https://atheistforums.org/ Sun, 01 Nov 2026 17:10:49 +0000 MyBB https://atheistforums.org/thread-66761.html Sat, 26 Sep 2026 05:26:10 +0000 FrancisXavier]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66761.html
Before we discuss a Positive Case for Christianity, I would like to humbly and gently ask - is there any Positive Evidence for Atheism.

You know, like, if (1) it is raining outside and (2) it is NOT raining outside are Two Competing Hypotheses being tested, both have to present Evidence.

Is there any for Atheism? Or does the Evidence favor Theism? Thanks.]]>
Before we discuss a Positive Case for Christianity, I would like to humbly and gently ask - is there any Positive Evidence for Atheism.

You know, like, if (1) it is raining outside and (2) it is NOT raining outside are Two Competing Hypotheses being tested, both have to present Evidence.

Is there any for Atheism? Or does the Evidence favor Theism? Thanks.]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66747.html Thu, 03 Sep 2026 01:10:07 +0000 Northern Skies]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66747.html
No matter how you present scientific facts to a religious person, they almost always metaphorically stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la" often followed by a scripture quote. This is what willful ignorance looks like.

I am not aggressive towards ignorant people. Most of the time, it's not their fault. They just didn't know. I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to be educated or can educate themselves. An open mind.

I have zero tolerance and no respect for the willfully ignorant. Willful ignorance is the conscious, deliberate choice to avoid, ignore, or reject readily available information because it contradicts personal beliefs or requires unwanted action. How does one combat willful ignorance? It makes me want to be aggressive but the problem with that is that response will only be met with hostility and they only bury themselves further into their delusions.]]>
No matter how you present scientific facts to a religious person, they almost always metaphorically stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la" often followed by a scripture quote. This is what willful ignorance looks like.

I am not aggressive towards ignorant people. Most of the time, it's not their fault. They just didn't know. I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to be educated or can educate themselves. An open mind.

I have zero tolerance and no respect for the willfully ignorant. Willful ignorance is the conscious, deliberate choice to avoid, ignore, or reject readily available information because it contradicts personal beliefs or requires unwanted action. How does one combat willful ignorance? It makes me want to be aggressive but the problem with that is that response will only be met with hostility and they only bury themselves further into their delusions.]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66746.html Sun, 30 Aug 2026 18:35:07 +0000 Jal]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66746.html
Reductionistic atheism is too philosophically deficient to be plausible. If merely dead particles exist: 
- How did consciouness arise? Inconceivable. 
- What was the first mover that got the ball rolling? Inconceivable. 
- What is the nature of all the so-called "forces" such as gravity - what causes them?  Inconceivable. 
- How did natural selection occur?  Inconceivable (see below).
Reductionism is a determinism - a cause-effect dynamic tantamount to a domino effect which, as such, is inconducive to natural selection. 
Why so? Suppose I feel hunger and thus desire food. If free will moves matter, as I have claimed, I am not locked into a domino effect, I can freely lunge toward food and consume it.

Whereas, in a domino effect, my desire for food is irrelevant/ useless, as all motion is a blind causality wholly deterministic.  In a chain of dominos tipping rightward, for example, they will still fall to the right even if some of them desire the left, because desires would be irrelevant/useless, since a deterministic universe couldn't care less what we desire. 

Thus, in a reductionism, natural selection will fail because, in a blind causality: 
- Hunger won't precipitate food-gathering and satiation.
- Libido won't precipitate mating and reproduction.
- Fear of attack won't precipitate flight.
- Mammals won't seek the needed shelter, hibernation, and migration.
The dominos will simply fall blindly and randomly, resulting in starvation and extinction.

To solve this, an atheist could postulate a panpsychism but, without Yahweh (or some other Creator), it's a bit of a reach to account for our reality because our bodies are machines. In a panysychism, a mechanical body isn't even strictly necessary for sentience, and yet, fortuitiously enough, we happen to live in a world where ONLY mechanical bodies are sentient. Just a weird coincidence? Or was it Yahweh's creative design? Obviously I vote for the latter.]]>
Reductionistic atheism is too philosophically deficient to be plausible. If merely dead particles exist: 
- How did consciouness arise? Inconceivable. 
- What was the first mover that got the ball rolling? Inconceivable. 
- What is the nature of all the so-called "forces" such as gravity - what causes them?  Inconceivable. 
- How did natural selection occur?  Inconceivable (see below).
Reductionism is a determinism - a cause-effect dynamic tantamount to a domino effect which, as such, is inconducive to natural selection. 
Why so? Suppose I feel hunger and thus desire food. If free will moves matter, as I have claimed, I am not locked into a domino effect, I can freely lunge toward food and consume it.

