Donicim Hinnski
  • Male
  • Moorbyopolis
  • United Kingdom
Share on Facebook
Share Twitter

Donicim Hinnski's Friends

  • Richard Halasz
  • Mat
  • Rickr0ll
  • Jess
  • Ian
  • God
  • PZ Myers
  • Darla
  • Infidel_girl
  • Andrew
  • Derek
  • Tony
  • Richard Knight
  • Hemant
  • Richard Haynes

Donicim Hinnski's Discussions

How to tackle...

Started this discussion. Last reply by Ty Cannon Jul 17, 2008. 22 Replies

Gifts Received

Gift

Donicim Hinnski has not received any gifts yet

Give a Gift

 

Donicim Hinnski: Registered Polemicist

Latest Activity

Trevor joined Donicim Hinnski's group
Thumbnail

New League of the Militant Godless

A group of like-minded atheist who enjoy proselytising, feeling superior, and actively attempting to rid the world of its arguably most divisive and damaging force: religion.
May 27
Godless Militant Atheist joined Donicim Hinnski's group
Thumbnail

New League of the Militant Godless

A group of like-minded atheist who enjoy proselytising, feeling superior, and actively attempting to rid the world of its arguably most divisive and damaging force: religion.
Oct 17, 2013
Joan Denoo commented on Donicim Hinnski's group New League of the Militant Godless
"Militant Atheists Your video is so refreshing, so insightful, and so powerful I repost it with great pleasure. Since when has silence stopped atrocities? Or gentleness stopped violence? Or forgiveness stopped oppression? You are my kind of man…"
Aug 21, 2012
Steph S. commented on Donicim Hinnski's group New League of the Militant Godless
"Superheroes! We need to gather to fight stupidity - it's all around us."
Aug 20, 2012
Joan Denoo commented on Donicim Hinnski's group New League of the Militant Godless
"NoGodNik, well said, all of it; I particularly like this paragraph: "The “faithful” inculcate their children with this nonsense at an age when their ability to discern truth from fiction is not yet well-developed, crippling the poor…"
Jul 26, 2012
Joan Denoo commented on Donicim Hinnski's group New League of the Militant Godless
"I wrote, "Toward a Theory of Family Violence, its antecedents, treatment and prevention," about institutions of family, education, religion, economics and politics and their role in sustaining family violence.  "A Splendid…"
Jul 26, 2012
Steph S. commented on Donicim Hinnski's group New League of the Militant Godless
"Sounds like a superhero group! Cool!"
Jul 26, 2012
Fabio commented on Donicim Hinnski's group New League of the Militant Godless
"To all the web-based militant atheists who happen to have enough spare time to sink their teeth into a new challenge, www.mailfriends.com is certainly a prime example of Creationist infestation. Particularly insulting in the "Science &…"
Jan 19, 2011

SAMIZDAT

Loading… Loading feed

Donicim Hinnski's Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Comment Wall (7 comments)

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

At 9:03am on October 1, 2009, Chrys Stevenson said…
Melbourne Australia. It's a convention worth travelling for - and the weather in Melbourne in March will be lovely and warm!
At 8:29am on October 1, 2009, Chrys Stevenson said…
Hi Donicim - just wondering if you can pass on to your fellow atheists at Cambridge news that tickets have just gone on sale for the "Rise of Atheism" Global Atheist Convention to be held in Melbourne in March 2010. Speakers include Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, AC Grayling, Dan Barker, and many more. Hope that some of your members can make the trip. We're expecting nearly 3,000 delegates and have booked the country's premiere convention centre, so it's going to be huge!

Kris
At 8:00pm on January 18, 2009, God said…
You should give up atheism and love Me instead.
At 8:59am on November 23, 2008, Jess said…
thanks for the add!
At 7:20am on July 18, 2008, Kevin Peddicord said…
"Graphic designer here... let me know how I can >help...Thanks,Kevin Peddicord

Can you message Bro. Richard directly? I'm sure he'd be appreciative. "

Will do... thx
At 11:38am on July 17, 2008, Tony said…
Thanks for the add, Donicim! Since I last looked, you've done a lot to your page that I look forward to reading. I always enjoy good reads! Thanks for that, too.
At 9:38am on July 7, 2008, Richard Haynes said…
Thank you for your eagerness! I will contact you by email to discuss the details. Cheers!

Donicim's Disproof of Monotheistic PerfectGod (Free to use, with acknowledgement!)

