Oh put a cork in it.
That statement alone proves your hypocracy.
I don't think ''rational atheist'' care about God, or theism. They just get on with their lives. You, or any atheist in this thread, are definately not rational.
jan.
In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Oh put a cork in it.
That statement alone proves your hypocracy.
I don't think ''rational atheist'' care about God, or theism. They just get on with their lives. You, or any atheist in this thread, are definately not rational.
jan.
Not sure I would put god on Santa Claus nice list though
He doesn't even turn up for his stolen fake birthday each year
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Jan there is no god.
There never was there never will be.
The scriptures are made up by superstitious men in ancient times.
Clearly you have unfortunately been indoctrinated to believe nonsence from such an early age you can no longer use your inteligence to see how you and all theisists have been conned.
You go on and on here to presumably indulge your ego and your clear ability to side step and dance around in I assume an effort to turn make believe somehow into a pretend reality.
I am absolutely sick of your baseless assertion that athiests are without god... there is no god.. there is not even a sliver of evidence of god yet you go on as if god is real with not one point of proof or reasonable indication to support your assertion.
Your arguements have become tiresome your inability to see the real universe except by using a fairy tale to explain it is unfortunate for you.
Santa clause, god, the easter bunny, the devil, little red riding hood are simply fairy tales.
Let rational thought prevail and cjt through the horrible indoctrination that has corrupted your ability to realise there is no god... none.. and it does ot matter how hard you wish for a god there simply is no god.
Think it through. You must be capable of knowing there is no god and that the scriptures are made up like somany fairy tales... made up.. fiction... You have been lied to and as hard as it must be for you to do so you must accept you have been conned.
I hope you dont take this personally but you are living in a dellusional pretend universe padded with lies and superstition.
Alex
That's what it means to be atheist.
Intelligence has two L's.
Don't worry Alex, I'm aware of your little outbursts.
jan.
What about my Thor?
I've seen him in comic books and movies and they are modern
He doesn't claim to have made Earth
He hasn't got any church's to go to worship him
He does have a big hammer to dish out justice
Thor just Is
And I will go to where he lives in the sky because I am a Thorist
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You state the obvious here with no difficulty now just extend your ability to state also what is obvious that there is no god.
Yes but I used only one which you observed and yet you can not grasp there is no god.
There is no god and there is no L.
Sidestepping Jan move past sidestepping.
Jan it was not a little out burst... It was a huge outburst.
Give me credit. I am so very concerned for you.
You know I respect your inteligence and I simply want to help you out of this hole you find yourself in.
Would you believe a copy of the new testament came into my possession today.. Yes just the new testament I had no idea it was available that way. I will try and find someone to give it to.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
There is no Thor, well a god called Thor, sorry you have been sold a pup, conned, brain washed, indoctrinated, just like the rest of those poor folk who believe there is a god or gods, or angels or devils. Its a myth invented by folk who sort to explain cosmology by using a mythical made up entity to explain matters and scare the mob into complying to their laws and extract ten percent of their income. There is no Thor, no god, no santa clause, no devil and worst of all no easter bunny, but dont let me put you off your chocolate eggs.
Just because some one has written something that does not mean it is fact unless of course that someone who has written is me, in which case you can take it as fact.
Not that you know. Look all these gods are the same, they all try and take credit for creation and your Thor, if he was real, would no doubt claim creation was his idea.
Well it wont be long before his mob will want one and then will he build it? No but you will be asked to shell out to pay the builder.
Just tell them "If Thor is so great why doesnt he build it". He has a hammer tell him to build it himself.
Sounds like a salesman type.. An auctioneer I bet.. Or a district court judge. What the heck does he want a hammer for... Sounds odd.
Is what, finish the sentence otherwise you make no sence. You need at least a noun and something.
So you want to become an astronaut... Look they will ask you all sorts of things so dont mention your make believe friend otherwise not only will they not let you join but may lock you up.. For your own good of course.
Alex
You obviously weren't paying attention to him.
Dr Justin Barrett: "Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."
Also from the article: "young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose."
