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: 4188
Latest Activity: 16 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

"All pupils in non-faith schools must study atheism", judge rules.

Started by Dr. Terence Meaden. Last reply by Loren Miller 16 minutes ago. 6 Replies

Cancer Now Detectable from One Drop of Blood

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Loren Miller Nov 14. 4 Replies

Happy birthday Carl Sagan

Started by Gerald Payne. Last reply by Dr. Terence Meaden Nov 9. 2 Replies

Vatican Arrests 2 for Leaking Documents

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Wayne Davison Nov 2. 1 Reply

Did dark matter kill the dinosaurs.

Started by Gerald Payne. Last reply by Wayne Davison Nov 2. 6 Replies

Antibiotic-Resistant Genes Found in Mummy

Started by Steph S.. Last reply by John Jubinsky Oct 20. 2 Replies

Part Ape Part Human

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Gerald Payne Oct 8. 4 Replies

Researchers May Have Detected More to Stonehenge

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Madhukar Kulkarni Oct 7. 6 Replies

Comment Wall


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

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


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:
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.  


Members (4188)


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service