1. If God exists, loves us, and is worth worshipping, he doesn't want us to suffer, and can stop suffering at will
2. Suffering exists.
3. therefore the criteria for the existence of the love of an omnipotent being (lack of suffering) do not exist
4. If the characteristics of something directly contradict the observable characteristics (i.e, a good god who stops suffering, compared with a world that has suffering) THEN IT ALMOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT EXIST

1. suffering exists because of human sin.
2. babies cannot sin, and if they can they cannot be held responsible for their actions in fairness.
3. babies suffer.
4. therefore, sin did not cause the babies’ suffering
5. therefore sin does not cause suffering

1. suffering exists because of original sin by distant ancestors of humans
2. animals are not related to these human ancestors,
3. therefore cannot be punished for their sins
4. animals suffer
5. therefore original sin does not cause suffering

NEXT ARGUMENT: YOUR specific religion isn't the right one
1. The only evidence you have for your holy book/religion being worth more than someone else's holy book is that you are convinced it's so
2. Lots of people are convinced by lots of different holy books/religions which are mutually exclusive
3. they can't all be right
4. therefore it's possible to be utterly convinced and wrong
5. the chances of your religion being the right one--it has an equal chance as ALL other possible religions--are a billion to one
6. your religion probably isn't right.

NEXT ARGUMENT: the world doesn't need your God to exist.
1. Before the big bang there was no time and therefore no cause is necessary
2. If the universe requires a creator because it's complex, so does God
3. If God doesn't require a creator because he's always been there, then it would be simpler for the universe to have always been there since it's a random collection of energy and not a sentient all powerful timeless bearded man
4. We evolved, deal with it


F.A.Q.
(OR F.A.S.: FREQUENTLY ASSERTED STATEMENTS)


1. A PERFECT WORLD WOULD BE BORING / A PERFECT WORLD WOULD NOT ALLOW FREE WILL / A PERFECT WORLD WOULD NOT TEST OUR FAITH / A PERFECT WORLD WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO GROW AS PEOPLE / A PERFECT WORLD WOULD GET OVERCROWDED AND UNBALANCE NATURE

Translation: You have somehow misinterpreted the word ‘perfect’ (meaning ‘without flaw’) as ‘nice but with a few flaws’.

ANSWER: If it has any kind of flaw you can think of, free will, faith, growing as people, etc., then it is NOT perfect. And if God can’t create a perfect (and I bloody well MEAN perfect) world in which [insert flaw here] is not also fixed, then he isn’t omnipotent.


2. EVOLUTION CANNOT HAPPEN

Translation: I cannot understand how evolution works / my Pastor wants me to keep sending him money so he has told me it doesn’t work and I haven’t bothered to check his assertions / I am a Troll

ANSWER: Prove it. Prove that all the evidence provided for it here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ and here: is wrong. If you want to learn how it actually works (as opposed to how you assume it doesn’t work) try here: http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

Go here, and watch 'the origin of life made easy': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

Preferably you should watch the whole series from the beginning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok

God and DNA made easy is also cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY

Even if evolution did not work, the correct line of reasoning would not be
1. Evolution doesn’t work
2. therefore God exists
it would be
1. Evolution doesn’t work
2. therefore another theory must be applicable
3. therefore I will go away and see what the evidence suggests.
SEE ‘JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS’

If creation, and not evolution, was behind our design, why the hell do we have
-the remains of tails
-an appendix
-a body vulnerable to disease
-the ability to bite our own f*****g tongues like morons?

2B. MICROEVOLUTION HAPPENS, MACROEVOLUTION CAN’T. ONE THING CAN’T CHANGE INTO ANOTHER THING.

ANSWER: Macroevolution is just microevolution happening over a very long time. If you think that the idea of ‘billions of years’ is somehow automatically more stupid than ‘six thousand years’ despite them both being arbitrary numbers, then ask yourself WHY. Is it because your pastor told you?

IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE ASSERTIONS REGARDING EVOLUTION AS AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD, KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF. Evolution exists, and I have no reason to believe that a few thousand fundamentalist Christians, who are unlikely to be impartial (you have reason to conceal evidence to save your lie), are more knowledgeable about the subject than millions of scientists working over the last hundred years with genuine interest in the truth, good minds, and intricate working knowledge of biology. Evolution is no more a theory in the COMMON sense of the word than the Theory of Gravity. In this case ‘theory’ is science-speak for ‘accepted truth proven beyond reasonable doubt’.
THE NON-EXISTENCE OF EVOLUTION WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

3. YOU SAID YOURSELF, THERE MIGHT BE A GOD

Translation: I have ignored your argument and skipped to this bit, and then misinterpreted it.

