Study into national character of Australia's active atheists

Study into national character of Australia’s active atheists
Credit: University of Western Sydney

As Australians prepare to nominate their chosen religious beliefs in the national census, a Western Sydney University researcher is looking into an ambitious section of Australian religious society - active atheism.

Active atheists are people who actively participate in pro-atheist organisations, many of which advocate on behalf of non-believers, such as the Atheist Foundation of Australia.

PhD candidate Rhys Gower, from the Religion and Society Research Cluster at WSU, says the last census indicated just under a quarter of Australians are non-religious, and that number may rise in the upcoming 2016 census.

"A number of Australian active atheist groups are taking a great interest in the upcoming census, as seen in the Atheist Foundation of Australia's 'Mark No Religion' campaign," he says.

"Campaigns such as this indicate active atheists are mobilising to ensure that religious views are not over-represented within government decision-making. My research will examine how and why Australians become active atheists, and what they believe."

"It will also seek to map the national identity of Australia's active atheists by comparing the similarities and differences with their counterparts in North America."

As part of the study, Mr Gower will:

  • Attend active atheist organisation gatherings, such as Sydney Atheists and the Atheist Foundation of Australia, to grasp collective beliefs and diversity
  • Identify how active atheist groups are organised, as well as their demographic characteristics and collective goals
  • Observe active atheist websites and online forums, including social media activity
  • Interview active atheists to ascertain their experiences prior to identifying as active atheists

Rhys Gower says compared to the vast abundance of studies on Australia's religious groups, there's a lack of research on how and why individuals turn towards non-religion.

"The character and philosophies upheld by atheists have been acknowledged in past studies, but debate regarding the development of an active atheist identity is still in its infancy," he says.

"This study will investigate the factors that compel an individual to not only reject the religious norm, but in many cases fights for non-religious perspectives to be recognised."

Mr Gower is presently seeking atheist group members who would like the opportunity to discuss their beliefs as part of his study. If you are interested in participating in a research interview, please email Rhys on r.gower@westernsydney.edu.au. Volunteers need to be over 18 years old, be fluent in English, and attend events regularly.


Explore further

Is there an underlying sympathy between new atheism and protestant fundamentalism?

Citation: Study into national character of Australia's active atheists (2016, August 8) retrieved 25 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-08-national-character-australia-atheists.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
19 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 08, 2016
"This study will investigate the factors that compel an individual to not only reject the religious norm, but in many cases fights for non-religious perspectives to be recognised."

Strictly speaking no one can be without a religion. Atheists included.
There reason is quite simply that no matter what you profess, you will have some belief about the origin of the universe, how life arose, when it arose, how stars and planets came into existence, what norms dictate how we should live and what the future ultimately holds for humanity[and the rest of the universe]. This is simply-put, the epistemology one adheres to. Religion in other words.
Hence one can safely say that any atheist who becomes active in "fighting" for his beliefs is definitely just another religious enthusiast willing to subjugate and oppress that which others believe because they are different from and disagreeing with his/her own atheistic beliefs.

Aug 08, 2016
Strictly speaking no one can be without a religion. Atheists included.

Strictly (and generally) speaking this is a false statement. There was certainbly a time in our evolutionary past where there was no belief. Having no belief is pretty much the ground state for all beings (human or not).

have some belief about the origin of the universe, how life arose, when it arose,

Having an opinion is not the same thing as having a belief. Scientists have an opinion about the nature of the universe. This is based on observation and the most likely - as they currently see it - explanation. This does not mean that they think the universe must therefore be that way. New evidence overturns old paradigms all the time. That's just how science works. It is also the point why anyone goes into science. Overturning a paradigm is certainly the high point of anyone's scientific career.

Aug 08, 2016
"The character and philosophies upheld by atheists have been acknowledged in past studies, but debate regarding the development of an active atheist identity is still in its infancy," he says.

