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

[Seattle]

It wasn't so much a feat of traversing difficult territory.

Generally, such a sentence would read..."It wasn't so much a feat of traversing difficult territory" as it was of (whatever).

Less time with religion and more than perfecting your communicating skills might be called for.

 

[Musika]

Generally, such a sentence would read..."It wasn't so much a feat of traversing difficult territory" as it was of (whatever).

... as it was recognizing your intentions ....

 

[Seattle]

... as it was recognizing your intentions ....

There we go...baby steps!

 

[Capracus]

Then we are back to the conundrum of explaining how an individual can spot a bald person if they have an "absence" of belief about hair.

Some conundrum. Imagine an individual with a traumatic brain injury who can’t discern night from day.

If your going to propose examples of knowledge in the context of human experience, you might want to do it from the standpoint of rational actors and situations.

 

[Musika]

Some conundrum. Imagine an individual with a traumatic brain injury who can’t discern night from day.
.

I did already touch on how ignorance is a position of true absence, but it comes with the proviso that one cannot recognize it as such .... which effectively rules out anyone participating on this site.

.

If your going to propose examples of knowledge in the context of human experience, you might want to do it from the standpoint of rational actors and situations.

I am.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How does sideshowbob know that?

The same way you know anything that is natural to the human being.

For his invisible attributes (God) , namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

It seems to me that he could only know that God Is by employing the same sort of magic spidey-sense that you claim to possess. That sense that gives you certain knowledge in the absence of evidence.

I don't think so. We are born with knowledge. There have been studies on this. It is called "Innatism".

How have God's invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature been clearly perceived, and by whom? Please explain.

By being alive.

These attributes are to be found in the "things that have been made"? What things are those? Where's the evidence that God made anything?

Your ability to communicate these questions, for one.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Like what?

There are classic arguments for God. I'm okay with them, as they haven't been rebutted IMHO.

Is that all you've got, or is there more?

What's the point James? You are arguing atheistically, and me theistically. Those are our fundamental positions.

Which classical arguments are you thinking of?

Google it.

Wait! You have obvious evidence? Okay then. Please present it. Obvious is good.

Find it for yourself. I haven't really got the time at the moment.

A number of the atheists here - myself included - have already answered your question in detail.

Negative.

Maybe. So what? That tells us about people, not about God.

It's a start

If your belief in God was rational, you'd only have to realise that the arguments for God that current persuade you that God is real are all flawed.

Present them.

But by your own admission, your belief in God is not rational. You don't need reasons to believe in God, you tell us. You just believe.

This is how I know you're a bs'er James.
I'm not going to get into it with you.

Can't we move past that and consider (a) why we identify that way, and (b) whether there is any valid justification for our respective positions?

Already done.
Theists believe in God, atheists don't. Common denominator, God.

You seem to be incredibly bogged down.

Your allowed to hope James.
By the mercy of God.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

For his invisible attributes (God) , namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

They have not been perceived, at all, ever.

You are arguing atheistically, and me theistically

You are not arguing.

Theists believe in God, atheists don't. Common denominator, God.

God is not in common, between them.

Find it for yourself. I haven't really got the time at the moment.

It doesn't exist.

And so forth. An overt Abrahamic theist posts on a science forum - beginning with an OP that is a flatly false assertion, and continuing in that vein for 100 pages.

The only matter of interest is why they post like that - the lot of them.

 

[Baldeee]

You seem to be saying the same thing, since you call it "knowledge" and position it prior to evidence.

Same thing as who?
I'm still trying to establish what you meant by: "So what is an example of something that is evidenced (or conversely, deemed as not being evidenced) that precludes knowledge?" given that I do not see how "precludes" could be the right word.
As asked, if it is the word you intended, please can you explain what you meant?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

The same way you know anything that is natural to the human being.

For his invisible attributes (God) , namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

I don't think so. We are born with knowledge. There have been studies on this. It is called "Innatism".

By being alive.

Your ability to communicate these questions, for one.

Jan.

