What better explains reality: atheism or theism?
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.
Naahhh.... It was the green button.
Arakish, you ask 'how can a loving, righteous God send anyone to hell?' He does not; in fact he created people to have a free will. Sometimes, some of these decide to make a wrong choice.
When one chooses to reject Jesus as Savior, and his offer of salvation; rejecting the love of God and the riches of His grace, by saying 'No' to Him - that person chooses to go to hell.
Why should God allow us to live one day longer on this earth? Only by His grace, mercy and unfathomable love do we even take the next breath in the first place!
Poor choices have poor consequences; so if you reject Him in this life you will spend eternity seperated from Him. Are you ready today and right now to meet God?
Are you prepared to face him and explain why you chose to reject Jesus in this life? Insisting that He does not exist and remaining an atheist will not be in your favor at that point.
'This Was Your Life'
You cannot "choose" to go to a place you don't believe in.
You cannot "choose" to believe something.
You cannot "choose" to be sent to a place you don't believe in, by a being you don't believe in.
If I find a practice immoral, such as torturing someone for eternity, it would be a poor choice for me to follow a being that engages in such practices.
According to Christianity, Jesus has redeemed the sin of all mankind, which means I do not need to accept Jesus as my savior.
"he created people to have a free will. "
So we had no choice, how ironic.
This is laughable.
See if you can follow this:
1. God is omniscient, he knows EVERYTHING with no distinction between past, present and future.
2. God created everything, heaven and hell included, or if he didn't create them (the argument for him not creating hell), he knew they would be created (see 1)
3. God knows, and has always known, the ultimate fate of each of his creations. He knows this eternally since he is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.
1. God knew before he created any of us, what our ultimate fate would be, heaven or hell. Judgment day happened an eternity ago.
2. There is no such thing as free will. You may think you have it, but you don't (see 1) as your fate is predetermined and has been known by God forever. God has predetermined who will reject him.
1. God creates humans knowing that he will ultimately send them to an eternity of hell and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
1. Christianity's version of God is a complete fucking asshole.
1. I'm glad I don't belief it that idiocy.
"he (deity) created people to have a free will. Sometimes, some of these decide to make a wrong choice."
This God wasn't created by humans until 2 to 4 thousand years ago. Since humans have existed in their current form for 150 to 200 thousand years, how were those people who lived and died unaware of this version of theism supposed to make a choice?
What about the 2% of people born with an IQ below 70, they haven't the capacity to choose? Do they get a free pass, or are they judged and found wanting?
This seems like a recklessly inept and cruel deity to me, if it existed. Luckily there isn't a shred of objective evidence to show any deity is real.
Another Fuzzy jumped into me head. It makes me wonder if JimM knows royism and asked to take over since he couldn't get past that plagiarism...
Arakish - before esppusing 'foul' over plagiarism - please research the history of Charles Darwin.
Article 'Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?
by Jerry Bergman
Some historians believe that all of the major contributions with which Darwin is credited in regard to evolution theory, including natural selection, actually were plagiarized from other scientists. Many, if not most, of Darwin’s major ideas are found in earlier works, especially those by his grandfather Erasmus Darwin. Charles Darwin rarely (if ever) gave due credit to the many persons from whom he liberally ‘borrowed’. This review looks at the evidence for this position, concluding that much evidence exists to support this controversial view.
A common (but erroneous) conclusion is that Charles Darwin conceived modern biological evolution, including natural selection.1 An example of statements commonly found in the scientific literature indicating this would be the comment by Michael Fitch: ‘Not until Darwin, did anyone draw the same conclusion … except Alfred R. Wallace. … But Darwin undoubtedly preceded him in the conception of the theory’ of evolution by natural selection.2 A study of the works of pre-Darwinian biologists shows that, in contrast to this common assumption, Darwin was not the first modern biologist to develop the idea of organic evolution by natural selection.3,4
Furthermore, most (if not all) of the major ideas credited to Darwin actually were discussed in print by others before him. De Vries noted that some critics have even concluded that Darwin did not make any major new contributions to the theory of evolution by natural selection.5 A study of the history of evolution shows that Darwin ‘borrowed’ all of his major ideas—some feel plagiarized would be a more accurate word—without giving due credit to these people.