This will be tricky because atheism isn't a unified group. With any other particular religion you have at least some common ground (and be it only the name of their god or what they consider holy texts). But with atheists (especially active atheists) it could be anything from a real conviction that no god exists or just a drive to push back at all the other prosetylizing nonsense-pusher or anything in between.
Atheism doesn't have a central point of belief (it is defined as the *absence* of belief). As such you can call many people 'atheists' - but that doesn't make them a group. So trying for a group-wide analysis is probably going to fail.

Aug 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 08, 2016
Whether you believe in God or don't believe in God, it's a act of faith. Since no one can currently disprove God's existence, nor can anyone scientifically prove God's existence beyond a shadow of a doubt, ether BELIEF is based on faith. Which makes both beliefs religions based on faith.

Aug 08, 2016
Whether you believe in God or don't believe in God, it's a act of faith.

This is false.

Proof:
Question: Do you believe in gohartiguans? Or do you believe that no gohartiguans exist?
Answer: You do neither, since you were unaware of the concept of gohartiguans (or didn't care about them)....which is understandable, since I just now made the word up.

Similarly gods aren't an object of belief or disbelief for atheists. They are as much a non-issue for them as gohartiguans are for you.

Since no one can currently disprove God's existence, nor can anyone scientifically prove God's existence beyond a shadow of a doubt, ether BELIEF is based on faith. Which makes both beliefs religions based on faith.

Proof is needed. Disproof doesn't make any sesne. Do you ask people to disprove unicorns before you accept that they don't exist? Of course not. This is not a belief. It is a natural ground state. The existence of unicorns is a non-issue until someone shows one.

Aug 08, 2016
no one can be without a religion. Atheists included
I agree that belief without evidence or despite evidence is religious. And there is no way to conclude that a deistic god exists or not based on evidence.

But the theistic bookgod you believe in has effectively disproved himself. He wrote a book about people and events which we know never existed and never happened.

And how do we know you ask?

People, many of them very religious indeed, have been digging in the middle east for over a century. And not only do they find NO evidence for bible characters and events, they find tons of contradictory evidence that tells them the bible stories could never have happened.

And so the god who wrote the book is an incompetent and/or a liar. And as he also describes himself in his book to be incapable of such human failings, we must conclude that he himself is also fiction.

Only humans are incompetents and liars. Thats why they invent gods with these qualities.

Aug 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 08, 2016
The primary mistake you religionists make is to conflate theism with deism. Philosophers gave you the ability to do this when your priests and preachers realized that the Enlightenment doomed theism. Philos did them a favor and invented gods that could not be disproven, and enabled you to combine your god with theirs whenever some scientist began to debunk your nonsense with the objective interpretation of evidence.

Scientists fall for this trick as well because they are the ones most willing to admit how little they know about what exists and what doesnt.

Deistic gods are just as silly as your theistic god. But evidence tells us that your god can not and does not exist. And there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a deistic god out there who cares who you are or how you act or what you beg him for.

And there is certainly no evidence to conclude that he will grant you eternal life in return for your devotion. Logic tells us thats wishful thinking and exploitation.

Aug 08, 2016
Hi dave :)
Proof is there for those that accept life and truth.
Evidence says you are a little deranged.
Whether you believe in God or don't believe in God, it's a act of faith. Since no one can currently disprove God's existence, nor can anyone scientifically prove God's existence beyond a shadow of a doubt, ether BELIEF is based on faith. Which makes both beliefs religions based on faith
Sorry rudicrous this is just what I was saying. The god of your books doesnt exist. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive.

You can pray to the Immovable Mover all you want but chances are its just a waste of time.

Hes not the one who wrote you a book full of lies and empty promises.

Aug 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 08, 2016
"You have already proven you don't care about life and come here with goal to piss people off. "

Aug 08, 2016
Hi dave :)
I can't remember the last time a read a full comment of yours otto. You have already proven you don't care about life and come here with goal to piss people off
Eat meat.
and many others here
I think you mean everybody here but your fellow lunatics.

