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.
@ David Killens
It is not so much an attempt to go back to a previous era, as it is a desire to restore.
Kind of like restoring the Mona Lisa so we can see how it looked originally.
Or like me going back to school to re-learn all I forgot about math.
I would not be trying to go back to the 10th grade, just trying to get back what I lost.
Jo, do you understand why some practices and teachings were "lost"? Because they were archaic, dated, and not relevant to the people living during each and every age.
Revelation 7:1, KJV: "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."
So therefore, you must be a flat-earther.
@ David Killens
Maybe the four corners are North, South, East, and West.
Or the quadrants on a compass.
Isaiah 40:22 refers to the earth as a sphere because the horizon is a circle.
In the same verse, it also mentions the expansion of the universe after the big bang.
Or maybe it is not a scientific treatise or a book on geography.
Is not love, redemption, relationship, meaning, purpose, justice, mercy, goodness, morality, compassion, and so on, relevant to people of all ages?
@ Jo
Is not love, redemption, relationship, meaning, purpose, justice, mercy, goodness, morality, compassion, and so on, relevant to people of all ages?
Yes, it is, and precious little of that is found in your texts. We have been down this road.
The verses in your book that feature your wishful thinking are far outnumbered by those that encourage infanticide, genocide, racism, misogyny, stoning, incest, amorality, pitiless, merciless murder,
This similar conversation was when we first found out your propensity for lying, Jo. Remember? And here we are again. You cherry picking and being refuted at every turn by what is actually in your book.
Then you refused to accept the actual black and white of your texts by trying "hermeneutics" LOL.....oh, dear, the tears are running down me trouser legs again just at the thought of it.
Have you resumed an upright position from the pretzel shape you must have assumed?
@ Jo
"Maybe the four corners are North, South, East, and West."
So now we get into the interpretations? When faced with conflcting text, just play the "they did not mean that" game?
Maybe the most plausible explanation was that the originators of such passages were ignorant nomadic tribes that held onto the flat earth and were very ignorant of almost everything apart from what was within eyesight?
We've been through this with you ad nausea Jo, and it is still only true of claims that are falsifiable. Making your deity an unfalsifiable concept DOES NOT add any credence to its existence.
You then go on to yet again make a raft of unevidenced claims about what you call supernatural, and how it can or cannot, in your opinion be "experienced", it hardly needs saying that you don't even pretend to be able to demonstrate any evidence for these claims. Ipso fact they are utterly meaningless.
All theists do this when their claims are challenged as unevidenced, they allude to esoteric experiential knowledge, as if we won't notice they are simply hopping from each unevidenced claim to yet another one in the bizarre belief that sheer volume of claims lends credence to the core belief.
....it does not of course. Note also that none of Jo's endless and unevidenced claims has any explanatory powers whatsoever.
And he absolutely is still dishonestly trying to reverse the burden of proof, by ignoring his own claim a deity exists, and pouncing on every post that oversteps the limit of epistemology.
As others have pointed out, it is an objective fact that the natural physical world exists, it is an objective fact that natural phenomena exist and explain how it works, Jo is the one adding an unevidenced claim that he can demontrate neither evidence nor explanation to support.
The hilarity of his argument from incredulity fallacy, that he can't believe the physical universe came about by natural phenomena through happenstance", is again thoroughly dishonest. As the fallacy has been explained to him repeatedly.
Firstly it's not a choice between the objective fact of natural phenomena, or the fantasy of unevidenced bronze age superstition. Secondly he makes claims at how improbable the former is, yet we know it's an objective fact that natural phenomena, and the physical universe exist, but in stark contrast his archaic superstion has no objective evidence to support it. Again it's as if we won't notice this fact, or the number of times Jo has ignored it. Lastly it has been explained to Jo that vastly improbable events occur daily, try lottery winners for a start. Impropable is not impossible, and again its has to be more probable that the cause is something we know exist as an objective fact like natural phenomena, than the unevidenced fantasy of bronze age superstition claiming an unevidenced deity used inexplicable magic. Occam's razor applies, of course Jo ignores this each and every time, dishonesty is the defining characteristic of his spiel.
You're busted yet again Jo...
Next having used known logical fallacies YET AGAIN, and ignoring the response YET AGAIN, Jo will lie YET AGAIN that his superstitious unevidenced beliefs are rational.
