Most atheists BELIEVE in the supernatural!

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
Capelli Media's picture
Most atheists BELIEVE in the supernatural!

Atheism is deceitful because atheists often pretend that they have no beliefs concerning origins. That is patently not true. They deny having any beliefs or faith, because they know that the only alternative to a Supernatural First Cause (God), is not credible.
It is ruled out by logic and natural law. They know that there is no defence for atheism, whether moral, logical or scientific.

Atheism Debunked Video:
https://youtu.be/B44eNzjK9X0

Attachments

No

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

ronald bertram's picture
I subscribe to the concept of

I subscribe to the concept of a natural explanation for the origins of the Universe.

Mankind may never know the mechanism for origination but just because mankind has no explanation does not justify fabricating miracles, myths, wizards and Gods.

MTheory's picture
@Cog

@Cog

Sorry, I couldn't resist. This is still my favorite.

The things I do not believe but are not limited to.....

1. The creation of the universe. Not only that, but, a magical sky being existing beyond time and space, that isn’t contradictory, being responsible for doing the creating.

2. Magical flying sky beings impregnating virgins and making magical babies that are really the same God that impregnated the Virgin in the first place.

3. Dead people crawling up out of the ground and then walking around convincing people they are alive and well.

4. Praying to a magical man in the sky can change the course of the weather, calm seas, cure disease, ease pain, stop suffering and the person praying for a better life.

5. The idea of unconditional love and a reward in an afterlife in Heaven awaits, regardless of the crimes you commit in this life, as long as the magic man has forgiven you.

6. A magical afterlife where believers meet their loved ones once again and everyone will be spiritually alive and happy together, not like they are in real life on this planet.

7. Unconditional love is unconditional. Of course it is unconditional as long as you believe, open your heart, submit and never engage in blasphemy or apostasy. (Side Note: Babies who do not have water sprinkled over their heads burn in hell too.)

8. Something called a spirit resides within the human body and is eternal, so that even after death theists get to keep on being narrow minded. I believe they get to die just like the rest of us.

9. The idea that ritualistic cannibalism and blood sacrifice in remembrance of the flying sky being that involve imbibing Grape juice or wine that can magically turn into real blood or eating bread that transubstantes into real living flesh in a believers tummy, is reasonably sane.

10. The Creator God thing inspired the writing on a non-contradictory holy book that only appears to be full of contradictions that aren’t really contradictions if theists make up enough excuses to resolve them.

11. The magical Jesus/man thing the son of a virgin impregnated bt the flying sky God, who is actually the flying sky god himself in baby form, and who is also something called a Holy Ghost, is worshiped because the original God could think of no other way to bring forgiveness to mankind than to kill himself in a blood sacrifice while he pretended to be his own son.

12. Evil magical beings can take hold of your mind and force you to do terrible if you are not protected by the good and kind magical flying sky daddy.

13. The idea that Jesus had the power to spit in the eye of a blind person and cure them of their blindness. People can fly. Serpents can talk, water can be changed into wine and fish and bread can be Magically multiplied to make more.

David Killens's picture
@ Capelli Media

@ Capelli Media

The definition of an atheist is one who lacks belief in a god or gods.

If you can offer any evidence in any god, then I will listen, and maybe believe.

Got any proof, instead of trying to tell us what we atheists think?

Capelli Media's picture
The atheist replacement for

The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved.
So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....

So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/15317003296

David Killens's picture
@ Capelli Media

@ Capelli Media

The definition of an atheist is one who lacks belief in a god or gods.

ronald bertram's picture
@Capelli Media

@Capelli Media

Stated the following:

Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....

So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

RESPONSE:

That is ground that has already been plowed. It comes down to acknowledging that human beings lack the capacity and knowledge to explain all unknowns. In relationship to our knowledge of the Universe, we are in the stone age. I have never seen the benefits of engaging in this discussion over and over. It is circular in as much as it always comes back to a paucity of information and knowledge.

But here is the difference in how this discussion ends.

Theist create fantasies to explain it for them. Miracles, mythical acts of creation, Gods, etc.

The atheist, at least those who understand science, confess there are discoveries yet to be made. They have the restraint to avoid making up answers to problems yet to be solved.

CyberLN's picture
Capelli Media, you wrote, “4)

Capelli Media, you wrote, “4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?”

I don’t know.

You also answered your own question with, “(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.” “

Hmmm, “of course it can’t”. Can you demonstrate that assertion for us?

