Why the religion of Atheizum?

916 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
Fabulous post.

Fabulous post.

***tree stands tall doing the cheerleader thing by clapping hands***


XaurreauX's picture
Sometimes my reaction is:

Sometimes my reaction is: "Translation: atheism is a threat to my faith."

arakish's picture
But how can atheism be a

But how can atheism be a threat to something I never had? ;-)


Cognostic's picture
"Translation: atheism is a

"Translation: atheism is a threat to my faith."
What in the hell good is "FAITH?" There is nothing that can not be believed based on "FAITH." Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Fortune Tellers, Mediums, Christians, Hindus, and more.... all have faith. Faith is the assertion / belief that something is true without evidence. Rational belief should be apportioned to the degree of evidence available.

arakish's picture
Here y'all go. If anyone

Here y'all go. If anyone asks what facts and/or faith means...

FACTS — Formulated Accurately Codified Truth in Science

FAITH — Falsehoods Assumptions Innuendos Treachery and Hogwash


Randomhero1982's picture
"I used to be an athiest" is

"I used to be an athiest" is coincidently, Latin for "one who speaks utter bollocks"...

True story...

Calilasseia's picture
Oh look. A supernaturalist

Oh look. A supernaturalist has turned up here, manifestly thinking to himself "this will stick it to the atheists" ...

Quie simply, there is so much that is wrong, toxic, and outright absurd in your output, that it's difficult to know which part thereof to subject to the discoursive minigun first.

Let's start at the beginning ... and here, I discover that this forum lacks the usual tags I'm familiar with elsewhere, so I'll have to perform my dismantling the old fashioned way ...

[QUOTE]Let me start by saying I am an ex-atheist/evolutionist[END QUOTE]

I see this assertion being peddled *frequently*. But, like many supernaturalist assertions, it usually fails when subject to test. Let's see how much you actually know, with respect to the topics you're bringing here, shall we?

[QUOTE]born again Christian.[/END QUOTE]

Ah. In my experience, persons asserting this usually have little of substance to offer, when subjected to forensic examination. Let's see if this applies here too, shall we?

[QUOTE]I was so much against religion that when I found out that atheism was a religion[END QUOTE]

BZZZT! And here's your first BIG mistake.

Atheism in its *rigorous* formulation, consists of *suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions*. That is IT. Suspicion of unsupported assertions is the very *antithesis* of a religion. Because, wait for it, when all religions are examined, they involve uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, said assertions frequently to be found in various mythologies. That is, quite possibly, THE defining characteristic of religions. Since atheism doesn't involve uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, it fails to be a "religion" on this ground alone.

[QUOTE]I used to argue against the truth about God[END QUOTE]

Which "truth" would this be? Only supernaturalists cannot even agree among themselves on a global scale, which mythology is purportedly the "right" mythology, and adherents of a partiular mythology cannot agree among themselves what said mythology is purportedly telling us. Please explain how one obtains "truth" from this embarrassing display of anti-consilience?

[QUOTE]until I found out that there are so many lies in evolution with nothing to back them up.[END QUOTE]

Oh REALLY? In that case, if this assertion of yours is something other than the product of your rectal passage, then you can NAME some of those purported "lies", can't you? That's your first challenge for the day. Be advised that if you peddle the usual creationist garbage in answer to this, said garbage will be dealt with *ruthlessly*.

As for "nothing to back them up", I'll advise you in advance, that I have 3,823 scientific papers on the subject of evolutionary biology currently residing on my laptop's hard drive, including papers that contain direct experimental test and validation of key evolutionary concepts, and I'll be asking you which of those papers you want me to bring here first.

[QUOTE]I realized that if evolution were true, there would be so much evidence that it wouldn't have to be argued about.[END QUOTE]

Oh, 1½ million peer reviewed scientific papers containing said evidence isn't enough for you?

If I printed that lot out, I'd need several articulated lorries to transport them.

[QUOTE]Because this so called "mother nature" wouldn't have the mindset to hide the so called truth[END QUOTE]

It doesn't. Once again, which of those 3,823 scientific papers do you want me to bring here first?

[QUOTE]that whatever so called evidence evolutionists claimed, could be disputed so easily.[/END QUOTE]

Please, bring it on. I'm going to enjoy this.

[QUOTE]I knew that there could only be two possibilities, evolution, or God.[END QUOTE]

Please explain why Ken Miller, a practising Roman Catholic and evolutionary biologist, has no problem accepting the idea of the two co-existing?

[QUOTE]The problem atheist's have is that what they claim is evidence for their "beliefs"[END QUOTE]

BZZZT! Big mistake number two!

Those of us who understand how atheism actually works, are pointing and laughing at this latest piece of drivel of yours. Why? Because, wait for it, those of us who actually applied some functioning neurons to the matter, recognise that being an atheist means that YOU DISPENSE WITH BELIEF ITSELF, courtesy of the fact that belief, as practised by supernaturalists, consists of nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported mythological assertions.

