Why the religion of Atheizum?

916 posts / 0 new
Last post
Chuck Rogers's picture
Actually it's towards Lmale's

Actually it's towards Lmale's response. Though your welcome to read and comment.
I'm hoping to post it tonight, but not sure yet.

Nordic Fox's picture
I think your words are too

I think your words are too big, man!

Or he's avoiding facing the 'hard to debunk facts' like most apologists... Anyone's guess!

mjplatt's picture
You sound as though you have

You sound as though you have never been an atheist when you somehow think scientifically sound evidence is disputable. Well, I guess you could dispute that the earth is round.....but that doesn't make it so. And you seem not to understand what a scientific theory actually is. So if you were ever an atheist you got there by some other means than study and critical thinking.

Vincent Paul Tran's picture
......... all evidence is

......... all evidence is disputable

mjplatt's picture
You sound as though you have

You sound as though you have never been an atheist when you somehow think scientifically sound evidence is disputable. Well, I guess you could dispute that the earth is round.....but that doesn't make it so. And you seem not to understand what a scientific theory actually is. So if you were ever an atheist you got there by some other means than study and critical thinking.

Nordic Fox's picture
I can't agree more, mjplatt.

I can't agree more, mjplatt.

mjplatt's picture
Just read through the long

Just read through the long post about personal experiences and the Holy Spirit. None of that has any value outside of your own head even if it were true. People from other religions who worsip different gods have the same experiences. There is no way for anyone to differentiate one from the other.

Chuck Rogers's picture
All it takes is submitting to

All it takes is submitting to Christ and you will find out!

Nordic Fox's picture
Submitting what? An email? A

Submitting what? An email? A payment?

"Act now, and your eternal nothingness will be granted asylum! How do we know? Things! The pastor said so! And with hypocrites in the church, how can we be wrong? Call christ in the next five minutes and we'll save two more eternities free of charge!"

No different than any other charlatan.

Chuck Rogers's picture

Before I post anything else on c14, I would like to ask you afew questions.
You claim with your information, that the reason for c14 being in millions of year old bones, is because that when the bones were being fossilized minerals containing c14 replaced the minerals the bones were made of correct?
So one question is, how long does it take to fossilize a bone anyway?
My answer to that is much less than a million years.
Question two, if you have bones that have been fossilized for many millions of years then why would you be able to still find c14 in them considering the time at which c14 would not be measurable any more?
Question three, considering that c14 has been found in so called millions of year old bones, do the minerals just keep getting replaced with new minerals that contain c14 in them?
Question four, if question three has the correct answer then how do they determine the age of rocks? Could they also be getting contaminated in the same manner with whatever method you or your scientists claim that they use to date them?

You may want to think hard about this one!
That is if you haven't given up again.
Talk to you later buddy.

Nordic Fox's picture
Dammit Chuck, you're skipping

Dammit Chuck, you're skipping ahead and not reading!

"Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities."

Dinosaur bones are millions of years old, carbon dating is not (I REPEAT NOT) used to date dinosaur bones and the like!


Do you get it now, kiddo? Can you read English, and add more numbers than fingers? Thousands are smaller than millions. Carbon dating is used for things UP TO 50,000 YEARS AGO.

Fossils are measured based on a few factors:

1.) Geological location mapping (depth, layer, surrounding ground state)
2.) Fossilization (replacement of CALCIUM with minerals such as sedimentary graphite, limestone, quartz and so on)

Here's a whole page, cowboy. Go, and read, for the sake of all things 'sacred and dear' so you can stop embarrassing yourself.


Stop trying to use foolish arguments. What you keep repeating is akin to me trying to tell you "jesus had a crazy foot fetish, proved by a painting of a woman washing his feet."

Go. Read. Return when you (maybe) begin to understand fundamental terminology for historical dating.

