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

Yes, I got to where you finally stated why you hold it importance, and what's more I had a good laugh along the way. Yet nothing could stop your answer from being one of the more ridiculous I think I have ever seen from someone trying so hard to be serious.

Yet again you fail to comprehend the implications of what you do discuss. I should no longer be surprised, yet I am always hoping.
[qupte]So you believe.[/quote]As should you, Jan, unless you are under the delusion that a belief in something means that what is believed necessarily exists in reality, outside of being a mere though.

Sure, you have an a priori assumption that God exists.

Sure, and they start from the a priori assumption that God exists. But if they start their thoughts without that assumption, if they are capable of just looking at theism as meaning "belief in God" and atheism as "No belief in God" then, absent any a priori assumption that God exists, those terms alone do not imply, nor necessitate, the existence of God.
You can't see that, not because you're a theist but because you are unable to think without invoking your a priori assumption that God exists.

The one above, to start with. And each and every time I have let you know that you are starting from the a priori assumption of God's existence.

Oh, good grief. So now if one doesn't believe in something they are actually suggesting that it exists? You're a riot, Jan.

How does that support your accusation of the atheist's choice being arbitrary?

All considered opinions involve one's cooperation, Jan. But that doesn't mean it is a choice.
Plus you have not the post previously to me said that it is not possible to choose, which is why you think atheists don't exist. So FFS get some consistency in your drivel at least. Consistent drivel is at least an indication of an ordered mind, but yours is so inconsistent it is like you have a tumble-drier of ideas and you have no control over which sock you pull from it.

In relation to belief in God.

Allow me to let you in on a little secret: it doesn't add any weight at all. No, seriously, it adds zero weight to any of your supposed arguments.
Ironically what it does add weight to is is the notion that you have very little other than fluff and bluster, a few mantras you throw around whenever you think you need to support what you're saying, oblivious to their weightlessness.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter.

So now you are going back on your constructed argument, that someone who doesn't believe in God is really showing that God Is. I don't mind that you go back on what you previously said. It was ridiculous then and continues to be ridiculous, so the Sooners out retract it the better.
Further, 2+2 doesn't need to be 4 to understand that it is not 5. It need some of be 4 precisely because it is 4 and can be nothing else. To show that 2+2 is not 5 you could just as easily conclude that 2+2 = 3. You have shown it is not 5, and thus shown that proving it is not 5 is not reason enough for it to be 4.
But you probably didn't follow any of that.

You have taken a discussion you have had with SiaSL and his comments as being those of all atheists, rather than listening to the person you're discussing with. You thus create a strawman and argue against that.

So if God Isn't then you think God still Is?

Oh, FFS, Jan, this is getting tiresome and it is a real struggle to keep thinking you do this honestly: if you are accepting of something and it forms part of any claim you make, you are arguing it. Any time you say something that starts with, uses, or concludes that God Is you are arguing that God Is. Yes, it is something you accept. But that doesn't stop it being something you are arguing. You don't get to absolve yourself from what you say, and the implications thereof, just because you don't appreciate that it is something you are arguing.
If you start with the assumption that God Is, as you do, then you are arguing it. It's as simple as that. The only time that wouldn't be the case is where both sides accept the same assumption/premise from the outset. That is not the case here.

Is this you trying to understand the agnostic position? If so, you're not doing very well. If not, I don't see the relevance.

Not really, Jan, as you can't seem to discuss anything without asserting that God Is. You reject everything people say unless they are on the same "God Is" wavelength as you. You dismiss with "you would think that because you're an atheist and without God" without any actual discussion. No, it is not a silly suggestions, Jan. Not silly at all.

No team. Just each individual non-believer.

No, it's not pointless to bring up something you have no knowledge of, by way of example. Do you believe in Zarx or not? Can you believe in something (e.g. Zarx) you don't have knowledge of?
But according to you, since some believe in Zarx, and others don't, Zarx must exist. The non-believers prove Zarx exist, because surely you can't reject something that doesn't exist, right? That is your argument, isn't it?