ANSWER: There might be a God. Just like there might be a flying spaghetti monster. Or a Zeus. How about Muhammed? Muhammed might have been right, and you *might* go to hell. Better make sure you aren't....

THE FACT IT IS POSSIBLE TO IMAGINE SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR IT TO EXIST, AND THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

4. THE BIG BANG DIDN’T HAPPEN, SO GOD MUST EXIST / EVOLUTION DIDN’T HAPPEN SO GOD MUST EXIST / THE WORLD IS SO BEAUTIFUL, GOD MUST EXIST / THE WORLD SEEMS SO ORDERED, GOD MUST EXIST / THE EARTH IS JUST RIGHT, SO GOD MUST EXIST etc. etc. etc. / ANY ‘EVIDENCE’ GOD EXISTS

Translation: You have jumped to a conclusion.

ANSWER:

1. the big bang didn't happen.
2. Therefore God exists.

THIS IS NOT GOOD LOGIC.

Yes, you have to be something to create something. But why exactly does everything need a creator?

1. Everything in my experience has a creator
2. Therefore everything has a creator

THIS IS NOT GOOD LOGIC.

It's the same as saying
1. Everyone I've ever met speaks english.
2. Therefore everyone speaks english.

Or even

1. Some things are pretty
2. Therefore you are a cauliflower

As I have said before, just because you can't explain something doesn't mean God did it. All 'we don't understand yet' means is 'we don't understand yet'. Consider a cave man:

1. Ug not understand what cause lightning
2. Ug think this mean big Ug in sky throw fire at Ug.

THIS IS NOT GOOD LOGIC. We now know that lightning is not caused by a lightning God. You shouldn’t jump to conclusions, like Ug shouldn’t have jumped to conclusions, although since he was living before the existence of the scientific method, he didn’t know any better. Unlike you.

ANY ‘EVIDENCE’ that God exists is not actually evidence if it can be attributed to a known phenomenon. Conversely, a miracle is only a miracle if it defies the laws of physics. However, even then defying the laws of physics would not be proof of God’s existence, but proof of a force we cannot explain, and proof that the laws of physics (or whichever one was broken) are slightly wrong.

YOUR ‘EVIDENCE’ DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

4B: THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THERE TO CREATE THE FIRST PARTICLES. THAT WAS GOD.

1. God doesn’t need a creator and can always have been there
2. Therefore it is possible for things to exist without being created by a creator, and have always existed
3. Particles are ‘things’
4. Therefore, it is possible for particles to have existed without being created by a creator, and may have always existed

1. Little electric particles are simpler than God (because we know them to exist, but have no evidence for God’s existence)
2. The simplest explanation is always more likely to be the correct one, because it requires fewer statistical improbabilities to occur, and so is more likely to happen within a relatively short time
3. Therefore the simplest explanation is that particles were the first things to exist

THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

5. EINSTEIN/DARWIN/NEWTON/OTHER BIG NAME IN SCIENCE OR MATHS ETC. BELIEVES IN A GOD AND THEY ARE SMART!

Interpretation: This is called the argument from authority fallacy.

ANSWER: No matter how intelligent the person, the fact they believe something doesn’t make it right unless it is backed up with evidence. Furthermore, Einstein did not believe in God as more than an idea of universal organisation (read: the laws of physics are God) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion), Darwin did NOT have a deathbed conversion and abandoned religion in his mid forties, and when Newton was alive he would not have been able to hold his prestigious positions or leave his house if he had been anything but Christian. Furthermore, he believed it was possible to turn lead into gold by distillation.

INTELLIGENT PEOPLE BELIEVING IN GOD DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

6. YOU WEREN’T THERE AT THE BIG BANG

Translation: I think that for something to exist, it has to be directly observed and not inferred from evidence

ANSWER: Let's look at a car crash. Nobody was around when it happened, everyone is dead. Sad scene. But the police come along, look at the skid marks, do the math, and work out exactly what occurred. That way they arrest the right dead guy. But they worked out what happened...WITHOUT SEEING IT. Incredible! They must be God! Because I certainly can't understand how MATHS could work!