Article continues....'In Summary':
It is widely recognized that all of the major ideas on biological evolution that Darwin discussed predated his writings. As is noted by Kitcher:
‘ … creationists propounded a “creation model” of the origins of life on earth. Their story was based on a literal understanding of the book of Genesis. … The trouble with this proposal is that it was abandoned, for excellent reasons, by naturalists, virtually all of them extremely devout, decades before Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species’ [emphasis mine].50
Although Charles Darwin was highly successful in popularizing the idea of organic evolution by natural selection, especially among the scientific community, he was not the originator of major parts of the theory as is commonly supposed. Nor was Darwin the originator of even those aspects of evolution for which he most often is given credit today, including natural selection and sexual selection. Yet, he implied that these and other ideas were his own creation. In a study of Darwin, Gould concluded that:
‘Darwin clearly loved his distinctive theory of natural selection—the powerful idea that he often identified in letters as his dear “child”. But, like any good parent, he understood limits and imposed discipline. He knew that the complex and comprehensive phenomena of evolution could not be fully rendered by any single cause, even one so ubiquitous and powerful as his own brainchild.’51
Good evidence now exists to show that Darwin ‘borrowed’—and in some cases plagiarized—all or most of his ‘dear child’ from other researchers, especially his grandfather. They were not ‘his own brainchild’, nor his child, but that of others which he appropriated, evidently often without giving them proper credit.
Atheism doesn't mean there's a new contestant in the game of 'pick your religion'. It means we've stopped playing your game.
From the AR Gallery
If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is there no peace in the Middle-East? — Just asking...
If Islam is a religion of peace, the why is violence ubiquitous in its religious texts. same as the bible? Even gentle Jesus meek and mild brought us the novel idea that torturing humans forever after they die is morally acceptable, and not even based on any action, that is to say they can live good decent lives, but because they're not gullible enough to believe something that has no basis in fact, and for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated.
So Royism since you have ranted for page after page again, and ignored these again, I will ask one more time?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that (human) life has any ultimate purpose, beyond what we instil in it ourselves?
Is it objectively moral for a man over 50 to rape a nine year old girl?
What does the koran say is the penalty for apostasy in Islam? (the religion of peace?)
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57 :
Narrated by 'Ikrima
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
What will he says?
Hello Sheldon, please research the objective evidence question about human life - and answer - at this resource:
www.lifehopeandtruth.com/life/what-is-the-meaning-of-life - c/o Mr. Tim Waddle
'Occasionally, though, we slow down from the maddening quest for “success”—pursuing money, love, fame, power … whatever—and ask ourselves some of the most profound questions in life: Why am I here? Is there more to life than just acquiring “stuff” or doing things? What is the meaning of life? Is there a reason, a purpose, to this existence?'
Here is the answer and truth in regard to the 'meaning of life' question that has intrigued mankind for millenia; https://lifehopeandtruth.com/life/what-is-the-meaning-of-life/purpose-of... - c/o: Mr. Mike Bennett
Thank you, JimM
The link you posted is just an apology for your favorite god and it doesn't say what our purpose as human beings is...
Why were you born? We all hope that our lives have meaning, though most are still searching for the purpose of life. What does God intend for us? What is the purpose of our life as humans?
Viktor E. Frankl experienced the depths of human misery in the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. Soon after the war, he wrote 'Man’s Search for Meaning' and described the degrading and dehumanizing conditions prisoners experienced.
Even during a frozen predawn march punctuated with blows from rifle butts, his mind searched for meaning through vivid thoughts about his wife:
“A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth—that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart:
The salvation of man is through love and in love.
I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved. In a position of utter desolation, when man cannot express himself in positive action, when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings in the right way—an honorable way—in such a position man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved, achieve fulfillment” (pp. 56–57).
What a beautiful, yet tragic, thought. Viktor Frankl’s wife died in the camps, and he never had the chance to see her again.
Love and family
Dr. Frankl and the poets were on to something. Love and family are essential elements of the true purpose of life. But there’s so much more to it than Dr. Frankl experienced in those fleeting moments of bliss. In fact, there’s much more to life’s purpose than any human being, in the very best of circumstances, has experienced yet during this short lifetime.
All of us, whether in a concentration camp, a beautiful chateau or a cancer ward, face a mortal enemy that robs us of life and purpose. That enemy is death.