Sheldon's picture
Scientific laws are human

Scientific laws are human creations, they exist because science created them to help us understand how the universe works.There is no objective evidence for anything supernatural or for any deity, you need to start there, as atheists are under no rational obligation to disprove your beliefs, the burden of proof is entirely yours. You also seem to have something of a chip on your shoulder if I may say so, and what an atheist claims or believes does not change what atheism is at all, and it is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. You are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, in a fallacious attempt to reverse the burden of proof.

NewSkeptic's picture
First explain how a

First explain how a Supernatural First Cause (God) is credible and then we can go from there.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Capelli Media - How can a law

Capelli Media - How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter

As a side note; gravity "relates" to more than just matter.

Cognostic's picture
@Capelli Media: RE: OP

@Capelli Media: RE: OP

Thank you o-mystic Capelli Media for telling me what is in my own mind. Frequently I forget due to this metal wire sticking out of my right ear. It's nice to have someone like you around to tell me what it is I actually believe. Before I read your post I just thought you were another fucking asshole know it all troll, but Shit-cock-fuck-donkey-dick-moose-balls to that! It is obvious you are a deeply caring individual with a message from God and we should all stop playing with ourselves and listen to you.

I do have a belief concerning origins. WOW! I never noticed it before. I believe we have no FUCKING idea how the universe came into being and the time to begin believing in a God is when there is some FUCKING EVIDENCE. Thanks for your help clearing that up for me.

I know there is no defense for atheism just as there is no defense for not collecting butterflies, not believing in Santa, and not listening to idiot theists when they attempt to shift the burden of proof. If you think your God actually did something to cause the universe to come into existence, please evidence that claim or Shit-cock-fuck-donkey-dick-moose-balls, let it go!

You don't get to God through anything Stephen Hawking said. You actually have to evidence your claim.

MTheory's picture
@Capelli

@Capelli

There have been hundreds of Gods worshipped throughout history. We deny one less god than you. You might be intrigued to know that there have been numerous other gods throughout history that have died and resurrected into "heaven". This includes the Hindu God Krishna.

Regarding your loving God....

Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of 5. Most of these parents believe in God and are praying for their children to be spared and their prayers will not be answered. Any God who would allow children to suffer and die is either immoral or impotent. Either God can do nothing to help these children or doesn't care to. To make matters worse, most of these children will be going to hell because they are praying to the wrong God. Through no fault of their own they were born into the wrong culture and got the wrong theology.

PLEASE, walk into any Pediatric Oncology Department. Do you think their suffering is part of Gods Divine Plan? Or, God works in mysterious ways?

David Killens's picture
@ R F

@ R F

"PLEASE, walk into any Pediatric Oncology Department. Do you think their suffering is part of Gods Divine Plan? Or, God works in mysterious ways?"

This is where we get to see the magic theist double-shuffle. Just about all theists will spout off, knowing many of their god's qualities, such as loving, caring, yadda yadda yadda. But ask the hard questions, like you did, and they come out with "god works in mysterious ways", or some crap like that.

As long as they are on safe territory, theists have no problem knowing everything about their god. But talk about suffering children, you see immediate amnesia.

Tin-Man's picture
Personally, I don't believe

Personally, I don't believe in the supernatural. I do, however, believe in the mediocrenatural. It's just like regularnatural, but without all the extra spices and seasonings.

Whitefire13's picture
@Capelli - you said “ "the

@Capelli - you said “ "the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

Just a small tweak...
4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
God could possibly create Universe, but how could God create God? Of course it can't.

Universe exists. There is evidence. Calling the beginning (or first cause or whatever) a different name, “God” doesn’t let you off the same hook you’re trying to hang us on.

FievelJ's picture
@Whitefire13

@Whitefire13

The universe didn't need a god to create it.

Flatland's picture
So I've heard. Amazing isn't

So I've heard. Amazing isn't it?

FievelJ's picture
@Flatland

@Flatland

Not really amazing, certain ingredients which got along combined and the Big Bang started. The universe was once tiny, with all the many systems condensed down to the size of a marble. It's science.

FievelJ's picture
Supernatural? I don't believe

Supernatural? I don't believe in the supernatural as I believe in rational explanations for everything. If a god does exist then he/she has a lot of explaining to do. For instance the killing of thousands over the years in the name of Christianity. I don't support any religion that justifies the killing of people because they are suppose to be witches.

