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: 4195
Latest Activity: May 16

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 AtheistTech on October 31, 2011 at 7:52pm
Why? Is it offensive? If you and the majority practice the process of considering everyone your equal, you will win the majority, then the theists will become the minority. Then doing what Ayn Rand suggests will convince some more of the theists in the minority. Then there will be a smaller minority that will refuse to treat others as equals. It will be up to someone else to figure out how to deal with them, or just leave them alone.
Comment by Joseph P on October 31, 2011 at 7:45pm
Yeah, but the Objectivists are the most dogmatic of any atheists you'll find. I'd be very careful quoting Ayn Rand.
Comment by AtheistTech on October 31, 2011 at 7:06pm

Joseph -  For those that are mindlessly devout, I agree with what I have as a signature in my emails that I send:

“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.” Ayn Rand

Comment by Joseph P on October 31, 2011 at 6:57pm

And when you try that approach, and they don't reciprocate?  I don't think you have as many of the hardcore fundamentalists, up in Michigan.  You have some scary militia groups, but even they aren't as fanatically religious, in general.


If you're dealing with someone mindlessly devout, they're not going to budge an inch, and the only value you'll get from arguing with them is demonstrating for the watchers.  Someone who is so brainwashed by one of the cultish pentecostal sects or something similar will only ever be able to free themselves.

Comment by AtheistTech on October 31, 2011 at 6:49pm

All of you have not considered what I deem to be the best course of action:

Check out my post on AN here


and here


Comment by Joseph P on October 31, 2011 at 6:48pm

I'm a fan of the term 'fractally wrong'.  I don't know if the guys who do Non Prophets Radio and The Atheist Experience made it up, but they use it a lot.


Basically, not only are you wrong in general, but if you zoom in on any portion of the thought process and fill in the details, those are pretty much all wrong.  You're wrong every step of the way.

Comment by Scott Bidstrup on October 31, 2011 at 6:43pm

Dr. Meaden wrote:  "...You are not only plain arrogant but you are ignorant to the highest degree."


I just tell them that I prefer science to the speculations attributed to ancient tribal sky gods.  That shuts 'em up quite effectively.

Comment by Dr. Terence Meaden on October 31, 2011 at 6:21pm

What is more, here are the words that Byron used:

“Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.”


Comment by Dr. Terence Meaden on October 31, 2011 at 6:17pm

What I have said on several occasions as a reply goes something this:

  "How come that you people are so arrogant as to dispute the proven scientific case for origins and for evolution?

   In the last two centuries hundreds of thousands of patient scientists have carried out tens of millions of careful experiments and analyses, all of which agree with one another as to the origins of life, and of Earth, and the stars and galaxies.

   By contrast, you blindly accept what is in a book being the supposed words of illiterate Bronze Age goat herders living on the desert margins of the Middle East and Near East. 

   You are not only plain arrogant but you are ignorant to the highest degree." 

Comment by Troy Gorsline on October 31, 2011 at 2:46pm
I did come to think of it. They stated it wasn't the same issue. When I questioned the reasoning behind it, they stated faith in god, the eternal who created us, was different then a science we made up. Screaming would have been counter productive. So after some cleansing breaths, I calmly stated it was, in fact, the same. The difference is evolution has been proven on numerous occasions while creationism is based on faith -soley. They didn't agree. They wondered which study proved it beyond a shadow of doubt. I promised to provide one the minute they provide me beyond a shaddow of doubt the existence of a being who created the universe for reasons I can only assume was boredom. I don't think my snark was appreciated.

Members (4193)


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service