Is there a difference between baldness and "modern baldness"?
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
Are you disputing that you have made any claims of knowledge? Are you saying that everything you have put forth thus far is merely your best guess, and that you actually know nothing?
I find that stretches the term of theism beyond the boundaries of commonly accepted understanding. Not all supernatural entities might be "gods". I do understand your point but I feel attaching the term "deity" to something brings with it other aspects beyond simply the supernatural, most notably the divine, the sacred, and the holy. If one refers to their lucky sock as the god of socks, prays to them, considers them sacred and/or holy, or otherwise divine, then I would probably agree with you. But simply equating supernatural entity to deity, when there is no divinity involved? No.
Maybe it is more the mindset of the individual that makes one a theist, than what is believed?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
So the op was misleading.
Atheism grows as evidenced by all the churches closing their doors and the falling attendance numbers in those that struggle to stay open...and a better educated public with access to free information via the net will continue to leave religion as they realise its just made up stories to restrict their freedom.
When I was a kid religion had a tight grip but these days if it were not for Jan would anyone bother about discussing religion ... its dieing out.
Religion is on the way out and the atheists are everywhere and looked up to for guidance and given high respect for leading humans away from the evil that is religion.
The op shows a desperation with Jan making claims that science somehow supported the hope that they (atheists) would all go away.
No they are there Jan in growing numbers.
And Jan says he is inoccent of any manipulation which he alone perhaps believes leaving his self assesment a choice between behaving badly or silly or both.
Anyways no harm done the atheists are growing in numbers as the churches close.
We should treat Jan like an endangered species.
Alex
Atheism grows as evidenced by all the churches closing their doors and the falling attendance numbers in those that struggle to stay open...and a better educated public with access to free information via the net will continue to leave religion as they realise its just made up stories to restrict their freedom.
When I was a kid religion had a tight grip but these days if it were not for Jan would anyone bother about discussing religion ... its dieing out.
Religion is on the way out and the atheists are everywhere and looked up to for guidance and given high respect for leading humans away from the evil that is religion.
The op shows a desperation with Jan making claims that science somehow supported the hope that they (atheists) would all go away.
No they are there Jan in growing numbers.
And Jan says he is inoccent of any manipulation which he alone perhaps believes leaving his self assesment a choice between behaving badly or silly or both.
Anyways no harm done the atheists are growing in numbers as the churches close.
We should treat Jan like an endangered species.
Alex
There's a difference between hair and without hair.
In modern times, baldness has become fashionable, whereas it wasn't fashionable in the 60's &. 70's.
Jan.
Yes. It is growing, and it will keep growing.
End times has to be brought about somehow.
Jan.
Google the latest Irish vote on abortion laws
As the NT newspaper today reports 66% voted for reform and legalised abortion
And noted this is 3 years after same sex marriage laws came into effect
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
All part of Gods plan..create a whole bunch of sinners (refer to the first commandment) and give them a good smtiting...Yes. It is growing, and it will keep growing.
End times has to be brought about somehow.
Jan.
I worry about these poor folk who are going to be disappointed when the world does not go the way suggested in Relevations.
alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Google the latest Irish vote on abortion laws
As the NT newspaper today reports 66% voted for reform and legalised abortion
And noted this is 3 years after same sex marriage laws came into effect
They be going to hell in a hand cart I tell ya.
That is just so encouraging... I think we should have a festival each year to celebrate this dates..lets pick a day that corresponds to a religious event and see who can throw the best celebrations festivals and parties ...well of course we can .. and folk will say ..why go to that boring church thing cause those heathens are haveing another of those most pleasant celebrationsand they are such nice intelligent folk who have a wonderful moral code ... yes yes lets go.
But as Jan says is it a sign of the "END TIMES" wooooo ...really it is hard to accept there are 34% still out there... Richard Dawkins should be compulsory viewing...the way he makes fools of the theists that think they have a trick question for him...he is so entertaing and so very clever he really knows his stuff. His crushing weapon is the truth and how armed with truth does he destroy the myth that is religion.
He should get a knighthood for sensible public speaking. A monumental man who stands for truth and unimprisonment of those chained by religion.
He mentioned he had a foundation that helped folk who had become victims or potential victims of fundamentalist religious folk.. that is a decent thing to do..promote free speech...Just the fact that there are folk that associate religion with killing should be enough for anyone with any sence to realise to keep well away from religion.