It also justifies hate toward homosexuals. I don't support that nor any other religion. Atheism is quite simply the non-belief in any god. And no I wont just go for any religious belief, as I am an atheist. I will not put blind faith into anything. I want actual proof, and there's none out there.

Question, why are you even here? Do you think you'll succeed in getting some atheists to turn Christian or something? Present some proof, but I will probably just remain atheist no matter if you can supply proof or not.

Sheldon's picture
Capelli Media "Atheism is

Capelli Media "Atheism is deceitful because atheists often pretend that they have no beliefs concerning origins. That is patently not true. They deny having any beliefs or faith, because they know that the only alternative to a Supernatural First Cause (God), is not credible. It is ruled out by logic and natural law. They know that there is no defence for atheism, whether moral, logical or scientific."

Atheism is the lack of absence of belief in any deity or deities, and nothing more. You can have no idea what an atheist believes, or does not believe, beyond their lack of belief in a deity, unless or until they tell you, that is it axiomatic. So it is asinine to make such claims.

A Supernatural First Cause (God) is not a credible choice for anything, as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or offer any rational argument for it''s existence. You are using a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, and that means that by definition your claim is irrational, so tacking the word logic to your claim is hilarious. Atheism needs no defence, any more than not believing in unicorns needs a defence. It is for those making the god claim to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for their claim, no one has to disprove it, and claiming otherwise is logically fallacious.

The natural physical universe exists,, as do natural phenomena, this is an objective fact, so it is absurd nonsense to claim natural law, science or logic rule out natural explanations of the existence of the universe. An unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic from a bronze age superstition on the other hand has no evidence to support it, so it is not supported by science, natural law or logic, in fact adding a supernatural cause you can neither explain or evidence is contradicted by Occam's razor, so again your claim is by definition irrational.

I think you are repeating religious apologetics you have heard or read, that seem to be in vogue at the moment, but which you clearly have not understood at all, and it is clear you haven't even the most tenuous understanding of logic.

Whitefire13's picture
Jim and Bob are standing in a

Jim and Bob are standing in a flat field covered in snow. They both notice hoof tracks in the snow. Jim says out loud “hmmm, wonder what made those tracks? Maybe a deer...I’ll have to look into this - could be a moose, cow or horse. I’m no expert, but I’ll take a picture and get some of my rural friends to give me their opinion.”
Bob says ...”don’t have to - I know what made the tracks”.
“Awesome! What is it?”
With a shitload of confidence, Bob says “A unicorn”
Now, not wanting to offend his friend, Jim keeps an open mind. He knows there are “horned” animals and a horse with a horn isn’t out of the realm of possibility.... “how do you know?” Asked Jim.
“Well my daughters a virgin and that attracts unicorns”
“Uh, isn’t your daughter 32? How do you know she’s a virgin?”
“She ain’t married!”
“Let’s get back on topic - what makes you think a unicorn made these tracks?”
“Well, I once heard a noise, late at night, around my daughter’s room and I yelled out ‘Get away from here unicorn! Leave my daughter be!’ and the sound stopped and went away.”
“I don’t get it, what does that prove?”
“My personal experience! Don’t you understand?!? If it wasn’t a unicorn, why did the noise stop? Huh, answer me that! No other explanation!”
Jim takes his picture. “I’ll let you know what my friends say...”
“No need - they’re not here, and they won’t know for sure. I know. You are one obstinate sonofabitch Jim”
“Yah...”

Tin-Man's picture
@Whitefire Re: Jim and Bob

@Whitefire Re: Jim and Bob

...LMAO... That was great! Hope you don't mind if I steal that for future use... LOL...

Calilasseia's picture
And another mythology fanboy

And another mythology fanboy turns up, determined to be a poster child for Dunning-Kruger ...

Flatland's picture
How do you prove lack of

How do you prove lack of belief in a god or gods. Do I need to take your word for it?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Flatland - How do you prove

Flatland - How do you prove lack of belief in a god or gods. Do I need to take your word for it?

Basically yeah. If you can't accept that there are people who don't think god is real; that you think we are lying about this, that this website is a den of liars, then why the fuck are you here?

So yeah, you kind of do have to take our word on it. Just like I take the word of a believer when they say they believe. Otherwise there isn't going to be a conversation at all.

algebe's picture
@Flatland: How do you prove

@Flatland: How do you prove lack of belief in a god or gods. Do I need to take your word for it?