I think it means heaps as well, Jan. Heaps of stinking manure that seem to flow from your thought processes and onto the web page. Once again you only bold God, not "believes in God" and thus blinker yourself. And from that blinkered and biased position you spout forth this steaming pile of fertiliser. The ironic thing is I don't think what you spout is actually good for gardens.

Oh, what the hell, okay then. Zarx is mushroom-shaped fairy that lives at the bottom of Crowhampton Lane and apparently only speaks the truth. I don't believe in Zarx, if that helps you form your opinion. I am azarxist.
What about you?

If you are accepting that the atheist does not start from the premise that God Is, then why do you not have the decency to not start your arguments from that premise when discussing with them, and reject any argument that does not? Every time you simply stamp all over a thread with your assertions, no help to anyone, never progressing discussion only hindering it. All seems rather disrespectful, does it not?

By not being real, Jan. By only being an idea that aims to answer the mysteries of how we got here, but with no actual reality. I know that might be a struggle for you,

You don't see how dishonest this is of you? You ask me how I can consider God's existence to be unprovable, given the definition of God, and then have issue with raising matters of the definition?
Definitions do not bring something into reality. If God Is then God is provable because everything is evidence. If God Isn't then nothing is evidence of God. So how do you determine if God Is or Isn't? How do you determine if the definition you use refers to something in actuality or not? You certainly can't use evidence that relies on the definition being of something real to be evidence of it being something real.

Then what are you saying? Please spell it out nice and simply, as I'm clearly not grasping what you're trying to explain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well you are half way there.

Lets think he is misguided which I think is a reasonable approach.

It is clear to me that believers are misguided and as such they require an understanding that they are incapable of thinking that God may not exist.

The battle between reason and dogma in their mind understandably must cause confusion and perhaps such confusion causes difficulty in adequately managing the truth.

I suspect you have dealt with patients who require a special understanding due to some difficulty in copeing with reality.

In any event if you let someone annoy you it probably means they lack something that your expectations demand from folk you engage in a context other than work.
In that case avoiding them is probably best.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By that standard, there is no "the view point of ...." for anything provided you have parties willing to bring their associated word salad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are more generous than me in this matter

A fair enough assessment. But surprisingly very few rose to the level of stupidity exhibited in this thread

Hence my diagnosis of wilful stupidity

As you are aware I consider I only have 3 working brain cells Huey Dewey and Louie

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's my method of working out problems to imagine them engaged in conversation and presenting me with a solution

It helps me set up a argument within and sets the stage for a wide range of views to be considered

Not naming names but others in forums and threads like this might benefit from such an approach

Set the process going, step back and let, in my case Dewey (the tie breaker) come forward with a answer

He's telling me now sleep time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Posted in error.

 

If only others were as honest.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Look man.
I am going to respond to some of your points. But if you don't calm it down. I'm done discussing with you.

There is no need to get bat-shit crazy. We are on a discussion board, discussing a topic. That's all. I don't know you, and you don't know me.

So back off with your attacks!
Do you think you can do that?

Jan.

 

Hey up!
Here comes his tag-team partner.

Jan.

 

Picking three rhyming names at random, I'd be intrigued to hear a conversation between Anne, Dan and Stan.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Anne Oakley

Dan Dare

Stan Laurel

Could be a dream team

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You should not take it personally I would talk to any theists in a similar manner.

I was not being particularly serious but I was not joking.

Still pretty funny though☺

Thats nice.

I find many things you say very amusing.

No you haven't.

You just feel hurt because I suggest dishonesty as a traint in the believers I am looking at, and understandably must try to suggest that I am dishonest.

I dont even have to deny your claim as like all your claims you have nothing to present in support.

I am incapable of dishonesty that is why I must be an atheist...I dont lie to others and I dont lie to myself.

There is nothing to be sad about .. what you perceive about my lack of honesty has no basis and your emotional appeal is baseless. ..

it is your attempt to throw mud and that is indeed sad.

But you have neen caught out so let us move on.

Very cunning ..you appeal to my ego ... and certainly I have talked long enough about me so I will be quiet so you can talk about me...please go on.

Well no.