SeanBreen's picture
If you want to talk about

If you want to talk about creationist refutations for evolution you can find every single creationist claim, ever, documented and thoroughly refuted here:


Now please refute these five simple problems with Christianity:

1. Love and eternal torture are not compatible concepts. Therefore, God is false. And before you ask me the stupid question, no, I don't think a child needs to be chastened with fire brimstone and sulfur dioxide for eternity. I don't hit children.

2. If God is omnipotent and has foresight of all possible futures, then he desired to create suffering, for it exists. If God is omnibenevolent and has foresight of all possible futures, he was impotent to stop suffering, If God is not all powerful, why call him God? If God is not all benevolent, why worship him?

3. Please explain why Jesus and Judas kissed "fervently", why Jesus spent most of his time with other men, and why the Gospel of Mark had this passage removed from it by the church: "And the youth, looking upon Jesus, loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God" ..... Also explain, in light of this, why you think Peter made all those promises to Jesus (I won't deny you Lord), then denied him when he heard the charges? ... Hmmm. What were the charges?

4. Why follow some of the instructions in the Old Testament (for instance, the teaching against homosexuality) and fail to follow the rest (for instance, stoning your wife if she wears clothes made of two different types of material)?

5. Explain to me why Christianity, if it is the sole true revelation of the truine God (which is a Mesopotamian concept), contains unoriginal myths that are borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, from Roman Paganism and Roman Mythology, Egyptian Maat, as well as moral teachings from Jesus that are quite clearly stolen from Buddhism and syncretized with Judaism.

Buddha(1) Christ(2)

"Consider others as yourself."(1)
"Treat others the same way you want them to treat you." "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."(2)

"If you do not tend to one another then who is there to tend to you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick."(1)
"Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me."(2)

"Just as a mother would protect her only child at the risk of her own life, even so, cultivate a boundless heart towards all beings. Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world."(1)
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for another."(2)

"Hard it is to understand: By giving away our food, we get more strength; by bestowing clothing on others, we gain more beauty; by founding abodes of purity and truth, we acquire great treasures. The charitable man has found the path of liberation. He is like the man who plants a sapling securing thereby the shade, the flowers and the fruit in future years. Even so is the result of charity, even so is the joy of him who helps those that are in need of assistance; even so is the great nibbana."(1)
"Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. . . . You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God."(2)

"The charitable man has found the path of liberation."(1)
"In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"(2)

"The fault of others is easily perceived, but that of oneself is difficult to perceive; a man winnows his neighbour's faults like chaff, but his own fault he hides, as a cheat hides the bad die from the gambler."(1)
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."(2)

"Hatred does not ever cease in this world by hating; this is an eternal law. Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good, overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth."(1)
"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."(2)

"The world gives according to their faith or according to their pleasure: if a man frets about the amount of food and the drink given to others, he will find no rest either by day or by night."(1)
"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."(2)

I look forward to picking apart your responses.

Chuck Rogers's picture
First I have to ask are you

First I have to ask are you on drugs?
Your 5 simple problems looks like a rant about I'm not sure what. I stopped reading shortly after I started. Why don't you make your case for your problems one at a time?

Nordic Fox's picture
Stop answering my questions

Stop answering my questions because they're too hard, Chuck?

Or are you just pulling the classic theist methodology of debate: pretending (key word) evidence against your claims can't possibly be real?

Travis Hedglin's picture
Worse, actually. He is

Worse, actually. He is pretending that he couldn't understand your post, and not because he is personally ignorant, but because you must be on drugs or insane. He has to go so far to purposely misunderstand your arguments, because he can't seem to address them, and foisting his incompetence on to you is better than admitting it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I've said it before: dumb on

I've said it before: dumb on purpose.

Nordic Fox's picture
Indeed! I think that's how

Indeed! I think that's how zealotry begins...

Nordic Fox's picture
Very true... He's sticking to

Very true... He's sticking to creationist tactics for sure!

"When something disagrees with you, don't analyze it, sidestep it and pretend it's not actually there!"

Great for faith (I guess?) but not great for a house fire lol

Nordic Fox's picture
Very true... He's sticking to

[Edit] This comment posted twice, whoops.