Children are not born believing in a Supreme Being. They are born with a predisposition to believe in a Supreme Being, according to this particular researcher. That's not the same thing.
I posted above another reason why there might be a predisposition to believe in a supreme being. Obviously, Dr Barrett isn't the supreme authority on this subject.
So "God" is just a word for a collection of existing things?
When we talk of the universe we often mean "everything that exists", or, to word it equivalently "the totality of existing things".
Where is the difference between that and your concept of God?
You might have become aware of the concept through scripture, but how do you know it to be true?
So your support is that you read it somewhere in a book?
Yet, as already addressed earlier in this thread, it can also address those who are not atheist.
Thus your equivocation is fallacious.
No, not naturally believing, but merely a preponderance to believe in a higher power.
There is only the scientist's interpretation that this is therefore God.
The science does not bear it out.
The actual studies on this matter, if you read them, conclude such things as children under 5 finding it easier to believe in some "superhuman" (whether that be their parent, or some religious notion) than to understand human limitations.
Perhaps this is simply a coping mechanism to help explain apparent marvellous feats that they can't otherwise understand.
What these studies also do is simply demonstrate a preponderance to belief in such things.
As you are aware, belief in something does not make it real.
It might make some things easier to to cope with if you do have certain beliefs, but that is an argument (*) for the holding of the belief, and not the reality of what is believed.
(*) it would of course be a fallacious argument: appeal to consequence.
No, I never forgot about God.
I am still aware of the concept.
And, who knows, the concept may actually be have an objective existence.
As suggested, it may be a useful trait in younger people to allow them to not be confused by what they see: a place-holder for the actual explanation.
But given that we have evolved to be able to override our instincts, why do you think we should go backwards?
Religion does not stem from "re-ligare" (meaning to reunite).
According to Cicero it comes from the Latin relegere - meaning "to read, or to go through, again" - actions repeated etc.
Later interpretations had the word coming from the Latin "religare" meaning "to bind fast", with the "re-" being intensive (emphasising the strength of the action) rather than reflexive (as in doing it again).
Even oh ought spelt the same, it did not seem to come from "religare" meaning "to reunite".
As to your point, no, I am not actively trying to suppress anything, any more than a wind actively tries to blow things over, or rain actively tries to make things wet.
What you see as active suppression is simply the byproduct of what I consider to be rational thought.
Yes, because I do not have the belief that God exists.
That makes me an atheist.
I don't know if I can currently comprehend God or not.
I have a reasonable comprehension of many concepts of God.
To which are you referring?
Is there even a God to comprehend?
Or is it just musings in some books?
How do you know that even you currently comprehend God, rather than just a concept that has no bearing on reality?
Because scripture tells you it is real?
You were once again moving into the realm of asserting God to be purely subjective.
You didn't use an analogy, you used an idiom.
An analogy is a comparison to aid with explanation.
Having suggested that you simply argue against your own idea of atheists rather than reality, your response of simply expressing an idiom akin to "if the cap fits" suggested that the cap I had described did indeed fit you.
And to reframe Sarkus' previous rebuttal of this:
... There is no denying that the description "those things that are supposed to have four legs" describes every single dog, making it the obvious, universal meaning.
Unfortunately it also describes other things, like cats, mice, horses, etc.
So arguing against "those things that are supposed to have four legs" as if it is equivalent to all dogs (and not also to things that aren't dogs) would be correct, would it?
Correct.
I relate to you through what I say/type, not through accepting your position or not.
Indeed some theists, some Inuits, some Texans, some Japanese, some world leaders, some TV personalities, some football players, some tax inspectors, some charity workers, some soldiers, some nurses as well, etc.
I.e. a ridiculous and pointless comment from you, Jan.
I have responded honestly.
Where do you think I have been dishonest?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I would.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/childish-beliefs-of-dr-justin-barrett.html
"Justin Barrett is a Senior Researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind and a lecturer in the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology. He’s also a devout Christian who believes that we have an inbuilt predisposition to believe not just in superstitious stuff, but also in a monotheistic god."
So this man would not have preconceived ideas would he?