If you watch the show you may notice he and indeed other atheists on the show approach callers asking them to present their belief.

And he and they deal with each presentation with the question " why do you believe that".

They, Matt and his associates, are really decent people and very respectful ...but you would know that if you took time to look at the show.
You should take a look as you would enjoy it.

His approach is simple..if you make a claim then he asks that you back it up.

That is the way things work and we all accept that.

Really watch the show Jan as Matt will really impress you and even though you may not share his world view I am sure you would respect his approach and style ... he was a christian once so you may find it interesting how he reached enlightenment.

If you make a claim back it up ... what is so wrong with that.

You claim a God exists well back it up. You claim a soul exists well back it up.

So when you ring Matts show and present a story or a proposition he asks that you back it up.

Why do you find that so difficult to accept?

Like your op back it up or expect not to be taken seriously.

God makes no claim so does not need to put up or shut up.

It is not like that Jan.

Someone making a claim God exists creates the necessity for them to provide evidence...Matt asks for evidence of their claim.

He clearly has satisfied himself about his lack of belief in God but that is separate to someone making a claim.

You claim God exists well back it up..put up or shut up.

I claim the bible is made up, you challenged my claim so I put up...and you could see I was right so you dropped the matter...sure you tried to say all I had was nonsence but you failed to back that claim as well.

So I can claim its all made up because I can support that claim.

Your claim that my claim is nonsence fails because you have not backed it up indeed the fact that all you could say was nonsense tells everyone you have nothing...you bluffed I called you and you folded.

Actually that is not the claim on the table at all.

He and his crew do not make that claim.

They say no more than they dont believe in God which certainly does not claim God does not exist.

So that means if you claim that God exists then back it up.

Matt makes no claim that he has to back up.

Watch the show Jan you will love it ...if you watch it and dont love it you can call me on that claim ☺

Yes quiet simple bordering on deepity ☺.

You will find in the real world Jan to hold credibility you must be able to back up your claims and if you can not such gets around.

You can not be "a man of your word" if you cant back up your claims.

If you deliver on your word folk respect you ... thats the way it is out there.


Alex

 

Who are you talking to Jan?
Alex

 

I'll go out on a limb and assume that this is addressed to me, shall I? Not that it actually matters.

You'll cherry pick, Jan. You'll address those points for which you think you have a rebuttal, but won't bother with most of the stuff.
And what exactly would you like me to calm down? What exactly is "it"? Highlighting your dishonesty? Your inability to discuss coherently or consistently? Your unwillingness to take ownership for your implications? Your inability to apply logic to your thoughts? Your inability to actually provide an argument but instead fall back on to one or two mantras?
Please, do tell me. You have me intrigued.

So is this your new defence: playing victim and accusing the others of going crazy? I guess you get to convince yourself of an excuse not to respond to them, right?

We are on a discussion board, but you are not discussing anything, you haven't been for rather a long time. When it comes to people who don't share your a priori assumption that God exists you have absolutely no intention of discussing anything, but instead try to wage your own little holy war, throwing flaming boulders of illogic, non sequiturs, non-answers and inconsistencies at walls of argument you don't even comprehend. And all you do, all you have ever done, is shown up how limited you are, and in trying to cover that much up you reveal how dishonest you are.
No, Jan, I don't know you personally. I only know you through what you write. And that is more than enough.

Are you able to back off with your illogic, your stupidity, your non sequiturs, your dishonesty, your non-answers, your inconsistencies, your belligerent trench-warfare attitude of always looking to score points? Do you think you can do that?

 

You find the claim that there are many different ways to fail to harbor a belief in God, to be atheistic people, to be "word salad"?

Interesting. We're making progress on our discussion topic.

Which is this, lest we forget:

If we hypothesize that somebody believes there is one and only one "atheist point of view" - covering everyone from African animists and Chinese Daoists to Scandinavian Postmodernists - and doubles down on that by projecting their God unto all conceptions of deity by assumption, we can see a kind of twosided or flat world that could be mistaken for a mirrored one.
That doesn't explain the willful misrepresentation of scientific research, of course.

