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

[Jan Ardena]

And then I explained three separate Gods in detail.

You said that you were not aware of any descriptions of different Gods. I provided three. Now you are aware of them. If you would like to further educate yourself on the subject of polytheism, knock yourself out. Or continue to pretend it doesn't exist. Up to you.

Where have I pretended that polytheism does not exist?

You said hundreds of Gods (upper-case G). From the information, there are innumerable gods, but one God. SO how do you get the idea there are hundreds of Gods (upper-case G)?

Rigveda 1.2.20 —
Vishnu is the most ancient of all, yet also the most recent. Nothing and no one creates Vishnu, yet Vishnu creates everyone and everything.

This shloka confirms there is only One God.

Krishna/Vishnu is the original origin of everything. He manifests himself in every universe as Vishnu. From Vishnu comes Brahma. From Brahma comes Shiva and his other 10 expansions. This is confirmed in the Srimad Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, Shatapatha Brahma name and other Vedic texts.

I suggest you read some of these scriptures if you want to know what you're talking about

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm sure you think this is relevant, Jan, but the point I actually raised was your inability to understand where you had asserted (or worse, your outright refusal to acknowledge you had asserted) that some metaphysical positions do not require faith while others do.
Simply trying to explain one side does nothing to address the point raised.

I want to discuss the points I raised.
Anything that leads you to atheism requires faith, or, according to the op link, amounts to nothing but a type of fantasy. I've already given my explanation. Deal with it, or do what you always do, avoid it. But until you deal with it, we are not going to discuss anything else.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes...a realist.

... from an atheist perspective.
Hardly a good endorsement for realism (based on op) .
As for proclaiming oneself to be a realist, mounts to nothing more than boastfulness.

So perhaps rather than labling folk with labels that hold connotations dependant on a religious view we should leave religion out of the matter and just classify folk as either rational or irrational.

Who's talking about religion?

And atheism is a religion because????

Where did I say atheism is a religion?

When did you say that?

It's said, anyway.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You claim to believe in one God. They believe in more than one God. They are just as right as you.

You have yet to show that there is more than One God.

Polytheists. People like Hindus. As has been explained now four times.

Some Hindus believe in God, and they worship gods (Demi-gods). Some believe Shiva to be the one God, and some believe Vishnu to be the one God. But, the characteristics of what they deem "God", is the same. It is the characteristics that one recognises as God. So if a personality is described as omniscient, we know that is a description of God.

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You have yet to show that there is more than One God.
Jan.

You have yet to show that there is any god.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You have yet to show that there is any god.

You're an atheist, and just like you confirmed, there is no God, and there can never be one as long you belive that.
The fact that you think God can be shown to you, shows where you're at.

You set up a strawman.

God can be shown to exist, like cars and phones, can be shown to exist.
Failure to meet with this request means there is no God. When the theist doesn't meet your request, you maintain your atheist position.

This is one reason why atheism could be called a fantasy. It's adherents create their own standards in deciding what is God. That way they don't have accept anything that does not sit with their worldview. It appears that you are actively not believing in God.

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That was utterly incoherent. You remind me of Errorist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That was utterly incoherent. You remind me of Errorist.

Don't believe you.

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's not at all surprising.

 

[billvon]

You have yet to show that there is more than One God.

I have shown you people who believe there is more than one God. You believe there is one God. You are just as credible as they are.

Some Hindus believe in God, and they worship gods (Demi-gods). Some believe Shiva to be the one God, and some believe Vishnu to be the one God. But, the characteristics of what they deem "God", is the same. It is the characteristics that one recognises as God. So if a personality is described as omniscient, we know that is a description of God.

It would be fun to watch you tell a Hindu what he (or she) _really_ believes. They'd laugh in your face.

Where have I pretended that polytheism does not exist? You said hundreds of Gods (upper-case G). From the information, there are innumerable gods, but one God.

Incorrect. That is not what all polytheists believe.

There are two general sorts of polytheism - hard and soft. "Hard" polytheism posits that there are separate Gods, each with their own agendas, areas of responsibility and appearance. They are often in conflict (i.e. ancient Greek mythology.)