Aug 09, 2016
Active atheists! What does that mean? Just because I do not align myself to some group and attend meetings does not mean I cannot be atheist. And even if all the atheist groups do get together and concoct some sort of creed, it is very unlikely that I will ever join them. I am atheist. (Not AN atheist.) Pay attention to that grammar. I have decided, that I do not believe any creed that has been put before me.
When I was a child I sampled more than thirty schools of diverse teachings on faith. I soon realised that the stories they all told were about vain cruel despotic and despicable tyrants oppressing peoples. At secondary school I said I will not attend religious instruction at all. I am in my seventies now and never regretted that.
Anyway, I have to get on line now and tell the census office to send me a paper copy, so that I can scribble an expanded comment around the religion question.

Aug 09, 2016
New evidence overturns old paradigms all the time.

Except for AGW, where any contradictory research is immediately ridiculed, dismissed or ignored because EXXON-MOBILE, denialists and evilutionism. Besides, once the raw data is properly adjusted, manipulated and masturbated, all is copacetic with the apocalypse again.

Overturning a paradigm is certainly the high point of anyone's scientific career.

Second only to a steady stream of multi-million dollar grants which by some amazing coincidence always come from governments, politicians and organizations for whom AGW is a tool to gain more power, money and control.

But not to fear, scientists are so pure they cannot be swayed by greed, fame or glory like those knuckle-dragging Republican skeptics.

Aug 13, 2016
The God haters display their cravenness.
antalias_physorg claims "it's not a matter of belief or disbelief" in the presence of God for atheists, they are a non-issue. Then why do they engage in such "activism" about accepting the presence of God, promoting denying God's presence? The very name "atheist" denies the presence of God.
They try and frame it only in the sense of why someone would accept the presence of God. In fact, it is an issue of why someone would deny the presence of God. Atheism, like any swindle, has leaders who say what their target audience of dullards who will believe what they are told to believe want to hear and the dullards. The atheist dullards, and many leaders, display arrogance and contempt, always behaving in an arch and dismissive manner, feeling personally superior to everyone else is key to their way of being. Like all arrested development degenerates.

Aug 13, 2016
Wow, will the pious never give up to rational thought? What galls me the most about how the pious thinks a non religious person is that they "are evil". Why is it that when a pious person talks of a non religious person as automatically an evil person. Check the facts. If you look at the stats of openness, generosity, tolerance and morality in a population, its the countries that are least religious that come out on top, not the countries that are dominated by a particular religion. Check that out if you want to truly understand the destructiveness of organized religion.

Religiosity is comparable with any other mental disease. And it is only right and ethical that those of us who are healthy or already cured (counts for me) show our empathy and love for our sick brothers and sisters. While believers deserve our help, religions deserve nothing but disgust. Their very purpose is making people unfree, instilling fear from illusionary punishing figures, and suppressing their clear thinking. We can assume that scientists will soon find out that most of the currently 80% of sick inhabitants on our planet were already born with an inherited tendency to fall for religious manipulators.

Aug 13, 2016
The fact is, atheist followers are God haters. They are motivated by viciousness and narcissism. They will lie and claim all sort of "philosophical" reasons for their action, but it is viciousness, arrested development degeneracy. Before I pointed it out, it was common for them to refer to God in comments with a lowercase "g". Even where they used upper case letters for other purposes in the same comment. Spiting someone they declared was not present. Not a single one of them, even those who described themselves as "scientists", took issue with Christopher Hitchens' assertion that not providing evidence of a statement automatically proves it untrue and proves counter claims true. They claim they have proof God is not present, then, when pressed for it, slither behind lies like, "You can't prove a negative". The leaders of the atheist movements are connivers who don't fall for their own blather, the followers are arrested development degenerates.