Whereas, in a domino effect, my desire for food is irrelevant/ useless, as all motion is a blind causality wholly deterministic.  In a chain of dominos tipping rightward, for example, they will still fall to the right even if some of them desire the left, because desires would be irrelevant/useless, since a deterministic universe couldn't care less what we desire. 

Thus, in a reductionism, natural selection will fail because, in a blind causality: 
- Hunger won't precipitate food-gathering and satiation.
- Libido won't precipitate mating and reproduction.
- Fear of attack won't precipitate flight.
- Mammals won't seek the needed shelter, hibernation, and migration.
The dominos will simply fall blindly and randomly, resulting in starvation and extinction.

To solve this, an atheist could postulate a panpsychism but, without Yahweh (or some other Creator), it's a bit of a reach to account for our reality because our bodies are machines. In a panysychism, a mechanical body isn't even strictly necessary for sentience, and yet, fortuitiously enough, we happen to live in a world where ONLY mechanical bodies are sentient. Just a weird coincidence? Or was it Yahweh's creative design? Obviously I vote for the latter.]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66740.html Sat, 22 Aug 2026 20:41:17 +0000 PepsiMAX]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66740.html
But the Nazis has risen to power. But they wont target Jews, but Jerks. Are you prepared for the purge?]]>
But the Nazis has risen to power. But they wont target Jews, but Jerks. Are you prepared for the purge?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66735.html Sun, 16 Aug 2026 20:27:01 +0000 PepsiMAX]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66735.html
But i think it might be why i changed my favorite anime from Bleach to Naruto.
This is not to say Kubo is a bad writer, i think he is very creative personally and i like the overall designs. But i guess if i feel my faith is touched by it. Then its likely better to avoid it on a general level. (Though i will likely watch it on Disney + to see how it ends)


Although i get the feeling it might be more critical of a tyrranical religious power, aka political religious criticism rather than just merely a religious one? Because i always felt the idea of using Christianity for ones own ambitions is anti Christian? Or i should say. If Christianity is used as a political tool, rather than to reform yourself, then it loses its meaning in my view? Galatians 5:13-26 i feel in a generalized sense, would be what the two natures of primitive sin vs sinless life is the environment a Christian is to aspire to live by.

Out of context i guess one can think of (Matthew 6:10) as doing God`s bidding. But the intentions is what matters too right?

But if its done for the sake of power and ambitions. Then it kinda loses some of that purpose honestly.
I dunno. Maybe this is what a Socialist feel when they have to rewatch "Animal Farm" or something. The good one from 1950s, not the recent one.


I am ranting but. I am curious what you think? But i guess not many here are die hard anime fans as i am : D]]>
But i think it might be why i changed my favorite anime from Bleach to Naruto.
This is not to say Kubo is a bad writer, i think he is very creative personally and i like the overall designs. But i guess if i feel my faith is touched by it. Then its likely better to avoid it on a general level. (Though i will likely watch it on Disney + to see how it ends)


Although i get the feeling it might be more critical of a tyrranical religious power, aka political religious criticism rather than just merely a religious one? Because i always felt the idea of using Christianity for ones own ambitions is anti Christian? Or i should say. If Christianity is used as a political tool, rather than to reform yourself, then it loses its meaning in my view? Galatians 5:13-26 i feel in a generalized sense, would be what the two natures of primitive sin vs sinless life is the environment a Christian is to aspire to live by.

Out of context i guess one can think of (Matthew 6:10) as doing God`s bidding. But the intentions is what matters too right?

But if its done for the sake of power and ambitions. Then it kinda loses some of that purpose honestly.
I dunno. Maybe this is what a Socialist feel when they have to rewatch "Animal Farm" or something. The good one from 1950s, not the recent one.


