Where are the arguments for god?

291 posts / 0 new
Last post
whydoweexist's picture
You guys have literally no

You guys have literally no respect for anyone... kinda sad to see humanity go along this path.
Cody just did amazing with the evidence yet you guys ignore it.

(also, my username is not meant to blaspheme... it's just a way to get atheist's attention...)

Cognostic's picture
@iamthelordalmig... "IGNORE"

@iamthelordalmig... "IGNORE"
WTF text are you reading? "COMPLETELY DEBUNKED" is more like it. If you think Cody has even one good point, please copy and paste it as your own thought in a new thread. Bullshit piled on bullshit is a bigger pile of bullshit. "EVIDENCE" do you have any idea at all what the word EVIDENCE means?

Tin-Man's picture
@iamthelordalmighty Re: "

@iamthelordalmighty Re: "(also, my username is not meant to blaspheme... it's just a way to get atheist's attention...)"

...*chuckle*... Oh, it definitely got some attention alright. No doubt about that. And, personally, I find it amusingly ironic that you fail to see how disrespectful (AND blasphemous) you are being to your own Almighty Lord, at the same time you are saying atheists are disrespectful for calling out somebody on their obviously misguided bullshit.... *another chuckle*... But since you seem to think you are The Lord Almighty, I suppose you will just say you are working in mysterious ways.... *laughing to self*... (I swear they make this waaaaay too easy.)... *shaking head in amusement*...

Nyarlathotep's picture
iamthelordalmighty413 - Cody

iamthelordalmighty413 - Cody just did amazing with the evidence yet you guys ignore it.

Well I have to agree with you about the bold part; as I only skimmed what Cody wrote for contemporary sources. I didn't see any; did you?

cranky47's picture


Go to a dictionary site and look up 'hubris' " (that for the stunningly arrogant user name, regardless of your avowed intention)

"You guys have literally no respect for anyone.."

Sure we do. If you pay attention you will find that generally that we respect each other. However, that respect has been earned, not demanded.

Most people here began as believers. Most almost certainly have far more knowledge of scripture than you.

Yet you disrespect US by by coming to this form and patronising us. Has it not occurred that we have heard all of your claims many times before , over decades ?

I began questioning some the more fatuous catholic beliefs when I was 12, in 1959. Finally left the church at 21, in 1968. Spent the next TWENTY YEARS searching for answers .All I found was more questions. Finally became atheist in 1978 .

You will receive my respect when you have earned it. I owe you nothing.

Tin-Man's picture
@iamthelordalmighty Re:

@iamthelordalmighty Re: Respect

Hmmm... Ol' Cranky there just helped to bring a question to my rust-bucket brain. Since you seem so self-rightously concerned about respect, I am very curious about something in regards to your Almighty Lord....

It is apparent you have little to no respect for your own God, so what made you think it would be a good idea to come here and try to convince us heathens that WE should believe in and respect your God? In other words, please name just ONE good reason why anybody here should respect your chosen Lord Almighty. Inquiring minds want to know.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@iamthelordalmighty413 Re:

@iamthelordalmighty413 Re: Respect

I have it on good authority that "iamthelordalmighty 409 to 412" totally disagree with you....and want you to stop taking their name in vain.

Cody should invest in a dictionary and take a course in History 101.

I am too busy raising funds for bushfire disaster relief to bother with people who cant look up the word "contemporary" and, to rub salt in the wound. then draw conclusions from improbable events that have no connection to the existence of a god or not. Muppets.

Calilasseia's picture
Oh look, another

Oh look, another supernaturalist doesn't understand the elementary rules that apply here.

Item one: while persons are to be accorded due dignity until they provide evidence of deserving otherwise, ideas are a free-fire zone for whatever discoursive ordnance anyone here wishes to deploy. Subjecting ideas to the full force of discoursive artillery, is the means by which we weed out the bad ideas, and discover which ideas are worth adding to our collection of evidentially supported postulates. As a corollary, anyone who brings bad ideas here, can expect to see them shredded.