His view is worthless.
Alex
"Justin Barrett is a Senior Researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind and a lecturer in the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology. He’s also a devout Christian who believes that we have an inbuilt predisposition to believe not just in superstitious stuff, but also in a monotheistic god."
So this man would not have preconceived ideas would he?
His view is worthless.
Alex
Last edited:
There must be a Thor.
Without Thor there would be no Thursday.
Today is Thursday.
Therefore Thor exists.
QED.
Other than for the bits that aren't, I can honestly say that what you write is all factual.
No, I'm sure he would give credit to his fath, Odin, for the creation of the world.
And as every follower of Thor would tell you, the ultimate creation of all never occurred...
There was always a timeless gaping abyss called Ginnungagap, between the realms of fire (Muspelheim) and ice (Niflheim)... (And you thought George R R Martin just pulled it out of his noggin!
) ... up to the point that the two realms met, creating Ymir, the first notable character, and eventually uncovering some god's in the ice...
As well as a cow.
These gods eventually produced Odin and the rest, as they say, is myth.
All fact.
Except the small bit that isn't.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
If God objectively exists, then everyone would seem to be "with God" in an important sense, even if they don't believe in the existence of God. That's implicit in the idea that God is creator, sustainer and law-giver of the entire universe, including the atheists within it. It's implicit in the idea of universal divine judgement, which presumably applies to atheists too.
And if God doesn't objectively exist, then everyone would seem to be "without God", since there would be no God for them to be with. The absence of God would be just as true for theists as for atheists.
And if God doesn't objectively exist, then everyone would seem to be "without God", since there would be no God for them to be with. The absence of God would be just as true for theists as for atheists.
Jan Ardena:
Remind me: who are you to tell atheists what atheism ought to mean?
There's not a double standard at work here, I hope.
What does God do in the world, Jan? Is he only here to make sure it goes on existing, or does he have some other job?
I'm the inconvenient voice of reason, Jan. You'd be the rebel if you weren't in the majority.
Are you saying you observe god "using my basic human intelligence"? Basic human intelligence is not a sense organ, Jan. Intelligence is merely a tool that assists interpretation of sense data.
So, I'll ask again: how do you observe God?
Typically, if one wants to know the truth about something, one doesn't start by making unfounded assumptions about the answer.
If you claim that you and others can perceive God, you ought to be able to suggest a mechanism for that perception, ought you not?
For example, a blind man might ask "How can you perceive this thing you call 'light'?", and the answer would be "I have eyes that let me perceive it. Here's how eyes work ... etc. etc."
But when I, somebody who is apparently "blind" to God, ask you "How can you perceive this thing you call 'God'?" you have no answer other than "I just do" or "It just comes naturally to me" or "I just open myself up and it happens".
Do you actually have no idea or explanation for how you perceive God?
---
(*) Joking. Don't take this to be an indication that I don't want God. My wanting or not wanting God has nothing to do with my judgment of whether God exists.
(**) This says nothing about my attitude to the parts of religious teachings that have some merit independent of theism. Religion isn't all bunk.
(***) Yes, I know I keep asking "How to do you know this?", "How do you know that?". But try not to simply wave these pesky questions aside. Try actually thinking about them. How do you know? How can you be sure?
Oh no? How interesting that you say that.
Remind me: who are you to tell atheists what atheism ought to mean?
There's not a double standard at work here, I hope.
Already did, in the post you're quoting from.
How do you know that God causes things?
I'd certainly like closure on your trying to tell atheists what atheism is. Especially given that you apparently have no idea what it is. I don't think I'm likely to get closure from you on that, though.
I'm sure I'll get around to it one day. Anything important I should know about it in the meantime?
And you see God everywhere, so you're asserting that God Is. I understand.
So it appears from everything you have written.
What does God do in the world, Jan? Is he only here to make sure it goes on existing, or does he have some other job?
Is this not an accurate description of your position? Is not, why not?
Begging the question always works, until somebody comes along to expose it for what it is.
How does scripture help you to know that God is real?
I didn't ask you whether it matters to you. I asked you how you know that God is.