"Soft" polytheism is what you describe above - "there are innumerable gods, but one God."

Which 0ne - hard or soft - is correct? They are both equally correct, since they are both based on the same amount of objective evidence (i.e. none.)

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

As for proclaiming oneself to be a realist, mounts to nothing more than boastfulness.

I suggest that is yet one more unsupportable statement you throw away with a disturbingly casual failure to address the issue presented and in this case you play at being judgemental ...nay I doubt if the knee jerk dismissive reactions you display to fact show any attempt to employ judgement.
However perhaps you avoid announcing that, being opposite to atheist and rational, you are theist and irrational because such a self qualification is seen by you as boastful.....

Who's talking about religion?

You point and I will whistle.

I wonder back in ancient times if there were atheists in the tribe clinging to rational thoughts whilst observing the irrational behaviour of others in the tribe and suffering the irrational made up stories offerred with no supporting evidence other than assertions that the thunder was evidence of an angry God that needs to be pacified by taking some unfortunate girl who hath not yet laid with a man☺ and cut out her heart and burn her body wasting precious gathered wood which perhaps could have kept the tribe warm later in the following night when the storm arrived....oh its not rain? but the tears of the angry God weeping because he demanded the life of some poor girl who tried to avoid sex which was spelt "sin" ... no wonder groups of humans set off to find new lands ... they were the rational atheists trying to get away from those crazy murders irrationally believing there was a God and attaching stupid beliefs and customs some fool invented whilst suffering from the effects of eating fermenting fruit.

Probably the word irrational could be traced back to those times when the non believer thought silently...heck these folk are...are...heck these folk are irrational yes I like that new word...but let me call them theists and observe they act and think... what did I say ...yes... irrationally.... dont they realise that the thunder they hear is only the rumblings of their empty bellies....no of course they dont because they are, now what was that word, yes, irrational and what are they.. yes theists...now those two words just are perfect for each other...theist irrational..yes sums it up nicely...

Alex

 

[Baldeee]

Then tell me. Why does it require faith to believe in God?

Anything that can not be proven requires faith to be believed.
Prove God exists, other than by begging the question, and you'll be onto something.
Until then, you rely on faith.

I don't consider it to be natural, it is natural.

Yet being natural to believe in something, if indeed it is, does not make it true, nor does it mean it is absent a requirement for faith.
It merely means we are predisposed toward holding a belief.
Such still requires faith.

It doesn't seem natural to to you, because you uphold and maintain you atheism, which requires constant revision, defending, and faith.

Being natural or not is irrelevant to whether or not one needs faith to hold the belief.
And no, my atheism does not need revision, nor faith.
It needs a lack of belief that God (or god/s) exist.
Nothing more.

What is the "alternative"?

Belief that God does not exist - another belief I lack.

Why is faith required to believe in God

See above.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Would God like atheists more than theists because they dont make up stories about him☺
Alex

 

[Baldeee]

I want to discuss the points I raised.

You're not doing a particularly good job, then, Jan, especially when you ignore points raised.
And as for your discussion MO - you simply reject any position you don't like with words to the effect of "well, that's what you'd say because you're atheist and without God".
I genuinely can't recall the last time you honestly discussed anything, and you're doing nothing to alter that here.

Anything that leads you to atheism requires faith, or, according to the op link, amounts to nothing but a type of fantasy.

Then tell me what I have faith in, Jan, upon which my atheism is based.

I've already given my explanation.

No you haven't.
You've given a response which was notable for its irrelevance to the point made.
And you say you want to discuss.
What a joke!

Deal with it, or do what you always do, avoid it. But until you deal with it, we are not going to discuss anything else.

You've offered nothing to deal with, Jan.
Ball is in your court.
But as ever it seems you're simply going to walk off court.

 

[iceaura]

What's to deny?
That is the title of the article I linked. I merely used it as the title of this thread.

And you repeat your denial. I rest my case.

Firstly, theistic belief has nothing to do with the article. It pertains to the concept of atheism, whether it is real, or imagined.

