Introductory Thread

They’re not absolute if that is your question (or statement).

Again for myself, I use well-being and doing less harm as an ethical compass.

1 Like

I guess we’ll see, though, wouldn’t you have to admit the premise that I am wrong and you are right? And wouldn’t that depend upon the group. A conformity that disregards everything presented before it. Which I knew coming into this and that’s why I’m more interested in why you think what you do more than what you think at the start.

I’ll make a prediction that’s pretty similar to yours and not terribly astounding. I will be banned for this. Unless I’m a theist that doesn’t threated the worldview of skepticism I will be quickly swept under the rug. You see that coming? It’s inevitable, isn’t it? There will be some reason. Trolling, etc. ad infinitum.

I gotta tell you, these forums are dying out like the dinosaur. There’s only so much agreement one can tolerate, you know?

So it is.

Oh my, are we going down the conspiracy route?

I am very familiar with how theists advanced science because they accepted the evidence in front of them. But a lot of their work was in opposition to church dogma, and they were stifled or killed, or in the famous case of Galileo, placed under house arrest.

Many in religion considered science as the enemy because it disproved a lot of dogma and crap from their religion. For example, the accepted dogma was that the earth was the center of everything, and that it was the center of rotation for everything. But Galileo observed four moons of Jupiter, and after careful observations and calculations, determined that they were moons and rotated around Saturn.

Religion is opposed to science because it continually undermines most of the dogma and assumptions religion preaches. Each year, each decade, religion has less and less of it’s nonsense to peddle because science is slowly dismantling all of that nonsense.

At one time in the Dark Ages, surgeons did not cut into the torso, lest they discover that men had 24 ribs, as opposed to the bible story that Adam was missing one, and it was supposed to be 23. Who know how long and how much medicine was retarded and how many people suffered unnecessarily because of that one stupid story.

I am opposed to religion because of this kind of harm it brings.

Yeah. That’s the one I imagined. Tall and good looking, then, yes? From an artistic perspective you have a face that was properly proportioned. It’s all math, oddly enough.

And a good head on your shoulders as well. Good for you. I can relate to that. Although now I’m just a fat ugly old sack of turd that can’t remember anything. Such is life.

When I was 5 years old, the son of an atheist father and irreligious mother who both worked full time, my religious grandmother pretty much raised me. Even young I was taught to believe no words are obscene, so I could say anything. I wasn’t taught Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or God. But I felt sorry for my grandmother who looked so sad and alone when she went to church each Sunday. One day I went with her. She introduces me to the pastor or whatever he was called and he says to me: “Do you know what happens to little boys who don’t go to church? They go to hell.” I had no idea what hell was but I was familiar with the term he used and I said “Well, you can go to hell.” I got the piss smacked right out of me by my grandma and I ran home in the rain. Never went back.

My dad was a staunch Democrat and he used to fill my head with nonsense about the evil rich and the downtrodden poor. Democrat for the poor and Republican for the rich. I easily saw through that nonsense. He had been raised poor but was well off by the time I came along and in reality he hated anyone richer or poorer than he was. He just saw himself as poor.

The believer tends to labor under the illusion of moral superiority while the unbeliever tends to labor under the illusion of intellectual superiority. The atheist vs. theist debate is to me like watching a married couple argue about some petty thing when the real issue is something else buried much deeper.

Yeah. Parlance of your time. Somewhat before my own. It was starting to rapidly deteriorate by my time. If you were old enough to have fought in WWII you would have killed your fellow Christians for whatever nonsense your government used in the guise of their own profit?

That’s always been my contention. I’ve often made the very same comparison to a country club.

Which is why we have independent verification: It does not matter about special interests. The only thing that proves science wrong is MORE SCIENCE. Special interests are proved wrong all the time.

Theists did not invent modern-day science. The Holy Church did everything it could to quiet scientific discoveries. It has been dragged, kicking, and screaming, into the 21st century. The fact that many early scientists were theologians was out of necessity. The Church ruled the land. If you wanted an education it was through a seminary school or not at all. Just that simple.

The weatherman is never wrong. He tells you the exact average of where the storms are, the exact average of what the storms are doing, the exact average of barometric pressure in an area, the exact average of the wind speeds and directions, and the exact average rainfall and based on this he makes an assumption. FYI - Statistically -
" A seven-day forecast can accurately predict the weather about 80 percent of the time and a five-day forecast can accurately predict the weather approximately 90 percent of the time.* However, a 10-day—or longer—the forecast is only right about half the time." And these statistics too, are accurate.

