Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

I am better than that.
I got everything set up and a couple of runs on an object I am not sure about..a little glob of dust..but thats interesting could be hundreds of light years across. ..it makes you wonder how it all got here.
Maybe we get visited by a clearly more advanced species MR knows are already around and they could demonstrate a total understanding of cosmology and show it wasnt a god that did it but can explain what went on before the big bang ...whatever but yhe truth...bt would they really know...will we get to know.
There are a few speculations from scientific based to a creator approach favored by theists..I wonder did the microbs in our bodies do it all and created the universe and us to have a place to live and all together generate a group conscience that manages the human race...another cult is born...a book a movie???
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jan do the thing you talked about so I have something to read please.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are ignoring the truth

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Knowing just IS

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I Jan said he may do a JamesR, and do a sumarisation, but clearly he has given up.
No sumarisation presumably because Jan now realises what such a sumarisation would show and simply consolidate evidence of his evasive behaviour.
Alex

 

Jan you forgot to present your summation like you said you would...or might..I guess it was only...might.
Alex

 

///
Most atheists were theists.
Not that I expect anything.
When slavery was much more accepted, theists quoted the bible to support it. Now they ignore or try to twist those scriptures.

<>

 

///
Many theists would claim the aliens are demons.

<>

 

///
Coming from someone who consistently denies reality.

<>

 

Atheists do not have to invent reasons to not believe in Norbert the Giant Flying Fox, or that the moon is made of cheese, which renders your point irrelevant.

Nobody can James.

I've never said that James.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What is it I am content to believe without reason James?

We both know that ''evolution'' is just another word for ''God'' that is accepted by atheists.
But how is it that you resort to the idea that theism is an evolutionary bi-product?

Who and what is ''us'' James, that we can utilise the capacity to be rational?
What is ''human intelligence''?
How and why did it bestow it self upon ''us''?

No it doesn't, unless your saying a new born baby is a logical being.
We have knowledge James, and we didn't have to acquire it. It comes with the package.

No. Stomach pains, nausea, and weakness will connect you to that.

You're not the best person to make that claim because you deny, and reject God.

That would simply make me an atheist. What would be the point of that?

The only thing to argue is why do you deny and reject God.

I beg to differ. Atheism has to be maintained. It needs continuous effort to deny, and reject God.

Your the one that is asserting God isn't real. I'm just being natural.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If I needed a reason to believe in God, then I could just as easily have a reason not to believe in God.
That would mean I only believe in God, based on that reason. But that's not what it is to believe in God.

Because God Is.

jan.

 

Exactly. Nor do they have to invent reasons to not believe in God.

That God (and Santa Claus) are real.

No, it's not. Redefining a word is a quick way to make you think you won an argument, but intelligent people do not accept such dishonesty.

He didn't. Scientists did. (The same scientists who you are supporting, in fact.)

It is a pronoun used by a speaker to refer to himself and one or more other people as the object of a verb or preposition.

Some of us can. Most theists can't.

A description of the human ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Same way it bestowed itself on elephants, and apes, and dogs, and rats.

It is not a logical being. If you leave a newborn baby alone in a room full of open, easily accessible and swallowable food, it will starve to death - because it has not yet developed the skills needed to feed itself, nor the knowledge to do so, nor the logical background to experiment and see what will solve its hunger problem.

However, put a newborn on a mother's breast (or reasonable facsimile) and it will suckle - because it is born with that reflex.

No, we are born with reflexes. We are not born with knowledge. Same as most animals.

So if someone stabs you in the stomach, and you have severe stomach pain, and you start feeling weak, your first thought will be "I better eat?"

No. Your first thought will be to get to a hospital or to call 911. That's because you have acquired the knowledge that the feeling of hunger is satiated by eating, and the feeling of pain (and observation of stabbing) makes you realize you have been seriously injured. Further, you can employ logic to connect the event (stabbing) with a feeling (pain) and realize that it is not hunger that has caused that pain.

Every point you make is another argument against the existence of God.

 

JamesR, there seem to be a number of notions that Jan Ardena's position is founded upon:
1. That belief in metaphysical notions is natural.
2. That being natural means that there doesn't have to be a reason for it, rather that one needs a reason to go against it.
3. That being natural means that it is the truth.

Offering my opinion on each briefly in turn:
1. That belief in metaphysical notions is natural.
Well, Jan Ardena did raise an article that pointed to a study that seemed to show this but, as was argued at the time, there is a vast chasm between holding a metaphysical notion and belief in God.

2. That being natural means that there doesn't need to be a reason for it...
Well, this is just silly, to be honest. Any conclusion we reach is based upon reasoning, whether that reasoning is flawed or not. In the case of metaphysical belief it is part and parcel of being pattern-seekers, which also gives rise to superstitious beliefs. So any belief we hold is held for a reason. One may not initially have questioned one's own reasoning before but there is a reason, whether it be "it's what I've been told and doesn't seem wrong" or a fully thought out justification that has explored the minutiae of the belief, or simply due to correlations that one thinks they have seen, or even "gut feeling". No one can hold a belief without a reason, although the reasons might not initially be clear.

2. ....one needs a reason to go against it.
Well, yes, as with the holding of any belief, one needs a reason to not hold it, at least once the idea of holding that belief has been raised. As exampled, if someone raises the notion of holding a belief that the moon is made of cheese, one will instinctively reason either why they hold that belief or why they do not.
Usually the more important the holding of the belief is to one's society, or personal circumstance, the more thought through the reason is for not holding it. But this is in no way evidence that to hold the belief requires no reasoning. Holding or not holding a belief that has been suggested requires a reason / justification, irrespective of whether one considers the holding of the belief to be natural or not.
But if one is not aware of the notion of holding a certain belief, one needs to have no thought-out reason for not holding it. The reasoning comes when the notion of holding the belief is first raised.

3. That being natural means it is the truth.
Well, it is certainly the truth that being natural means it happens. Probably quite a lot. But being natural to hold certain types of belief in no way gives weight to the veracity of the tenet of those beliefs. From an evolutionary standpoint it merely means that having the underlying behaviour (pattern-seeking) that, amongst other things, gives rise to such beliefs has been of benefit, while the particular beliefs that the behaviour has given rise to has not been detrimental (thus far) to survival.

Holding the belief that a loved one is alive and well can be a comfort, but holding that belief does not change the reality of whether that loved one actually is alive and well. The benefits of holding belief is not evidence of the veracity of the belief.

 

And the more the delusion is fed the more he pats himself on the back with the twisted logic

"I must be correct because I am in a discussion"

Of course the thread is not a discussion

It's Ping Pong with word definitions

Go into a thread with the generally understood rules of discussion and then letting twisted definitions bounce around

Bye bye common sense

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We don't even know how the human body works or how the human body was created and we also don't know how life on Earth got started.

So saying that a God exists for sure (and created humans as they are) is a perhaps a bit premature.

 

///
Some or most atheists may have reason(s) to not believe in god(s) yet not believing does not necessarily require reason(s).

///

 

But it does . Not believing is a stance based on an idea(s) .

 

///
No. Not believing is not a stance & it does not necessarily require an idea.

<>