Aug 13, 2016
atheist followers are God haters
Whats wrong with that? But its really the effect that the concept 'god' has on people and society, that evokes the animosity.
They are motivated by viciousness and narcissism
-What a coincidence. So apparently is your god.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." -richard dawkins
Even where they used upper case letters for other purposes in the same comment
-But you must realize that your god is only one of many.

I can see that demeaning your god makes you very angry. Just what would you like to do to blasphemers julian? What does your book tell you to do to them?

This is why people hate religion SO MUCH.

Aug 13, 2016
When referring to deities that are part of a pantheon, or even a collection of absolute deities from a collection of religions, you use a specific descriptive term, an article like "a" or "the" or a term like "their". Before I pointed it out, the God haters referred specifically to the one Deity of Christianity with a lowercase "g". They don't even have the honor to admit that.
Interesting how they all prate about items from the Old Testament, but don't mention the New Testament.
And the atheist movement does have leaders. Those making money off of it.
Among other things, Phys1 again asserting God is not present but providing no proof. They don't have the honor to provide their proof , the reason behind why they keep denying the presence of God, either.

Aug 13, 2016
It's inevitable that many people would be moved to some level of responsible activism. When you realize that lives are being affected by a variety of absurd legislation founded on a single set of some group's unique inherited beliefs (among thousands on this planet): you tend to wake up to the unfairness and folly shared by many segments of theist communities.

The term "God haters" has to be one of the silliest contrived assertions ever to be used by theists. mainly the Christians here in the US. The seemingly endless supply of gods and spirits created by countless cultures on this planet I find to to be of great academic interest. It is quite entertaining, even more so - an insight into the often curious and sometimes bizarre nature exemplified within various cultures.

I may not fancy a particular character or situation in a given mythology, but to "hate" something non-existent is an absurd notion.

It's fiction, dummy! Why would I read fiction just to "hate" characters?


Aug 13, 2016

julianpenrod 1 /5 (5) 4 hours ago
The God haters display their cravennes


It's not easy keeping up with you! Slouched out from under your rock to post on here, I'm keeping up my end of the "pee in a Church every time Penrod posts" protest, though.

Catholic Churches, environmental terrorist. BTW, your octogenarian-bachelor-expert-on-sex high priest says you're a sinner for your AGW denial. So, you're not even a good Catholic. Maybe not. Maybe you do see more clearly than he that environmental terrorism is part and parcel of being a Catholic.

Aug 13, 2016
Do it in the baptismal font!

And kick a pedo priest in the nuts on your way out.

Aug 13, 2016
God only exists as a dead metaphor,
as in "thank god", "omg" etc.
So then what motivates people like julian to devote their entire lives to it? What causes people to hate and kill and martyr themselves and their families to it?

God is a very real thing, one of the most powerful ideas ever created.

"I shall begin by explaining the concept of memes, how it was invented by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, and how it is defined. The idea begins with Universal Darwinism – the idea that whenever you have something (some kind of information) that is copied with variation and selection then you must get evolution. This applies not just to genes (which are chemical information copied within cells) but also to everything that we copy from person to person in culture. So memes include skills, habits, stories, songs, and technologies."

Aug 13, 2016
When referring to deities that are part of a pantheon, or even a collection of absolute deities from a collection of religions, you use a specific descriptive term, an article like "a" or "the" or a term like "their". Before I pointed it out, the God haters referred specifically to the one Deity of Christianity with a lowercase "g". They don't even have the honor to admit that
Look julian there is nothing honorable about accepting YOUR need for total submission to YOUR god. YOUR need to do so is pathological.

I show respect to things which deserve it. There is nothing about your god that I respect. And as this is not the fundamentalist theocracy that you would prefer it to be, I dont HAVE to.

And I dont care if this offends you or not. I DO care if your indignation might cause you to inflict punishment on me, as described in your book, in part because so many good and decent people have struggled and died over the centuries to prohibit that sort of thing.

Aug 13, 2016
Interesting how they all prate about items from the Old Testament, but don't mention the New Testament
"18... but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed." john3

-IOW unbelievers cant be good.