Item two: do learn the distinction between persons and ideas. I know it's difficult for a supernaturalist to learn this elementary distinction, but at least demonstrate that you're exerting some effort in this direction. Quite simply, in case you haven't worked this elementary concept out, you are not your ideas. Ideas are, by definition, discardable entities, which are to be discarded whenever suitably robust evidence tells us to discard them. I know that it's difficult for a supernaturalist to understand this latter elementary concept, because the typical mythology fanboy has been brought up in an environment where certain ideas are treated as purportedly "sacred", and as a corollary, purportedly exempt from critique or scrutiny. Well that's one of the first proper rules of discourse you need to learn - NO ideas are exempt from critique or scrutiny, and if those of us who regard a given idea as execrable, choose to unleash rainbow-hued invective in the direction thereof, then so long as the critique is robust, said invective is not only permissible, but in the case of really bad ideas, deserved.

Item three: in accordance with the proper rules of discourse and their application, do learn to distinguish properly between a mere assertion and a proper, evidentially supported postulate. I know that once again, this is hard for the typical mythology fanboy, who has been brought up in an environment where unsupported mythological assertions are treated uncritically as fact, but learning to distinguish between mere assertions and properly established, evidentially supported postulates, will serve you well in the future.

Item four: just because someone in the past asserted in his writings, that a given event took place, doesn't mean for one moment that it did. That's the reason why modern historians rely upon external corroboration to determine whether or not what is asserted in said writings is something other than mere fantasy. The dubious reliability of reportage from certain sources, is the reason that properly trained historians rely upon such data as archaeological evidence to determine whether or not said reportage is something other than the product of the author's rectal passage. If the findings of the hard sciences can be brought to bear on the matter, so much the better.

Item five: when a given piece of reportage contains a demonstrable error, as is the case with the frankly ludicrous assertion by Thallus that a solar eclipse took place during Passover, which routinely coincides with a full moon (hint: what orbital position relations are required for a solar eclipse?), then the provenance of said reportage is in serious doubt from that point on. At which point, we once again require external corroboration for the assertions contained in said reportage. Apparently you are unaware of the manner in which facts trump assertions in any proper arena of discourse.

Item six: the veterans here are now tiresomely familiar with the manner in which supernaturalists come here, peddling unsupported assertions as purportedly constituting fact, only for said assertions to wither and die under critical scrutiny. Which is what has happened to Cody's assertions. Unfortunately, we're also tiresomely familiar with the manner in which supernaturalists routinely play duplicitous apologetic games with facts, and this particular brand of discoursive criminality will be stamped upon whenever it rears its slimy little head here. You would do well to learn some salient facts that are applicable here, such as:

[1] Science is not a branch of apologetics, no matter how much mythology fanboys think it is.

[2] Apologetics is nothing more than the fine art of pretending that made up shit validates unsupported assertions. It doesn't. I've dealt with some particularly farcical examples in my time, and courtesy of that experience, know how worthless apologetics is.

[3] Assertions are forever condemned to possess the status "truth value unknown" until they are tested. Assertions that are untestable remain in this limbo by definition.

[4] Assertions found to be wrong, as has happened with numerous mythological assertions ("Global flood", anyone?), are discarded except for pedagogical purposes.

While you're at it, you might want to learn another elementary principle in operation in rigorous arenas of discourse, namely, that it is perfectly possible to explore an idea, without once regarding that idea as true. Indeed, the discoursive method known as reductio ad absurdum, which is of immense utility value in a number of disciplines including pure mathematics, is a case in point. I'm aware of a number of mathematical proofs, which start by assuming by way of hypothesis, that a given statement is true, followed by demonstration that said assumption of truth of the initial statement leads to a contradiction. The irrationality of the square root of 2 is a case in point, and is instructive in this matter to such an extent, that it is worth presenting it here, viz:

Assertion: the square root of 2 is a rational number.that share no common factors. (Emphasis upon this latter requirement is essential, as shall be seen).

