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.
That's a lie, as I have answered you on this more than once. However it is a pathetically stupid question, just demonstrate the best most compelling objective evidence you have. Instead like all the theists who come here you think you're laying the groundwork with your sophistry and semantics.
Evidence
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
Objective
adjective
1. (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I look forward to you lying again that this idiotically necessary question has not been answered. As if it isn't amply defined in any dictionary.
And I will only believe either claim when sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated to support them, have you any? Only as usual we seem to be on this dizzyingly dishonest theistic merry-go-round, where the promise of their "evidence" seems always to be held just out of reach, why is that I wonder.
Another survey of atheists globally you conducted under the radar no doubt. One doesn't wish to be churlish about this, but would please link say half a dozen atheists claiming they hold that belief based solely on faith?
liar liar pants on fire I think is the only response your endless lies about "many atheists" deserves. Best of all what on earth is your point even if it weren't another lie you've plucked from thin air? Every atheist on the planet could be a complete hypocrite who uses faith themselves to believe things, this wouldn't change the fact you can't demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural. So it's another dishonest red Herring smoke screen isn't it.
It's odd, but in all the times I have heard this assertion I have never once heard it come from an atheist?
In my experience people who make such ludicrous generalisations are not to be taken seriously, but do please link the research that demonstrates this to be true, I shan't hold my breath.
I think that is a very shrewd decision, as you seem to be asserting some of the popular theist misconceptions about atheism.
I encourage you to stop making erroneous assumptions about atheists, and to learn what atheism means, more pointedly to learn how atheism differes from atheist, and why atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
Your assurance is meaningless, as Dawkins's credentials as a world renowned scientific thinker are manifest, so when some Billy no name theists with an obvious chip on his shoulder, has an axe to grind on the internet, well it's a no brainer.
Edited: grammar, typos, spelling and clarity. My apologies...
@Apollo: This is just lame. No atheist has "Prooved" god does not exist. It is not the atheist's job to make such claims. If you define your god it may or may not be easy as hell to prove it does not exist. Until then, the burden of proof still rests on theists to prove their claim. END OF STORY!
You are confounding the terms Atheist and Agnostic once again. Atheism is a claim of belief and Atheists do not believe in god or gods. Agnosticism is a claim of knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
" So much for the hypothesis that atheists have facts to back their claims."
What claim do you imagine Atheists are making. My claim is "I do not believe in a god or Gods." I will continue in my disbelief until such a time as reliable evidence for the claim of the existence of god or gods is provided.
fundamentalist:
someone who believes in traditional forms of a religion, or believes that what is written in a holy book, such as the Christian Bible, is completely true:
Atheism has no holy book, no leader, no dogma, no tradition, no shared belief system, and philosophy of life. How in the fuck do you get to "fundamentalist" from there? What in the hell do you think atheism is?
1. Learn about atheism: Yet clear definitions have been given to you time and time again. Your response is to ignore them and continue using some fabricated bullshit you have made up. You are not learning. You keep making the same bullshit mistakes over and over and over again.,
2. Dawkins is a biologist and not a theist. I fully agree. When it comes to discussing atheism, he has really pulled some blunders. I think his scale of atheist belief misses the mark entirely. He clearly does not have a coherent understanding of the distinction between agnostic and atheist. (THERE ARE NO LEADERS IN ATHEISM!!!) If you want to argue with Dawkins, you have to argue his biology, not his atheism. We are all atheists for a variety of reasons.
@Cognostic.
Sorry to be noodge:
"My claim is "I do not believe in a god or Gods." "
A crucial point in presenting an atheist position.
As far as I'm aware , the sentence 'I do not believe in Gods," is not a claim but simply a statement of a position. No claim has been made. Consequently, there is no burden of proof .
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
2 cents on Richard Dawkins; . A little bit of research revealed that he is not a leading evolutionary biologist, although he is competent in that discipline . He is considered to be a weak philosopher. I consider him to be a lot like his mate Chris Hitchens, a polemicist , whose aggressive confidence gets him an audience. I also find him, like Hitchens to be personally obnoxious.