You'll just have to take it on faith. Atheists never lie.

Calilasseia's picture
What part of "we don't treat

What part of "we don't treat unsupported mythological assertions uncritically as fact, the way mythology fanboys do" do you not understand?

That, basically is IT. Mythology fanboys treat the unsupported assertions in their favourite mythologies as fact, most notably the assertions that various cartoon invisible magic men exist. They regard the existence of their pet cartoon invisible magic men as fact, at bottom, for no other reason than said existence of said cartoon invisible magic men is asserted in their favourite pre-scientific mythologies. That's all mythology fanboys have EVER had.

Meanwhile, let's deal with one canard that will inevitably rear its ugly head here at source, and kill it off. Those of us here who paid attention in class do NOT reject outright the idea that some sort of god type entity might exist. Instead, we regard said existence, on the basis of the requisite observational data, as an unanswered question. Not least because if it had been answered at some point in the past, courtesy of reliable evidence, no one would be arguing about this. What we actually reject, is the idea that mythologies written by pre-scientific nomads are competent to answer that question. We reject the idea that any of the fatuous cartoon characters from those mythologies are adequate candidates for the "god role", so to speak.

Quite simply, the authors of pre-scientific mythologies, littered their mythologies with assertions about the observable universe and its contents, that are not merely plain, flat, wrong, but absurd and fatuous. The Old Testament, for example, was written by people who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, and who thought genetics was controlled by coloured sticks. The idea that a mythology containing banalities on that scale, somehow magically delivered the right answer with respect to the existence of a god type entity, is a non-starter.

The authors of the requisite mythologies, inserted into those mythologies, assertions about the scale of the universe and its construction that were not merely in error, but massively wide of the mark.Scientists have discovered that the universe is constructed on a scale fully nine orders of magnitude greater than that asserted to be the case in pre-scientific mythologies, and at least six orders of magnitude more ancient. If the authors of those mythologies were this much in error with respect to entities that were observable, what makes mythology fanboys think that the same error-riddled mythologies can be trusted on the matter of the existence of a god type entity?

I'm on public record, here and elsewhere, as stating that the moment we have actual evidence for a god type entity, instead of mere assertions, said evidence will almost surely flush mythological assertions down the toilet, and pull the flush hard. Just as the observable universe is far grander, far more majestic in scale, than the limited, parochial imaginings of pre-scientific nomads, so it will almost certainly be the case, that any genuine god type entity found to exist, will be far more majestic in scale than the cartoon caricature gods of those mythologies.

Indeed, it is highly likely that the individuals best placed to understand the nature and ramifications of genuine evidence for a god type entity, if and when said evidence arrives, will be people such as particle physicists, who deal with the counter-intuitive on a daily basis in their research work.

In short, the position among the rigorous thinkers here, is "We don't think your mythology is competent to tell us about any god that actually exists".

Now, I've just provided you with possibly the clearest and most explicit statement of the rigorous position adopted on this subject here. I suggest you learn the requisite lessons therefrom, and quickly, to spare yourself future embarrassment here.

Cognostic's picture
@Flatland: RE: "How do you

@Flatland: RE: "How do you prove lack of belief in a god or gods. Do I need to take your word for it?"

Absolutely not! In fact, you can be a douche bag asshole like a lot of the other theists out there and insist that we really do believe in God and are just denying it to ourselves in the say way you deny the fact that images of molesting children interfere with your ability to function normally in a society and that is why you have no real friends.

You can attribute anything you want to any one you want and we get to do the same. Don't take our word for a damn thing. Obviously you know better than us.

Tin-Man's picture
Aw, to hell with all this

Aw, to hell with all this supernatural nonsense. The supernatural is sooooo yesterday. Besides, there MUST HAVE BEEN something much greater that created the supernatural. Therefore, I propose we toss aside the puny supernatural and start focusing our efforts on proving the Extreme-hyper-meganatural. After all, it is the only plausible cause for a supernatural.... *rubbing hands together excitedly*... Nobel Prize, here I come!

Nyarlathotep's picture
Tin-Man - I propose we toss

Tin-Man - I propose we toss aside the puny supernatural and start focusing our efforts on proving the Extreme-hyper-meganatural.

Order in the next 5 minutes and you can receive a DOUBLE-Extreme-hyper-meganatural First cause!

Pages

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.