"21 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved." matt10

-IOW jesus expected people to slaughter even members of their own families in his name.

And he encouraged by his own example the most disgusting form of violence there is - martyrdom.

Aug 13, 2016
But what would you expect julian? You promise people eternal life, absolution of guilt, and wish-granting to their hearts content, and you know they will do absolutely anything to get it.

Your religion exploits the very basest instincts and desires that people could possibly have. It is built out of our most selfish tendencies. It is foul and it is despicable.

Whats not to hate?

Aug 13, 2016
Again, MandoZink denies the presence of God by overt implication, I asked them to give their proof for their insistence, but, again, they refuse. This is an admission from them all that they know God is present. The purpose of their actions is only to satisfy their sociopathic will toward being vicious, trying to upset people for their amusement. AGreatWhopper recommends a foul act, jljenkins recommends physical assault of priests. Phys1 follows the same malignance of them all and refuses to admit their cravenness, then offers a specious dodge. And then they lie and suggest they provided their proof. They are all depraved and foul, arrested development degenerates, freaks and misfits.

@Julian

Now then let me help you with some few proves that the Christian God is nothing but a mind-fabrication. In no specific order:

1) We and everything else in this universe has an evolvement history. Scientist know it and have proven it. We can see it with our own eyes when watching nature. The mechanism is called evolution. That means steady development, no individual creative act/event one single day. No role for somebody to do something here.

2) Anyhow, let us ignore that for a moment. And let us for simplicity of argumentation reasons assume that there is only one universe (today's state of the art for believers and scientists alike). Your Christian God figure is supposed to have created it all and is in any millisecond busy creating anything new anywhere in the universe. Then tell me the trick of beginning with a NOTHING with no time, no space, and claiming that God was already sitting there in full perfection for doing his big first act. Did he create himself (irrational), or do we miss yet another Godfather figure?

3) I wrote it already elsewhere on another thread: The Abrahamic God is claimed to be perfect, capable of everything, knowing everything. And this since the beginning of times. A perfect being creating a universe brimming with imperfections, with humans a stark example of that, is a logical fallacy. Perfection can't bear imperfection. Absolute perfection can't exist, as it would be instant stagnation, a useless existence and thus death.

4) The concept of God listening to the whining of creatures for privileging one over the other of them is perverse. Think it through. Prayers like spare me from evil, mean that you are perfectly OK if it hits someone else. The whole concept of give me something different and special (thus undeserved), which I don't achieve alone through my own thoughts, feeling and deeds is nasty. How does that match with an assumption of daily life characterized by justice and love?

5) Like it or not, as long as the 3 monotheistic book religions want to be respected, we nonbelievers have to take your laughable books as reference for learning what that God is supposed to be. So what should be make out of it, if all 3 religions have a hard time to explain away all the contradictions? 2 of them including yours are admitting that the texts are manmade, corrupted and tampered with. Why should one waste time with a colorful collection of stories and claims which here and there match with the reality and need ongoing arbitrary "corrections"? Isn't it more plausible to study the laws of nature for that way learning about forces that determine our life and evolution?

6) How can a construction of Godfather, Godson, Godspirit (Mother of God?, Godgrandfather?,…) be taken seriously? My assumption and claim (which cannot yet be proven), and shall not get confused with believes, is that we are doing injustice to some very wise historical men who actually lived commendable lives, committed to lecturing and helping their fellow humans of their times. The person nowadays called Jesus (which the OT elsewhere calls by his right name Jmmanuel) was one of them, so was Muhammad. Those fellows did not tell the rubbish that is nowadays attributed to them. They did also utilize prophecies for rattling the listeners and motivating them to change course.