Must see if there are any numbers for the deaths by religion..year by year and since numbers of such were recorded or calculated.
alex
Damn and not 1 hour ago had new satellite dish installed
Old one damaged in cyclone 2 months ago
Do you happen to know the best network who be covering the end of the world?
Wouldn't want to miss it
The OP is a falsehood.
Whether it is misleading or misled is undetermined.
It's author claims not to know that it is a falsehood - to be honestly ignorant of what the scientists discovered and reported in the research referred to. Taking the author at their word, then, the author of the OP does not know what they are talking about, and the OP is (essentially) misled rather than misleading.
I can read, thanks. Are you capable of establishing inferences? I.e. unless you are saying that all you have said have been merely guesses then you are accepting that you have made some claims of knowledge. I therefore don't need to detail a specific such claim for it to be true that you have made such claims.
So I ask again: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?
Please quit with the stalling / evasion. If you can't provide such an example then just say so.
But all supernatural entities have the potential to be gods in a given context.
If a supernatural sock qualifies as a god of socks, then shouldn’t another supernatural sock of equal capacity also be worthy of that same title? Or any other supernatural entity of like capacity? The common thread when it comes to these deities is that they are expected to supernaturally facilitate various functions and be revered for their perceived actions. So in essence theism is a reverence for the perceived actions of supernatural facilitators, regardless of their form or grandeur.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Believers have scripts written for us, and their responses to our responses already filled in. If we don't follow their script they become befuddled and angry. I noticed this back in the '60s, with no change in tactics since then.
Now, God damn-it, be predictable so they don't have to resort to reason!
Sarkus, I am assuming for the purpose of this discussion that God exists. So stop with your evasion nonsense, or produce any claims you think I have made. Capisce?
Good talk.
If you want a discussion on whether or not God exists, then start a thread.
The term "for the sake of argument" is used by lawyers in the context of "assuming arguendo." By this a lawyer is not admitting any facts, but simply assuming that certain facts were true just for the sake of furthering an argument.
Jan.
Good talk.
If you want a discussion on whether or not God exists, then start a thread.
The term "for the sake of argument" is used by lawyers in the context of "assuming arguendo." By this a lawyer is not admitting any facts, but simply assuming that certain facts were true just for the sake of furthering an argument.
Jan.
I don't give a rat's ass what you're assuming for the purposes of discussion or not. The OP doesn't make that assumption, and certainly the article doesn't. To try and dismiss what is a rather central issue, not to mention by doing so in the way you are now claiming to you alter what the term "atheism" would imply, is verging on one of the lowest things you have actually ever done on this site. It is truly pathetic and pretty despicable.What other claims have you made that you are now going to say are simply assumptions for the purpose of discussion?
It is this sort of evasion tactic from you, Jan, that leads so many to consider you a troll. And time and time again you not only do nothing to disabuse them of their view, you even seem to go out of your way to reinforce it.
So, let me ask again: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?
Again, if you can't, just say so.
Jan Ardena,
Firstly, congratulations on what is probably the most petulant, pouty post I've seen from you yet on this forum. It seems to me that you've probably exhausted your apologist repertoire at this point, so now we just get these non-responses and one line space-fillers from you. Is this the best we can expect from you from now on?
Look at what you quoted from me there. See how my first sentence there was "There is evidence for this"? Then, I go on to outline a little of the evidence for you, with examples. Then I show how the examples link to a logical, evidence-based conclusion.
Then look at your response. You claim I did nothing there. You claim I posted a "diatribe". You claim the logical conclusion that I posted is "cobbled together".
Of course, what you don't do is to respond to the substance of what I posted, or to the argument I put to you. You don't attempt to refute the evidence, the logic, or the examples I gave. Instead, you pout.
Never mind. Maybe a month or a year from now you might remember this and not be quite so proud of yourself. You might start to think about what I wrote. Or not.
Putting words in your mouth, am I? Let's review, shall we? I told you about consciousness being an emergent feature of the brain. Your response, which I quoted, was this:
But, you know, it's easy for you to clear this up if I have made some kind of mistake. You can just confirm clearly for the benefit of your readers that you agree that the idea that consciousness is an emergent feature of brains is not just a device to "keep the divine foot out of the door", after all.
It's not just with me, either. We've had whole threads in which atheists have patiently explained to you at length the difference between believing that there is no God and lacking the belief that there is a God. Maybe the whole thing is just too subtle a distinction for you. In light of that, maybe it's time for you to stop telling the atheists here what they believe. Agree?