///
Your saying so means nothing outside your delirious dreamworld. Nor does your believing it or it being written in an absurd book. It is not clearly perceived by anyone & I do not perceive it at all.
It is clearly false because I do not & cannot perceive it. It is only con artist bullshit to fool fools into believing foolishness. Again, I do not need any frigging excuse for not believing what I do not know exists.
Hopefully people can state their beliefs yet you go beyond that & demonstrate you are a fool by pretending to know what we do & do not believe, know & perceive.
You do not know those things. You CANNOT know those things, not only because you need some godlike power to know such but also you obviously do not know because we know it is false.
I certainly know 1000% better than you what I know, think, believe & perceive.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

There are classic arguments for God. I'm okay with them, as they haven't been rebutted IMHO.

What's the point James? You are arguing atheistically, and me theistically. Those are our fundamental positions.

Google it.

Find it for yourself. I haven't really got the time at the moment.

Negative.

It's a start

Present them.

This is how I know you're a bs'er James.
I'm not going to get into it with you.

Already done.
Theists believe in God, atheists don't. Common denominator, God.

Your allowed to hope James.
By the mercy of God.

Jan.

///
You would be hilarious if you were not so sadly tragic.
You would not answer me when I asked about those arguments & you tell James to Google it then a few lines down to ask James to present his. Quite a hypocrite double standard you have.

<>

 

[Musika]

Did you actually mean "precludes" here?
If X precludes Y then X prevents Y from happening, makes it impossible to occur.
How does something being evidenced make knowledge impossible?

Ok, I see your point.
I should have made it clearer and said that type of hollering for evidence that has no criteria to bring to bear on an object (ie, the specific type of "evidence" being promoted by advocates in this thread).
That precludes knowledge because one insists on discarding the epistemological connection that empowers evidence to provide knowledge. So calling for so called evidence simply becomes a tool for maintaining ignorance (hence it precludes knowledge).

Did you not mean something more akin to "that has a prerequisite knowledge"?
I.e. In order to be able to say whether something is evidence or is not evidence, one needs to have knowledge of what it is supposed to be evidence of?

That's what I was saying, hence my confusion in trying to understand what difference of opinion you are introducing

But note that there is a difference between knowing that something is not evidence of a thing, and not knowing that something is evidence of a thing.

Either way, the "thing" must make an appearance on the radar of discussion as a qualifiable description (at the mininimum). ... at least if one desires to discuss evidence in a manner that doesn't preclude knowledge.

For the former, one needs to have knowledge of the thing you are claiming it not to be evidence of.
To the latter, you need no knowledge at all to be able to say that you do not know it to be evidence of.

That is true of the latter, for as long as they don't weigh in on discussions on the evidence. If you don't know anything about the "thing", what possible value is there in saying "that's not evidence of it."?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Congratulations on an excellent thread Jan.

I think all us atheists have learn a great deal about theists.

Unfortunately its not positive unless flogging a dead horse is somehow a virtue and being sneaky is admirable.

I now know why your faith is called blind faith and am reminded of the saying there are none so blind who refuse to see...should that be look? You neither look or see so no matter.

But I do wonder. ..if there is so much available evidence why is it that I can never find any.

I have found vids on faith healing, I have found vids on speaking in tounges, I have found vids of teleevangalists asking for money for their third private jet...it is not understandable that they need more preaching time rather than be tied up at airports given they have so little to offer by way of evidence...I have watched countless vids of the Atheist experience where caller after caller after caller call in and in their opening words say they can prove God exists but so far not one has come close...and then we have the vids showing that wonderful ark Ken Ham organised ..magnificent and a monument to the lies told about a world flood and sadly pointing to a section of believers who will believe anything if given a biblical reference...but still no evidence...

I cant even find evidence to reject...

Bigfoot has more going for it...

And then I observe the across the board sneakyness folk like Ken Ham use to push their story I can only conclude that they must have no evidence otherwise they would not need to be so sneaky.