7) The regular and thus natural path of development of an intelligent species such as humans on earth sees an early phase with phantasy believes occurring. Still rather primitive beings hear the sound of thunder and strange noises in the forest. They make up explanations, inventing ghosts and things. Over time they learn more and more of real causes and their effects. Believes and religions lose their appeal, as realism and logic suffice. Keeping religions alive and twisting them was therefore later on a maneuver by malevolent, greedy, power hungry actors, for controlling and ruling populations, exploiting them. God came handy for a special purpose, when demanding blind obedience and fear.

Aug 14, 2016
Strictly speaking no one can be without a religion. Atheists included..


The reasoning in this statement is erroneous. Religions are not defined simply by having beliefs of any kind, but by having particular kinds of belief. For example beliefs about the afterlife are a defining feature of religions. An afterlife is a metaphysical speculation about a scenario for which their can be no evidence. Also religious believes are based on authority rather than veracity. Proving them wrong does not necessarily change the belief if the authority over-rides the facts.

Beliefs about the origins of the universe are not all religious in nature. There is nothing religious about the hot big bang theory: it is simply the best conclusion about the early history of the universe based on the evidence. And non-religious beliefs change in response to evidence. For example the original big bang theory has been modified several times.

Atheism is not a religion by any sensible definition.

Aug 14, 2016
Interesting how they all prate about items from the Old Testament, but don't mention the New Testament
Julian lies when he claims that the NT is never referenced by anti religionists here. It has frequently been referenced in response to Julian's comments and Julian has seen these. Julian lies to himself about what's in there in order to continue to believe it's all so beautiful and perfect.

Sins are not sins when committed in service to the god of your choice. The books all document such broken commandments committed by the gods who wrote them.

Murder, persecution, adultery, lying, cheating, ethnic cleansing, torture, suicide, self-castration, rape, slavery, misogyny, misanthropy, all condoned and encouraged by example, all included in the holy faq as essential tips and tricks for getting anything you wish for including eternal life in ecstacy.

It is written.

Aug 14, 2016
They are all depraved and foul, arrested development degenerates, freaks and misfits
-And so they should be ostracised, persecuted, shunned, and killed (OT). With love (NT).

It is written.

Aug 14, 2016
Among other things, StudentofSpiritualTeaching, who evidently is so illiterate, they don't know the difference between "prove and "proof", very largely hinge on defining God in the terms of the limited manifestation called "reality" in this universe. The rest involves things from trusting "science" unwisely to outright lies and misrepresentations.
God is bigger than anything "science" has demonstrated the ability to describe. God can be everywhere at once, God can have both hands in one spot at the same time, God can see into the future, God can change the past, God can be a dozen different colors simultaneously. The question of God being able to make a stone heavy enough that He can't lift it is without meaning. In many cases in this universe, something must be either/or. God is beyond that. They used to say that geometries other than Euclidean are impossible, but Riemann said that, while they may not be here directly, we can talk about them.

Aug 14, 2016
It is the utmost illegitimacy to declare that this universe is necessarily all and then define God in terms of it. That one comment alone invalidates everything StudentofSpiritualTeaching claims. Since, among other things, God is outside time, since, among other things, He created the manifestation called "time", it is meaningless to talk about God being there temporally before the beginning of the universe. His whole existence is outside the scope of this universe, spatially, temporally and all, but it is not necessarily even legitimate to talk about God just sitting around. God can be His own beginning. Where is the beginning of a circle? Where is the beginning of a sphere? For that matter, where is the beginning of the number line, or the complex plane?

Aug 14, 2016
StudentofSpiritualTeaching talks about everyone "whining" to God only for their own good. That is untrue. And, as for God, among other things, God knowing all and still creating imperfection, even beings who might do evil, again, it is the flaw of defining God by the limited standards of this universe. God can know all and effectively act, at least in a limited sense, as if He was allowing something to develop on its own, like someone's nature.