Certainly "I want" is a person desiring or demanding. It makes no difference that the person is software running on the hardware of the brain. There's still a person doing the desiring. Your only mistake is to imagine that there's something extra - a soul - pulling the strings. And, as I said previously, you could even be right about that. But if you're right, then you should really make an effort to try answering the question I have put to you many times, as to how this soul of yours pulls those strings, exactly. How does that non-physical, immaterial soul influence anything in the physical world (as it must do)? Why do you avoid this question each time it is asked? I know why, of course. It is because you have not even the faintest beginnings of an adequate answer.
Firstly, congratulations on what is probably the most petulant, pouty post I've seen from you yet on this forum. It seems to me that you've probably exhausted your apologist repertoire at this point, so now we just get these non-responses and one line space-fillers from you. Is this the best we can expect from you from now on?
I'm not sure. I was under the impression you thought souls were somehow relevant to the current discussion.
Ah, more learned insight into the psychology of atheist. Well done, Jan.
If you knew why you think it's nonsense, you could give us reasons. But the "nonsense" dismissal is just another statement of faith from you, isn't it? That's why you are unable to say what makes it nonsense. If you perceive a conflict of science with faith, then apparently the science has to go. I understand.
Wow. Pouty.
Look at what you quoted from me there. See how my first sentence there was "There is evidence for this"? Then, I go on to outline a little of the evidence for you, with examples. Then I show how the examples link to a logical, evidence-based conclusion.
Then look at your response. You claim I did nothing there. You claim I posted a "diatribe". You claim the logical conclusion that I posted is "cobbled together".
Of course, what you don't do is to respond to the substance of what I posted, or to the argument I put to you. You don't attempt to refute the evidence, the logic, or the examples I gave. Instead, you pout.
Never mind. Maybe a month or a year from now you might remember this and not be quite so proud of yourself. You might start to think about what I wrote. Or not.
I agree completely, and I understand why. You don't need explanations. Your faith is enough for you.
I already tried to enlighten you. You refused to listen. I'm afraid that at some point you'll need to put in some effort of your own. It's all very well to repeatedly claim that you know this or that. It's quite another to put together an explanation of how you know, with appropriate justification of your knowledge. So far, you haven't even made an attempt.
*sigh*
Putting words in your mouth, am I? Let's review, shall we? I told you about consciousness being an emergent feature of the brain. Your response, which I quoted, was this:
You assert that there is no evidence to support the notion I put to you. It follows from what you wrote that if the idea is not proposed due to suggestive evidence, then it must have been put forward to "keep the divine foot out of the door". That is, you think that this "nonsense" idea that consciousness emerges from the physical brain is a mere smokescreen put up by atheistic scientists in order to avoid having to talk about God's or the soul's role in consciousness. In other words, to quote myself (responding to your statement),Jan Ardena said:
Okay, I concede that possibly you don't think that all science is driven by an anti-religious bias, but it is clear that you think that this particular scientific idea (emergent consciousness) is driven by an anti-religion bias.James R said:
But, you know, it's easy for you to clear this up if I have made some kind of mistake. You can just confirm clearly for the benefit of your readers that you agree that the idea that consciousness is an emergent feature of brains is not just a device to "keep the divine foot out of the door", after all.
What is it with you? Why do I keep having to remind you that I don't believe there is no God? The fact is, I'm just not convinced there is a God. But I've told you this over and over again. Why do you insist on repeatedly misrepresenting my position on this?
It's not just with me, either. We've had whole threads in which atheists have patiently explained to you at length the difference between believing that there is no God and lacking the belief that there is a God. Maybe the whole thing is just too subtle a distinction for you. In light of that, maybe it's time for you to stop telling the atheists here what they believe. Agree?
Saying "my body" or "my mind" is no different from saying "my mixed bag of spanners", as far as I can tell. In all instances we are talking about items over which one has some control and some notion of possession. Of course, in the case of minds, our use of language is not very precise. To use a loose computer analogy, "I", or equivalently "my mind", is one of the software programmes that runs on the hardware of "my brain". Talking about "my mind" is no different to talking about something like "the PC's operating system". (But perhaps you think that PCs also have souls?)
But I agree with all of the statements in this quote!