OBSERVATION OR NOT OF THINGS HAPPENING WITHOUT GOD’S HELP WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

7. I’LL PRAY FOR YOU!

Translation: I have been told by my pastor to threaten innocent people with prayer because it makes them feel guilty/ I think that by using this phrase I appear more ‘Christian’, forgiving and virtuous

ANSWER: Only under two propositions does prayer-that custom of earlier ages that has not yet completely died out=make any sense: it would have to be possible to induce or convert the deity to a course of action, and the person praying would have to knoew best what he needed, what was truly desirable. both presuppositions, assumed true and established by custom in other religions, are however precisely denied by Christianity; if it nevertheless adheres to prayer in the face of its belief in an omniscient and all-provident rationality in God which renders prayer at bottom senseless and, indeed, blasphemous=in this it once again demonstrates its admirable serpent cunning; for a clear commandment Thou Shalt Not Pray would have led Christians into Unchristianity through boredom.

Thank God for Nietzsche.


8. NOBODY CARES/ THIS IS A STUPID DEBATE/ GET A LIFE / YOU SHOULD RESPECT THE BELIEFS OF OTHERS/ ETC.

Interpretation: I don’t care. I am stupid. Ad Hominem Fallacy

ANSWER: EVERYONE involved in the debate obviously cares or they wouldn’t be debating. DISPROVED. And I respect other peoples’ right to hold beliefs, but I also think said beliefs are idiotic and easily disprovable, and that I have a right and duty to show people this. So get lost and leave us to it. And by the way, attacking MY integrity does not disprove the evidence presented for the obvious lack of Gods.

THE QUESTION BEING IRRELEVANT OR ME NOT HAVING A LIFE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

9. WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU’RE WRONG?

Interpretation: Pascal’s Wager Fallacy. FAIL!

ANSWER: "Wrong about what? You have to be more specific, there are thousands of gods for me to be potentially wrong about. And that goes for you too: if The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, I would say we're both screwed, my friend."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Criticisms

10. THE BIBLE PREDICTED [SCIENCE FACT]

Translation: Ithink that showing the bible predicted things ahead of its time will prove God inspired it. But I’ve forgotten that it doesn’t actually do that.

ANSWER: The bible also said the sky was a big dome with windows in it God opens to let the rain in. What’s your point? Not a single observation in the bible could not be worked out by the level of observation and experiment. Oh, except the stuff that is JUST PLAIN WRONG.

If God is the author of the bible (or other holy book), then why didn’t he prove it was written by him, by including knowledge that nobody could have really known for centuries in stead of half arsed alchemy?

THE BIBLE REVEALING SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

11. YOU IDIOT!....

Translation: I am not acting like a good member of [enter name of ‘peaceful’ religion here].

ANSWER: Hey, Christians: “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matt 5.22). Although Jesus then breaks his own command (and is now paying for his crimes in Hell): "Ye fools and blind..."(Matt 23.17)”

MY BEING AN IDIOT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

12. STOP INSULTING ME YOU B*****D!

Translation: I am a Hypocrite

ANSWER: HEY CHRISTIANS! "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."-Matthew 5:38-42

“I love how you're so adamant that the Christian God exists, but when it comes to the tenants of the religion of which you are supposed to be following, you turn a blind eye.”- Vlad Radic

MY FALLIBILITY DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

13. THIS IS NOT PROOF, YOU CAN’T PROVE IT / THERE’s NO POINT IN ARGUING YOU CAN’T PROVE IT EITHER WAY

Translation: I am missing the point.

ANSWER: No it’s not proof. It is impossible to prove anything does or does not exist. However it is possible to show that something *in all likelihood, beyond reasonable doubt* does not exist. Besides, the same thing can, again, be said about the flying spaghetti monster, the magical teapot, the pink invisible unicorn, etc. It’s very difficult to find evidence of absence, because absent things don’t leave evidence. The best evidence of absence is a complete absence of evidence EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE LOOKED EVERYWHERE. Or for instance, in a roaring 700 degree fire, it’s reasonable to assume that there’s no un-burned paper or living children inside, despite there being no evidence that there isn’t. God is as denied by the world we know as paper or life at ridiculously high temperatures. If you were to find the paper or child at that temperature, that WOULD indicate that there’s something more out there, but even that wouldn’t prove God exists: it would simply prove there are things we don’t know about fire and children.