Aug 14, 2016
As for God producing a universe with imperfection, or "imperfections", StudentofSpiritualTeaching contradicts themselves by calling something like that impossible. In terms of many beings being groomed for higher purpose, imperfections can act like traction, by which they can proceed. And, face it, psychologists regularly place humans and animals in situations to observe their actions, sometimes in area unrelated to the obvious nature of the situation they're placed in. That doesn't mean the psychologists aren't there and the situations that the people or animals in are actual manifestations of randomness.

Aug 14, 2016
No, the universe was not observed to have evolved into what it is. All; that is seen are pictures of what is observed now, here, and reproductions presented in museums. No animal was ever seen to evolve. Speciation has never been seen to occur. "Fossils", like all the displays in museums, are only fabrications they try to tell the gullible are real. Soldiers, or "soldiers", or ISIS, or "ISIS", were supposedly filmed smashing artifacts in a museum. It was revealed that they were all just plaster Paris displays. "Science" is a fraud.
And, no, the New Testament never is invoked in any supposed Bible related condemnations of God.

Aug 14, 2016
God is bigger than anything "science" has demonstrated the ability to describe. God can be everywhere at once, God can have both hands in one spot at the same time, God can see into the future, God can change the past, God can be a dozen different blah
Yah we know. Your god can do anything he wants. That's what all you religionists say about all the different gods you believe in.

But Julian's god wrote a book about people and events that the evidence says never existed and never happened. And Julian is not about to consider that his god didn't know the past or simply disregarded it when he wrote his book.

Julian is admitting however that his god could change the past as he sees fit. So then Julian must ask himself why it is that such a perfectly honest god would choose to obliterate all the evidence for his bible stories and replace it with totally convincing contrary evidence.
Cont>

Aug 14, 2016
We may not be able to fathom WHY Julian's god chose to deceive us but we can know for certain that he did. And we can then conclude that he is certainly NOT the superior being he describes himself as in the book that he wrote.

We can conclude that the god described in that book doesn't exist.

The book may have been written by some lesser god with issues, but there is no reason to waste time worshipping him or begging him for miracles because he has proven himself to be untrustworthy.

We cannot trust the promises he made. His entire book is most likely nothing but deception because evidence says that a great deal of it is.

Aug 14, 2016
"Strictly speaking no one can be without a religion."

Major fail in already the first comment. It is easy to test for the presence of purported magic (non-physical action), say by applying thermodynamics, and it has constantly failed. Absence of magic, including religious, is an observation. Religion is no more true than astrology or homeopathy is.

And of course the comment proceeds outside of the matter of religion, and asks for cosmological et cetera questions. Some of which have an answer, some which a scientist can factually answer "I don't know yet", without the answers having *anything* to do with existence of purported magic.

"No animal was ever seen to evolve."

How many times you repeat that falsehood, it isn't becoming more true. Here is one ref, from TalkOrigins: "Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963."

Aug 14, 2016
God can change the past


If that's the case he'd best be fixing a few of you nutters on warranty.

Dear Julian,

Thank you for reading my help. Thanks as well for teaching the correct plural of proof. Good to improve skills in my 3 foreign languages. Am really terribly illiterate, as you write. In that same sentence you use "they" as subject for me as single person. I have still a lot to learn.

Smalltalk aside, I understand now that your God shall not be judged by reality and its truth, not by the laws of nature, not by scientific means. It is not subjected to any logic. There is an expression for that, Virtual Reality. It applies for Pokemon, Donald Duck etc. It just puzzles me, why you are spending time on this Science portal instead of playing VR computer games.

May your inner voice from the subconsciousness reach you later during this life time, and allow you to free yourself from the prison that you are caught in. The universal laws and values of love, peace, freedom and harmony are no part of religions. One day you might realize it.

Aug 15, 2016
Oh, all you unicorn and leprechaun haters just make me sick!
Do you have even a shred of proof that they don't exist, please post it here.

Aug 17, 2016
In that same sentence you use "they" as subject for me as single person
Well god will also often do the same thing.

"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." gen3

-So julian is in good company.

But we certainly dont have to tell him this.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more