Certainly "I want" is a person desiring or demanding. It makes no difference that the person is software running on the hardware of the brain. There's still a person doing the desiring. Your only mistake is to imagine that there's something extra - a soul - pulling the strings. And, as I said previously, you could even be right about that. But if you're right, then you should really make an effort to try answering the question I have put to you many times, as to how this soul of yours pulls those strings, exactly. How does that non-physical, immaterial soul influence anything in the physical world (as it must do)? Why do you avoid this question each time it is asked? I know why, of course. It is because you have not even the faintest beginnings of an adequate answer.
Last edited:
(continued...)
Knowledge is justified, true, belief. I know about the concept of the unicorn because I believe that the concept of unicorns entails a horn on the forehead, because it is true that the concept entails the horn, and because I can justify that the concept entains the horn. But I don't know that unicorn have horns on their foreheads. I might believe that they do, but that's as far as it goes. I can't justify that belief by producing a real live unicorn, and there's not a single example of real live unicorn to show that the belief is true.
Souls are just like unicorns, and this is why you don't know anything about them.
Understand now?
Interesting choice of word there, Jan.
)
(We can take as given our previous discussion in which you claimed to have an additional special magical God sense. No need to repeat that.)
In the Old Testament, there's a prohibition on eating pork. At the time of writing, there might well have been some good health-related reasons for avoiding eating the local pigs. But the message "Don't eat the pig; you might get sick" is not as strong a message as "Don't eat the pig. God has said pigs are unclean animals. You will go to Hell if you disobey God by eating a pig." So, we see religious trappings put on a health message.
Cut to the present day. Right now, in countries where the production of pigs for human consumption is a well-regulated and carefully magaged industry, and where the pork is quite safe to eat, many people still abstain from eating pork due to the same historical religious prohibition. Moreover, regardless of how the meat is prepared, they see it as "unclean". Not unclean in the literal sense of being unhealthy or disease-ridden, but unclean in the metaphysical sense of being tainted by God's prohibition.
Ideas of purity and what is metaphysically clean or unclean are found in many places in religion. Some religious people, for example, are disgusted by the mere thought of homosexual sex, and by association homosexual people. They regard that kind of sex as unclean or impure, not for any health reason (although some will attempt to rationalise it that way) but for religious reasons.
Now here's some more evidence again which you'll probably ignore or try to wave away. There's a correlation between being religious and regarding the eating of pork (or the practice of homosexuality) as impure or unclean. This raises issues of causation. Pertinent questions include: does religion make people more concerned about notions of "purity" or "cleanliness"? Did concerns about about
purity and cleanliness (real or imagined) lead to the advancement of certain religious ideas?
Possibly this is of no interest to you, since God's scriptures are from God and all. I guess God just doesn't like people eating pork and there doesn't have to be any explanation beyond that. But an atheist like myself wants to dig deeper.
In the context of our discussion about souls, you might like to reconsider your claim that souls are "pure" in light of the new information I have presented above. People are dirty and sometimes unhealthy. What a great thing it is that we can all transcend the messy biological reality of our humanity by having nice "pure" souls, isn't it? Gods "purity" is reflected in the "purity" of the soul. Theism is like a fresh spray of disinfectant!
If you're saying that atheists take new knowledge from science on board as science advances, while theists tend to stagnate in their dogmas and their scriptures, refusing to accept science, then I agree, of course.
Perhaps you're not aware that simply defining words does not create new knowledge. If you claim that souls are pure, there ought to be more to that statement than the definition: "soul, n. pure supernatural thing that controls a human body" or whatever. There really ought to be some observation about souls being pure. But of course, with souls being immaterial, invisible and undetectable, they are quite hard to study, aren't they? Probably defining the qualities you'd like them to have is the best you can hope to do.
Er... souls and stuff, wasn't it?
I get it that you can define souls to your heart's content. You can no doubt quote scriptures that further define what they are supposed to be like. But, equally, I can define unicorns and quote many writings and other sources that define what they are supposed to be like. Does it follow that I know that unicorns have horns on their foreheads? I know that the concept of a unicorn is like a horse with a horn on its forehead, but that's not the same thing.
Knowledge is justified, true, belief. I know about the concept of the unicorn because I believe that the concept of unicorns entails a horn on the forehead, because it is true that the concept entails the horn, and because I can justify that the concept entains the horn. But I don't know that unicorn have horns on their foreheads. I might believe that they do, but that's as far as it goes. I can't justify that belief by producing a real live unicorn, and there's not a single example of real live unicorn to show that the belief is true.
