Pinned by moderator

The Moderators

» Mods / Announcements  - 
Notice: Ask to Join has been turned on.

Atheism community posting rules

1. Allow Comments
To maintain a discussion we require all posts have comments enabled and remain so. This allows moderators to keep in communication.

2. Image posts
Image posts must follow the rules described in the image post policy. See   #GpacMeme .

3. Relevance
Every post must be related to atheism or religion and it must be immediately clear why a post is relevant to the community. If a video is linked from a post, the post must have a clear description of the contents of the video.
3.1. Avoid cross posting
If your post appears to be of dubious quality and the exact same post is posted to multiple communities, it may be considered spam and could be removed.
3.2. English
Posts have to be in English. If non-English content is linked from the post, the post must have a good summary or description of the non-English linked content.

4. Respect
The other members are more important than you, simply because there are more of them. If your presence makes this place a worse experience for everybody else, then you are no longer welcome. If a little more effort on your part makes your post a better experience for everybody else, then you are expected to make that effort. If you don't care about the quality of your post, we don't care about it either.
4.1. NSFW content is not respectful. Nudity and violence or disturbing images must not be directly visible from the stream. Links to such content in either posts or comments must have a warning of what is being linked to.
4.2. Proselytizing
Theists are welcome to join the discussion and to ask questions, but proselytizing is not allowed.
4.3. Do not troll. see:

5. Polls must follow all the above rules and the additional requirements given here:
Casual polls will be removed. 

6. There is no rule #6

#GpacDocs   #GpacModeration 
Zachary Hardy's profile photogareth rees's profile photo

Julie Ritt

» In the News  - 
Theists wonder why we hate religion and are so concerned with it? Yes,'s just one example of why.
Catholic bishops not obliged to report clerical child abuse, Vatican says.
Vatican guide says ‘not necessarily’ bishop’s duty to report suspects to police despite Pope Francis’s vows to redress Catholic church’s legacy of child abuse
Rich Martin's profile photoHellfire LWD's profile photo
+Rich Martin

Well yes...
The priest can still keep it between himself and the criminal... and God ofcourse but that doesnt exist.
They are still ignoring the law.
If someone commits a crime... he has to answer to society...
And not some deluded idiot priest who in turn will talk to his imaginary skydaddy and nothing will then happen and this criminal walks away free from retaliation and punishment.
Not right...

I really don't see why we have a special treatment for the so called religions.

Stay in line or get the fuck out...
That would be my stance...

Add a comment...

Don Wilson

» Introductions & Personal Stories  - 
Ok so here's what I just saw with my mom on Facebook.
This Nigerian baby girl dies. No one really know the details to how the girl died. So the father still keeps the dead child! He doesn't take her to the hospital, he doesn't take her to a funeral to purchase a casket for her to rest in, he just keeps her in his household, dead!
Few days later, he takes the child to his church, still dead. After the preacher is done, he confronts the preacher to ask God to resurrect the girl, and the whole church would pray and help! They continue to pray, while the pastor lays the dead child on a step. He then puts drops of some type of liquid (I'm assuming prayer oil) on the baby. Next thing you know, that baby is breathing and moving!! That baby is fine and healthy to this very day! I had no response to the situation so I just stayed quiet and all I said was,"I'm very happy that the baby is ok and alive now." That's all I said. I don't know what type of logical explanation can be used for this but it has to be something. I say the baby was probably just passed out for a few days and later woke up at the church. But I don't know. Anybody have a logical explanation for this?
JACK RAIDEN's profile photoJulio Castañeda's profile photoDon Wilson's profile photo
Lies.... Christians always make up stories about "miracles" to get people to believe.
Add a comment...

JR McCall, Arts

» In the News  - 
Ouch... Super anti Muslim or whatever world immigration aka exile sanctuary s... $$$,000,000?
Add a comment...

Jake Heuft

» In the News  - 
Argument for the benefits of a true surveillance state? Maybe as long as one still has privacy in their own home. 
Beliefs about all-knowing, punishing gods—a defining feature of religions ranging from Christianity to Hinduism—may have played a key role in expanding co-operation among far-flung peoples and led to the development of modern-day states, according to a UBC-led study published in Nature.
Kalliste Hill's profile photo
And just who funded that study? It doesn't seem to have bothered with the many animal studies that show co-operation is possible at every level without any religious belief. 
Add a comment...
After a seeing a few interactions yesterday including +Fox in the Know's discussion with +Trey Jadlow, I decided to put together a video outlining both where Trey is seeing a contradiction within the arguments concerning causation and events, and where I feel he is mistaken.  This has been pointed out quite a few times, but I wanted to attempt something succinct both for Trey and for those who would interact with him.  Hopefully this clarifies the issue and at the very least helps in improving communication in regards to his argument.  (And, all humor is intended as good fun, as I know Trey can take joke.  I'm confident he'll take it as I intend, but for others, please know that this is entertainment and not character assassination)  Enjoy!

