Going against the Grain

I am not, or want to be, a practicing atheist. Many people have come out as being atheists in the 20th and 21st centuries. However these people want everyone to accept their disbelief in a God(s). Even though for as long as humans have roamed this world, there is evidence that just about all nations and people believed in a God or Gods. Atheists have recently popped up with their cell phones and computers arguing smugly that it’s all bunk, that there is no God, or supernatural things happening in the world, not now or ever in the past. Some Atheist say Jesus probably didn’t even exist. All the proof of church buildings and crucifixes erected in the memory of Jesus in the past two thousand years should be ignored. How about dejavu, souls leaving a dead body, or apparitions of ghosts. Atheists scientists say it’s all happening in your head. Well yea, that is where the brain is. Even when I smell something, the aroma is being analyzed by neurons in the brain. However, we feel/know there is something unusual about our world and universe. However what ever it is scientists will say its all in your head. Yes it is, just like everything your senses sense is then analyzed by the brain. I’m sure that if you know which brain neurons to stimulate, you can make a person think that they are smelling something when they are not, but that doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as aroma when I am smelling something.

What in the FUCK is a “Practicing Atheist”???.. :woozy_face: :woozy_face: :woozy_face:


Personally as one who does not accept theist claims, I do not care if you accept my position at all. And I dont care what you want to believe, its all part of your rights as a human being (and mine too).

That gods have been a part of human culture for thousands of year is undeniable, but that in no way proves gods exist. Mankind has believed in flying fire-breathing dragons for just as long, but there remains no proof of their existence either.

Theists have taken advantage of cell phones and computers just as much as atheists do but atheists don’t then challenge the validity of the scientific method like theists do who seem to have no problem utilising the science behind their cell phones and laptops.

I have never witnessed a miracle. Could you, as a good Christian, do me a favour and cure someone or a whole hospital ward of cancer? It was promised in the Gospels that you could. Why can’t you perform a miracle?

As an atheist, unlike some of my fellows, I have always contended that there was an intinerant rabbi referred to as Jesus but whose name is more likely to have been Yeshua or Joshua. However, from a considerable number of studies by many biblical academics for centuries, I am inclined to think he was not divine nor conquered death, which history has shown was all part of the later marketing and branding of the rogue Jewish heresy that certainly became immensely popular amongst bureacrats and dictators. What do you have that might convince me otherwise?

I don’t ignore the cathedrals or churches or altars or crucifixes that the major Christian religions have erected, most are quite beautiful and awe inspiring to experience. They are evidence of the sublime artistic expression of eminently profound and ineffable human aspirations, but they also attest to the social and political influence of the clergy, the knowledge and skills of architects, artisans and labourers rather than the existence of a god.

Amongst the relatively little that medical science has learned of the human brain, is the curious outcome of temporal lobe epilepsy that has resulted in some people seeing religious significance in all manner of common objects, street signs, fruit (very popular) etc and there is a curious instance of a guy in whose brain the left and right halves had completely seperated and when questioned vocally, the left side (locus of speech) responded he was an atheist and when questioned in writing (locus of symbols) he responded he was a theist. You are right to question the workings of the brain and given the peculiar results not to rely on it for anything like coherent.

Have a look at this, 13 minutes of V.S. Ramachandran, a US neurologist, who will blow your mind about how brains work. Weird, its just weird.

Welcome to the forum lighthearted. Hope we might all learn from the exchange.



Welcome to AR. Hello and goodbye.

You have talked about a god, cheesus, souls and ghosts…you know what they all have in common? Zero Demonstrable Objective Evidence in Reality. Now you did also talk about aroma, which is measurable, and has objective evidence of existence in reality…but WTF does that have to to with religion? Is it because religion has the aroma of a con? LOL.


A practicing atheist is an atheist who is trying to get to Carnegie Hall. :rofl:



Please offer proof or evidence of a god or gods.

If you cannot, then do you understand my position?

1 Like

Hi light hearted. Welcome.

If sincere, you post merits a reply. I’ll try to answer points you raised:

Have you been watching that prat Richard Dawkins? I’ve never had the slightest interest if people believe me or not. Nor do I or any atheist I know spend any time proselytising. I’m also quite indifferent to your personal beliefs.

Quite right. Your point being? That vast numbers of people believe a thing may say a great deal about them, but it says nothing about the truth of their beliefs. (it’s a logical fallacy,argument by consensus)

There has never been in recorded history of proof of the existence of any god(s) what so ever.

What about them?

Pretty sure that it has been established that dejavu is psychological phenomenum. As far as I’m aware there is no proof of the existence of the soul or ghosts as the non corporeal part of a dead person

Really. Name two. Certainly not the scientific consensus far as I’m aware. I don’t know anyone who makes such a claim. Neither scientists psychologists or any atheists are homogeneous groups.

Pretty sure that’s a logical fallacy called ‘false equivalence’ IE trying to compare unconnected ideas/things.

Indeed. It needs to be pointed out that there is no proof for the historicity of Jesus. The closest to a consensus of scholars is that at best, he may have existed. This the view I take. However, there are significant numbers of scholars who argue that Jesus probably never existed. As a group, these people are known as mythicists.

