirm the notion that it has to be X or Y, not X Therefore Y... despite not covering all bases, evidence and covering all that is know in physics... struck ne as a black and white fallacy.

But I may be wrong.

Sheldon's picture
I don't think you're wrong,

I don't think you're wrong, and it does seem to apply to the part of the argument you cite, it's just that this fallacy seems to overlap other fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam for instance. It's definitely a false dichotomy to say the universe must have a supernatural cause because we can't evidence a natural one. It's also an argument from ignorance fallacy, and a special pleading fallacy as the argument then immediately breaks it's own "rule" that everything must have cause by simply asserting their deity does not. Since they are know assuming the attributes of the deity in the argument for its existence, it also uses a begging the question fallacy.

As I say when catholicray asserted it was a rational basis for belief, all too familiar alarms bells started ringing.

Sorry if my post is a little incomprehensible this morning, but Wales won a Grand slam in the rugby yesterday and I have a terminal hangover.

Cognostic's picture
I disagree that a logical

I disagree that a logical argument can not be made for the existence of "a" God. I believe the cosmological argument satisfies this well enough.

The Cosmological Argument gets you nowhere near a god. I have already posted this. AND NOW YOU AGREE: "While it does not outright assert that "a" God exists......" WE ARE FINISHED. The cosmological argument is a FAIL!

eternal being: Long as you can prove it. We have no example of anything eternal and certainly not a being that is eternal. So what evidence do you hold that no one has ever seen?

"So I think the cosmological argument suggests quite nicely, that an eternal being exists and that being is not caused."

NO IT DOESN'T: You have no idea at all what you are talking about. You just admitted that... "it does not outright assert that "a" God (eternal being) exists...... and now you are saying it does. How hypocritical can you get?

"Regardless, belief in an undefined eternal being is not illogical." WELL, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THIS ONE., So, go to the debate forum and let's hear what you got.

Craybelieves's picture
I have to go to work. I have

I have to go to work. I have read your replies but I do not have time right this moment to respond. For now, I will merely leave you all with the assurance that I am not here to wrestle any of you into believing in my faith. I've decided to test my own faith for consistency and I think this is the proper place to conduct such research. I am merely here to learn and to have challenging dialogue. Thank you for the respect you have shown me thus far and I look forward to responding to the latest posts.


dogalmighty's picture
You are certainly not the run

You are certainly not the run of the mill apologist crusader we see on these boards...thank you for letting us know of your absence...that is thoughtful.

Sky Pilot's picture


"I am merely here to learn and to have challenging dialogue."

I have observed that Catholics are in the habit of calling their priests "father". Do you call your priest "father"?

It says in Matthew 23:9 (CEB) = "Don’t call anybody on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is heavenly."

So if you profess to believe in Jesus why do you deliberately disobey him by calling your priest "father"?

It seems that Catholics won't kick out the sexually immoral clergy and that they also disobey the person they supposedly worship. Is it possible that they are the church of Satan?

In Spirit's picture
Hello catholicray

Hello catholicray

As a newcomer myself I must warn you to be prepared to be appalled by the reaction of some people here, to be surprised by some who are open minded and to be appreciated by others, to say the least. Do not try to teach to those who do not want to expand on the possibilities but zone in on those who challenge you in a respectful way is the advice I can give you for now.

Others will make it look like all atheists are on the same page but they are not. They can be as divided as any other group.

Some people will ask you for proof. Proof does not exist, only evidence. Science itself can only offer evidence at best and whether some people here are ready to admit it or not Science also is an opinion, a belief as well, simply because there is no proof.

I look forward to what you will bring here. As someone who has read your book countless times, I am well versed in the passages and I will offer you some interesting challenges

Sheldon's picture
"Others will make it look

"Others will make it look like all atheists are on the same page but they are not. They can be as divided as any other group."

I have only ever heard theists assert this since I have been here, all the atheist regulars on here are happy to acknowledge they are a disparate bunch with widely ranging views on all manner of things, but who share one thing in common, they don't believe any deity or deities exist.

"Some people will ask you for proof."

Again I have not seen atheists here insist on any such thing as absolute proof, only ask for evidence, and not once have I seen any theists or religious apologists demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. You certainly haven't.

"Science itself can only offer evidence at best and whether some people here are ready to admit it or not Science also is an opinion, a belief as well, simply because there is no proof."

That's absurd nonsense, a scientific consensus is based on a weight of objective evidence, subjective opinions are the very antithesis of objective scientific facts that are evidenced and explained by accepted scientific theories such as evolution. This cliched theistic canard is over used by theists and apologists who want to pretend unevidenced belief and objectively evidenced facts have some sort of parity.


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.