Justin Kennedy: “First off: He didnt simple state an opinion. He actually did more than that, he presented viable evidence.

Second off: People are advocating this and that for existance of god using false logic and flawed evidence. They need to be corrected, even if its for their own good.”

THE FACT NOTHING CAN BE COMPLETELY PROVED DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

14. MY PASTOR TOLD ME...

Translation: I am willing to take the hearsay of a man (or woman) who if I knew their hearsay was incorrect, would be out of a job, and therefore has every reason to lie through their teeth at me, as infallible evidence.

ANSWER: You obviously don’t need my help. Why not go and ask that shoe salesman over there about the massive Shoe Deficieny Disease that’s killing people all over the world? He’s got a vested interest, so he’s SURE to give you accurate news and views.

NOTHING YOUR PASTOR TELLS YOU CAN CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD


15. YOU ARE ONLY DEBATING GOD BECAUSE YOU WANT SOMEONE TO PROVE YOU WRONG / BECAUSE YOU WANT SOMEONE TO BLAME YOUR CRAPPY LIFE ON / YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG REALLY

Translation: I have run out of real arguments. I am now going to ignore the actual claim and, again, attack your personal integrity with ludicrous claims.

ANSWER: This is no more a valid argument than: you are only arguing that God DOES exist because you want someone to prove you wrong, or your faith is weak, or similar. We both know it isn’t true about me, because I AM SAYING IT NOW. It might be true about you, though. Think about that. Are you satisfied with the substandard ANSWERs you get about God? Ever wonder why he doesn’t send you a sign? Really talk to you? Do you wish the ANSWERs of science didn’t make so much more SENSE? That’s because you are worshipping an invisible magic dude.

ME WANTING TO BELIEVE IN GOD WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

16. YOU WOULDN’T BE SAYING THAT IF YOU HAD CANCER! / MY FRIEND FOUND FAITH WHEN THEY GOT CANCER / NO ATHEISTS IN FOXHOLES!

Translation: I believe that because someone who is desperate to find a way out of a situation from which there appears no real escape, or desperate to believe they are in less danger than they are, discovers God, this proves he exists, and not just that FAITH IS BASED ON FEAR.

ANSWER: Faith is, of course, based on fear. “I was scared and clutching at straws” is not a good enough reason to believe in the existence of a God who, as we have seen, is CONTRADICTED by logic, and illogic alike.

THE ASSOCIATION OF FEAR WITH FAITH DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD


17. LOTS OF PEOPLE BELIEVE IN [my religion]

Translation: I believe that somehow a billion people create a hyper-intelligent hive mind, rather than remaining as lots and lots of equally stupid people.

ANSWER: 1. Lots of people believe [this thing]
2. Therefore [this thing] is right.

THIS IS NOT GOOD LOGIC.

18. I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE BUT... / I AM ALL FOR RESPECTING PEOPLES’ BELIEFS AND YOU SHOULD SHUT UP BUT...

Translation: I am a hypocrite

19. GOD IS LOVE. LOVE LOVE LOVE. LA LA LA. I CAN’T HEAR YOU. BUT GOD CAN AND HE LOVES YOU. LOVE LOVE LOVE. LOVE. LOVE.

Translation: Okay, I am going to ignore your main points and make groundless assertions that have already been shown to directly contradict reality.

ANSWER: See top. YOUR ASSERTION DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

20. ANIMALS SUFFER BECAUSE THEY WERE GIVEN TO MAN AS A PRESENT

Translation: It’s fine to be cruel to animals, they’re our posessions.

ANSWER: So what purpose does the suffering of animals serve exactly? Why not give us a Ham tree? We know them to be sentient creatures, if not intelligent or moral. So why do that to them? There’s no reason, is there.

21. I HAVE EXPERIENCED A MIRACLE

Translation: I have experienced something I cannot explain and have arbitrarily attributed it to the God I happen to have been brought up with / happen to believe in

ANSWER: See above. If the event is not impossible but only unlikely, then it is not a miracle, since it can be explained by the laws of probability. If the event did not happen to you and you read it on the internet / heard it from a friend / dreamed it / etc. then this is anecdotal evidence and therefore not reliable. If what you experienced was a waking vision, warm feeling, voices, etc. it can be explained by suggestibility (you know how you think you see things out of the corner of your eye and then when you look it isn’t what you thought it was? Your vision is trained to see patterns so it can spot predators), by strokes, by temporal lobe stimulation by magnetic fields or tumours, by hallucinogens (solvents, alcohol, etc.), endorphins, adrenaline, or pure imagination. If lots of people saw it then that’s called mass hysteria. EVEN IF NONE OF THESE EXPLAIN IT all that means is that we can’t explain it yet, not that ‘God automatically did it’: see ‘jumping to conclusions’, above.