His pants must have burned entirely away by know.
Edited: spelling
@ Sheldon
Even pretzels in New York are envious of the pretzel shapes Jo bends his reason.
He is known far and wide as the "Apostolic Oneness Pretzel" except when he is supine when he is referred to as the "Lying Pretzel"
That's not proof, it's not even evidence, it's a bare assertion. All you're doing Jo is showing you don't have been the most basic grasp of what constitutes objective evidence.
@Sheldon
I was wondering if anyone else would notice this.
His example he gave is pretty illuminating insight into how his mind works. It would seem Jo is simply unable to understand how to separate a random idea from reality, because he apparently cannot understand the tools to be able to separate fact from fiction. At least when it comes to trying to rationalize his particular god idea.
Another tedious and dishonest attempt to reverse the burden of proof from Jo.
The natural realm exists as an objective fact, in stark contrast your theist fantasy cannot be evidenced in any objective way. Its beyond absurd for Jo to pretend the latter is more probable than the former.
Try again Jo, your fantasies are unevidenced woo woo, the natural realm is not.
Your superstitious beliefs are irrelevant to your claims, as those beliefs are not required, nor do they promote them objectively. Christianity can just as easily be cited through biblical texts to promote selfish barbaric cruelty that negates individual rights and freedoms. Its core concept is that amongst all the humans who have ever lived, a tiny minority are specially deserving of an eternity of bliss through blind faith in archaic superstition, and accidents of geography. That's before we observe this option is claimed only to be on offer for one species of ape, beyond a certain point in their very recent evolution. Which is why you deny the scientific fact of species evolution no doubt, as it's easier for you than coming to terms with known facts, and what they imply abut your religious beliefs.
The idea is risible, even before we point out there is no objective evidence for any of it, or for any deity.
Nothing in nature evidence christianity at all, try again Jo, your claims are still breathtakingly dishonest.
Edited spelling and clarity.
Wait; you are not convinced people like myself lack a faith in god? That sounds suspiciously like an endorsement of the idea that there is no such thing as atheists. A statement which I would consider a violation of the rules here (no trolling).
This guy Jo is a theist, T-H-E-I-S-T.
An aatheist is a double negative, meaning not-not a theist, ie. (NOT-NOT a T-H-E-I-S-T). Stick on as many more pairs of a's, (aa) as one likes, they all cancel down to: Jo is a THEIST. NOT-NOT a THEIST, or NOT-NOT~NOT-NOT a theist etc. They're all exactly equal to being a THEIST.
Theists make a claim that a god exists, and thus have a burden of proof. Atheists do not ACCEPT the claim of the theist.
Atheists have no burden of proof, unless the individual atheist ALSO says: "There is NO GOD".
End of story.
Mutorc
*FORUM WARNING*
The opening post contains language of an obscene nature, with peak levels of dip shittery present.
If you are in anyway disturbed by the arguments from personal incredulity, please take time stick your head in a bin and scream.
For professional help, you may call +44 800 AVOIDING-TWATS-ONLINE
And you'll be transferred to a highly trained operator who'll most likely piss their pants laughing at said post.
@Jo
Your statement 'there is no elephant in the room I am in.' is not a 'negative' anything.
It is simply a claim.
Further it is a claim that can be rationalised by my senses and reason.
My natural experience informs me that elephants are real, and so large, that people do not normally keep elephants in rooms.
The easiest way I could confirm your statement is to search that room. But as we are on opposite sides of the globe, that's not feasible. I am left to rely on your word and the evidences of my senses and reason. I would be justified to reasonably assume that there is no elephant and leave it at that.
But lets just say you were to claim you had a unicorn in the room with you. My natural reason and experience tells me unicorns are mythical and do not exist.
Therefore, I could reasonably contend there is no unicorn in your room.
Again it is not feasible for me to search your room.
So in the time honoured tradition of honesty, I end up verbally rejecting your claim to a unicorn companion.
If then, mightily insulted, you challenge my rejection with the demand for my evidence that there is no mythical unicorn in your room THAT would be the negative that I would be completely unable to prove.
Without prior evidence or sense experience of unicorns or even belief in them, I can not even begin to understand how to utilise my reason or experience to conceive any sort of feasible scenario for a unicorn being anywhere, much less in your room.