Script for
#### (Un)Becoming Trey ####

In this video, I want to take a moment to explain where Trey Jadlow is seeing a contradiction and give reasons as to why he is mistaken.  It is my hope that in doing so, not only may Trey come to see where it is others are finding issue, but also that those who argue against his position will understand his objection and take the proper course, and in doing so avoid overstating or misstepping in response to his badgering.

First, let’s first establish that, yes, all causes entail subsequent effects and all effects entail antecedent causes.  This is by definition as it is what we mean by causation.  As Trey likes to put it, it would be to say that the effect is contingent upon the antecedent cause.  I would further argue that the cause is contingent upon the effect, but that’s an argument for another day.  Settle down Trey.

This contingent relationship between a cause and its resulting effect is also what Trey is implying when he uses the term happening.  It is to say that some thing has experienced change, and by that, it is meant that the change entails an antecedent state from which the thing “became” what it is no longer.  This is what Trey means by happening and by becoming.  This is as the pre-Socratic Heraclitus, whom Trey references, says: you can’t step in the same river twice, because that river is becoming what it was not from its prior self.  While I have mereological objections with these notions, for the sake of argument, I can table them.

So in Trey’s mind, effects happen or become by means of an antecedent cause.  Where there is an antecedent state and a change occurs such that some thing becomes some thing else, there is a cause and an effect.  

Okay, now for where he sees a contradiction and for where his errors lie.

The question on offer is “Is it possible for an uncaused event to obtain?”

Upon this text hitting the screen, Trey has just yelled out “No, my friend, you’re violating the law of non-contradiction.”

So where is the contradiction as Trey sees it?  By Trey’s lights, all EVENTS are contingent on a prior state from which they became, and so by uttering “uncaused event”, what Trey’s is hearing us say is “Is it possible for an uncaused caused effect to obtain?”  Were we saying that, then yes, that would be a contradiction and Trey would simply need to show that we are saying that.

But the meaning within the question “Is it possible for an uncaused event to obtain?” is of an event where no antecedent cause is present and thus no effect entailed.  

The very question being asked is whether is possible for a state of affairs to obtain uncaused.  

That “obtaining” necessarily entails cause is the very thing being brought forward as a question for consideration.

For Trey to insist that events definitionally imply causes and effects is to beg the question against skepticism.  The skeptical position would be that not all events have antecedent causes.  That is the question on offer.  Defining it away, absent reasons within the framework of an argument by which to demonstrate that it can’t be, is to beg the question. One can not answer this by stipulating “events necessarily entail antecedent causes from which they are the effect” for that is to beg the question “can a state of affairs obtain without cause?”

Upon this objection, Trey will often want to ask “Are events happening?”  Well, remember Trey’s definition for “happening” entails an effect with a prior cause.  So, again, by that definition, he’s looking to beg the question.  The question on offer is “Is it possible for an uncaused event to obtain?” and Trey needs to demonstrate by means of reasoned argument why it is not possible if he wishes to assert it.

And just to cover all the bases, recalling that by “becoming”, Trey means to say a caused-effect, he would yet again be begging the question against skepticism to insist that all events are becoming by that definition.

In addition to his begging the question, I think Trey is committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent through his equivocations.

Where one can say:
P1:  If there is a caused-effect, then there is an event.
P2:  X is a caused-effect.
Conclusion: Therefore X is an event..  

Trey is stating:
P1:  If there is a caused-effect, then there is an event.
P2. X is an event.
Conclusion: Therefore X is a caused-effect.

Trey is inferring the converse of the first premise.  We have experience with causes and effects, and when these manifest, they do so as events, as becoming, as change within a state of affairs.  P1 implies that all caused-effects are events, but it does not imply that all events are caused-effects.  Trey is wanting to assert that not only do caused-effects imply events, but that they are what ONLY implies events.  This, again, is the question on the table: are all events caused-effects?  

Trey would need to establish that events can only occur where there is a causation.  In order to assert the logical necessity of all events entailing causation, Trey would need to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary.  What is on the table is the possibility of such a state of affairs, and Trey can not beg the question by stipulating that it is impossible.  He must demonstrate it by means of a reductio ad absurdum for the skeptical position as it relates to his assertion.  That is the only means by which one demonstrates that it is what is on offer is not possible.

There is no contradiction, at least that he has demonstrated, and his thinking that there is one comes as a result of him begging the question.