As a corollary, we have that 2b² = a².

As a corollary of the above, we have that a² must be a multiple of 2, and as a corollary of that, that a must be a multiple of 2.

Therefore, we have that a = 2c, where c is some suitable integer.

But this means that 2b² = 4c². Which means in turn, that b² is a multiple of 2, and therefore, that b is a multiple of 2.

But this means that a and b, regardless of their values, share a common factor of 2, in violation of the requirement for a and b to have no common factors.

As a corollary, the initial assertion that √2 is a rational number, is contradicted.

Note that this proof works for all prime square roots, not just √2.

The proof requires modification in the case of the square roots of composite numbers, and fails for obvious reasons in the case of perfect squares.

I think my work is done here.

Grinseed's picture
"(also, my username is not

"(also, my username is not meant to blaspheme... it's just a way to get atheist's attention...)"

You didn't really get mine. I just thought "Another theist tosser". You might have been more successful in getting the attention you desired, and without dicing with blasphemy, with the name "Free Beer Tonight", a popular pub band name.

And do you care to point out what evidence Cody provided? All I saw was all the usual desperate and discounted theist claims of interpolations and forgeries that have been the ammunition for critical non-believers for the past four hundred years. None of what Cody had is new or even valid.
Show some respect for diligent well-read pagans and bring us something new.

Sheldon's picture
iamthelordalmig "You guys

iamthelordalmig "You guys have literally no respect for anyone."

What utter nonsense, and fairly dishonest nonsense as well, given how far most posters here go to offer substantive responses to the drivel most theists espouse here, only for them to ignore those responses, and carry on preaching at us, with no respect for us at all.

"kinda sad to see humanity go along this path."

What's sad is your use of rhetoric and hyperbole. This site is first of all hardly representative of all humanity, that is ludicrous hyperbole, secondly the fact that you're saddened that people dare to not share your unevidenced superstion, and say so, is hardly relevant. I'm saddened that in the 21st century people are still so woefully and wilfully ignorant and superstitious, and that they aggressively, even violently try to force that superstition on everyone else.

Does my sadness trumpet yours or do they cancel each other out? I'm being sarcastic of course, as this kind of bare subjective rhetoric deserves nothing else.

"Cody just did amazing with the evidence yet you guys ignore it."

No he didn't do amazing (sic), or demonstrate any objective evidence, just the usual subjective anecdotal claims and religious rhetoric, and I can just as easily point out that you're ignoring that fact.

Now we've both made claims, perhaps you can begin to understand that bare claims achieve nothing.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

I don't care about blasphemy, as it is an entirely victimless crime if ever there was one. It should also be obvious that an omnipotent omniscient deity could intervene as and when it chose to, if anything anyone said bothered it, ipso facto when the superstitious angrily talking blasphemy, it's their own damaged egos they are trying to assuage, at having their core beliefs denigrated.

No belief can be ring fenced from criticism, or demand respect. Any belief can only stand on its own merit, something the superstitious never seem to want to accept, unless it's an opposing viewpoint to their own.

David Killens's picture
@ whydoweexist

@ whydoweexist

"You guys have literally no respect for anyone... kinda sad to see humanity go along this path.
Cody just did amazing with the evidence yet you guys ignore it."

I can not agree. Although I am an atheist and possibly biased, I do not see a lack of respect for Cody. Yes, some comments were harsh against the person, but the great majority of the responses were a critical and harsh response to the claims. And if Cody can not back up his assertions, that is Cody's problem for a failed evidentiary presentation.

Welcome to the land of critical thinking.

Grinseed's picture
First, even as a non theist,

First, even as a non theist, I am willing to accept there was a itinerant preacher, Yeshua, in Palestine in the early first century. I do so following the idea that at the heart of every myth or legend is a kernel of truth, nothing more.