Oh and then we have the folk calling the Atheist Experience stating that Evolution is just a theory with no understading what the word theory means and seek to push aside facts evidence and observation to claim, unsupported of course, that evolution is wrong because the bible tells them God made two humans called Adam and Eve...they find it impossible to accept we evolved over a long long time but have no difficulty in ignoring the accumulated science and observed facts to believe humans were made from dirt or clay ..whatever...oh dont forget the rib Adam gave for Eve and the fact that so many belivers state a woman has one less rib than a man...particularly when a little read up will show them they have it horribly wrong...

But what can we expect they dont even read their bible so why would they read anything that may inform or educate them.

They have faith which is a licence to make up anything you like and call it reality.

And so on my search for evidence of a God I have only found .

Nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

There is however heaps of evidence to support the conclusion that religion is a massive con job on folk who unfortunately have been robbed of the ability to think and trained to believe fairy tales from the bronze age trumps our accumulated scientific nowledge...and why do you think flat earthers believe the world is flat...why would they think such nonsence....one can only wonder why.

Go Jan you are making a better case for atheists being reasonable, honest and informed than any atheist could do.
And I am not saying there is no God and there is no need to do so because folk like Jan destroy not only their own credibility but the slight credibility that one could extend to the God story.
Time for another thread Jan but know this if you keep digging your hole you will prove hell is a long long way down.
I hope you are well keep up your good work.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Congratulations on an excellent thread Jan.

Thanks Alex!

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

They have not been perceived, at all, ever.

You do a pretty good job of convincing yourself.
Impressive?

You are not arguing.

Oh well!

God is not in common, between them.

Fraid you're wrong.
And what's more, you know it.

It doesn't exist.

Oh well! We can't discuss it then.

The only matter of interest is why they post like that - the lot of them.

Probably the same reason why continue to eat raw badger, fur and everything.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your saying so means nothing outside your delirious dreamworld. Nor does your believing it or it being written in an absurd book. It is not clearly perceived by anyone & I do not perceive it at all.

What?
Do you want to be congratulated or something?

It is clearly false because I do not & cannot perceive it. It is only con artist bullshit to fool fools into believing foolishness. Again, I do not need any frigging excuse for not believing what I do not know exists.

You see why the text "The fool says in his heart, there is no God" is so revealing. Of course you don't, I am addressing other theists.
As for the rest of your post, it's just the same old nonsense.

Jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

What?
Do you want to be congratulated or something?

You see why the text "The fool says in his heart, there is no God" is so revealing. Of course you don't, I am addressing other theists.
As for the rest of your post, it's just the same old nonsense.

Jan.

///
What is nonsense is you believing con artist bullshit lies & pretending to know what I do or do not know or perceive.
Face reality & get over it.

<>

 

[Jan Ardena]

You would not answer me when I asked about those arguments & you tell James to Google it then a few lines down to ask James to present his. Quite a hypocrite double standard you have.

I'm not required to change the subject of my own thread. If you want to go in depth about the evidence for God (which you already know anyway), then start a thread.
Personally I feel no need to argue with people who continuously reject and deny God, to support their amnesia. I find atheist psychology far more interesting, and relevant, and illuminating. That should be the topic of religious discussion. Instead of keeping it in the background.
But please do start such a thread, so I can study the atheist responses. Could always use more data, though they are pronged to repition. Guess they need more material.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What is nonsense is you believing con artist bullshit lies & pretending to know what I do or do not know or perceive.

What Is nonsense is asking for evidence of something you believe does not exist.
The reality is, you know God Is, but you reject and deny God to point actually believing it. That text is so sublime in its description, yet so simple.

Jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I'm not required to change the subject of my own thread. If you want to go in depth about the evidence for God (which you already know anyway), then start a thread.
Personally I feel no need to argue with people who continuously reject and deny God, to support their amnesia. I find atheist psychology far more interesting, and relevant, and illuminating. That should be the topic of religious discussion. Instead of keeping it in the background.
But please do start such a thread, so I can study the atheist responses. Could always use more data, though they are pronged to repition. Guess they need more material.

Jan.

///
It is not your thread. I am responding to your posts & your childish pretensions.
I cannot reject what I do not know exists & you know that. I do not know any god exists & you cannot show otherwise. Stop the pointless absurdity.

<>