How to recognize evidence for God

This is how you respond to a poster you have told you won’t respond to without responding to them. :joy:

Even if they did, this is not how dictionary definitions are compiled and maintained. Who used those and when, would of course provide some context, but no context of their use would alter the dictionary definition of atheism, NB Only one of those made the claim @Sherlock-Holmes is insisting is a belief inherent in atheism, are all atheists obliged to share that slogan then, or any other?

Beyond the lack of belief in any deity or deities, no two atheists need agree on anything. Since atheism has no doctrine or dogma.

Precisely, atheism is one thing, the lack or absence of theistic belief, individual atheists can believe or disbelieve whatever they want beyond that.

I think my sense of irony may have been overused of late. :innocent: :rofl:

I’m guessing this will go unanswered though:

No more so than someone critiquing theism is critiquing me - as I am considered a theist. But I don’t take criticisms of theism or religion personally.

A set is not the same as the members that comprise it. Critiquing atheism or theism inevitably leads to generalizations about the individual members so how this is news I can’t imagine.

No, this is a dictionary definition of bigotry:


I know there’s a perception that atheism - the popular social movement it has become - is somehow above criticisms of intolerance and cultism and bigotry, as if the sanitized definition “holds no belief in a deity” somehow guarantees their absence.

The tone across many if not all threads in the forum, the slogans on the merchandise and the facebook presence all show contempt for anyone who might believe God exists that is “prejudice against people on the basis of their membership of a particular group”.

Talk about irony !

In which case the same must be said of theism and theists yet those t-shirts do exactly that.

Modern atheism has embraced a host of beliefs, many of these are clearly and unapologetically emblazoned across t-shirts being sold here. The claim might be “holds no belief in God” but the reality is how the movement behaves, what it does collectively, how it’s adherents speak about others in public.

What the catholic church espouses is not borne out in practice and what atheism espouses also is not borne out in practice.

You are creating a monster that empowers the darker side of human nature no different deep down to many of the theist organizations you disparage on those t-shirts.

It wasn’t a response to Sheldon.

:rofl: it’s hard to know what to say to that…but thanks for making me laugh anyway.

Yet you keep describing the actions and claims of some atheists as atheism, despite your erro being explained repeatedly. The fact is that there is no set of atheism, it is not a collective, anymore than people who don’t believe in mermaids are a group, or collective. Were the influence of religions not so pervasive, my atheism would be no more significant than my lack of belief in Santa Claus.

All anyone need do is click the link in the top RH corner of your post to see that’s not true, it didn;t address any of my post though, but then than rather typifies your evasion throughout this discourse.

It’s not a popular social movement, it’s not any kind of movement, it is the lack of belief in any deity or deities. It is no more a popular movement than not believing in unicorns is. generally the outspoken declarations are fostered by a frustration at the behaviour and arrogance of religions and the religious.

From the definition of atheism yes, not as individuals, you seem determined to pretend that atheism and atheist are the same thing, but only when it suits your own prejudices against both. IN what way has atheism harmed anyone here, I mean in any practical sense?

Wrong again, if there is contempt it is for the pernicious behaviour of some religions and their adherents, and in debate for the endlessly poorly reasoned and irrational arguments and beliefs they peddle, what’s wrong with any of that anyway? You seem to be annoyed that atheists are allowed to express their disbelief, even here in an ostensibly atheist debate forum.

Yes ironic indeed.

Nope, modern atheists have though, you really don’t seem to be able to understand that atheism and atheist are not the same thing?

There is no movement, I am an individual who lacks belief in any deity or deities. Atheism has no dogma or doctrine, unlike religion no atheist organisation tries to tell me what to think or believe.

Here they share ideas and debate, but no one is obliged to adhere to any doctrine or dogma, you are projecting.

Atheism doesn’t have adherents, since it isn’t a claim or belief.


  1. someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas.


  1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Atheism doesn’t espouse anything, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity, nothing more, only atheists can go beyond that, not atheism.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

This is just hilarious, but all that is on display here is your irrational fear and prejudice against anyone who doesn’t share your superstitious beliefs, and dares to have the temerity to say so publicly, albeit in an atheist forum where you need never ever read any of it if you don’t want to.

@CyberLN has explained she is not responsible for those t shirts. It’s bizarre you claimed you were here to challenge ideas and dogma, and yet you’re attacking atheists for doing just that, and dishonestly projecting that onto atheism.

Bumpity bump…

isnt that an assumption?