Theists maintain the gospel claim there was a total solar eclipse about the time of the crucifiction. This physical event is not even supported by the gospels, which claims Yesuha was crucified during the Passover festival. The eclipse is then impossible because Passover is celebrated a few days after a full moon, which requires the moon to be on the opposite side of the earth to the sun. An eclipse at this time is naturally impossible.

Most will know I hold to Rev.Spong's claim that the gospels are not history but based on the liturgical template of the Pentateuch as observed in the synagogue. The Passover and the crucifiction represent the beginnings of both Judaism and Christianity respectively. In short, the gospels are following the worshipping timetable of the Pentateuch, which is read over the course of the Jewish year. Hence the crucifiction fictionally occurs on the Passover, which makes the gospel eclipses a bit of problem.

The science of astronomy is not only one of the oldest sciences it is also one of the most precise and it can not only predict dates and times and duration of eclipses well into the future, it can also pinpoint details of all past eclipses too, observed or not.

In the first century AD astronomy shows: "During the period 1 to 100 there were 248 solar eclipses of which 90 were partial, 75 were annular (one non-central), 58 were total, and 25 were hybrids. The greatest number of eclipses in one year was five, in 18 and 83. Three months, August 7, July 18, and April 97 had two eclipses.[1]"

Source: Wikipedia

According to this Wikipedia reference, between 28 AD and 42 AD there were 4 eclipses, only one was total, and none occured anywhere near Jerusalem (31.768N 35.213E).
Using the usual estimate of the crucifiction as 33AD, the closest, a total eclipse with a shadow width of 109 kilometres, geographically and timewise, would have been visible in the middle of the Persian Gulf (29.25N 50.8E) at local time of 12.15 (24hr time) on 24 November 29AD (current calendar), 1,400 kilometres distant and a couple of years too early.

The next closest is 3 October 42AD, not total, but annular, visible within a 377 kilometre radius, at (34.6N 148.4W) about 1800 kilometres north east of Hawaii (20.50N 157.0W - roughly), too far away and some ten years too late for the crucifiction.

So, two sources, astronomy and the history of the gospels, put paid to any natural explanation for an eclipse at the time of the supposed crucifiction, so some theists claim the eclipse in the gospels to be a miraculous special event. Even if Yeshua was executed any other time of the year 33AD, there was no eclipse, unless the crucifiction took place in 29AD which is possible, and was a total eclipse, but that one was only visible in the Persian Gulf.

So the quest for an eclipse is not evidenced and the claim to any earthquake conveniently occuring during the crucifiction is also a matter of faith.

Sheldon's picture
"Theists maintain the gospel

"Theists maintain the gospel claim there was a total solar eclipse about the time of the crucifiction."

Even if they could demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for this claim, it is pretty meaningless. As it is clearly no more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Events occurring in tandem or coinciding gives no rational indication they are linked.

The same obviously would apply to earthquakes coinciding with crucifixion and eclipses. Only objective evidence can validate claims for the causes of events. Their their chronological occurrance alone tells us nothing about their cause.

So called prohpesies would incur the same phallacy of course, along with an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy as well. This of course is even after/if those events, the so called prophesy and the later event as described, can be proved objectively to have happened exactly as claimed.

What most theists call evidence is risible in the context of the claims they're asserting.

Theists also regularly try to build these individual claims in combination, as if the more erroneous claims they assert the more valid the core premise becomes.

How many times have we seen theists refer to ALL the evidence, yet when asked to demonstrate the best they have fail to offer even one piece of credible objective evidence or a single rational argument.

cranky47's picture


"---post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy."

First time I heard that term was on an episode of 'The West Wing' (see link 1.43)--it is pointed out that claim claim is hardly ever true.

This is the first time I've seen it used since then. A bit surprising on reflection, because believers use the fallacy often.,such as in claims of miracles. .---also of course by anti vaxers and other froot loops--including the bloke who says; " Last year I was vaccinated against the flu. I came down with the flu a week later. OBVIOUSLY, the vaccination gave me the flu/doesn't work" .