As for the matter of evidence, let's see if you understand what the word actually means, shall we?

[QUOTE](which is by faith ie. religion), can be claimed just if not more easily, that God made it that way.[END QUOTE]

Poppycock. What part of the words "experimental test of relevant postulates" do you not understand? I'll refer you to those 3,823 scientific papers in my collection once more.

[QUOTE]It takes less faith in God than that nothing created something.[END QUOTE]

BZZZT! Big mistake number three!

First of all, if you had actually paid attention in science classes, you would have learned that cosmological physicists do NOT postulate that the universe came from "nothing". Instead, what these people ACTUALLY postulate, is that *testable natural proceses* were responsible for the instantiation of the observable universe. The exact nature of said testable natural processes is an active field of research. The people who GENUINELY believe that the universe came from "nothing", are supernaturalists like you, who think that your favourite mythological magic man conjured a universe out of nothing. So let's put this piece of drivel of yours in the bin where it belongs, shall we?

Furthermore, since those cosmological physicists are exercising their minds with respect to the matter of devising *empirical tests* of their ideas, once again, we're not dealing with "faith", but with science as it should be practised.

[QUOTE]So why the religion of Atheism?[END QUOTE]

This is a supernaturalist fiction. And as a corollary, discardable as such.

[QUOTE]My thoughts on that as the most likely reason is people don't want a God of judgment to tell them that the sin they enjoy so much is wrong.END QUOTE]


First of all, let's put the "you hate my god" garbage in the bin where it belongs, shall we?

It is wholly unreasonable to "hate" an entity that one regards as entirely imaginary. Therefore, those of us who apply our neurons to this matter, dispense with what is yet another supernaturalist fiction. However, what IS reasonable to hate, is the venomous words and actions of supernaturalists, when, with the hubris characteristic thereof, they decide that their adherence to pre-scientific mythology somehow magically dispenses unto them, some sort of "right" to coerce the rest of us to conforming to the strictures of said mythology. Worse still, said supernaturalists all too frequently think that they possess some sort of "right" to skew policy making on the basis of their mythological adherence, with, all too frequently, manifestly observable malign consequences. Since those malign consequences *are* observable, it is entirely proper to regard said consequences with relevant disgust.

As for the "you want to sin" garbage you are peddling here, well, let's see, as an atheist, I have NEVER once felt the urge to indulge in any of the following:

[1] Raping children (unlike a number of Catholic priests and megachurch "pastors");
[2] Forcing women to have babies they don't want to (unlike a lot of supernaturalists);
[3] Murdering doctors for doing their job (unlike certain supernaturalists I could mention);
[4] Blowing people up for failing to treat mythology as fact (see: suicide bombers);
[5] Kill or torture gay people (quite a few conservative Christians are chillingly open about their desire to do this);
[6] Lie to children about science (see: creationism).

Quite simply, if you think that what I choose to do with another consenting adult in the privacy of my bedroom, is worse than a Catholic priest buggering a 10 year old altar boy, then you need to take your moral compass back to Wal-Mart and ask for a refund.

So, first challenge to you for the day ... those purported "lies" of evolution. Name them. I'll have fun with this one in due course, assuming of course you're up to the challenge.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture


A BIG welcome to you! Love this post....especially the "take your moral compass back to " Love it!

Sheldon's picture
"Quite simply, if you think

"Quite simply, if you think that what I choose to do with another consenting adult in the privacy of my bedroom, is worse than a Catholic priest buggering a 10 year old altar boy, then you need to take your moral compass back to Wal-Mart and ask for a refund."

Kudos, well said.

CyberLN's picture
Welcome, Calilasseia.

Welcome, Calilasseia.

FYI, the OPer has not logged in for over a year and wrote the OP almost five years ago. You may not get a rebuttal from him.

arakish's picture
@ CyberLN

@ CyberLN

Yeah, but you got to love how Calilasseia stuck to the OP…

@ Calilasseia

And a huge heartfelt welcome to you. Hope you can hang out with us other godless heathens. We need more like you.


Tin-Man's picture


*clap-clap-clap-clap-clap*.... Bravo! A pleasure to read. Welcome to the AR. Great having you with us. Too bad ol' dude will very likely not read it or respond. But at least it is there for others to see. Oh, and you are more than welcome to engage a couple of similar space cadets who are currently active in other threads. That would be fun to watch.... *chuckle*... Hope to see you around more. Come on in and join the fun.

Calilasseia's picture
My presence is likely to be

My presence is likely to be limited, but if there are places in need of the odd JDAM drop ... :)

Tin-Man's picture
@Cal Re: JDAM

@Cal Re: JDAM

What's your freq should we need to call in an air strike? lol

David Killens's picture
That post was well-thought

That post was well-thought out and articulate Calilasseia. I applaud that post.

No, not a JDAM, not even MOAB, but this ....



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.