Chuck Rogers's picture
What evidence do you have to

What evidence do you have to disprove God? You have nothing that disproves Him! Just because you and others want to claim that things disprove God, does not mean that they really do. Every method that the people "you believe" claim is prof that the world is older than the evidence the Bible gives, can be refuted when you actually look into how the process of the method works. You probably believe that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be carved out. But there is great evidence to the contrary. In which there is evidence to how it was carved out after My. Saint Helen's erupted.
The info your buddy Lmale put up about c14 found in dinosaur bones "could possibly have been" from the chemicals used to preserve them can easily be tested. If you read the post I showed of tissue in dinosaur bones that has been proven in at least 20 different fossils found around the world, including one found in the U.S. that still has cartilage on a shoulder bone and another bone. You would have to say that is almost impossible if they are thousands of years old, but millions, no way. My point is that if tissue is still in them, then for an easy way to prove or disprove c14 in fossilized bones, is to dig one up and do not use any chemicals on it and check it for c14. If it's in the fossilized bone that preferably has tissue in it, then we would know your wrong or not. But of course the whole process would require that people from both sides of the aisle would have to be in on the whole process, because some people have been known to be not quite honest when trying to prove their world view.

Travis Hedglin's picture
I will take the paleontology

I will take the paleontology questions, and leave the geology ones for someone better suited to it.

Why is was there C-14 in the fossils Miller tested?

There wasn't. Miller "borrowed" those bones from a museum, after they had been cleaned and preserved, without telling them what he wanted them for. Otherwise the museum would have informed him that shellac(a highly organic compound) is used in the preservation process, and he wouldn't have wasted his time testing those bones, and I wouldn't have to waste mine explaining the thick-headed practical joke that passes for legitimate experimentation to people like Miller.

Why is there still blood/tissue in fossils?

Iron nano-particles. They act as formaldehyde.


The utter totality of your arguments have been addressed time, and time, and time, and time again. The Earth is not young, if it where, the rate of radioactive decay necessary for the composition of the planet to be what it is would have to be 100,000 times more active. This means that even traditionally nonreactive substances like Hydrogen would emit toxic and fatal levels of radiation, and none of us could live on this planet. Educate yourself, please, this is just embarrassing...

Chuck Rogers's picture

You apparently are claiming that everything started by some kind of big bang theory. In which I would agree that if that was the case, of course the earth couldn't be young. But there wouldn't be any life either. It is completely impossible for life to begin from non life!!!!!! Therefore with God no problem for any of it. He spoke and the world was created ready for man and all the living things to survive. Life from life, not from a bang. :)

Travis Hedglin's picture
"You apparently are claiming

"You apparently are claiming that everything started by some kind of big bang theory."

I didn't actually claim any such thing, yet. The only claims I made were in relation to paleontology(your supposed fossil problems) and radiometry(a young earth), so it was unnecessary to discuss the origin of the entire universe to deal with those separate topics. However, since you brought it up, how much do you actually know and understand about the big bang theory?

"In which I would agree that if that was the case, of course the earth couldn't be young."

The earth and universe cannot be young in any case, otherwise a variety of factors would be much different than they are.

A. The universe expands at the speed of light, as such, the universe can only be as big as the time it has been around. A six to ten thousand year-old universe would result in a six to ten thousand light-year wide universe. It is far, FAR, bigger than that.

B. The light from the most distant stars we can see is from millions of light-years away, so that light must travel millions of years just to reach our humble home.

C. Planet formation involves a great deal of heat, it takes longer than 10,000 years for a planet to become habitable after it forms.


"But there wouldn't be any life either. It is completely impossible for life to begin from non life!!!!!!"

Mere conjecture. Multiple lines of evidence seem to indicate that organic compounds and molecules arise from simple chemical processes, to the point that they have been found in meteorites. It is not "completely impossible", nor even particularly improbable. I won't do you the disservice of saying that your god is "completely impossible" because that is lazy, but I will stress that it is actually far less likely than abiogenesis ever dreamed of being.