Sheldon's picture


As you say post hoc fallacies of this nature are ubiquitous in religious apologetics, even as much as arguments from ignorance fallacies. Yet not once in the hundreds, or possibly thousands of times this is pointed out, have I ever heard a single theist retract a single claim, or even acknowledge they are using such fallacies. Jo is an obvious and extreme example of this duplicitous bias, as of course was Breezy, why should have known better given his level of education had at least reached the undergraduate level.

An interesting parallel to that bias, that they claim not to notice, is the quackery of so called "alternative medicine". I remember a debate where a doctor asked a proponent of this nonsense how many alternative medicines had ever been rejected because they don't work as hoped. It was one of those questions you curse yourself for a fool for never having thought of. Needless to say the collection of quacks and proponents of AM assembled looked suitably nonplussed by the question, which said it all really. Even a qualified GP I might add, who was making grandiose claims for an AM that was undergoing (according to him) proper clinical trials, which had shown it's efficacy. The doctor of the previous ingenious question looked him square in the eye, as he sat there with his smug grin, and asked, "how is it an alternative medicine if that's true?" Again I was depressed that so simple a question had evaded me.

As you said in your post, most post hoc fallacies are selection bias, and nothing more, where all failures are waved away, but any perceived success lauded forever as proof of their core belief.

I am reminded again of the late author and polemecist Christopher Hitchens, who wrote, "it's impossible to alter the mindset of someone who seeing a baby roll down the garden path into and through busy traffic, arriving unharmed at the far curb, then proclaims it a miracle from a deity. Then when the same person sees a baby trip and fall, fatally fracturing their skull on the corner of a table, shrug and lament an unfortunate accident."

If they don't see it, or won't see it, then rational discourse is impossible. As we have seen here so many times of course, with theists like Jo, or Breezy, who refuse to acknowledge their manifest bias even when its pointed out to them unequivocally, and they have no answer, their answer is always the same, they stop responding to my posts.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

And another 10,000 agrees for that post...

Sheldon's picture
I love the single disagree

I love the single disagree there, it's a shame that the best they can muster is a petulant reticent indication of disapproval. Hilarious though, fair play...I could not have wished for a obvious vindication of my post really.


Angelo's picture
The contention that is

The contention that is unquestionable in light of the fact that it's untestable.

David Killens's picture
@ Angelo

@ Angelo

"The contention that is unquestionable in light of the fact that it's untestable."

This is a pathetic attempt by theists to define their god so it can not be tested or even proven.

Have you ever seen the bubbles on the inside of a glass of beer? Have you ever pondered what process started the bubbles? In the past someone did, and when they studied further, discovered that each bubble had a starting point, a speck of something (dirt) on the inside of the glass, a point where a bubble can form. At a superficial gross level, there did not seem to be a cause for the bubbles. But the presence of the bubbles indicated something that (by human eye standards) was undiscoverable, present, and acting on the beer itself, just like a god.

The point is that a (based on your theology and folk tales) god does interact with this universe in the form of prayers, miracles, and other acts such as a flood, even the creation.

Therefore, if your god was real, and your god does interact with this known universe, it is testable. We test for those interactions to be valid. The odds of prayer working is less than a coin flip. Miracles are just bullshit because none have been proven true. It is also a prime example of confirmation bias. The great flood cannot be explained, the idea of so much water flies in the face of facts and common sense, there is zero evidence it happened, and the ark has not been discovered. And dutiful observation and many scientific explanations can describe every aspect on how this universe came to be, the formation of this sun and planet Earth, life, and mankind. And none of those explanations required a god.

Sheldon's picture
"The contention that is

"The contention that is unquestionable in light of the fact that it's untestable."

Like the contention that one deity is real, but the thousands of others humans have imagined are not.

Nogba's picture
Hi, I'm new in this form and

Hi, I'm new in this form and i'm an arabic muslim.

my answer is this :
As i mentioned i'm a muslim but i don't know that proof. because i just believe that god exist i don't know 100% that's why it is called believe,
in the other hand what is proof ? i think proof is something that you can feel with sense organs in other words if you want to prove a theorie
you have to put it to test, so i don't know how to proof god existence honestly, other than asking him to show him self like moses asked.