THE ‘MIRACLE’ DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

22. GOD DOESN’T THREATEN PEOPLE, HE JUST WARNS THEM

Translation: I am desperately trying to reconcile hell with a loving and forgiving God

ANSWER: NO! A warning is where a policeman warns you that there is a big pit in the road ahead filled with alligators, so you’d better drive carefully. A threat is a policeman DIGGING the big pit and then telling you that unless you drive carefully he will have his men push your car into it. God is doing the latter. Not telling us to steer carefully to avoid a danger he had nothing to do with creating: he’s threatening us with a horrible fate of his own design. And not even trying very hard. If the best he could do was warn us then he wouldn’t be omnipotent.

GOD WARNING US ABOUT HELL WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF EARTHLY SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

23. You should prepare yourself for the worst. You might not die right now or in a few months time but you're gonna get hurt man. You're gonna lose people really close to you, you're gonna lose money and there's still more to come. / THE BIBLE SAYS THAT ATHEISTS WILL DENY GOD AND THEN GO TO HELL /

Translation: I am a crazy person

ANSWER: Vague threats are not convincing evidence of God’s existence. Indeed, your assertion that I will meet all kinds of horrors because God doesn’t like me using the gift of reason he gave me whilst neglecting to make sure I got the proof I need to believe in him, merely backs up my point: God is a nasty piece of work if he exists. Seriously, I have heard this stuff before:

“DIDNT RITE IT ITS CREEPY SO I SENT IT! WHEN U ALREADY START READING THIS DONT STOP OR ELSE SUMTHIN BAD WILL HAPPEN .. MY NAME IS SUMMER I AM 15 YEARS OLD WITH BLONDE HAIR AND SCARY EYES. I HAVE NO NOSE OR EARS. I AM DEAD. IF U DON' T SEND THIS TO 15PPL IN THE NEXT 5 MIN., I WILL APPEAR TONIGHT BY YOUR BED WITH A KNIFE AND KILL YOU. THIS IS NO JOKE SOMETHING GOOD WILL HAPPEN TO U TONIGHT AT 10:22. SOMEONE WILL CALL U OR TALK TO U ONLINE AND SAY I LOVE U. DON'T FORWARD... COPY AND PASTE”

“This is Annie Fishsticks. She died in an accident. Send this message to
>fifteen people within two minutes or you will be hacked to death by
>a moose wearing a large top hat and ballet shoes wielding a chicken
>called Hermione. Thanks!”

Besides I’ve been denying God for a long time and I am so far leading a pretty damn good life. I am completely satisfied.

And the bible? Of course it's written "the intelligent are dumbass freaks", because THAT way the people who wrote the stuff get you to ignore logical arguments so you listen to THEM in stead. If I was founding an irrational religion, the first thing I'd do would be make one of the rules : "don't listen to people who say this religion is ridiculous". Because then you'd all go, "hey! look at this! it confirms we have nothing to worry about!"

THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF EARTHLY SUFFERING DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL POWERFUL AND ALL LOVING GOD

24. THE BIBLE SAYS.../ I AM TRYING TO BE A GOOD CHRISTIAN

ANSWER: The bible says lots of things. The bible says women should not speak or have uncovered heads in Church (1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 NIV) . The bible says if I hit you, you should ask me to do it again (Matthew 5:39). The bible says if I ask you to walk a mile, walk two miles (Matthew 5:41). The bible says Jesus said the world was going to end before any of his disciples died. The bible says to sell your clothes and buy a sword. Take money from the poor and give it to rich investors (Luke 19:23-26). Make yourself unpopular. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34). Hate your family (luke 14:26). Self harm when feeling guilty (Matthew 5:29-30). Don't plan for the future; that's no education, no pension, nothing. (Matthew 6:34). Don't save money (Matthew 6:19-20) . Don't have sexual urges (Matthew 5:28). Don't work to obtain food (John 6:27). Make people want to persecute you (Matthew 5:11). Let everyone know you are better than them (Matthew 5:13-16). If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back (Luke 6:30). All these are from the NEW TESTAMENT so you can’t claim that they are not part of the new covenant. Besides, Jesus said he didn’t come to replace Moses’ laws, so strictly you should be following all of those AS WELL.

