Atheist Nexus Logo

ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

Information

ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4172
Latest Activity: 5 minutes ago

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

Bud Light Withdraws Offensive Slogan

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Gerald Payne on Friday. 16 Replies

Dinosaur Highway

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Gerald Payne on Wednesday. 8 Replies

Evolution is a FACT, not a theory.

Started by Idaho Spud. Last reply by Joseph P Apr 25. 15 Replies

L'homme "blanc" n'existe en Europe que depuis 6500 BC

Started by Dr. Terence Meaden. Last reply by Gerald Payne Apr 16. 1 Reply

ORIGIN OF ATHEIST PRIDE

Started by Dr. Terence Meaden. Last reply by Gerald Payne Apr 15. 196 Replies

Chimps Seen Making and Using Spears

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Donald L. Engel Apr 14. 3 Replies

Why sex? The evolution of sex

Started by Rick Springfield Apr 12. 0 Replies

Scientists Say not all Traits are Directly from DNA

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Donald L. Engel Apr 5. 6 Replies

Coffee Lowers Risk of Liver Cancer

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Apr 4. 20 Replies

Ice Age Floods - Columbia River Basalt Group

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Donald L. Engel Mar 27. 5 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Littlejohn Dellar on September 5, 2011 at 7:15am

@TrekJunky

Which country do you mean?  It does get a tad irritating when fellow atheists just assume that the threads they post to are all US based.  *GRIN* No disrespect meant, but comments like "this country" nearly ALWAYS seem to come from the States.

 

To your point, though. Here in the UK the Zeitgeist is different.  Atheism is much more the mainstream attitude, at least among the younger demographic.  Most popular comedians give the impression that they have atheist views.  Even WITH an established church, very few people here could say they feel oppressed by religious groups, with the possible exception of radical Islam.  

 

In the US I DO very much think you need to organise and show a consensus; after all, atheists represent a much larger group than religious Jews, yet they have a VERY strong voice in both local and national politics.  

 

The advantages of a strong and unified voice plus the enabling of more atheists to "come out" must be balanced against making yourselves an obvious target for ALL religious groups.  But I think on balance it is something you have to do, or you are going to end up with an unconstitutional theocracy.

Comment by joseph garrett on September 5, 2011 at 6:56am
sounds very much like: God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak - and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful - which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?--Epicurus
Comment by John Jubinsky on September 5, 2011 at 6:45am

For him to make an issue out of the pink unicorn response wags the dog. Atheists don't need the pink unicorn response. Rather, when it comes to whether a Biblical type god exists they can just strongly prove the negative as follows:

 

1.) A Biblical type god is all good - By definition of a Biblical type god.


2.) A Biblical type god wants to be worshiped - By definition of a Biblical type god.


3.) Good beings do not want to be worshiped - By definition of good.


4.) Accordingly, a Biblical type god does not want to be worshiped - From 1.) and 3.).


5.) Consequently, a Biblical type god both does and does not want to be worshiped - From 2.) and 4.)


6.) Therefore, the concept of a Biblical type god is self-contradictory and, as such, a Biblical type god cannot exist in reality - From 5.).

In the same mode a disproof of a Biblical type god can be founded in the nature of the being form. That is, per Descartes, beings are perceivers who cannot know absolutely whether their perceptions have anything to do with an objective external reality. In this, they cannot be reasonably expected to worship something that claims to be an objective external reality. Nonetheless, such worship is what a Biblical type god demands. This unreasonable demand is inconsistent with his supposed goodness.

 

Atheists can strongly prove the negative. They need not be cornered into the somewhat defensive pink unicorn response.

 

Comment by AtheistTech on September 5, 2011 at 5:42am
Where do we Atheists get organized so that we can voice our opinions when voting. We need to send a message to the religious right that we will no longer stand for their delusions. We need Atheists in Congress and as President in order for this country to be a leader in science and education. So, as Atheists, and hopefully, scientists, how do we get organized?
Comment by Rob W. on September 5, 2011 at 4:26am
Chad's hilariously bad - he says in one video to address the content of the video you respond to, then he spent 12 minutes attacking me personally in a video! 

I'm Anonamouse7, and I'm the moron who's chosen to address his arguments.

@G Smith. Hehe, he's funny like that, with the ratings and the comments: Here's how his ratings were, before he disabled them:
http://i909.photobucket.com/albums/ac296/anonamouse77/The%20stupidi...
http://i909.photobucket.com/albums/ac296/anonamouse77/The%20stupidi...
http://i909.photobucket.com/albums/ac296/anonamouse77/The%20stupidi...
Comment by G Smith on September 5, 2011 at 4:05am

I commented on YouTube user fivethirty's Santa video a few hours ago,

(mine's the comment near the top saying that his god's as imaginary as Santa), and he responded.  He's since deleted my reply to his response and disabled the Like/Dislike ratings on his video.  It was one Like (his) to seven dislikes when he made the Dislikes disappear.  I love it when they have to "go underground" like that.  :P

Comment by Jean Jacques on September 4, 2011 at 8:22pm
We now have a clear winner for next year's "Coveted Golden Crocoduck Award"... that is if he lasts that long!
Comment by Marc Draco on September 4, 2011 at 8:19pm
I understand censorship, george, but I suspect that this guy receives a lot more negative remarks. He's posting the ones that he can spin. Anythin else isn't going to get through. It's a clever move, but why have comment moderation at all? Spammers probably don't bother with him because his posts don't receive that many views.
Comment by George on September 4, 2011 at 7:57pm

Actually (to his credit)  the video linked below has 2 negative comments on it.  

Also, it's a person's right to edit and moderate comments on their own video.  it would be censorship if someone could delete other video's comments.  

Comment by Marc Draco on September 4, 2011 at 6:46pm
Comment moderation is censorship.
 

Members (4172)

 
 
 

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service