The only thing that proves the weatherman wrong is an updated weather report. (MORE SCIENCE)

No. That’s too easy for groupthink. A quote comes to mind. Two quotes, actually.

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. - John F. Kennedy (Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America; Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, February 26, 1962)

And . . .

We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process. - Peter Daszak, Eco-Health Alliance (Published February 12th 2016)


Well . . . in a sense I agree, but at the same time . . . I guess I would say that there are obvious flaws to that comparison in the context I suspect you are using it. First of all, science, ideally, is also opposed to it’s own dogma. Secondly, in the specific case of Galileo, his problem with the church was that he said he could show scripturally where they were erroneous. And they were, of course. The church and their geocentric dogma was based upon the philosophy of Aquinas who was inspired by Aristotle. The church used terminology which is vague at best. Terms from the Bible that we still use today, like the sun rises and sets. Much like the erroneous conclusion that similar expressions in the Bible, “four corners of the earth” and “foundation of the earth.” imply a literal flat earth.

But, these are nonsensical interpretations. Note my user name? The Bible taught hygienic laws that would have prevented the difficulties facing Ignaz Semmelweis and those like him for hundreds of years. Science of his time adhered to the miasmatic school of medicine which caused them to scoff at Semmelweis’s implication of the germ theory. They basically put him to death for his claims, which was a much worse eventuality than Galileo’s.

Science is as dogmatic as religion, if not more so because it’s often used even more arrogantly. It’s just human nature. Wright brothers. Science was all up in their face. You can’t make a machine that can fly, even well after they had done it. Science tends to jump on the bandwagon only once they can figure out how something like that works.

In case of the Bible, you see even to this day, science minded atheists who have no real idea what the Bible says dismissing it based upon their own ignorance. For example, the Bible doesn’t state that the heavens (universe) and earth were created in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago. That’s nonsense. Nor does it teach the earth is flat, hell . . . science minded atheists dismiss celestial phenomenon in the book of Revelation as the fear and ignorance of primitive superstitious people. Because they don’t understand that it is metaphoric for political, social and environmental upheaval. In earlier Hebrew texts the same exact terminology is applied to, for example, the destruction of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is destroyed. New people, new government, new environment. Revelation is just on a larger scale. The world is destroyed. New heaven, new earth, new people, new kingdom replacing all others. Represented, as people often are in the Bible, by sun, moon and stars. Trees, grass etc.

The world isn’t the same as the Earth in this context. Earth was created to be inhabited and will remain forever. Science disagrees. Okay. We’ll have to wait and see.

1 Like


[Laughs] Uh . . . I don’t know what to say.

Well, you see . . . okay. First of all you have to define god if you are going to use it in a generic sense. I’ve given the Oxford definition complete and in part. A god can be anything or anyone. So, assuming you don’t disagree with that definition, let’s use your theistic background. How many gods in the Bible were mortal men that at least the Bible writers themselves believed to exist as mortal men? Let me see . . . [counts] Let’s say 15. Moses, the Judges of Israel, Tammuz and Jesus. Tammuz was only defied after death in the Sumerian tradition and Jesus had a supernatural existence prior to coming to earth so that leaves 13. Moses and the Judges.

Today, like I said earlier, Eric Clapton and Kim Jong-Un are gods. But, anything can be a god, so how do you justify no evidence of gods?

Now, if you are more specific, and reference Jehovah or Satan for example, you have to take those on faith. That isn’t to say you can’t find evidence for their existence, it just means that you can’t “know” for certain their demonstrable evidence.

1 Like

I fully agree. That attitude was augmented by living on a military base, basically culturally isolated from everyone else. We were white Anglo Saxon Protestants, a minority were French (from Quebec) Roman Catholics, who we had some rather disparaging names for. And for the rest of different cultural and ethnic groups we considered them sub-human.

This is one thing I am very personally proud of, I could have easily faded into my group and remained an asshole redneck racist. But somehow I came to realize those whom I disparaged were just as nice, just as intelligent, worked just as hard, and the only difference was the color of our skin or ethnic origins. And that didn’t mean shit to me. It was the beginning of my journey into becoming more tolerant. I will not be arrogant enough to state I am perfect, I will always have room for improvement.

FFS, OK, let us get this going.

I lack a belief in a god or gods. Because of that fact I am incapable of defining my personal god(s). If you do, you must offer a definition of your god(s) to begin with.