Why is any of this important?  Because our inferences related to causation are relevant to when some antecedent effector obtains and causes change in the prior-existing affected.  We have no inference for a state of affairs where no antecedent effector obtains and no prior-existing affected obtains.  Our inferences relate to things affecting other things.    

In the case that no thing obtains, were some thing to obtain, there would be no antecedent thing by which to cause it.  Upon what inference would we conclude that such a thing were not  possible?  A theist might be tempted to leverage this lack of an antecedent thing to invoke the necessity of a God to act as the antecedent cause.  But such a being would be instantiating an obtaining state of affairs of some things from no things.  Our causal inference is relevant to an antecedent material and efficient cause.  In this case, our inferences regarding causation are equally ill-suited, rendering a creator no better an inference based on causation than a state of affairs where no thing obtains.  Where we insist on what can be inferred by our experience with causation, we could only infer that somethings have been composed from and by antecedent somethings, and go no further.

We simply lack inferences by which to conclude what is possible or necessary for a state of affairs where what it is we are familiar is not to be found.  Anyone saying otherwise must show the necessity by means of demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary.  

For Trey, that is your burden for what you wish to claim.  You are making a synthetic proposition about the world based on the inference that there are no states of affairs that obtain uncaused.  You can either prove your logical necessity for causes by demonstrating non-question-begging impossibilities, you can revise or find new arguments, or you can soften your assertions into questions of what is more or less plausible.  Your arguments being considered rational by the community depend on it, and by your failure to satisfy the burden you yourself have created, you will take your place amongst those you find to be absurd within the community.  Your errors are becoming evident to nearly all and you only have yourself to blame.  Believe it or not, I’m rooting for you.

For those who would argue against Trey, I would encourage you to not say things like there can be effects without causes or that the pre-Socratics are rubbish.  They’re not, and when you have a moment, I’d encourage you to watch one of the several fine Youtube breakdowns of Heraclitus and Parmenides. 

In the case of Trey’s argument, we don’t even have to go as far as finding examples of what we feel might be uncaused events.  Trey is arguing a logical necessity, which is to say anything else is impossibility.  That’s a proposition concerning the world which carries a hefty burden that one clears only by means of demonstrating a reductio.  When Trey invokes “change”, “happening” or “becoming” in the event that you ask him to demonstrate the necessity of cause, I would ask him what he means by those terms, and where you see him invoke a definition that smuggles in cause, that you ask him to not equivocate.  You are asking about uncaused events, and in the case that Trey wants to define event as a “caused effect” either explicitly or through an equivocation, he is begging the question against skepticism.  Logically necessary implies an impossibility of the contrary, and Trey is on the hook for demonstrating such a strong assertion.  This is a good thing for Trey and a good thing for us.  Were we allowed arguments that employ errors and fallacies akin his question begging, not only would God have been defined out of existence, but as well the world would be filled with far more irrationality than we currently see and far more cackles of misplaced incredulity.
Add a comment...

Poised Atheist

» Discussion  - 
Numbers 28 brings us some odd rules concerning daily offerings.
In our last look in the Book of Numbers, God signaled the end of Moses, making it clear that Moses would not reach the promised land. Even Moses’ dedication and love for God is not good enough for...
Add a comment...

Beyond Psychology

» Communities & Resources  - 
Photo credit: Slate By Chris Kirk A large, publicly funded charter school system in Texas is teaching creationism to its students, Zack Kopplin recently reported in Slate. Creationist teachers don’…
Add a comment...

David Yonge-Mallo

» Discussion  - 
<Ted Cruz‘s father joined with televangelist Kenneth Copeland in his church on Sunday to announce that the Texas senator has been anointed by God to be the next president of the United States.>

So if Cruz loses the election, or doesn't even get the nomination, is Copeland going to admit that God is wrong? Sadly, his followers would probably just get selective amnesia.
Ted Cruz's father joined with televangelist Kenneth Copeland in his church on Sunday to announce that the Texas senator has been anointed by God to be the next president of the United States.
Daniel Voisin's profile photoWilliam Lundbergh's profile photoAdrian Chapmanlaw's profile photoJustin Howell's profile photo
Fowl! No invoking magic in the prez race! So far how many theocrats prayers weren't answered? They're full of sh+t for Jeezuz. When I see a theocrat and preacher together I think, "Let's play make-believe."
Add a comment...