God’s essential characteristic is love. He created us and gives us purpose in life because He loves us. And He wants us to learn the eternal joys of this complete and perfect love! But the purpose God has for our lives goes beyond our physical bodies and our temporary lives. God offers human beings the chance to prepare now to have a purposeful, meaningful life—forever! God has put “eternity in their hearts” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). He didn’t create us to burn like a candle for just a short time, but—if we will accept the incredible mission and purpose He has for us—to shine “like the stars forever and ever” (Daniel 12:3)!
God’s essential characteristic is love (1 John 4:8). He created us and gives us purpose in life because He loves us. And He wants us to learn the eternal joys of this complete and perfect love!
And as we explore the Bible, just when we think it can’t get any better, it does! Not only does God want to love us and to love us forever—He wants us to become His children! Not just servants, and not even just friends of God—but His literal children!
God’s essential characteristic is love. He created us and gives us purpose in life because He loves us.
If it is the "god" of the christian bible you are babbling about that is frivolous bollocks. The god described in the bible is a jealous, nasty, genocidal, misogynistic bigoted nasty cunt. So fuck off. you and your "loving god".
If you want to know why I think your sky faerie is such a nasty, human invented, piece of utter shite then stop preaching and start fucking asking.
You said: “What objective evidence can you demonstrate that (human) life has any ultimate purpose, beyond what we instil in it ourselves?”
Before I answer that question, a side note: By asking this question, you are digging your own grave. If you are saying there is no objective purpose to life, then it essentially means life has no moral values.
The objectivity of life’s purpose rests on belief in God and the scripture. For example, I believe in the quran, which has a definition for purpose of life. And this is objective, because this definition is not dependent on my changing moods or emotions or my situations in life. It remains unchanged no matter what my circumstances are.
That obviously will lead to the next question as to on what objective grounds do I believe in God/Quran. That’s a discussion I think we have had before. There are a multiplicity of objective reasons for my faith, and if you are interested we can go over it again.
You said: “Is it objectively moral for a man over 50 to rape a nine year old girl?”
Unless you tell on what grounds you are saying it is immoral, I don’t think I have to prove anything.
You said: “What does the koran say is the penalty for apostasy in Islam? (the religion of peace?)”
Quran does not recommend any punishment for apostasy. It categorically says, There is no compulsion in religion. Quran 2:256
You are "kinda" right....the qu'ran condemns apostasy in no uncertain terms (I note you cherry picked only the kindest reference) however:
In Sahih al-Bukhari, the most important book in Sunni Islam after the Quran, and Sahih Muslim punishments for apostasy are described as follows:
"Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17, see also Sahih Muslim, 16:4152, Sahih Muslim, 16:4154
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260
A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle."
So you can see that in the Sunni world at least (and most of the Shia and its offshoots)...the penalty for apostasy in ISLAM, as Sheldon asked is considered to be death...
You also wrote "You said: “Is it objectively moral for a man over 50 to rape a nine year old girl?”
" Unless you tell [me] on what grounds you are saying it is immoral, I don’t think I have to prove anything".
Which speaks more for your perverted and lackless morality , and your unfitness to be a member of any civilised society than anything that Sheldon has asked you.
You are a disgrace to yourself, your religion (well, maybe not) but certainly to the human race.
Edited for grammar and spelling. More telling indictments on the character of the respondent removed.
"If you are saying there is no objective purpose to life, then it essentially means life has no moral values."
Another pathetic argument from ignorance fallacy to try and reverse the burden of proof, I made no such claim. I disbelieve your claim because you can demonstrate no objective evidence for it
"The objectivity of life’s purpose rests on belief in God and the scripture. "
No it doesn't, Hitchens's razor applied (1)
" quran, which has a definition for purpose of life. "
No it doesn't Hitchens's razor (2)
"And this is objective, because this definition is not dependent on my changing moods or emotions or my situations in life. "
All Muslims do not agree, and you are by definition offering a subjective opinion as it based on your interpretation of ancient texts some of which are demonstrably immoral. For example you have steadfastly refused to answer whether it is ever morally objective for a man in his 50's to marry and rape a nine year child, as Mohammed is claimed to have done? Or are you going to again claim this requires subjective context to rationalise it?
"It remains unchanged no matter what my circumstances are."
This is not true, Muslims that live in the developed west have very different morals from those in ISIS.
"No there aren't, and it is axiomatic that faith by definition is subjective. And please don't pretend you have ever offered any objective evidence for your beliefs as you unequivocally have not."
"You said: “Is it objectively moral for a man over 50 to rape a nine year old girl?”
Unless you tell on what grounds you are saying it is immoral, I don’t think I have to prove anything."