Is atheism a movement? Sheldon posted a thousand words arguing “no” so lets check the facts:

The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement.

Growing criticism by atheists of the New Atheism movement

Is Atheism a cult?

Why There Is An Atheist Movement

The World’s Newest Major Religion: No Religion


There we are, it seems entirely reasonable to regard atheism as a movement, it’s hardly disputed too. Of course if mentioning this is the atheist equivalent of blasphemy then fine, delete my post, ban me from the site or even burn me at the stake - after all that’s what other religions do when their bigotry gets exposed.

Just because one or two atheists believe atheism is not a movement doesn’t mean all of you have to.


Now about the claims you just reeled off:

I dispute it, what beliefs, ideas, or aims, do I have to share to belong this imaginary movement?

Yaaayyyy! You got something right, and the reason we don’t have to agree is because atheism is not a movement. Here’s a clue to your error in reasoning, since I am feeling generous. There can be atheistic movements, just as there can be atheistic sports teams, or atheistic religions, but atheism is not a movement, a religion or a sports team.

Language is not really your forte I feel.

Oh dear…

Could be, I assumed atheists weren’t allowed to assume though. I’ll ponder the metaphysical and scholastic implications of this shortly. Once I pour my brew and get into my swimming pool for the afternoon.

Gotta go, stay out of trouble.

Bumpity bump???

He’s still at it. Equating his assertions for god with the observable, empirical. verifiable, practices of science. Dishonest, obfuscations, and a complete refusal to recognize facts. After are there are no real facts because we can’t really know anything therefore the God assumption is just as valid as a fact. Unbelievably ignorant assertion.


Oh dear …

This is complete tosh.

Oh wait, physicists KNOW what to look for when instances of symmetry are violated. As a corollary, it isn’t an “assumption”, it’s a testable postulate.

Indeed, one symmetry that is known to be violated, is the balance of matter versus antimatter in the universe, and physicists are busy looking for reasons why this is the case.

And, oh look, it took me precisely three seconds to find this peer reviewed scientific paper:

Direct Terrestrial Test Of Lorentz Symmetry In Electrodynamics to 10−18 by Moritz Nagel, Stephen R. Parker, Evgeny V. Kovalchuk, Paul L. Stanwix, John G. Hartnett, Eugene N. Ivanov, Achim Peters and Michael E. Tobar, Nature Communications, 6: Article number: 8174 (1st September 2015) [Full paper downloadable from here]

The authors continue with this:

After an extensive dissertation on the experimental setup, the authors present their findings thus:

After some technical details, the authors continue with:

That’s just one paper devoted to this topic. I’m pretty sure my search will turn up numerous other papers in the same vein.

The above paper says your assertions are horseshit. No doubt I’ll find more in the same vein once I start searching in earnest.

More bullshit. First of all, merely asserted entities can be rejected as summarily and effortlessly as they were presented. Second, we know that pre-scientific mythologies contain farcical errors of a sort that no genuinely existing god type entity would allow itself to be associated with, certainly not an entity in this class possessing perfect foreknowledge of the future, and thus able to know in advance that those assertions would be destroyed.

Complete crap. A statement purporting to be an axiom about the natural world is treated as a hypothesis to be tested in proper scientific circles.

Already dealt with this repeatedly in the past. Oh, and if you think the willingness of science to correct its postulates when the DATA tells us this is warranted, is some sort of “weakness”, then it’s no wonder you’re a mythology fanboy.

Oh, and the fact that Einstein found reasons why Newtonian postulates appeared to be so successful, is another point you’re going to pretend doesn’t exist?

Poppycock. When a hypothesis is found to be in accord with a large body of observational data, it isn’t an “assumption”. Do learn the elementary concepts applicable here.

I’m sure there’s more to feed into the shredder, but this should suffice for now.


Although I am disinclined to continue engaging with semantical and definitional ambiguities, the following may perhaps, be of interest.

From Sherlock’s references


“The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement:”

(The link provided was to a review of the book)

“The Evolution of Atheism” is marred by significant historical, analytic, and conceptual errors, to say nothing of a ponderous postmodern style all too familiar in the social sciences today. Try this turgid passage on for size: “The analysis in this book offers a picture of a movement confounded in its attempts to define itself by a complex and sometimes self-contradictory set of discourses, and of groups of people united only by their lack of faith struggling to maintain cohesion in the face of deep divisions in their politics.”

“As for the errors, they permeate LeDrew’s book. They include an incorrect definition of atheism, a contradictory view of the New Atheism, a disturbing lack of historical understanding, and an underlying hubris that encourages the author to jump to conclusions instead of admitting when he lacks information.”