I am ranting but. I am curious what you think? But i guess not many here are die hard anime fans as i am : D]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66704.html Sun, 14 Jun 2026 23:00:13 +0000 Twiggy]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66704.html
My theory is that many of these people were never truly atheists and are instead confusing being mad at god, or disappointed, sad with god, with atheism.

As for the one's who were actually atheists under the "lack of belief in a god(s)", from what I have seen, including a recent conversation I have had, their standard of evidence seems to have dropped, or someone somehow managed to talk them into accepting something on poor evidence.

The recent conversation I had, with a christian, former atheists friend, let me know that he became christian because "people witnessed the resurrection", "people wouldn't die for a lie" like somehow people claiming something, is enough evidence of a literal supernatural miraculous event. It's an extraordinary claim, which needs extraordinary evidence, yet somehow he accepts it based on flimsy weak, "evidence". He tried saying "you accept the existence of Ceaser based on documentation" - sure, but Ceaser was just another man, like all other men, it's not comparable to a claim of a resurrection.

So I guess the real question is, for those who actually were atheists at one point, what causes their standard of evidence, and ability to different claims from each other, to slip?]]>
My theory is that many of these people were never truly atheists and are instead confusing being mad at god, or disappointed, sad with god, with atheism.

As for the one's who were actually atheists under the "lack of belief in a god(s)", from what I have seen, including a recent conversation I have had, their standard of evidence seems to have dropped, or someone somehow managed to talk them into accepting something on poor evidence.

The recent conversation I had, with a christian, former atheists friend, let me know that he became christian because "people witnessed the resurrection", "people wouldn't die for a lie" like somehow people claiming something, is enough evidence of a literal supernatural miraculous event. It's an extraordinary claim, which needs extraordinary evidence, yet somehow he accepts it based on flimsy weak, "evidence". He tried saying "you accept the existence of Ceaser based on documentation" - sure, but Ceaser was just another man, like all other men, it's not comparable to a claim of a resurrection.

So I guess the real question is, for those who actually were atheists at one point, what causes their standard of evidence, and ability to different claims from each other, to slip?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66654.html Sun, 29 Mar 2026 16:43:26 +0000 AFTT47]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66654.html https://atheistforums.org/thread-66642.html Sat, 14 Mar 2026 13:28:08 +0000 Leonardo17]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66642.html

 
That’s a very important point that is being made. Scientists disagree on almost everything. But when they disagree they tend to say things like “E isn’t equal to mc2, E is equal to mc3, let me show you why…” There are no scientists or even philosophers who go to war because of their disagreements.
 
Yet when you have a belief system, and there is no tangible evidence to demonstrate why the things you believe in is true, coercion become the main method to convince other people about the things you believe in. You take little children and you indoctrinate them with these ideas when they are in an age group in which they are not able to argue with you about these ideas. Or you go to war with your neighbors to force them to accept these ideas. In fact, the harder it is to verify these ideas, the more people are willing to die for these beliefs.
 
The reminder here is that you get only one chance in this life. So when there is an existential threat to civilization as we know it (as it was the case in WWII for instance), it is understandable that some people will have to make the ultimate sacrifice.
 
Yet this “I believe in this so strongly that I am willing to impose this on you and to do that, I am willing to sacrifice my own life” does not seem like a very smart thing to do. Non-believers in theological issues don't do that. And that's a good thing ]]>

 
That’s a very important point that is being made. Scientists disagree on almost everything. But when they disagree they tend to say things like “E isn’t equal to mc2, E is equal to mc3, let me show you why…” There are no scientists or even philosophers who go to war because of their disagreements.
 
Yet when you have a belief system, and there is no tangible evidence to demonstrate why the things you believe in is true, coercion become the main method to convince other people about the things you believe in. You take little children and you indoctrinate them with these ideas when they are in an age group in which they are not able to argue with you about these ideas. Or you go to war with your neighbors to force them to accept these ideas. In fact, the harder it is to verify these ideas, the more people are willing to die for these beliefs.
 
The reminder here is that you get only one chance in this life. So when there is an existential threat to civilization as we know it (as it was the case in WWII for instance), it is understandable that some people will have to make the ultimate sacrifice.
 