In quran it says that the prophet ibrahim said to god "show me how you give life to the dead", god said "Have you not believed ?", ibrahim said
"Yes, but [I ask] only that my heart may be satisfied." the refrence is here : https://quran.com/2/260-270

I think people want to be satisfied before they believe, ibrahim here believed but he was not satisfied, so why were he believing if he was not
satisfied in the first place ? does believing requires full satisfaction ? i think if you are fully satisfied you're not believing but your all ready
certain. ibrahim believed and he had his way of knowing the right god from the wrong one and his appeal was not from lake of believe it was
a request of satisfaction. if he were sure 100% that god exists, he would have been all ready satisfied i think.

So how can i believe and not get lost ?
i think every body has his unique way, i guess i can't tell you how to believe that you can reach your goals for instance.
i guess read quran ! it is just a book like those books you see in the commercial side bar of this web site and it is free !
i think at the end i didn't give much, but i think the questions are why religion and what is the use of it at first.
and finaly i'm still looking for the truth to, if i found out that this religion is not the right one i will leave it.

this is my answer, if it's right it's from god otherwise it's from me and the tempter.

LogicFTW's picture


Welcome to Atheist republic.

In many ways you are probably one of the more honest folks that believe in a god idea, that has commented on these boards in a while.

You say, (paraphrasing here) that basically you do not know why you "believe" but that you do. And that you cannot prove your god idea. But for you faith/belief is all you need. You do not need any actual evidence.

Question for you Nogba:

Do you ever worry that your faith/belief may be wrong?
How about that: someone else, (a human or group of them,) may be taking advantage of the fact that you just believe without any sort of corroborating evidence?

Do you understand many con's work this way? Using fears, and/or desires to accept something that is not actually evidenced?

*edited to add a "not"



I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.

Nogba's picture


hi LogicFTW

Believe doesn't come from nothing, i have evidence that you might not call evidance and that you have heard a billion time
probably more and some you haven't that i have accumulated while i was practicing the relegion, as i said before if you wan't
evidance you have to test the theorie, more you test more your believe will grow.

Read what quran says and try to do the puzzle by fitting what quran says in real life if quran contradict with life then it's
a false religion.

God is not trying to tell any body what to do, and he want to make justice at the same time, god doesn't want you to
hurt some one neither want any body to hurt you so he put a set of rules that helps, for instance praying is one of things
that god told us to do, and praying is not for god but it is for our selves because praying give sobriety and at the same time
if you saw it diffrently, god deserves to be worshipped because he created every thing ranther than rocks, a sober person is
just and doesn't hurt others, if you can do that without guidance of god then good for you, but if you don't follow the guidance
and hurt people then he will defend his inocent creatures and put the assaulter in hell.
That's justice i want and want to believe and this is what i understand from the quran.
god existe or not what quran is talking about is cool and i love it.
it's a book that gives you a higher self conciousness.

i know that religion is and was a weapon used by kings to make people fight for them and indeed it is a very effective way,
ISIS or ISIL where not the only ones who had been deceived but olso the Knights Templar and creed assassins and so much more
specialy the creed assassins

you're asking if i worry, i don't because i'm not waiting for some one to tell me what to do or believe like ISIS,
i do my best and i hope i'm in the right path.

i think people who are not completly honnest with themselves are the only one who will be deceived,
the more you're honest with your self the less you will be deceived

the world is full of deception even if you had an army of Intelligence you will be deceived one way or an other,
but if you had the ultimate guid, the real one comming from the real god then it's different.

i have heard that no one will deceive if you don't deceive your self.

but even after all that if i found that this religion is wrong i will quitte and i think god want people to follow only the
truth nothing else what ever it was.

cranky47's picture


You are quite right, RELIGIOUS belief does not come from nothing. Nor does it come from reason or proof. Religious belief comes from faith .