That is the negative no-one can prove.
Swap out 'unicorn' for 'god' and that's how we both end up on an atheist forum.
I do not experience the supernatural at all. I understand it requires the suspension of disbelief and and reason, but owing to the vagaries of our neurological makeup it can tend to be a very unreliable experience.
There is one exception.
I am going to the cinema tonight to watch The Lighthouse which looks pretty scary with wilfully aggressive sea gulls (or is that just a nasty tern?), vicious mermaids, malicious giant squids and a possibly grisly homicidal maniac lighthouse keeper. I will let myself drop all reason and rationality and accept the fictional supernatural premise of the movie and immerse myself into the frightfulness of it all, because like most people, I enjoy that sort of thing...if I can suspend the disbelief that is...cynics have a hard time doing that sort of thing, but I will try, if only because the tickets cost me a small fortune.
Then while the credits scroll I will resume normal functions of reason and rationality. My experience shows me that the supernatural serves admirably as an artistic device utilised in many entertainment mediums.
Despite earnestly trying to do so in my youth, I think trying to understand the supernatural is a pointless endeavour.
added some time later...The Lighthouse was a disappointment...its not a ghost story, but a pyschodrama. Better spending your money and time watching a documentary entitled "The History of Canal Dredging in Poland", even without the English subtitles.
[Plagiarized spam removed, user removed --Nyarlathotep]Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts".
@ Adam
Go down to a seaside beach where the sand rises gradually and there is a lot of strong waves. If you stand deep, you will feel the undertow flowing away from the beach in your lower extremeties. The water goes one way on the surface, it goes a different way just a meter down.
Go talk to a fisherman who uses nets. They will have countless stories of when the net got deep enough, it got pulled in an unexpected direction.
I do not need a prophet or god to understand this, it is a simple observation.
So page 5, and Jo is still a theist, who despite months of dishonest bluster is clearly holding an empty bag.
He can't demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity.
He can't offer a single rational argument to justify the unevidenced belief.
Every argument he has made contains known logical fallacies.
He has from the start dishonestly ignored all this, and uses an argument from ignorance fallacy to insist those who don't share his unevidenced belief produce evidence for the non-existence of his deity. What exactly does evidence of non-existence look like Jo, and of course he cannot accurately define any deity either, so how on earth do evidence the non existence of a completely unevidenced and undefined being?
He has repeatedly lied that his belief is rational, yet constantly uses known logical fallacies to justify it, and then ignores this when it is pointed out, with facile attempts to insist non-belief is irrational, by making up straw man claims for atheism, a smokescreen that no one has fallen for.
Do you believe unicorns are real Jo? Can you prove they don't Jo, or is it just a lack of belief based on the fact there is no objective evidence that unicorns are real?
You're a hopelessly dishonest liar Jo.
@Sheldon
"You're a hopelessly dishonest liar Jo."
Never assume malevolence or dishonesty when the real answer is just as likely to be incompetence, stupidity or a lack of imagination. -That worked for me in the civil service for over 30 years. I can see no reason it is inappropriate with most apologists we get here, including Jo.
Sorry Cranky
On this issue Sheldon has the right of it. Jo has demonstrated a propensity for dishonesty unparalleled in recent times save for the reign of the duplicitous "Breezy".
Jo entered this forum telling us he was a "seeker of truth". Since then he has failed to evidence any such desire. He has , instead lied, misrepresented, tried to reverse the burden of proof, redefined perfectly functioning dictionary definitions...used faux humility to cover even more mendacious behaviour...oh, did I say LIED?
Accused forum members of bullying, while employing ad hominems. Ignored historical references, ignored inconvenient facts...oh did I say LIED?
Apart from that Jo has fulfilled every reason to accept his claim to "live in truth".
Hi cranky47, you're right of course, but with respect it is not an assumption, but based on an abundance of evidence, and of course dishonesty and incompetence are not mutually exclusive, and IMHO Jo's posts amply display both.
This "aatheist" concept is semantics. And this ground has been plowed.
Theism is faith based. It is not rational to believe in Gods or a God until evidence suggests they exist. So far, no evidence has been presented. You are implying that the atheist has the burden of proof to "prove the negative". Until a God or Gods demonstrate their existence, evidence of their existence is only faith based.