My favourite part is this. I call it the Christian test. If you are really trying to follow Jesus’s commands to live a better life, then you will follow this one: If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42). If you don’t follow it, and it’s pretty easy to follow as long as you’re willing to show humility, then it proves beyond doubt that you are taking your own beliefs, formed from experience, and simply applying the label Christian, and selecting the quotations you like from the holy book to back yourself up and look virtuous and religious. Here’s the test.

I am asking you for all of your posessions. Your computer, your money, your books, your house, all of your worldly posessions. You can contact me by email for details of arranging shipment and deeds etc., and you will have to pay all postage and packing yourself.

Now sit back and watch as you fail. As you use the fact this is a cynical test by an unbeliever to justify the fact that you can’t bear to part with material posessions simply for what you know, deep down, is a lie. You are like the rich man who gave a small proportion of his money to the temple, not like the poor woman who gave all she had, a few pennies. You are exactly the kind of person Jesus didn’t like too much.

Christianity is a nice idea. It’s about sacrifice. It’s spoiled by the fact that it’s based on an unsound premise, but it’s a nice story. Well, except for all the gory death at the end.
YOU CANNOT CLAIM TO BE A CHRISTIAN unless you follow all the rules set down in the New Testament. If you don’t follow all the rules, you are simply fitting the label ‘Christian’ arbitrarily to your own morals, not trying to follow the morals of Christ. If you don’t like the morals in the bible, maybe that’s because they aren’t very good and aren’t the word of God through Jesus Christ. Maybe some of them sound good because they are based on morals people had before they wrote the New Testament. Eh?

25. HEY, DUDE, BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT BUT...

Translation: Look how tolerant I am! You can believe what you want about so called ‘logic’, I prefer to ignore proof and continue to live in a fairy world.

ANSWER: Thanks, I will. That post was a bit unnecessary wasn’t it.

26. IF I AM THE PRODUCT OF AN UNCARING WORLD, WHERE DID MY IDEA OF JUSTICE (WHICH GOD IS SUPPOSEDLY NOT FULFILLING) COME FROM? BY ACCUSING GOD OF INJUSTICE, YOU ARE ADMITTING THERE IS A UNIVERSAL JUSTICE, WHICH ONLY GOD COULD HAVE CREATED.

Translation: I have been reading CS Lewis and have mistaken his writings for sensible philosophy because he is a skilled communicator.

ANSWER: Morality and ethics are completely man-made. For the above reasoning to work, you must first prove only God can have created justice.

"As an atheist, my argument against God was that the universe seemed to cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of JUST and UNJUST? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe to when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be a part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction to it?"-CS Lewis

Hmm...maybe from an inbuilt desire not to die? An evolutionary adaptation to not like death, blood, starvation, screaming etc.? If those things did not make us feel bad -what we have named 'injustice'-then we wouldn't avoid danger, or danger to other people. Altruism evolved because if other people can't trust us to help them, we can't trust anyone else to save us. We desire things to be the best they can be because that way we have a higher chance of survival and reproduction, and that way we strive to make things the best they can be in order to strive and reproduce. Simply put, Lewis's argument that we could have no idea of what Just and Unjust are is complete rubbish. Prove to me that we could not have an idea of justice or injustic without God.



" Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too-for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies."-CS Lewis

Because Lewis has set up a false dichotomy: either justice is universal, or it is my own personal idea. We KNOW that everyone has an independant idea of justice--just look at the conflicting interests of a courtroom and the convicted, or the two sides of the abortion debate, or homosexuals and homophobes--but we also know that there are certain things we all agree on, like the fact that unprovoked murder is wrong and unjust.

However if God does exist, and gave us our knowledge of justice, why is what most of us hold to be just not reflected in the bible? Why is God's justice not reflected in the reality of the world? I have my idea of justice, based on reason and society, and that justice suggests that someone or something who chooses to kill and murder and starve billions of people is not good. There doesn't have to be universal justice for me to not like him because my life is not perfect, all there has to be is dissatisfaction, and we know that dissatisfaction is inependant of God.

