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: 4153
Latest Activity: 6 hours 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

Organic Material Found on Mars

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Patricia 6 hours ago. 1 Reply

Pope Says Animals go to Heaven

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Lemual Poot 18 hours ago. 24 Replies

Alzheimer's Reversed in Mice

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Loren Miller on Monday. 2 Replies

Pope Says Animals go to Heaven

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Plinius Dec 11. 2 Replies

42,000 Year Old Flute

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Jay Stride Dec 10. 2 Replies

Ebola Spreads to U.S.

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Dec 10. 9 Replies

540,000 Year Old Artwork

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Dr. Terence Meaden Dec 9. 15 Replies

Hawking Likes Film on His Life

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Grinning Cat Nov 29. 3 Replies

Very Ancient Sharks Teeth Found

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Joseph P Nov 29. 3 Replies

Ancient Footprints

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Patricia Nov 22. 2 Replies

empathizing–systemizing

Started by Rick Springfield. Last reply by Joan Denoo Nov 18. 6 Replies

Knowledge and Atheism

Started by Madhukar Kulkarni. Last reply by Jimmy McCann Nov 18. 55 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 8:29am

@Marc Draco re Oakfields.  Done.  We absolutely MUST keep our children safe from infection by this insidious disease.

 

Re Chad.  Sounds like a plan...

Comment by Marc Draco on September 5, 2011 at 8:19am
As for Chad - can't we do "extracts" from his videos under US Fair Use and then clip the crap out of them - allowing all comments and likes? This would make a mockery out of him censoring. Any takers?
Comment by Marc Draco on September 5, 2011 at 8:17am

A favour from the Brits (in particular) please - this is my personal campaign to stop a bunch of "suits" from giving control of my local school up forever. If you can like it on Facebook and spread the word among your friends to do the same, that would really help. There is a time limit on this, but it only takes a second.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/No-To-Oakfields-Academy/261882257173077

 

Thanks for reading.

Comment by Tommy on September 5, 2011 at 8:17am
We are orgainized here in North Georgia. We call ourselves the Carter family. I could walk to any of 4 churches inside of 5 minutes so we won't be expecting a membership boom anytime soon.
Comment by Littlejohn Dellar on September 5, 2011 at 8:08am

@TrekJunky

You are right on there, man.

Comment by John Jubinsky on September 5, 2011 at 7:44am

@joseph garrett

 

Can you present that in an orderly manner? Theists might say it was incoherent.  

Comment by AtheistTech on September 5, 2011 at 7:27am

@ LittleJohn Dellar

 

Yes, Sir, I was talking about the US. After reading about the cruelty the bible belt inflicts on the people who support the constitutional mandate of separation of Church and State, I think that Atheists need to take a stand. I think we need to live up to our ideals and organize to wield our collective power to quash the bigotry and hatred. We need to put our money where our mouths are.

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.

 

 

Members (4153)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service