Defined in Merriam-Webster ;

"Definition of faith

1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty lost faith in the company's president
b(1) : fidelity to one's promises
(2) : sincerity of intentions acted in good faith
2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith"


You have chosen to come to an atheist forum. I will be pleasantly surprised if you have truly come here to learn rather than to reinforce your existing beliefs ,which is why believers so far, have always come here.

Most people here are atheist, and most most of us began as believers.

I will do my best to explain (not defend ) my lack of beliefs without attacking your beliefs.

I come from a devout Catholic tradition .

I left the church at age 21. Then searched for meaning for twenty years. And yes, my search did include Islam .

That search included:

Living in a Muslim country, [Malaysia} ) with many Muslim friends

Later, in Australia ; At university; read the Quran for background in studies I was doing of aspects of Islamic culture . Went on to discover the wit and wisdom of the Sufi Nasruddin, the beauty of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, and the genius of the Mulla Sadra.

I learned a bit about those sublime Muslim thinkers, but not of any meaning in Islam, for me.

Here I speak only for myself . I call myself an agnostic atheist . By that I mean I do not believe in gods ,but that I do not claim to know there are no gods.

I dis-believe in gods for one reason; a lack of proof.

Religious faith is antithetical to reason and science, even though devout Muslims will at times claim this is untrue,[falsely] claiming the Quran describes many modern inventions.

Religions often seem to be reasonable and to accept scientific claims. True enough ,UNTIL reason or science contradict dogma/revealed truth, then science and religion are utterly rejected.

Believers in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Sabians are all 'people of the book'. As I understand it, people of those faiths accept their holy books are revealed by god and contain unchanging/dogmatic truths. I reject those claims outright because they have not been proved to be true,.

Among other things, this atheist is a secular humanist, skeptic , and materialist. I demand proof of any truth claim. I think we are worlds apart.:

"Secular humanism is a philosophy or life stance that embraces human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.[1][2][3][4]

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a deity. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently good or evil, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many secular humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality. "


David Killens's picture
Welcome to Atheist Republic

Welcome to Atheist Republic Nogba. Despite the fact that I am an atheist, I appreciate and respect your honesty and candor. I wish you and your loved ones good health, prosperity, and a long and happy life.

One major question atheists ponder is any proof or evidence of a god. Despite the fact that most theists attempt to define their god outside of the reach of humans for examination and proof, evidence can be derived indirectly. For example, prayers. From my theistic past and personal observations, many pray for results, be it to relieve financial hardships or to cure an ill family member (for example).

Any response to prayers by any god is a manifestation in our world. So if prayer can be proven to be effective, this lends credence to the possibility of a god.

But when prayer has been tested, it fails. Thus, prayer is not confirmation of any god.

Personally, I do not state that there is no god, but I am not convinced there is any. So like any person on guard against fraud and false claims, I take the default position of not accepting any claims without proof. The prayer example I provided should offer confirmation of a god, but because it fails in observation and testing, I am less convinced than before.

Sheldon's picture
Nogba " i have evidence that

Nogba " i have evidence that you might not call evidance (sic)"

That's just a claim, not evidence. If you have evidence then please demonstrate it, as simply claiming it, and then making another unevidenced assumption about how atheists will perceive it, is a poisoning of the well fallacy, used to prop up claims used in the pretence of evidence, but which fail to meet any objective standard.


"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say."

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Cognostic's picture
@Nogba: You do understand

@Nogba: You do understand that the story of Moses is a myth that has been constructed from previous stories don't you. There is not a theologian alive, worth his shit, that will assert Moses was a real person.

"Yet, outside of biblical scripture, there is next to no evidence in the archaeological and historical record of Moses's existence. There is no exact time frame for when the events of Exodus may have occurred -- with scholarly conjecture spanning more than half a millennium. Nor do we know the identity of the villainous Pharaoh in the Bible, cast in films repeatedly as Ramesses II. That pharaoh is famed for his conquests and building projects. But in their digs and readings of inscriptions and papyrus, historians have found no trace of Moses under Ramesses's reign."