Yet this “I believe in this so strongly that I am willing to impose this on you and to do that, I am willing to sacrifice my own life” does not seem like a very smart thing to do. Non-believers in theological issues don't do that. And that's a good thing ]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66505.html Sun, 27 Jul 2025 19:21:21 +0000 Rizen]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66505.html
And REM has songs like New Test Leper where he's saying "I can't say that I love Jesus, that would be a hollow claim." Or Undertow where he sings "Brother, can you see those birds? They don't look to Heaven. They don't need religion, they can see. They go down to the water. Drink down of the water. Fly up off the water, leave them be."


There's also Real World by Gamma Ray which goes "God is an illusion and there ain't no paradise, and there is no underworld below. Out there is no Heaven and there ain't no Antichrist. Welcome to the real world And the show!"

What songs do you know?]]>
And REM has songs like New Test Leper where he's saying "I can't say that I love Jesus, that would be a hollow claim." Or Undertow where he sings "Brother, can you see those birds? They don't look to Heaven. They don't need religion, they can see. They go down to the water. Drink down of the water. Fly up off the water, leave them be."


There's also Real World by Gamma Ray which goes "God is an illusion and there ain't no paradise, and there is no underworld below. Out there is no Heaven and there ain't no Antichrist. Welcome to the real world And the show!"

What songs do you know?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66502.html Mon, 21 Jul 2025 11:14:52 +0000 Kuwabara]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66502.html
Kevin takes photographs on top of World Trade Center in that movie (Likely is a secret agent to Al Qaida).
And we know AIPAC (American Israel lobbyism) is a thing in Washington D.C in USA aswell.

So Marv (Jewish), Harry (Christian) are trying to catch Kevin while looting on the way.

Or is this a crazy conspiracy on my part?]]>
Kevin takes photographs on top of World Trade Center in that movie (Likely is a secret agent to Al Qaida).
And we know AIPAC (American Israel lobbyism) is a thing in Washington D.C in USA aswell.

So Marv (Jewish), Harry (Christian) are trying to catch Kevin while looting on the way.

Or is this a crazy conspiracy on my part?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66501.html Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:48:20 +0000 Forever Sophist]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66501.html
But one of the biggest trends I feel, and this is evidenced to me by some of the top posts on the exatheist subreddit (Yes it is exists) is that atheism is too "depressing".

Let's actually address this-- If you are in the worldview that there is an afterlife, and this existence is a mere fragment of the infinity that is to come, then trying to swallow the cold reality that this one shot is all we got is a gut punch that is too much for some.

This leads me to believe, that if you want to help somebody leave religion, then we have to do more work on embracing the process of grief and being comfortable with this existential nightmare that is our existence.

Somewhere along the line, for whatever reason, theists or whatever variety of believer cannot bear the thought of such a simple existence and choose to cope with the thought of a heave, afterlife, and god.

People believe all things for all sorts of reasons-- whether they believe it is rationality, or emotional, or simply a societal upbringing-- and people change beliefs for all sorts of reasons to.

I do think that trying to approach deconversion from a mere logic and historical deconstruction of the major world religions, not everybody will be moved. How would you address the cope that religion provides, and locks believers in place?

-Forever Sophist]]>
But one of the biggest trends I feel, and this is evidenced to me by some of the top posts on the exatheist subreddit (Yes it is exists) is that atheism is too "depressing".

Let's actually address this-- If you are in the worldview that there is an afterlife, and this existence is a mere fragment of the infinity that is to come, then trying to swallow the cold reality that this one shot is all we got is a gut punch that is too much for some.

This leads me to believe, that if you want to help somebody leave religion, then we have to do more work on embracing the process of grief and being comfortable with this existential nightmare that is our existence.

Somewhere along the line, for whatever reason, theists or whatever variety of believer cannot bear the thought of such a simple existence and choose to cope with the thought of a heave, afterlife, and god.

People believe all things for all sorts of reasons-- whether they believe it is rationality, or emotional, or simply a societal upbringing-- and people change beliefs for all sorts of reasons to.

I do think that trying to approach deconversion from a mere logic and historical deconstruction of the major world religions, not everybody will be moved. How would you address the cope that religion provides, and locks believers in place?