Dr Richard Carrier is a mythicist with whom I’m familiar. His arguments are very compelling. Below is clip to one of his lectures on the historicity of Jesus. I’d interested to see your response to any of his arguments. Sadly, as with theists generally, I suspect your faith is probably not strong enough to withstand the light of reason and fact…

This is a short lecture, only 33 minutes.


First: There is no such thing as a “Practicing Atheist.” What in the hell are you going to practice.

Second: No one gives a shit about your magical belief systems until you attempt to proselytize. Keep your idiot ideas to yourself and we have no reason or need to confront them with reason and logic. Get the Churches to pay their fair share of taxes and to stop stealing from the poor and ignorant and we will have no problem.

Third: Almost all, not all, and it is still an argument adpopulum fallacy.

Fourth: Atheists argue “smugly?” Well you can go fuck yourself, or provide facts, evidence and objectivity to your ignorant claim of a God existing.

Fifth: RE: " Some Atheist say Jesus probably didn’t even exist." Do you have any evidence, contemporary to the life of this Jesus guy, that demonstrates he actually did exist? We have no good reason to assert Jesus existed. We have even less of a reason to pretend he was a magical being capable of curing the blind by spitting in their eyes. What planet do you live on?

Sixth: RE: "However, we feel/know there is something unusual about our world and universe. " Ummmm… Yep! I have to agree. Have you looked in a mirror??

FINALLY: How do you know you are actually smelling something? Have you heard of “Independent Verification.” One of those scientific words that means ---- “You check with other people.” Your personal experience, is by its very nature, not a reason for me to believe anything you say. The psych wards are full of people who smell crazy shit and pretend it is real. You have no idea if aroma exists or not, whether or not you smell it, without independent verification.


Yep. Every day I get Latter Day Atheists and Atheist Witnesses knocking on my door trying to sell their beliefs.


@Nyarlathotep Re: “A practicing atheist is an atheist who is trying to get to Carnegie Hall.”

OH! Okay, good… Phew!.. :cold_sweat:… For a minute there I thought I was gonna have to start doing all sorts of rituals and prayers and shit, and I’m not really into that sort of stuff.

I thought I wasn’t a good enough atheist and I needed to practice more😄

Hmm, you are claiming to know what I want right off the bat, or have worded that very poorly. Try not to make generic assumptions.

Strike 2 ahhh…

That is a known common logical fallacy, called argumentum ad populum. Look it up please, and if you repeat it this goes from ignorance to dishonesty, and I’ve had my fill of dishonest posters for this month.

Ok, I stopped reading there, and I’m calling this one, you’re trolling sunshine, grow up, or go find a theist forum or a pulpit to preach from…


Yep, you win the Driveby Spotter’s Award for the month with this. Stand by for a cricket chorus in your honour.


At one time the almost everyone was of the opinion that tobacco smoke was harmless.

Oh David, David…David - we’re “friends cause I’m not nice to you”…

Your analogy sucks. * Tobacco was first discovered by the native people of Mesoamerica and South America and later introduced to Europe and the rest of the world. Tobacco had already long been used in the Americas by the time European settlers arrived and took the practice to Europe, where it became popular.*

Etc, etc…the “height” of its use was thanks to media, movies, organized tobacco companies and “research” to support (bias) their product (also addition of chemicals) - that same science broke through with the health risks and allow people to make more informed choices and society to regulate its use in public places.

This could be said of many products throughout history - cocaine in Coke (and other products) or the “health risks” of a purely vegan diet…

Personally, I’d just want to know “so what?” Evidence of “god” please. Not evidence of what people “believe or believed” BTW I like the “past tense” of believe for the “god” use :slightly_smiling_face:

Waiting around to see if this guy is a:

Drive by preacher or actually here to debate.

I’m guessing the former. His diatribe seems to be devoid of a point.

There are lots of people that are atheists but have never or seldom spoke about their non belief (kinda like gays in the military that keep quiet about their sexual orientation). Then you have the atheists that spend a lot of their time talking about atheism. (these I am equating to practicing atheists). Kinda like gay people that have come out of the closet and promote their newly found freedom of choice. Or like flat Earthers that have recently come out of the closet and can not be convinced that the Earth is a globe. Have you ever tried to tell a gay person that their sexual preference is not natural,or a flat Earther that he is going against the weight of evidence. They will say prove that being gay is not natural orprove the world isn’t flat. They sound just like atheists that say prove that God is real. None of this proves God exists. But first we must understand what or who God is so we can then determine if God is real in some form.

You are pushing “my ability to continue any discussion with you” based on your above complete paragraph - however, approaching this from a (once only) assumption that you are a completely brainwashed moralistic theist - I will indulge ONLY the above quote

So your “version” of god? It’ll need to be good by the way, for you to have any footing to back up your above clumping of gays and flat earthers together.


Many theists have told us stuff like this, and I’ve never understood it. Why shouldn’t you accept that I don’t believe in god? What exactly are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that atheists do believe in god, but are just saying that they don’t? Do you reject the notion that some people don’t believe god is real?