@ Bright Raven
Welcome, and thanks for you response.
If an ""aatheist" concept is semantics", than would you say that removing one "a'" would also be semantics?
What do you mean by evidence? Scientific?
Can reason not answer the question?
Isn't your claim that there is no evidence a faith claim?
Do you know there is no evidence, or do you just believe there is no evidence?
@Jo
Jo stated: Welcome, and thanks for you response.
If an ""aatheist" concept is semantics", than would you say that removing one "a'" would also be semantics?
What do you mean by evidence? Scientific?
Can reason not answer the question?
Isn't your claim that there is no evidence a faith claim?
Do you know there is no evidence, or do you just believe there is no evidence?
RESPONSE
First. Thank you for the welcome.
Adding or removing the "a" is not going to communicate anything of value.
The faith/evidence/proof discussions are included in numerous posts on this board. Some are well presented. Reference some of those if you haven't already. For me, I start with the definition of faith.
Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Notice it explicitly excludes proof. Proof for me has to meet a high standard. To prove to me that a God exists, I would require what we all commonly consider as evidence. Similar to what would have to be presented in a court of law. Physical evidence. In the span of my life, I have never seen any evidence that God exists. Maybe you have, but I haven't. I am not trying to convince anyone that God does not exist. All I care about is whether I am convinced whether God exists. Again, in the span of my life, I have not seen any evidence, thus, I declare myself an atheist.
To me it is a personal Mountain to climb. If you have found evidence in your life span that God exists, then you are probably a theist. Since I have not, I for sure am an atheist.
@ Bright Raven
"Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
That is a straw man definition.
Faith is what you believe about something that has not, or cannot be proven or disproved.
"I would require what we all commonly consider as evidence. Similar to what would have to be presented in a court of law"
Are not many cases won or lost based on circumstantial evidence?
What do they do in court when there is no proof or physical evidence? How do they decide?
"All I care about is whether I am convinced whether God exists."
Isn't it biased and illogical to only look at part of the argument, or possible answers?
Why don't you apply the same standards to Gods non-existence as you do to his existence?
Lack of faith, or non-belief, is not proof or physical evidence.
Yet you self identify as an Atheist.
Does anyone have any proof or physical evidence?
What do all these have in common?
1. Do those who believe God does not exist.
2. Those who believe God does exist.
3. Those who do not know if he exists or not.
4. Those who believe it cannot be known.
5. Anyone else.
None have any proof or physical evidence.
Just as you say you are an Atheist because of no proof or physical evidence for God.
I could say I am a Theist because there is no proof or physical evidence for God not existing.
Both are fallacies called an argument from ignorance.
@Jo
I agree with some of what you wrote. Religious folks have faith because there is no evidence.
And at least for this atheist here, I do not have faith, I require evidence when a human tries to convince me of their god idea.
@ Jo
"Do you know there is no evidence, or do you just believe there is no evidence?"
That is a false dichotomy, you have provided just two explanations.
Another option is "I have not been convinced. The evidence is lacking."
@ David Killens
"Another option is "I have not been convinced. The evidence is lacking.""
But that is just your opinion or belief.
No argument or evidence, just a statement of what you do not believe.
I think that is vastly inferior to saying what you DO believe and why.
@BR Re: Jo
Hey, since you are new here, there are a couple of things you might want to know about Jo.
1. All those questions he just asked you have already been asked by him and explained to him countless times by various members here over the past several months.
2. Jo has attempted multiple little dishonest tactics in an effort to reverse the burden of proof and claim atheism is a "belief system" that requires atheists to PROVE why they do not believe in god(s).
3. If you pay close attention, you will notice considerable similarities in Jo's and Joy's mannerisms and writing style.
4. Jo is terribly proficient in the apologetic arts of building highly decorative strawmen, along with deflecting, avoiding, and ignoring any questions/statements that would shed any amount of light on the true toxic nature of his "all-loving" god if he were to answer/respond to them honestly.
So, now that you are up to speed, do have fun on the merry-go-round if you choose to engage Jo for any length of time. Oh, and when you finally get tired of repeatedly hammering your head against the brick wall, please feel free to borrow Old Man's helmet.
Pages