-Forever Sophist]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66492.html Wed, 09 Jul 2025 12:27:45 +0000 Andreas]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66492.html
The court ruling is interesting :

Everybody has the right of " negative freedom of religion" - meaning that no one has to be exposed to religiious symbols in a püblic building.

Bavaria is the last of the 16 Federal States in Germany where is was legal to show religious symbols - like a crucifix , religious clothing - . All other States had this outlawed since a decade or so ago.

I like the term " Negative freedom of religion "  !]]>
The court ruling is interesting :

Everybody has the right of " negative freedom of religion" - meaning that no one has to be exposed to religiious symbols in a püblic building.

Bavaria is the last of the 16 Federal States in Germany where is was legal to show religious symbols - like a crucifix , religious clothing - . All other States had this outlawed since a decade or so ago.

I like the term " Negative freedom of religion "  !]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66485.html Thu, 03 Jul 2025 12:52:12 +0000 Secular Heckler]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66485.html https://atheistforums.org/thread-66460.html Mon, 16 Jun 2025 01:58:38 +0000 muhammadtaha]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66460.html what do you think about this ?]]> what do you think about this ?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66456.html Thu, 12 Jun 2025 01:26:13 +0000 Forever Sophist]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66456.html
Atheists are often stereotyped as loud, proud, arrogant, and unwilling to listen. When you feel like you’ve been lied to your whole life and you uncover what you believe is the truth (i.e. the lack of historical credibility in the Bible, the delayed authorship of resurrection accounts, or the moral contradictions in the idea of an all-good deity) it’s natural to want to shout it from the rooftops.

But in my experience, what actually gets people to listen, if they ever will, is showing empathy for where they’re coming from.

Think about something simple like buying a car. Most people won’t go with the most logical or well-reasoned salesperson. They’ll go with the one who made them feel heard and understood, someone they trust.

The great thing about secularism is that it doesn’t rely on fear, conversion quotas, or hidden agendas. It’s grounded in intellectual honesty. That gives us the space to have real conversations with people about understanding themselves and reflecting more deeply.

When I left religion, I spent time on both Christian and atheist forums. It wasn’t the endless rebuttals or snarky takedowns from atheists that swayed me. It was a Christian who once told me, “If you’re lost in your faith and in darkness, explore that darkness.” He was being sincere and empathetic. Ironically, that was what helped lead me out of religion. But it happened because he understood my position and gave me the space to question things honestly.

If you’re secular, you don’t have a divine command telling you how to treat others. You probably ground your ethics in humanism, empathy, or some kind of utilitarian concern. That means the way you communicate matters. Being right isn’t enough. Being understood is more powerful, and that starts by making others feel understood first.

If you were once religious, you know what it’s like to believe. Don’t forget what it felt like to be in their shoes.

Forever Sophist]]>
Atheists are often stereotyped as loud, proud, arrogant, and unwilling to listen. When you feel like you’ve been lied to your whole life and you uncover what you believe is the truth (i.e. the lack of historical credibility in the Bible, the delayed authorship of resurrection accounts, or the moral contradictions in the idea of an all-good deity) it’s natural to want to shout it from the rooftops.

But in my experience, what actually gets people to listen, if they ever will, is showing empathy for where they’re coming from.

Think about something simple like buying a car. Most people won’t go with the most logical or well-reasoned salesperson. They’ll go with the one who made them feel heard and understood, someone they trust.

The great thing about secularism is that it doesn’t rely on fear, conversion quotas, or hidden agendas. It’s grounded in intellectual honesty. That gives us the space to have real conversations with people about understanding themselves and reflecting more deeply.

When I left religion, I spent time on both Christian and atheist forums. It wasn’t the endless rebuttals or snarky takedowns from atheists that swayed me. It was a Christian who once told me, “If you’re lost in your faith and in darkness, explore that darkness.” He was being sincere and empathetic. Ironically, that was what helped lead me out of religion. But it happened because he understood my position and gave me the space to question things honestly.

If you’re secular, you don’t have a divine command telling you how to treat others. You probably ground your ethics in humanism, empathy, or some kind of utilitarian concern. That means the way you communicate matters. Being right isn’t enough. Being understood is more powerful, and that starts by making others feel understood first.

If you were once religious, you know what it’s like to believe. Don’t forget what it felt like to be in their shoes.

Forever Sophist]]>