'2 cents ' means I am simply stating an opinion, not looking for an argument. Have no interest in changing anyone's mind in what I see as a trivial matter.
@Cranky: Don't think I said anything to disagree. Surprisingly, Dawkins is not as famous as I assumed. Thanks for that. Total agreement on his philosophy ability. I think he is on much more solid ground arguing from a biological perspective than from philosophy or theology. Spot On!
With the understanding that I have little use for "trolls", I think it's a good thing that Christians visit sites like this one.
If I honestly believe in my position on religion, then it shouldn't bother me to exchange ideas with anyone on the subject.
I am capable of having a civil discourse with anyone who disagrees with me on a subject . . . indeed, I prefer it . . . otherwise, how can I broaden my horizons by having my ideas and thoughts "rubber stamped" by someone who agrees with me on everything? That's as meaningless as talking to a mirror.
I am a member of another forum that has a lot of intensely religious people on it, and we get along.
One guy who is an intensely religious fundementalist pointed out various pastors who are fighting to get evolution removed from the school cirricula in Texas. I considered this a favor, as it made me better informed on what the "opposition" is doing to gut science education . . . which made me better informed when I run my mouth in print . . . as I send emails to various congress people and other public officials.
It is useful and practical to have a stable of people who disagree with you.
@Kevin Levites
I'd have to agree, as frustrating as it is to refute the same rhetoric ad nausea sometimes, it can get a little boring without these visits.Perhaps we need to do more to introduce topics of interest.
With the understanding that I have little use for "trolls", I think it's a good thing that Christians visit sites like this one.
If I honestly believe in my position on religion, then it shouldn't bother me to exchange ideas with anyone on the subject.
I am capable of having a civil discourse with anyone who disagrees with me on a subject . . . indeed, I prefer it . . . otherwise, how can I broaden my horizons by having my ideas and thoughts "rubber stamped" by someone who agrees with me on everything? That's as meaningless as talking to a mirror.
I am a member of another forum that has a lot of intensely religious people on it, and we get along.
One guy who is an intensely religious fundementalist pointed out various pastors who are fighting to get evolution removed from the school cirricula in Texas. I considered this a favor, as it made me better informed on what the "opposition" is doing to gut science education . . . which made me better informed when I run my mouth in print . . . as I send emails to various congress people and other public officials.
It is useful and practical to have a stable of people who disagree with you.
I can offer My Honest answer.
As a believer that I don’t want to Be..
if people have a conscience, that conscience grows due to fear of hell and tries to work it’s way doing Gods will.
I can’t tell you how many times I feel like I was put up to preaching.. with inconsistency as well due to my conscience overwhelmingly with stress to preach. Kind of like an compulsive thing..
“Preach or these people might die and go to hell” Then obviously I would struggle feeling like I wasn’t doing right or showing the love of God my preaching.. I can’t say my issues are the same as other believers, some of us are so keen on wanting to please God entirely that we will literally risk our lives to preach, for the Love of God and humanity, and sometimes this was my case for preaching as well.. it’s really scary. It really messed Me up. I’m here because I need intelligent and encouraging and loving atheists to show me Their take on the Bible.. I’ve developed many issues in my head due to reading the Bible.. getting it wrong then having these personal felt attacks along with fear of the end coming.. I can’t tell you how many times I woke up in the middle or the night or stayed up because I couldn’t sleep due to the obsession my mind had on these things.. I’m not here to preach or to argue.. I’m here because if the Bible isn’t true I need evidence and clarity from others who haven’t lost themselves believing in Biblical matters. And I want to be free. It’s not that I want to sin..
I still want to do good.. however I as a human being see things differently when it comes to right an wrong, treat people the way You wanna be treated although biblical.. still something I prefer to live By.
I'm sure that I'll get excoriated for mentioning this, but there is a kind of obsessive-comulsive disorder called scrupulosity, that may manifest as an obsession with right vs. wrong, absolutist thinking, and a horrible fear of eternal hellfire.