Justin Johnson

» Discussion  - 
Today in my philosophy of religion class, I found out that I'm the only atheist in my class when we participated in a poll. I was told that on Thursday we will be discussing and debating over the Ontological argument and I would like some advise on how to tackle this topic. I'll be a one man team against 21 others so the more information and good counter arguments I can stockpile my brain with the better.
Jake Heuft's profile photoOwen Roberts's profile photo
NO viewpoint is universal anywhere
But nowhere in Europe will you find significant support for the death penalty; GM; widespread gun use; or denial of GCC, and I cannot think of any country where being an atheist is a disbarment for holding public office
Add a comment...
This Land is Mine:
Add a comment...

About this community

Join us to discuss topics related to atheism and religion from a secular perspective. Our community is meant to offer support to community members, share educational resources, and to discuss issues pertaining to the impact of belief and religion on society. The community has been Closed to reduce bots, spam, and trolling. Profiles requesting to join will be evaluated for human activity. Our subject is controversial and our members are many. In order to keep our community running as smoothly as possible our team of volunteer moderators have developed a set of rules that aim to: - Encourage civil and polite discourse, - Reduce clutter and promote active discussion, and - Promote accessibility for all, including those with visual, aural or other impairments. Please review the rules (in the link below) before posting. Also note that this is a public community and the posts or comments you make can be viewed by anyone. ATHEISM The Oxford English dictionary defines atheism as: “Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods,” but it is not up to us to define the beliefs of others. Many atheists have their own definition based on their particular thoughts. Discussions related to these differences can be thought-provoking -- if we keep in mind that it is not helpful to argue over which one is right or wrong. Read “What is Atheism” in the link below to learn more.

Kedar Gadgil (KAG)

» Discussion  - 
why do societies regress so quickly from liberal>conservative>religious>theocratic>tyranny>failed? here’s my view
a video showing former egyptian president nasser scoffing at muslim brotherhood's suggestion of a mandatory hijab was shared on facebook recently. i wondered how a society can come so far back so quickly, and realised that there is a certain path, not inevitable, but quite clear nevertheless. it has been studied and written about in the past. but i thought i'd make a contribution by simplifying it in my words

#regression #racetothebottom
Priscilla Alexander's profile photo
I loved the video of Nasser's comments about the hijab.  It was so refreshing.  Unfortunately, he wasn't so great on all fronts, and despite Turkey's great modern history, it is now becoming quickly repressive.  It is a tragedy.
Add a comment...

Reza Mohseni

» Discussion  - 
Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer 
How to do nothing and still think you are helping.
Light Yagami's profile photoHellfire LWD's profile photoStanislav Svarc's profile photo
+Light Yagami

Haha yes... funny :)
Add a comment...

Lauryn Hill

» Religious Buffoonery  - 
Don Wilson's profile photoDylan Reeves's profile photonvrAU B's profile photoSteve Hardt's profile photo
Faith by definition is believing in something without evidence and personally I don't do that because I'm not an idiot
Add a comment...
What do Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty have in common with a rock???

A lack of belief in gods
Martin Knowles's profile photoDusten Barker's profile photo
+Martin Knowles double entendre, perhaps?
Add a comment...

JR McCall, Arts

» Religious Buffoonery  - 
18" million $!!!? Tax rebate. Go the hek bak to Australian delusions of child molestation p o s.
Joe Lancaster's profile photomorrison 3577's profile photo
Can't wait for the ark to fail just wish that they could put it to sea with ham, comfort ,craig lane the whole family of idiots 
Add a comment...

Souv M

» Videos  - 
The untouchables in India face challenges every day just to practice their basic human rights. Affirmative actions (quotas in Govt. jobs and public higher education system) have created a privileged class among the Dalits but mass education is still unavailable for them. Unavailability of mass primary education along with hatred from upper castes makes their life miserable and force them to do the jobs no one else want to do. Here are some voices of Dalits from different states of India.
Heretic's profile photoTodd Henkel's profile photo
Very interesting film, thanks for sharing. I'm sure that with the right package, a good crowdfund operation could start up some real benefits for the Dalits, especially on education
Add a comment...

Runivis Roan

» Religious Buffoonery  - 
I had forgotten about this blast from the past. Enjoy some of my childhood experience with religion.

warning, parody ahead
Runivis Roan's profile photoDed Jezter's profile photo
+Runivis Roan I can understand that. It does seem to be viable at first glance. I know many that have been taken in by it only to find out the truth later.
The dead giveaway is the church and pastor that never existed. This information is public.

That and the use of "SWAG" supposedly in 2004, when it didn't become hip hop vernacular until around 2010.

Just give it a parody lable and all is good. It still is very funny.
Add a comment...

toolfool82 Mostrom

» Religious Buffoonery  - 
Fuck your god , your christ \m/
Dey Cross's profile photoColin Mackay's profile photoAndreüs Wallace-Miller (André)'s profile photoBeyond Psychology's profile photo
I would say that you're right!
Add a comment...