"Therefore with God no problem for any of it. He spoke and the world was created ready for man and all the living things to survive. Life from life, not from a bang. :)"

Sorry, you seem to have mistaken this for a church. This is a place where only the substance of your argument really matters, and how passionately you might believe something matters very little toward establishing its veracity. I think you have come to the wrong place if you desire uncritical acceptance, as no one hear would accept the claims you make as true without evidentiary basis. The idea that something can "speak something into existence" out of the ether is not valid, totally improbable, and literally is something from nothing.

Lmale's picture


I cannot let this barefaced LIE pass.

You have absofrigginlutely nothing to support your claim that life cannot come from no life.
Point 1 your god 'came from nothing' and 'made man from dust' thus life from no life lol. That's a logic bomb, wait no it's a logic nuclear bomb.
Point 2, pretty sure I have already given you proof that life can not only come from no life but we have created life from no life. Xna!! Craig Vernier (first man made bacteria)!!!!
Point 3 the process of evolution is an undeniable fact. It happens, we made it happen, we watched it happen. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the how and the why of the observed phenomenon called the process of evolution.

A last question. Give me a single, just one, claim of creationism (or it's alias id) that is supported by objective evidence. If you cannot or give a claim that we show is false you must admit your real reason for denying evolution is just your religious belief and nothing scientific rational or logical.
You are always moaning about evolution not having enough evidence (when it is actually the theory in science with the most supporting evidence, far far more than the theory of gravity which I don't see you denying) yet you believe in the non science hypothesis with zero credible evidence.

Think about it, we cannot create or control gravity but we can create and control evolution.

Oh and that last crack about the big bang, we have patiently and repeatedly explained to you, it was not a physical bang it was an expansion of energy. The phrase the big bang came from a Christian monk and stuck, even though it is highly inaccurate.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Lmale - "The phrase the big

Lmale - "The phrase the big bang came from a Christian monk and stuck, even though it is highly inaccurate."

Just a note on the history: Hoyle was the one who coined the term "big bang" when trying to explain it to laymen and that name just seemed to stick, despite how misleading it is.

Lmale's picture
Should know better than to

Should know better than to question my facts.


Nyarlathotep's picture


"[Fred Hoyle] is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949."

Vincent Paul Tran's picture
it's on you to prove god.

it's on you to prove god. Since doing so is a silly and impossible thing, there is no room for discussion. Atheists aren't forcing their doctrine down your throat, so you should pay them equal respect

Nordic Fox's picture
You're wrong, I found god,

You're wrong, I found god, and it was glorious. She's a pink unicorn that sells cotton candy in a Starbucks in downtown Dallas.

You've been sadly misled your whole life, man. Prove me wrong! You've been heeding the wrong god, dude! I'm right because faith tells me that the horn of the beloved pinkness will save us from original sim: the first humanoid robot.

For the record, dude... You need to learn to read, we went over your bad information about "Carbon 14" and if you truly believe that there are "tissues in fossils" then I'd like to ship you a dictionary for the holidays.

Fossils are what WERE tissues, and are now ROCK or MINERALS. Maybe capitals well help you out here.

....And the top part was sarcasm, I don't believe in any gods/unicorns... But I'd like to see you disprove Thor, Odin, Ra, Ganesh, Zeus, Mars, Aphrodite, Bacchus, Vulcan, etc... How do you know your "god" is there?

A statement without evidence needs NO evidence to be disproved. Just as you can't prove unicorns aren't there, doesn't mean they are, in fact, there.

Nordic Fox's picture
And once again, Chuck... You

And once again, Chuck... You fail. I explained in an earlier post what fossils are, and even included a link to follow.

What evidence exists to say the Grand Canyon took -less- time to form?!

Your arguments are akin to a toddler who works on a big-wheel, then demands that he knows more than a graduated mechanic about the inner workings of diesel engines! Your arguments don't anger me: they rather amuse and shock me at their lacking!


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.