The problem with scrupulosity is that it's often difficult to figure out where honest spirituality ends . . . and OCD begins. My take on it is that a person should sit down and decide whether his (or her) spiritual beliefs bring joy and happiness, or if the spiritual beliefs are practiced to satisfy anxiety.
There are medications and therapies aimed at OCD which can be very helpful.
Lest you think that I'm being snide with this post, I have suffered from mild OCD in the past (I am autistic), and it was awful and took a lot away from my life.
Obessesive scrupulosity can take a lot away from your life. Even if you don't see someone for treatment, I suggest that you ask yourself if God is a perfectionist, or if it seems reasonable that God requires perfection of an imperfect being who exists in an imperfect world.
@Kevin
--"-right vs. wrong, absolutist thinking, and a horrible fear of eternal hellfire."
Indeed.
As with Judaism, Christianity quickly became a legalistic and ritualised religion. This I think because such a set up makes it easier to control the flock
Bishop John Spong**** makes the point that the church is about control and guilt.-- Have sex before marriage, or masturbate, fail to keep the sabbath etc etc etc and you will go to hell . BUT, We can save you! All you need do is perform these rituals. IE confession followed by ritualistic penance, and attend mass.
Oh, and we also need a lot of your money, 10% sounds fair to us, for life. We will pray for you and and have masses for you. These acts will get you favours from god , make rain to fall , and smite your enemies,
Bisho Spong also makes the point that it was the christians who invented an eternal hell. It doesn't exist in Judaism .
Organised religions tend to invent both rules and rituals as forms of control--Ancient Egyptians lived a life full of ritual and rules, those rituals continued indefinitely after someone important died. Even quite advanced civilisations thought it necessary to make human sacrifices.
Mosaic Law contains 613 commandments. Collectively known as the mitzvot. They control every aspect of daily life and are to be found in the Torah.
The Mashiach (Messiah) : Jewish prophecy is pretty clear and shows without doubt why Jesus of the gospels could not possibly be the mashiach: EG He will NOT be divine, he will NOT die at a relatively young age. He WILL be a warrior priest in the tradition of David. He will bring a period of world wide peace, for all of humanity.
The word Mashiach does NOT mean saviour or redeemer. It is a common Hebrew word ,meaning 'anointed' .It refers to the widely practised ritual of anointing kings.
It has long been my opinion that none of the gospel writers were Jewish and were largely ignorant about Jewish law and tradition. Even more so the many scribes over the centuries who added and omitted bits as they went along. ***
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
***my reference 'Misquoting Jesus:' Bart Ehrman
**** John Spong: there are many short clips, as well as many full lectures, of up to 3 hours on Youtube. Spong has also written a couple of best selling books. Certainly worth a glance at a few of his videos. Spong is no longer a christian, but remains a theist.
This clip, Spong on hell and more (3.16 minutes)
"Religion has always been in the control business" (John Spong)
"The church doesn't like people to grow up; you can't control grown ups" (John Spong)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc
List of all 6713 mitzvot, with explanations. These are Jewish commandments, still followed by Orthodox Jews as far as possible .IE They no longer stone people for a bunch of offences, no longer kill recalcitrant children nor sell their daughters into slavery .Of course they no longer have slaves to treat fairly. I thought it sounded fair to go to a Jewish source fort information .
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
@italianish
Why do you think God isn't true?
@ AGgie Athie
I don't accept your claim that a god or gods exist so whether he/she/it is "true" or not is puffery.
Evidence your claim then we can discuss truth.
@OMS
Please, look at my name
@Agnos Ath Re: "Please, look at my name"
Aaaah, but what's in a name? A toad by any other name is still a toad...
@TIn-Man
...
@OMS
I wanted to know why he doesn't anymore, this has nothing to do with me
i have always been a atheist
@OMS
next time you judge someone on what they believe in, please look at there profiles
@ Aggie
On your profile: "I am a Agnostic Atheist and has always believed that god cannot be proved nor disproved."