 

You've been evading the topic. I asked you what the difference is between god and gods and you refuse to answer. The OP suggests that atheists don't exist and I countered that you could use the same argument to argue that theists don't exist. If theists really believe, why can't they explain the difference between god and gods?

 

Only when you think the various failures do not result in a very specific world view.

As I said, any fool can employ the exact same sophistry to deny the validity of labeling anything a world view.

 

No,no,no,no. I don't want to go there.

Belief in Tulpas is a particular kind of belief taken from a particular kind of philosophical idealism found in a particular kind of Tibetan Buddhism.

These people insist that All of phenomenal reality, all of the world of experience (the tables and their chairs, other people, all of the world of natural science), is merely an illusory mental construct.

Hence, the belief that the ideas of fantasy can be just as real as physical objects if we believe in them enough and visualize them in enough detail.

So these people practice "deity yoga" in which they practice visualizing a chosen patron deity, who supposedly eventually becomes real (as real as anything else) and capable of delivering religious teachings.

I don't think that either atheists or theists believe that God somehow becomes real because theists believe in him with sufficient passion.

Theists don't want to think that God is merely part of the phenomenal illusion. They want to believe that God is more real than that, that God is the Reality that stands behind the illusion.

And atheists don't want to adopt an ontology where fictional characters like Santa Claus can become physically real if you believe in them hard enough.

 

Good. Because you need to calm down.

Atheists on here see what they want to see.

Clearly you're refusing to comprehend what I'm saying.

What I think doesn't matter. This is the reality. Soak it up brother

Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

Again, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks.

Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

That is real. You are simply spying atheism. That's the second one in the list. All that makes and is, you don't believe in God. It says nothing about non-existence, or even the possibility of non existence. It says you don't believe in God.

You are an atheist, and for you there is no God. I am a theist, who believes in God.

Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

Where is the assumption that God Is?
Maybe it's your natural instinct that sees God Is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No. You don't have to suggest anything.
You just don't believe in it.
Do you have a reason why don't believe in God?

The atheist is under no obligation to accept God. Over time the atheist can convince himself that God does not exist, by sticking to any reason, like Alex, Stranger, etc...
Eventually they come to believe it.

Please show that argument, as I don't recall making it.

Admittedly it lacks sophistication. But that's about it.

God Isn't is one possible reason an atheist could give for not believing in God. An atheist is a person who does not believe in God.

Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

Calm down, and gather your thoughts.

No. It means I'm accepting of it.
I'll let you know if my intention is to argue, as it seems you can't tell the difference.

Agnostic means without knowledge, like atheist means without God. Hardly rocket science.

For you, there is no God.
Unless. ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What could you provide as evidence to show that it is even possible that God could not be real? Or even a rational explanation that God could not be real.
Bear in mind that it needs to be in accordance with scriptural definition if God, not atheist one.

Agreed
Now provide at least an explanation of how God could be not real.

Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

Jan.

 

If people didn't have either the word or a concept of 'God', how could they have believed that either the word or the concept refers to something independently real?

The ancients may or may not have had functional equivalents of our word and concepts.

What people do today is look at the kind of words and beliefs that the ancients did possess, then try to categorize those words and beliefs under the headings employed and accepted by philosophy of religion and theological thought today. That often involves trying to cram square pegs into round holes, since the ancients oftentimes didn't conceive of things as we do in our modern age. A great deal of religion scholarship in universities over the last couple of hundred years has revolved around making those kind of subtle differences clearer.

 

You seem to think it's a bad thing. Why?

Thanks. I find it helps diffuse the hot-heads.
Truth be told, I think you're a hot-head, though you try to come of as a gentle soul.

I'm afraid I have.

Sometimes I wish I was so petty.

You're an atheist because you have convinced, an continue to convince yourself there is no God.

Actually yes.

I have watched his show, as theyre all over you tube. I find both him, and the majority of caller inausiating. His callers are mainly fundamental Christians. Easy pickings for atheists.

In debate, he almost always gets caned.

I don't need to claim God exists.

Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

There is only the claim God does not exist.

Why did you ignore my chart?
It needs to be addressed man.

Will wait until you do.

Jan.