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: 4197
Latest Activity: on Saturday

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

Johns Hopkins Receives $125,000,000 to Fight Cancer

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Apr 1. 2 Replies

A new theory explaining the origins of life?

Started by Donald L. Engel. Last reply by Donald L. Engel Mar 31. 5 Replies

Map of Archaic Ancestry

Started by Qiana-Maieev. Last reply by Joseph P Mar 29. 5 Replies

Homo Erectus food processing

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Mar 19. 1 Reply

Bickering Between the Pope and Donald Trump

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Joseph P Feb 19. 10 Replies

Pope Loses Cool (Video)

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Joseph P Feb 17. 2 Replies

Comment Wall


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

Comment by Drew Carpenter on September 15, 2013 at 11:17pm

That is a very good article. It does give me hope that what he referred to as a "young person" could not see a problem there. I'm encouraged that so many of today's youth (at least compared to when I was young) see things so differently.

As for his reference to Barney Frank having to leave office before he could come out as an atheist despite the fact that he had already come out as gay, I can't help but remember a survey that was taken a couple of years back. When asked which minority or social group (I can't remember how it was phrased) was least trustworthy, the responders overwhelmingly picked atheists. I recently published a humorous novel with an atheist theme. At one point my main character says: "Atheism is the new's the belief that dare not speak its name." This is, of course, not in any way a knock of homosexuals. I'm just expressing the hope that some day it will not be okay to dislike atheists simply because of our non-belief. At this time, I sometimes feel that we are the only group that it is still socially acceptable to despise. 

Comment by Dorian Moises Mattar on September 15, 2013 at 11:16pm

Excellent article!  Thank you Chad.

Comment by Chad Kreutzer on September 15, 2013 at 10:54pm

I just read an article on that very thing, Drew:

Comment by Drew Carpenter on September 15, 2013 at 10:15pm

We don't elect atheists in this country. And that is only one of the good reason I can think of for not running.

Comment by Dorian Moises Mattar on September 15, 2013 at 10:06pm

Drew, you should run for president.

Comment by Drew Carpenter on September 15, 2013 at 9:28pm

It is discouraging that my home state of Texas insists on being ground zero for so many of these religion in school battles. I wish theists would realize that true freedom of religion means keeping it out of the government and out of the schools. I'm afraid that these fundamentalist don't actually want freedom of religion. They want their religion to dominate. Seems it has always been so.

Comment by Joseph P on September 15, 2013 at 11:29am

Heh, I know what you mean, Homer.  I pointed that out myself, somewhere on here.  I reject the concept of libertarian free will, but even if I accepted it, I don't see how it conflicts with Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Comment by Joseph P on September 15, 2013 at 11:06am

Shaun's weird assertion that the opinion of the majority of the uneducated masses should override that of the specialists just ... blows my mind.  I don't know about him, but I want structural engineers to design the bridges that I'll be driving over, not a committee of those who looked at a popup book full of bridges, once.

Comment by Homer Edward Price on September 15, 2013 at 11:04am

The real controversy here is not about creationism, but about free will.  And I disagree that Darwinism is incompatible with free will.  The only version of Darwinism that is strictly deterministic is the "selfish gene" perspective of Richard Dawkins.  He argues that the individual gene, not the organism, is what evolves by natural selection.   Even if organisms--such as vertebrates--are conscious, genes are not.  And if genes drive behavior, there is no free will.  Few contemporary Darwinists accept the "selfish gene" perspective, and Daniel Dennett has concluded that even that is compatible with free will.

Comment by Joseph P on September 15, 2013 at 10:23am

"I think controversial means, among most people, not limited to the consensus among those with specialist training.  I believe I represent the majority better than those of you who have responded to my comment so far. Do you think I'm wrong?"

Yes, you're wrong.  People with no knowledge of the subject they're criticizing can have all sorts of crazy ideas that have long since been sorted out by the people who study the subject.  You've already demonstrated that you don't understand the basics of the theory.

The majority of uneducated people is not the group you should side with.


Members (4198)


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service