So why post about "god is truth"?
@OMS
i think you may have misunderstood what i meant on that post.
i meant to ask him about why he believes in it, i'm just interested on why he believes in it.
i don't want to be a christian
@ Aggie Ath
Maybe more than one line, with punctuation and address with the @ symbol and the first line of the post to which you are responding would clear up a lot of confusion.
Do try it, There's a dear.
@OMS
Ok i will try that in the future.
@ AA101
Much better, well done.
@AA101
Excellent job on the editing. Much easier to follow now... *thumbs up*...
@Agnostic Atheist 101
"Why do you think God isn't true?"
I have never made such a claim, in fact I have never made ANY claims about the reality of god. I assert only that I do not believe in gods due to a lack of evidence.---
--- same goes for the afterlife, the soul, heaven ,hell, angels, demons, people claiming to speak to the dead, mediums, all kinds of fortune tellers, as well as dragons, mountain trolls and fairies at the bottom of my garden .
I can't remember the last time I used the words 'true' or false' in relation to a metaphysical position.This because, as far as I can see, metaphysical topics ,such as the existence of gods tend to be unfalsifiable. IE up to today, nobody has managed to either prove or disprove the proposition that "there is a god" ****.
As well as 'atheist' ,another of my self descriptions is 'skeptic' .This position has not allowed me to accept any claims of 'truth' for any metaphysical proposition, so far.
Claims of religious truths I dismiss out of hand .This because I have spent over 50 years of looking, searching for metaphysical truths, especially the existence of gods So far , I have yet to find one claim which stands up to the most basic scrutiny.
Still,I refuse to claim"there is no god" , because no matter how unlikely I think it is that God does not exist, I can't prove it. So far, neither has anyone else. I may be wrong, certainly not an unusual experience for me.
So, I remain an agnostic atheist .IE I do not believe in gods, but cannot claim to know.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))\
*** I invite you to listen to a bit of the 1948 Russell Copleston radio debate on the existence of god.
Positive position: Frederick Copleston SJ, uses the contingency argument for the existence of god .At the time ,Fr Copleston was a preeminent Catholic philosopher. Yet the best he could do was the contingency argument .
Contra argument; Bernard Russell, arguably the greatest philosopher of his generation. In my opinion, he handed Copleston his head.
Below the 18 minute edited version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E
@cranky47
I was actually talking to italinaish
@Agnostic Atheist
Hey, just a little helpful tip. You might want to consider going back and editing some of your posts to indicate who you are addressing in the post. Really helps keep down the confusion. Things tend to get jumbled in the threads over time.
@Tin-man
OK, thank you, i will edit it.
@Agnostic Atheist" "Why do you think God isn't true"
The time to believe a claim is when that claim has been sufficiently evidenced. Your sentence "Why do you think God isn't true." is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. No one has to think God isn't true. It's enough to find god claims fallacious and simply find that god claims have not met their burden of proof.
Here is the confusion. Either there is a god or there is not a god. Both sides of the dilemma are claims'
God does not exist, is a claim
God exists is a claim.
All claims require evidence.
It is perfectly acceptable to reject a claim based on the lack of evidence and that in no way implies that a person believes the opposite to be true.
If I tell you that the number of grains of sand on a beach are even, you are acting perfectly reasonable to reject my claim for lack of evidence. Obviously I have not counted them all. It does not mean that you are asserting that the number of grains of sand on the beach are odd.
We can both agree that god either exists or it does not exist. Some arguments for the existence of god are certainly fallacious and those gods probably do not exist. The God of the bible most certainly does not exist as it is self contradictory and has a plethora of issues. Other gods are just useless, Deist gods for example, that simply appear and then vanish and have no means of detection as well as no influence on reality.
A god does not exist when its qualities have been clearly defined and shown to be contradictory and fallacious. There is no reason to believe a god that has no affect on anything at all actually exists.
This is completely different than asserting "You think God isn't true. You must first define the god you are talking about.
Pages