So your objective morality does not feel the rape of a nine year old child is objectively immoral, enough said really. and I think we can all see how shamelessly you dodged the question, and of course why you are afraid to answer. If you can't denounce the rape of a child as an immoral act then your subjective claim for objective morality ends right there. If you do of course you have also destroyed your claim that a man you revere as a deity's first prophet did something that is deeply immoral.
"Quran does not recommend any punishment for apostasy."
"Today, apostasy is a crime in 16 out 49 Muslim majority countries; in other Muslim nations such as Morocco, apostasy is not legal but proselytizing towards Muslims is illegal. It is subject in some countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, to the death penalty, although executions for apostasy are rare."
So Muslims claiming objective morality don't agree here again, what a surprise. This of course makes a nonsense of your earlier claim " this is objective, because this definition is not dependent on my changing moods or emotions or my situations in life." It quite demonstrably is.
Then there is this....
"The punishment of adultery in Qur’an revealed as follows: The adulterers, in case they are caught, shall be flogged 100 lashes in front of crowd of people. The verse Al-Noor, The Light, started with this unique epilogue:” A verse, we revealed and enforced. We revealed in it clear and confirmed verses, so you may realize them”. Then Allah, almighty, immediately said:” The adulterers, male and female, shall be flogged one hundred lashes. Never feel mercy with them in the cause of Allah religion if you believe in Allah and the hereafter. Also, a flock of believers shall witness their punishment”. "
So is it objectively moral to flog people? The quran says it is, and many muslims believe it is. Ho hum so much for objective morality.
You haven't offered o singe piece of objective evidence that life as an ultimate purpose, all you did was make a vague and subjective claims about the koran.
Your claim for objective morality couldn't even give a definitive answer as to whether the rape of a nine year old child is immoral, that for me says it all, and reveals the absurdity of your claim to any morality, let alone objectively perfect morality.
Still waiting for an answer, has Royism finished preaching again? Guess we'll see him again in a few months for another sententious lecture on our lack of morality. While he reveres a man who is a murderer and a paedophile.
User banned for advertising - Nyarlathotep]
"science is not the tool for describing or predicting the events that are deemed to occur in people’s spiritual “worlds”."
Science can't describe or detect what does not exist, that is axiomatic, and the fact no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for a deity or anything supernatural doesn't indicate a flaw in the scientific method. Put bluntly it isn't science's fault it can't study mermaids.
"Science has nothing to say about subjective beliefs."
Rubbish, of course it can. John Breezy is motivated by his subjective creationist beliefs to keep denying the scientific fact of species evolution, and science absolutely refutes his claim, based on a mass of objective evidence conducted globally over 160 years of research.
You can believe the earth is at the centre of the universe as theology did for centuries, but science has proved this wrong.
user banned for advertising- Nyarlathotep]
Daily check, at least you are honest to say that you provided your answer best you can from your own perspective. However misguded your perspective is, and please allow me to illustrate;
You: 'Science has nothing to say about subjective beliefs.'
Me: Is this an objective or subjective claim?
You: 'Religion has nothing to say about the physical world.'
Me: Are you absolutely certain, and absolutely truthful in this claim?
If your answer is 'yes', then please continue reading. Then please offer reply with your best explanation
Evolutionists (people who believe in the theory of evolution) with an atheistic viewpoint (that there is no God) have claimed explanation statements, such as 'magic' or 'sort of, at least hypothesize' and 'no evolutionary record of nervous systems'..when confronted with a quandry.
Case in point; rosehip neurons a Newly-Discovered Brain Cell
Newly-Discovered Brain Cell
BY FRANK SHERWIN, M.A. * | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
'Someone said the three-pound human brain is the most complex and least-understood biological structure in the known universe. Scientific research regarding this incredibly intricate organ will never end.
In fact, a fascinating new discovery in the field of human brain microanatomy was recently made. Scientists discovered a nerve cell called a rosehip neuron—so-called because of its bushy appearance.1
These cells comprise about ten percent of the neocortex: that area of the brain involved with higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception (hearing and seeing), language, and cognition. Researchers found the ethereal rosehip neuron in post-mortem samples and from brain tissue sections from surgical procedures. Interestingly, this newly-discovered neuron is not found in mice. They are unique to humans, and the rosehip neurons are able to activate a unique set of genes in just that one type of brain cell.