Souls are just like unicorns, and this is why you don't know anything about them.
It seems more like an advantage to me.
Maybe you should try responding to questions with answers, instead. I won't hold my breath.
I'm confident that Sarkus has a similar view on the importance of souls, compared to any other supernatural phenomenon. Maybe when deciding whether to engage with you, he "felt like it", too. It's not always about clinging tenaciously to a worldview because you're afraid that a theist will come and destroy it with his insightful wisdom and witty one-line responses.
Understand now?
Actually, it's quite a diverting pastime to dip into every now and then. How do you go with your delusion?
phantasmagoria: n. A constantly changing medley of real or imagined images (as in a dream)
Interesting choice of word there, Jan.
I don't believe you. But if you do, you needn't worry about me. I think I have far less baggage to deal with than you when it comes to our respective theologies. (By definition!
)Probably no God.
I know lots of interesting things about God concepts. The same kinds of dismal things that you know about that, when it comes down to it. The difference between us is that you have faith that the concepts are real, whereas I say "show me!" And you're also apparently under the delusion that you know not just about the concepts but also a reality reflecting (some of) those concepts.
Well, yes, as long as by "looking at things" you include all the senses. How else can one become aware of something?
(We can take as given our previous discussion in which you claimed to have an additional special magical God sense. No need to repeat that.)
Actually, I'm interesting in following evidence wherever it might lead. Our impasse is that I will not pretend to know stuff I don't know, like you do.
If you have any unturned stones to show me, I will be most interested to examine them on their merits, I assure you.
Nah. If it was important, and you knew what you were talking about, you would it try to explain it. Obviously, either it's not important, or you don't know what you're talking about, or both. No need to waste more of my time on it.
How about I give you an example to get you started, again?
In the Old Testament, there's a prohibition on eating pork. At the time of writing, there might well have been some good health-related reasons for avoiding eating the local pigs. But the message "Don't eat the pig; you might get sick" is not as strong a message as "Don't eat the pig. God has said pigs are unclean animals. You will go to Hell if you disobey God by eating a pig." So, we see religious trappings put on a health message.
Cut to the present day. Right now, in countries where the production of pigs for human consumption is a well-regulated and carefully magaged industry, and where the pork is quite safe to eat, many people still abstain from eating pork due to the same historical religious prohibition. Moreover, regardless of how the meat is prepared, they see it as "unclean". Not unclean in the literal sense of being unhealthy or disease-ridden, but unclean in the metaphysical sense of being tainted by God's prohibition.
Ideas of purity and what is metaphysically clean or unclean are found in many places in religion. Some religious people, for example, are disgusted by the mere thought of homosexual sex, and by association homosexual people. They regard that kind of sex as unclean or impure, not for any health reason (although some will attempt to rationalise it that way) but for religious reasons.
Now here's some more evidence again which you'll probably ignore or try to wave away. There's a correlation between being religious and regarding the eating of pork (or the practice of homosexuality) as impure or unclean. This raises issues of causation. Pertinent questions include: does religion make people more concerned about notions of "purity" or "cleanliness"? Did concerns about about
purity and cleanliness (real or imagined) lead to the advancement of certain religious ideas?
Possibly this is of no interest to you, since God's scriptures are from God and all. I guess God just doesn't like people eating pork and there doesn't have to be any explanation beyond that. But an atheist like myself wants to dig deeper.
In the context of our discussion about souls, you might like to reconsider your claim that souls are "pure" in light of the new information I have presented above. People are dirty and sometimes unhealthy. What a great thing it is that we can all transcend the messy biological reality of our humanity by having nice "pure" souls, isn't it? Gods "purity" is reflected in the "purity" of the soul. Theism is like a fresh spray of disinfectant!
James R said:
Again, I have to ask. Given your showing in this thread (let alone in the post I'm quoting here), aren't you embarrassed?Jan Ardena said:
A hypothesis is an educated guess. The idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is founded on what is known about the brain and about consciousness and their relationship. In contrast, the idea that consciousness is due to an undetectable spirit-soul is not a hypothesis, but more like a just-so story.
Forever is a long time, so there's always the off-chance that you'll change.But it's certainly a fact for now. Atheism has nothing to do with it.Why guess?
As an atheist you can claim it as a fact.
Last edited:
Theological question, Jan. Do you think the end times will be happening soon?Yes. It is growing, and it will keep growing.
End times has to be brought about somehow.
- Status