“Growing criticism by atheists of the New Atheism movement”

“Can Science Explain Religion? : The Cognitive Science Debate”

(this is a rant by a professor of religion which attempts to define “New Atheists” as militants with an ideological movement responsible for increases in Islamophobia. It refers heavily to the prior book, “The Evolution of Atheism” but rather than recognizing the flaws in the book, this diatribe paints a picture of a militant movement with a social and political agenda, harkening to the conspiracy craziness rampant on the internet.)

(from the book)

“Stephen LeDrew’s The Evolution of Atheism shows that atheism is not just the denial of belief in God but is itself a system of belief in a “secular ideology” with a particular cultural and political agenda, an agenda powered by a simplistic view of science and a rationalistic utopianism that “exhibits some totalitarian tendencies with respect to the use of power.”


“Is Atheism a cult?”

“While we noted that a cult doesn’t have to be religious, atheism isn’t a unified movement of non-religious people. While all atheists agree that there are no gods, most atheists come to that conclusion independently. There are also many different kinds of atheists: implicit atheists, Christian atheists, weak atheists and strong atheists to name a few. This lack of ideological purity or unified structure runs counter to the idea that atheism is a cult.”

From “Why there is an atheist movement”

“But how can there be a movement around not believing in gods? Easily. It happens when people who do not believe in gods face discrimination and bigotry because they do not believe in gods. The atheist movement is about promoting atheism and celebrating the atheist part of one’s identity. It is about protecting atheist civil rights. It is about combating anti-atheist bigotry.”

The fifth reference requires a signup

Then from “finally”

This is a Wikipedia article concerning secular movements , making no mention of atheism as a movement.

None of the references identify atheism as a movement, even the ones which do identify an atheist movement


This poor sod gets owned each and every time he makes a move… one needs to seriously wonder if he is falling for the ole Christian ploy - “The more you suffer, the closer you are to God.”

1 Peter 4:1 1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin.

2 Corinthians 4:17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.

2 Timothy 3:12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

Luke 14:27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Romans 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

James 1, 2-4
2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds,

3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.

4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

Each time his pearls of faith are dashed on the rocks of atheism, it is only evidence that the bible was correct. Matthew 5:10–12 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.*

After all… Any and all disagreement with his reviled claims of truth, are simply persecuting as predicted by the Bible. Such persecution is often carried out by those with whom God has not revealed his truth. We, Atheists, are simply acting in accordance with God’s good plan.

1 Like

I think it might be useful to ask @Sherlock-Holmes to define assumption at this point, and the word fact, as his assertions about both words seems dubious next to the dictionary. For instance his assertion that a fact can never change seems laughably wrong, since our knowledge can and has done precisely that, and a fact is something that is “known or proven to be true.” The idea that what we know cannot change seems more like a tenet of religions than science to me, irrefutable and immutable are two very different concepts, the former based on current and overwhelming reliable evidence, but tentative in the light of new evidence as all scientific ideas must remain, the latter represents the erroneous hubris of religions, that we see creationists and their ilk embarrass themselves with.

If I am wrong here of course it would be useful for someone to help me out, plodding duffer as I am, it would be appreciated.

It was another of his broad sweeping assertions, as we have seen if he wants to be vague you won’t torture any detail out of him, I think he was wrong, but it still gets a who cares, as he simply fishing to get a reaction by trying to pretend a lack of belief is epistemologically little different to holding a belief, an absurd position to take.


Semantic equestrian manure. When an axiom or a hypothesis is corroborated with quality empirical data to such a degree that there can be no question about it, it receives the status of fact. By your very own argumentation, whatever observation, generalisation and rule you might make can never make the starting assumption come out of the start pit, and will forever remain an assumption. Thus, you effectively make the word “fact” meaningless, making one wonder why well-known and respected dictionaries define “fact” as a thing that is known to be true, especially when it can be proved (sense 1), something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information, and a piece of information presented as having objective reality (sense 2). Given the choice between trusting well-known dictionaries and a random internet guy for a definition of a word, I by far prefer the dictionaries. In short, you are engaging in semantic wankery.

No? Just watch: Science deals with the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, while religion deals with the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them, or in the teachings of a spiritual leader. In short, science deals with facts about the real world, while religion deals with beliefs that do not have an empirical basis. There, I just compared(*) them.

(*) to examine people or things to see how they are similar and how they are different

Edit: added link