RE: Proof: Proof is clearly defined in any dictionary and it has nothing at all to do with something you feel. YOU ARE DEMONSTRABLY WRONG!

PROOF: Definition of proof (Entry 1 of 3)
1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2obsolete : EXPERIENCE
3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried
especially : unyielding hardness

PROOF CONTINUED: When people use the word "proof" colloquially, they mean "Evidence." What "EVIDENCE" do you have. Very few things outside of mathematical principles are proved. You do not have to prove God's existence. All you need is facts and evidence that point directly to your version of God being true. (SO WHAT HAVE YOU GOT?)

RE: QUOTES FROM THE QUARAN are as fucking useless as toilet paper. Muhammad did not write the book. There were once hundreds of versions of the book and then they were all destroyed to give you the 7 different versions you have in the world today. Mecca was not the birth place of Muhammad. From start to finish the Quaran is a work of fiction.

SATISFACTION: I will agree with you. People want to believe in bullshit because they have neither the intelligence, willingness, or energy to search out the truth. They are satisfied with a myth because they are FUCKING LAZY.

RE: "So how can i believe and not get lost ?"
EASY: You develop the ability to support your beliefs with facts and reason.

READING THE QUARAN: You have never read the Quaran. No sane person could actually read the Quaran and then assert it contained any kind of truth at all. No sane person could read the book and not see the horror contained within its pages. No one could read the book and miss the outright Bigotry. No one could read the Fucking Quaran and then turn around and call it a Holy Book. That is fucking insane.

Sheldon's picture


What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Beliefs can be held as true in the absence of evidence, but how do you determine what is true and what not if you set this precedent?

Nogba's picture


hi cranky47

Can you please point out what you want me to prove ?

cranky47's picture


"Can you please point out what you want me to prove ?"

I'm sorry, though I was clear. I require you to prove anything you would like me to believe ,beginning with the existence of your god .

As much as I'd like to, I'm simply not able to believe a thing to be true simply because some one makes a claim of truth. I reject the notion of divinely revealed anything. Stating the Torah/New Testament/Quran say so, doesn't do it for me.

As far as I'm aware, NOBODY, in human history has ever once proved the existence of any god.

WHAT will I accept as proof? Other than anything I've come across in over 50 years of asking and arguing with ordinary believers, some trained in apologetics and theology .(?) I really don't know . Not my problem . It is the person making the claim who has the burden of proof, not I (IE I need disprove nothing) .

IF there is a god of Muslim understanding, and he wants me to believe in him, he will have no problem providing me with the proof I need. I say 'need' ' NOT 'want' . Atheism has never been a choice for me, but an inevitable conclusion .


PART of what I understand as the Muslim position. (the article is longer) Please tell me if your understanding differs.

God, by definition, is the only Sovereign, Self-Existing, non-created Being to whom everything else owes its existence and completely depends on for survival and power.

God needs nothing to exist, to give Him power, or to make Him complete. God is entirely Self-Sufficient, Independent, and Perfect.

All attributes of perfection and glory belong to Him; they are permanent and inseparable from His Being and Essence. He cannot be anything but perfect, absolutely rich and free of all needs, totally powerful and capable of everything.

His Perfection, His Self-Sufficiency, His Sovereignty, and His Power are essential and inherent characteristics of His very Nature.

If He was created, limited, changeable, needy, or imperfect in any way, He would lose one of His essential divine attributes and would no longer be God.

The definition of God prohibits this. God has always existed and will always exist. He is not bound by time, space, or the laws of nature, since He cannot be subject to what He created.

Rather, He is beyond them, just as a craftsman is beyond the dimensions of his own creation. God is incomparable to any of His creations.

The Quran clearly says, “There is nothing like Him.” (Quran 42:11)



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.