"In Plato’s dialogue called Euthyphro, Socrates asks a man named Euthyphro whether something is good because God says it is, or does God announce something to be good because it has intrinsic goodness? If something is good because God says it is, then God might change his mind about what is good. Thus, there would
be no absolute morality. If God merely announces something to be good because it has intrinsic goodness, then we might be able to discover this intrinsic goodness ourselves, without the need for god belief. Christians can’t even agree among themselves what’s moral when it comes to things like masturbation, premarital sex, homosexuality, divorce, contraception, abortion, war, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Christians reject some of the moral laws found in the Bible, such as killing disobedient children or people who work on the Sabbath. Therefore, Christians must be applying their own ethical standards from outside the Bible to be able to recognize that these commandments in the Bible are unethical. [Thanks to Dan Barker for this point.]

In fact, most religious people ignore the bad ethics in their holy books and concentrate on the good advice. In other words, theists pick and choose their ethics just like atheists do. Other animals exhibit kindness toward one another and a sense of justice. We have found the part of our brains responsible for feelings of sympathy and empathy – “mirror neurons” – which serve as the foundation for much of our ethics.

Morality is something that evolved from us being social animals. It’s based on the selfish advantage we get from cooperation, and on consequences. Helping one another is a selfish act that has evolutionary rewards. We also judge actions by their consequences, through trial and error. The best formula we have come up with is to allow the maximum amount of freedom that does not harm another person or impinge on that person’s freedom. This creates the greatest amount of happiness and prosperity in society, which benefits the greatest amount of people (the greatest good for the greatest number). This view includes the protection of
minority rights, since in some way we are each a minority. Since there is no evidence for any gods, it follows that any moral belief can be attributed to a god. So, rather than being a certain guide, religion can be used to justify any behavior. One simply has to say “God told me to do it.” The best way to refute this reasoning is to discard the idea of gods altogether.

Even if a god doesn’t exist, some people think that a belief in a god is useful to get people to behave – kind of like an invisible policeman, or, in the words of President George W. Bush: “(God) is constantly searching our hearts and minds. He’s kind of like Santa Claus. He knows if you’ve been good or if you’ve been bad.” [April 8, 2007 (Easter), Army post, Fort Hood, Texas.] Do we really want to make this the basis for our ethics?

Any decent ethical system does not need the supernatural to justify it. However, belief in the supernatural has been used to justify many unethical acts, such as the Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, gay-bashing, and 9/11."--http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/34UnconvincingArgumentsforGod.pdf


http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/images/iq_vs_religion.png

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Atheists differ from believers in that they can distinguish between 'things' and 'creations'. Even moderate believers who accept science and evolution, believe that God was the first cause of the universe, if not a guiding hand behind evolution. This is because they fail to differentiate between 'things which just exist' like the laws of physics and the universe, and 'creations' like ideas and objects. Your reasoning goes, 'all things I know of have creators, therefore everything must at some time result from a creative idea, directly or indirectly'. This reasoning is blatantly flawed, because the only possible reason to believe everything was the result of creative intent would be if there was definite proof of God's existence. Thus your faith is the result of circular logic: everything has a creator, because God created everything; therefore God created everything, because he must have.
 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

Plinius commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
16 minutes ago
Plinius commented on Daniel W's group Food!
18 minutes ago
Patricia liked Todd Crispin's profile
31 minutes ago
Deidre posted a status
"“It is every man’s obligation to put back into the world at least the equivalent of what he takes out of it.” ~Albert Einstein"
1 hour ago
Deidre commented on Todd Crispin's status
1 hour ago
Loren Miller replied to Todd Crispin's discussion New member, first post anywhere of this type
2 hours ago
Todd Crispin liked Donald R Barbera's blog post In the Closet (Part 3 Homosexuality)
2 hours ago
Todd Crispin liked Donald R Barbera's blog post What Does Science Say (Part 4 & 5 Homosexuals)
2 hours ago
David Joseph Hoebeeck replied to Todd Crispin's discussion New member, first post anywhere of this type
2 hours ago
Todd Crispin posted a status
"lol...spelled my name wrong...wow.. I am not very good at this stuff.."
2 hours ago
Todd Crispin updated their profile
2 hours ago
Neanderthal Man replied to Marie Walewska's discussion Veena Malik sentenced to 26 years in jail for blasphemy in the group Les Athées Napoléonienne
2 hours ago

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service