So let’s dance, please define your god(s).

Fallacious semantics.



If this doesn’t dead end with Rollwhite stating a version of…

  • “Well, that’s just your semantic opinion, man.”
  • “What’s wrong with you? Why can’t you tolerate nonsense as readily as sense?”
  • “Nothing can be right because it’s all a corrupt, rapacious conspiracy of all institutions.”
  • “May I make it yet more obvious that I don’t know what the null hypothesis is?”
  • “Because the bible and an ill defined god.”
  • Casuistry.

…then I’m immediately putting on a helmet because I may fall over from vasovagal syncope secondary to shock.

1 Like

If a theist actually had good evidence for a god, it would be quickly provided in a few sentences.

But what really happens is word games, failed logic, attempts at “gotcha” questions, and a constant tap-dancing around and around. Smoke and mirrors, distractions, evasion, and ignoring the question.

As I stated, if a theist has valid evidence for a god, it would be provided in a few terse sentences.


I’m pretty much incapable of believing in the existence of a deity. If deities actually existed the way Greek and Norse mythology described them, then a deity would speak for itself. A god wouldn’t need humans to debate it’s existence. Those gods hated being ignored. In the mythology especially Christian mythology those gods made a master / slave relationship with their human servants. “Do as I command or you can die and be tortured forever.”

This is what Theists fail to understand. Their gods are barbaric and in the real world those gods are silent as the grave leaving their followers to move the goal posts and make up excuses as to what their god would want. In the mythology, their gods did what they wanted. Some gods would fuck the other god’s priests. Like Poseidon raped Athena’s priestess and Athena got pissed off and punished her priest for being raped by her god sibling.

People went to Pagan priests with animals and money to make a wish to these gods for wealth and power or to whatever.

Christians do it all of the time when they go to church Sunday with a cash offering for the tithe and beg for forgiveness that their Tyrant will wipe the slate clean and pay them a gold ticket into Heaven for their faith. They’re just not allowed to ask fir riches or wish death on their enemies in prayer. Most Theists want to be paid and rewarded just for believing the way they use the Thief that was crucified along with Jesus who asked him for forgiveness; which is over used.

The Christian deity ruled over humans in Israel for a time and made one demand after the next according to their bible. But outside of the mythology that these religions have, those gods are not active and there’s no evidence of their existence or what they did. Just the followers who supported those religions claiming those stories happened while presenting no evidence.

I suspect one day in the future, Christianity itself will become just that; a mythology with very little followers just like every dead religion out there.

People are starting to wise up and want evidence for those stories and will move on as Christians keep failing to meet The Burden of Proof. No one will want to waste their time with a religion as immoral as Christianity.

  1. You need to understand that dictionaries do not give the meanings of words, but rather, the usage of words. All a dictionary can tell you is how a word is used.

  2. If you are using the word God to mean Elvis Prestly in an Atheist forum, you are in fact using “Fallacious Semantics.” You need to clarify your terms upfront prior to using them. It is the writer’s responsibility to write clearly if he is going to communicate effectively. You have failed to communicate effectively.

With that said: EVERYONE IS NOW AWARE, when Fozaire uses the word GOD, he is specifically referencing anything and everything you could possibly be enamored by. Get an amazing new Yo-yo for Christmas, and that Yo-yo is God.

Everyone Clear? God is everything and anything.


You can safely assume that when people here on Atheist Republic refer to “gods” they mean supernatural deities, not popular figures like Eric Clapton.


Well see it is all very simple…Everything will work out so much better when all of you fuckers realize that I am Graud. So STFU about Elvis and fucked-up ass Clapton…

1 Like

Yes, and on and on. As it should be. The science when I was a kid isn’t necessarily the science of today and the science of today isn’t necessarily the science of tomorrow.

Mmmm. Well, I would reluctantly argue that. It may take decades, even centuries, but sure, it’s possible. But it isn’t easy. If you need tenure, publishing, funding. [whistles] It ain’t no fun waiting around to be a millionaire. Unless you are the current science incarnate, Anthony Fauci.

I’m under the impression that references to the current pandemic are not very well tolerated? No debate there, huh?

We’ll leave it at that.

Who did? Modern-day scientists?

I don’t think this should be yet another argument about science. To me personally, science and theology are irrelevant. Pointless to argue about them.

Yeah, but the puzzling part in the definition of atheism is the objection, not only to God, but to gods as well. So, who are the other gods?