1) Self-contradiction like that cannot be reasoned from.
2) You continue to misrepresent the research involved, despite your denial. It has nothing to do with atheism.

Atheist, and theist, merely describes our positions in relation to God.

Only in the private world of a particular theist, who has a particular God in mind.

Metaphysics, ultimately brings you to conclusions like the above.

Metaphysics does not ultimately bring anyone to a state of confusion, or invalid assertion, or self-contradictory premises, or bad faith in argument, such as you exhibit.
That is one of the hazards, but it can be avoided.

I don't consider it to be natural, it is natural.

It is not universal - or even an attribute of a majority, historically. That's the point.

Why is faith required to believe in God?

Faith is required to walk down the street.

 

[iceaura]

Found a blog posting with a foothold in four or five currently active threads on this forum (Trump, gun control, and this one) - but its attention to "narrative" made this one its home.
http://yastreblyansky.blogspot.com/2018/04/muddling.html#more

Matthews has been thinking about the French Revolution, which took endless turmoil, psychodrama, riots, and catastrophic war from 1789 to 1815 to end up more or less where it started, with a corrupt and bankrupt old monarchy that couldn't carry out its responsibilities to the people, and couldn't survive. And another revolution eventually, and another monarchy, and another revolution, and another empire, and so on.

It's startling to think how many turning points there were in those first 25 years when one faction or another was certain that everything would now be completely different- - -
- - -
"Humans, as the late literary critic Frank Kermode argued in his book The Sense of an Ending, crave narrative structure. “We are surrounded by [chaos], and equipped for coexistence with it only by our fictive powers,” he writes. We can’t see the world as a sequence of events, one right after another, with no end or resolution in sight. “To see everything as out of mere succession,” he observes, “is to behave like a man drugged or insane.”
We can’t see what’s happening to American politics as justa succession of events that, in themselves, mean nothing. They have to be leading up to a climactic Götterdämmerung in which our slate is wiped clean. This is the yearning behind bold predictions of the Trump administration’s collapse, or of a dramatic descent into tyranny at Trump’s hand."

 

[Jan Ardena]

And you repeat your denial. I rest my case.

Denial of what?

1) Self-contradiction like that cannot be reasoned from.
2) You continue to misrepresent the research involved, despite your denial. It has nothing to do with atheism.

Do atheists have anything to do with atheism?

Only in the private world of a particular theist, who has a particular God in mind.

So what is atheism, if not a position in relation to God?

Metaphysics does not ultimately bring anyone to a state of confusion, or invalid assertion, or self-contradictory premises, or bad faith in argument, such as you exhibit.

Such as?

It is not universal - or even an attribute of a majority, historically. That's the point.

Of course it's universal. But you have a choice in what you accept. Some people accept, subconsciously ,"there is no God".
This is the root of atheism. Once this non-acceptance is accepted, belief sets in. But it is all in relation to God.

Faith is required to walk down the street.

How is walking down the street analogous to believing in God?
But I'm glad you are honest enough to acknowledge that you have faith.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Found a blog posting with a foothold in four or five currently active threads on this forum (Trump, gun control, and this one) - but its attention to "narrative" made this one its home.
http://yastreblyansky.blogspot.com/2018/04/muddling.html#more

I think you posted this in the wrong thread.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then tell me what I have faith in, Jan, upon which my atheism is based.

Already have.

You've offered nothing to deal with,

Call it what you like. But I have answered your question. The ball is now in your court, and I await your response.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yet being natural to believe in something, if indeed it is, does not make it true,

It makes the truth accessible.

nor does it mean it is absent a requirement for faith.

Maybe you aren't aware of what faith is, and how it is used. But there is actually no reason to exhibit faith, to believe in God, anymore than I have to consciously, purposely move my stomach in and out to breath.

It merely means we are predisposed toward holding a belief.
Such still requires faith.

Yet you cannot adequately explain why it requires faith.

I understand that, for you, there is no God. Therefore one needs faith to believe in something, that apparently does not exist, as other other things exist.
But that is an atheist (someone for whom there is no God) perspective. For the theist, it's simply business as usual. God just Is, we accept that. As a result, we believe in God.

Jan.