Although “neurons are among the most complex and best studied cell types, 2”secular scientists are unaware of the evolutionary origin of the nervous system to which they belong.
“Surprisingly little is known about the evolutionary origin of the CNS [central nervous system].”3
“There is no evolutionary record of nervous systems...”4
“The origins of neural systems remain unresolved.”5
“Despite the new genomic data from the diverse animal phyla and improved resolution of the animal tree of life, the field has failed to reach agreement on the nature and timing of the early evolution of neurons.”2
Undaunted by all these unknowns, the LiveScience article states that parts of the brain are relatively unchanged over large expanses of geological time—an explanation which does not explain the origin of the brain. Evolutionists can only suggest that what’s happening in the brains of mice is “likely” to be occurring in man:
There are enough parts of the brain conserved among mice, humans and other mammals that people can make inferences about things we learn in the mouse and sort of, at least, hypothesize that something similar is likely to be happening in the human brain....1
But is a “sort of” inference a solid scientific explanation of an unknown?
The discovery of the sophisticated rosehip neurons—unique to mankind—is just another example of the Hand of our omnipotent, omniscient Creator.
Newly-Discovered Brain Cell: http://www.icr.org/article/newly-discovered-brain-cell
The discovery of the sophisticated rosehip neurons—unique to mankind—is just another example of the Hand of our omnipotent, omniscient Creator, “so you cannot understand the work of God, the maker of all things” (Ecclesiastes 11:5).
1. Saplakoglu, Y. Scientists Find a Strange New Cell in Human Brains: The 'Rosehip Neuron.' LiveScience. Posted on livescience.com August 27, 2018, accessed August 30, 2018.
2. Liebeskind, B. J. et al. 2017. Evolution of animal neural systems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution & Systematics. Vol. 48: 381.
3. Arendt, et al. 2009. Animal Evolution. UK: Oxford University Press, 65.
4. Breakthrough model reveals evolution of ancient nervous systems through seashell colors. Phys.org. Posted on phys.org January 12, 2012, accessed August 30, 2018.
5. Moroz, L. et al. 2014. Ctenophore genome and the evolutionary origins of neural systems. Nature. 510 (7503): 109-14.
Mr. Frank Sherwin is Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, and Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
An appeal to authority fallacy, if his work had been validated by science then why does science still accept species evolution through natural selection as a valid scientific fact?
Creationists always make these spurious claims, but it's nonsense of course.
"Mr. Frank Sherwin is Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, and Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research."
Well there you go, that a joke institute that isn't recognised by any credible scientific body. It's risible nonsense. It's been set up to spew creationist propaganda, because after over 160 years they haven't got one shred of scientific evidence for their beliefs, and creationism at it's core makes claims for supernatural causation which are unfalsifiable and therefore completely unscientific.
this is why they relentlessly attack evolution, as if falsifying evolution somehow validates their superstitious creation myth, which of course is demonstrably risible nonsense. It's not a choice between the scientific fact of evolution and risible unevidenced creation myths. One is a scientific fact, in the astronomically unlikely event species evolution was completely reversed, creationism would remain a risible unevidenced myth.
Can you please explain how is the theory of evolution a 'valid scientific fact'? How exactly is evolution validated, as it's not observable? Why don't we see any evidence for evolution or 'natural selection'? Can someone / anyone provide a single instance
Can you please back up your claims that creation science is not credible? What evidence do you have that points to the contrary?
You see, evolution is more than just a scientific theory about the origin and the diversity of life. As we’re going to discover, evolution is actually a religious philosophy. It is a religious philosophy that makes no allowance for God in either the origin of life or even the diversity of life. In spite of the mountain of evidence against it, the adherents of evolution are unwilling to allow any questioning of the position, because to do so would send people running toward the true cause of life and the diversity of life, and that is a divine Creator. Dr. Robert Jeffress - "Evolution Is A Myth"
*grooooan*.... By chance do you have ANY original thoughts of your OWN up there in the gray matter between your ears? Or have you been so incredibly brainwashed that you are programmed only to regurgitate all the ridiculous apologetic babble you happen to read in every Christian-influenced book you can find? Do you even bother to actually READ and COMPREHEND any of that stuff without the influence of your "Jesus Goggles". Dang, for that matter, have you ever tried reading anything OUTSIDE of religious oriented books? Or maybe you are just too scared to think for yourself? I almost feel bad for you, dude.
Evolution, including speciation, has been directly observed repeatedly: