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.
If your definition of Supernatural is like magic, or a means to interact with the natural world with super powers then yes I agree is a lie.
Well this is the first time you have completely ignored my post, and responded with a falsehood about what I posted. It will also be the last, as I am giving you one chance to address what I said and not the straw man fallacy you created before I will start to properly disrespect you in return.
You claimed:
Then I asked you:
Please link the peer reviewed research evidencing this, and then link the Nobel prize winner who demonstrated objective evidence for your claim. The Templeton foundation have for decades been offering a million dollars to anyone who can remotely evidence the supernatural, and even by the woefully biased standards set by the superstitious, no one has claimed this prize.
Now are you going to ignore my request again, or can you provide peer reviewed research from a worthy source to support it? You do know that science, like logic, has very strict principles of validation don't you? Again why has this paradigm shifting news been missed by the global scientific community, every major news network, and the Nobel committee? Making up straw man fallacies about what I think is crass dishonesty, address my valid request please.
If you continue in the same vein, then I will disrespect your responses as you have done to mine, but let the record show I gave respect until it was not reciprocated.
As I said before to you. You are way to tunnel vision, I even agreed with you... and you take it as an insult. You are way to intense for me...
@Mystical Re: To Sheldon - "You are way to intense for me..."
Hmmm... For some strange reason, I get the feeling a butterfly on valium would likely be too intense for you. Just an observation.
@ Mystical Theist
"You are way to intense for me..."
Do you understand why? All too often we see a theist come in here and in 19 out of 20 points, they are 100% accurate. But on that 20th point they attempt to slip it past, hoping no one will closely examine their fallacious statement.
For example, just state "scientists say the universe came from nothing" and watch for the incoming corrections to that fallacious statement.
How intense must one be to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their way of life? Some atheists are in here for a good debate, some are here to fight the pervasive evil that is organized religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPsLMygz1s
So you make fatuous accusation, and then ignore the response, t'was ever thus. Incidentally it's too intense, and you were not agreeing with me, as i am an atheist and do not believe in the supernatural, and for the same reason, no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for either, or offer any rational argument.
Since you completely ignore my post here is is again with your quotes showing you are lying here about agreeing with me.
Well this is the first time you have completely ignored my post, and responded with a falsehood about what I posted. It will also be the last, as I am giving you one chance to address what I said and not the straw man fallacy you created before I will start to properly disrespect you in return.
You claimed:
Then I asked you:
Please link the peer reviewed research evidencing this, and then link the Nobel prize winner who demonstrated objective evidence for your claim. The Templeton foundation have for decades been offering a million dollars to anyone who can remotely evidence the supernatural, and even by the woefully biased standards set by the superstitious, no one has claimed this prize.
Now are you going to ignore my request again, or can you provide peer reviewed research from a worthy source to support it? You do know that science, like logic, has very strict principles of validation don't you? Again why has this paradigm shifting news been missed by the global scientific community, every major news network, and the Nobel committee? Making up straw man fallacies about what I think is crass dishonesty, address my valid request please.
If you continue in the same vein, then I will disrespect your responses as you have done to mine, but let the record show I gave respect until it was not reciprocated. "
@Mystical theist
Define what supernatural is...that is not magic? Sadly, you seem to be like a lot of other theists I have seen on this website.
@Mystical Theist
Page 1, post number 13, you stated ....
"or I notice you don't read what I'm saying and just spam messages."
That is strike two.
Well it's obvious that having been called on the dishonesty of this straw man MT created, that he's flounced out of here.
For the record I gave no definition of the word supernatural at all, and merely requested he demonstrate proper evidence for his claim that the existence of a supernatural deity creating the universe was supported by science.
Unsurprisingly the dishonest strawman about the definition of supernatural was all that he offered.
Incidentally as with all words I adhere to the common usage contained in the primary dictionary definition. If I ever feel the urge to deviate from this, and I never have thus far, then rest assured I will make it very clear.
So here is the dictionary definition, and it should make clear why I called him on his ridiculous claim.
Supernatural
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Now for further clarification of MT's duplicity here, let's compare that definition to the definition for magic, which he objected to even though I'd not used it myself, and see how similar or not they are.
Magic
noun
the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces
So as we can see his objection to the word magic means he is the one trying to redefine the word supernatural, and his claim for scientific evidence is equally at odds with thecdictionarie's definition of that word.
This idiocy and dishonesty aside, he clearly was making claims relentlessly that he hadn't the slightest intention of supporting with any evidence, or rational argument, despite dishonestly claiming to have offered both. His earlier bombast about requiring respect now seems doubly ironic given the stupidity of his claims and the paucity of integrity and respect he has offered those he claims to have wanted to engage in rational discourse with.
Every single time they come up holding an "empty bag" they storm off blaming the messenger. There will be a world shortage of irony meters at this rate.
Wow Sheldon, this one just glosses over challenges and moves onto the next woo woo topic.
Every time he is challenged to offer any proof or evidence, he just moves on.
@David Killens
MT is preaching, it makes his thread title pretty hilarious though. He has no intention of showing anyone here who doesn't share his superstitious beliefs any respect whatsoever.
Though to be fair it's nothing we haven't seen before from religious apologists. I'm always puzzled by their hubris, as if it fooled them it must fool all of us. Talk about ego...
@Mystical Theist
God is the aspirin you take when your head hurts from thinking too much.
Not only is there no evidence for any supernatural event ever, there is nothing that needs to be explained by the supernatural. There are only things that we already understand, or things that we don't understand yet.
I dont disagree with you.
We dont need to the supernatural to understand the natural.
And God certainly is something we dont understand yet and perhaps we will never will.
But his existence makes sense to me and doesn't contradict with logic or science.
@Mystical Theist
"But his existence makes sense to me and doesn't contradict with logic or science."
Of course your definition of god does not contradict anything because by your own definition, there is no difference between your god and nothing.
But how does an invisible being that does not interact with this known universe make any sense?
@MT
You have repeatedly contradicted the principles of logic, by using known common logical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam, and begging the question fallacies, among others. and I've explained this to you exhaustively. Science doesn't evidence any deity, and I've asked you to present some objective evidence for your lie that it does, and you haven't even acknowledged the request unsurprisingly.
You have been asked to demonstrate objective evidence for any deity, natural or otherwise, so the claim it's a natural deity is another unevidenced assumption you are peddling, as again you have failed to even acknowledge the request.
We can now see the mystic in your name is a metaphor for woo woo bullshitter.
I'm done respecting you or your woo woo superstitious nonsense, since you have failed to show any respect to the atheists here. Find a pulpit please, as this is not the place for your sermons.
Mystical Theist: YOU CAN NOT ASSERT "God certainly is something we don't understand" AND THEN PROFESS TO UNDERSTAND IT. If you can not understand it. you can not assert existence. Existence requires a degree of understating. On what are you basing your "understanding" of god's existence?
Are you claiming that you understand omnipotence and omniscience?
It seems you didn't read my others message and just want to jump at my throat wow
I came in peace
Mystical, looks to me like Nyar was just asking a simple question.
Mystical Theist: How you came is irrelevant to the nonsense you are spewing. Why don't you step back and take a look at the utter insanity of your position and stop getting but hurt over the errors, erroneous assumptions, and outright bullshit you are posting.
@ Mystical Theist
the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of gods but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.
@ Mystical Theist
you are against
the presumption of atheism?
@Mystical Theist I came in peace
You need to understand a little about the background of atheists. I'm one of the lucky ones. I was indoctrinated at school in England and New Zealand, but I shook it off fairly easily as a teenager 50 years ago. Some live in countries where you can be killed for atheism. Others have been indoctrinated so deeply and harshly that they are still troubled emotionally even though they have opted for atheism on an intellectual level. There are also people who have been abused by priests. So you can see there's going to be a bit of anger here.
There's also generalized anger about the behavior of religions, including oppression and terrorism by Islam, the child abuse of Catholicism, the homophobia of evangelical Christianity, the interference of creationists in education, the money-grubbing frauds of televangelism, and the constant demands for respect and privilege, including tax breaks.
This forum is one of the few places where atheists can express their views and generally sound off without fear of ridicule, discrimination, or violence. So I'm afraid you're going to encounter some forthright views expressed in robust language.
@ Mystical Theist
Sure, that is called the 'god of classical theism'.
Now, how do we go about demonstrating that this god actually exists? What method should we use? You mentioned using the 'correct tools'. WHat are the correct tools?
What convinced you that this god exists?
I can't detect atoms, quarks, gluons, molecules, black holes, etc, etc, but I am pretty sure they exist. There are other methods to detect things other than our senses.
@ Mystical Atheist
No, they haven't been debunked by other theists. What modern theists have done, is to redefine the OMNIS, as MAXIMALLY. As in: maximall great that doesn't contradict logic, because they understand the contradictions.
If the omnis are beyond comprehension, how do you know anything about them? How do you know a being with these abilities even exists.
I am trying to understand why anyone would come to an atheist forum to "discuss god".
Maybe to discuss a particular religion or claim about their beliefs, but atheists do not believe in a god or gods, they dismiss god claims unless evidenced.
Do they not possess a dictionary that contains the definition of atheist?
Unless of course they have irrefutable evidence for the existence of a god, in which case, none of us will be atheists I would imagine, after reading the first line.
It seems gum flapping and making wooo noises is about par for the course for theists. Oh...wait...and lies.
(Edit: Line 2 added)
@Mystical Atheist: It is not tunnel vision to point out the FALLACIES and FLAWS in your perceptions.
@ Mystical Theist
Unfortunately, you don't get to set any conditions at all . This is an internet forum, not a small country. Rules are set by the owners. They owe no explanations or justifications. Don't like our behaviour? Feel free to leave at any time.
You will be treated with respect if that is what you give. You will be treated politely if that is also your behaviour. In any case I can pretty much guarantee that you will be treated with more civility and good manners than an atheist on a theist site. ( I've visited and posted on three; two christian and one Muslim. The Muslims were the worst by far, in their ignorance, intolerance and aggression)
@Mystical Atheist: Let's just be honest here. YOU CAN NOT THROW BULLSHIT AT PEOPLE AND EXPECT RESPECT IN RETURN. IT'S JUST THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.
Bump...
Unicorns are defined as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead, some people believe they are real, does the definition lend validity to the belief? Making assumptions about something in an argument for it's existence is called a begging the question fallacy. I believe you have been told this already, yet you continue to make this irrational argument?
"begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent."
Do you see here again the assumption for the very thing you're arguing for? That's a fallacy, and according to the principles of logic, anything that contains a known fallacy is by definition irrational. Do you get it, you have asserted a belief that is irrational, again.
It's proof not prove, and of not off, but that aside you're simply misrepresenting your position as not having proof, when in fact it has no more objective evidence to support it than there is to support the existence of mermaids or unicorns. What's more, and as I have shown here again, your arguments are not just flawed, but are irrational as they are based on and contain known logical fallacies. Yet no theist or religious apologist who regurgitate this apologist garbage ever acknowledge this fact, quelle surprise. If you have to make irrational argument, and deny known scientific facts like evolution, then assuming your unevidenced superstitious claims are more likely probable is not just something of an own goal, but risible nonsense, even if you are unable or unwilling to see it.
Well now that is something of an irony overload, given you're arguments are as I have shown not logical, but are according the principles of logic irrational by definition, odd that apologists keep making this claim, but disingenuously refuse to actually acknowledge those principles of logic they're invoking, almost as if they haven't even a basic understanding of common logic, and are simply parroting someone else's apologetics. You're not arguing at a logical or rational level, but are in fact arguing irrationally or illogically, as I have shown yet again. Do you have the integrity to acknowledge these facts? given your record thus far, and that of all the other religious apologists who breeze through here, I sincerely doubt it.
Incidentally none of this disproves the existence of a deity, it just means you have zero evidence, and no rational arguments for one.
Here are some definitions that are apropos for you...
Irrational
adjective
1. not logical or reasonable.
Fallacy
noun
1. a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
Logical fallacy
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. It is also called a fallacy, an informal logical fallacy, and an informal fallacy. All logical fallacies are nonsequiturs—arguments in which a conclusion doesn't follow logically from what preceded it.
I look forward to you dishonestly rolling past this as if nothing has been said, like a posturing pastor in a pulpit with a captive flock of enthralled attendant sheeple hanging on every word with an amen, but this is an atheist forum, where most posters set one objective standard for all beliefs. Unlike theists who set aside that standard solely for their religious beliefs.
Pages