Well, that's an improvement. Up to now I wasn't a proper theist. Now at least I'm just a lapsed theist who has "forgotten" God. Progress!
Correct. And writing a million "scriptures" on why you think that God exists similarly makes no difference.
Or perhaps his powers of reason deserted him in his old age. Or perhaps he fell under the nefarious influence of one or more persuasive theists. Or perhaps he was simply mistaken.
"What do we want? No God! When do we want it? Now!" (*)
I'm the inconvenient voice of reason, Jan. You'd be the rebel if you weren't in the majority.
In a fox hole, perhaps? On my deathbed? Is that the kind of cliche you have in mind? It's possibly worth remembering that my beliefs have already evolved, in contrast to yours. If I'm going to "yield" at this point to your religion, it's going to take quite a battle. I'm fairly well inoculated against religious mumbo jumbo at this point in my life. (**)
In other words, you assert that you know without really having a justification for your claimed knowledge. No surprises there. You're consistent in this, if nothing else.
How do you know that being consciously aware requires a connection to God? (***)
Where above?
Are you saying you observe god "using my basic human intelligence"? Basic human intelligence is not a sense organ, Jan. Intelligence is merely a tool that assists interpretation of sense data.
So, I'll ask again: how do you observe God?
Yes I do.
No. I already told you where I start from. Not that it matters too much. It's not where you start, it's where you finish, as they say.
We're back to Critical Thinking 101, then.
Typically, if one wants to know the truth about something, one doesn't start by making unfounded assumptions about the answer.
There's your relativism rearing its ugly head again. You need to sort out the difference between objective fact and subjective impression.
Right. But the point is that you have no rational grounds on which to believe that. To get to that point, you have to start with the a priori assumption of God.
How do you perceive God?
If you claim that you and others can perceive God, you ought to be able to suggest a mechanism for that perception, ought you not?
For example, a blind man might ask "How can you perceive this thing you call 'light'?", and the answer would be "I have eyes that let me perceive it. Here's how eyes work ... etc. etc."
But when I, somebody who is apparently "blind" to God, ask you "How can you perceive this thing you call 'God'?" you have no answer other than "I just do" or "It just comes naturally to me" or "I just open myself up and it happens".
Do you actually have no idea or explanation for how you perceive God?
---
(*) Joking. Don't take this to be an indication that I don't want God. My wanting or not wanting God has nothing to do with my judgment of whether God exists.
(**) This says nothing about my attitude to the parts of religious teachings that have some merit independent of theism. Religion isn't all bunk.
(***) Yes, I know I keep asking "How to do you know this?", "How do you know that?". But try not to simply wave these pesky questions aside. Try actually thinking about them. How do you know? How can you be sure?
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Today is Friday.
Not that father and son thing again.
Supporters of the steady state theory of cosmology. I like it.
Interesting is this what Jan has been trying to explain?
Why is there no reference to ice in the desert religions?
Why am I always right? How do I know there is no god? I hear voices I see visions.... Hang on its the tv but I had this dream... Where are my tablets?
Alex
I've walked Jan through this point several times already in this thread. Jan apparently has trouble distinguishing between objective fact and subjective perception. He kind of smooshes the two concepts together and flip-flops between them.
It could be that Jan actually believes there is no objective reality. If that's the case, I don't know what he's fussed about, since in that case God can exist for him and not exist for the atheists and it's all good.
But - and this is probably because of Jan's struggles with objectivity vs subjectivity - Jan does assert from time to time that God is objectively real and not just subjectively real.
Jan's inconsistency is a bit frustrating.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
It funny and only frustrating if you take him seriously.
Alex
I am being positive about it. I think it's a wonderful thing that children believe in fantasies like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
The question is: Why do you think belief in gods is different?
If children are born with an innate sense of god, as Jan says, then why would anyone ever lose that sense and become atheist? I never experienced this phenomenon, even as a child. I thought god was just another fanciful story people made up to be entertaining, like Aesop's fables or Sesame Street. I was rather shocked when, at about 10 years old, I found out people actually thought this was true.