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

[Jan Ardena]

Were you intending to post the question here? As for the leading question...

This was the question...

Do youhave any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known?

To which you answered no.

So how does your trolling question follow on from that.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ah. Well, then pork is as safe as any other meat when handled properly.

That's not the point.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

That's not the point..

Ah, so you are giving up on your point. Fair enough.

 

[Sarkus]

This was the question...

Do youhave any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known?

To which you answered no.

So how does your trolling question follow on from that.

If you ask a question of whether I have evidence of God, how is it trolling to ask if you have any examples of something that is known to objectively exist without evidence? Answer: it's not. But your desire to play such childish games would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic.
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?

Or have we now come to the end of any pretence that your subsequent posts have any actual value whatsoever?
As said: trolls do as trolls do; and you're doing precious little to dispel the image of you as the troll, Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Utter gobeldigook!
We claim ownership of our bodies and minds. Because we temporarily own them.

Yep, and then we die and there is only oblivion. Nothing to be afraid of.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

This was the question...

Do youhave any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known?

To which you answered no.

So how does your trolling question follow on from that.

Jan.

//
That is as ignorant it gets.
Nothing can be known without evidence.
You cannot even believe you know something unless you think there is evidence. What you think is evidence might be stupid nonsense but you must think you have evidence.

IF you think you know something without evidence, you are probably fubar. Please just go away. You are wasting your time unless you get your kicks from utterly useless inane babbling.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I tried to steer you to the answer in this previous post.

Here is a further step.

There are a variety of definitions of pantheism. Some consider it a theological and philosophical position concerning God.

Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God. All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it. Some hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe (in the sense of the totality of all existence) and God are identical (implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism#Definitions

Another variation to this theme would be to combine elements of pantheism and polytheism. An example would be if you took the Greek pantheon of gods, where divine authority was delegated through subordinate gods, and further delegated that authority to not just a limited set of individual deities, but to the complete elemental set of the universe. You may think this to be an absurd proposition, but that's been the rule in the evolutionary construction of religion, where traditional religious beliefs are continuously hybridized into new ones.

///
You are trying to steer me into bullshit.

BY DEFINITION not everything can be a god. A god is a living conscious being. Period.
No amount of wild babbling will change that. Despite the fact that nearly all religion is idiocy, no amount of citing idiots will change it.

Evidently, there is no reasoning with you. Many people get hold of nonsense & just cannot let go of it, no matter what.


<>

 

[Capracus]

///
You are trying to steer me into bullshit.

No, I’m trying to show you that bullshit is allowed and encouraged in the formation of religious philosophy.

BY DEFINITION not everything can be a god.

Read the link I gave you. Essentially a god can be in any form you imagine it to be. You are entitled to your own conception of a god, and everyone else is entitled to theirs.

A god is a living conscious being. Period.

Says who? How many have you met? My understand is that a god is defined as a supernaturally functional entity. If such an entity were required to perform a set of supernatural functions, would it necessarily have to possess consciousness? Or be alive? We have machines that perform all sorts of functions, but they are neither alive nor conscious.

No amount of wild babbling will change that. Despite the fact that nearly all religion is idiocy, no amount of citing idiots will change it.

There is lots of idiocy in religion because its foundational rules allow parts of it to be based on unfounded speculation. Due to religion’s wacky DNA, in its untestable realms idiocy can be treated as reasonable fact.

Evidently, there is no reasoning with you. Many people get hold of nonsense & just cannot let go of it, no matter what.

Of course it’s nonsense, that’s why like many other people, I can’t accept the supernatural assertions made by any of the religions I’ve encountered. You’re mistaken if you think these are my personal religious beliefs. I’m simply describing the process of how the inherent nature of religious philosophy allows such nonsense to be generated.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

No, I’m trying to show you that bullshit is allowed and encouraged in the formation of religious philosophy.


Read the link I gave you. Essentially a god can be in any form you imagine it to be. You are entitled to your own conception of a god, and everyone else is entitled to theirs.

Says who? How many have you met? My understand is that a god is defined as a supernaturally functional entity. If such an entity were required to perform a set of supernatural functions, would it necessarily have to possess consciousness? Or be alive? We have machines that perform all sorts of functions, but they are neither alive nor conscious.

There is lots of idiocy in religion because its foundational rules allow parts of it to be based on unfounded speculation. Due to religion’s wacky DNA, in its untestable realms idiocy can be treated as reasonable fact.

Of course it’s nonsense, that’s why like many other people, I can’t accept the supernatural assertions made by any of the religions I’ve encountered. You’re mistaken if you think these are my personal religious beliefs. I’m simply describing the process of how the inherent nature of religious philosophy allows such nonsense to be generated.

///
Your understanding is wrong.
People can have any conceptions they want yet that does not mean their conceptions fit what they or someone else calls it. Someone can have a conception that cats are people yet that does not make them people. The definition of people excludes cats. Says who? Says the currently accepted definition of people & cats. Someone can glue a cone to a horse's head & call it a unicorn yet it is not a unicorn. Says who? Hopefully, 98% of people on this forum. You can name your dog Cat & it may learn to come when you call it yet it is not a cat. If super advanced aliens had visited Earth prior to a few centuries ago, most people would have called them gods. IF someday humans land on a planet inhabited by primitives, they will bow down & pray yet that will not mean those humans are gods.
You may as well claim cats, dogs, unicorns, ghosts, vampires & werewolves can be any thing people want them to be. IF a word means any thing any one wants it to mean, it actually does not mean anything.
I have met as many gods as I have met vampires & werewolves & unicorns yet I know the definitions. You can know them too if you want to.

<>

 

[iceaura]

The OP is a falsehood, posted by you.

How do you know?

By reading about what the research discovered, and observing the differences between that and the claims you posted as the OP.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you ask a question of whether I have evidence of God, how is it trolling to ask if you have any examples of something that is known to objectively exist without evidence?

Who asked if you have any evidence of God? Can't you read?

So how does your trolling question follow on from the actual question that was asked of you?

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

By reading about what the research discovered, and observing the differences between that and the claims you posted as the OP.

I don't get you.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ah, so you are giving up on your point. Fair enough.

How do you work that out?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nothing can be known without evidence.
You cannot even believe you know something unless you think there is evidence. What you think is evidencemight be stupid nonsense but you must think you have evidence.

I take it you have evidence?

Please just go away. You are wasting your time unless you get your kicks from utterly useless inane babbling.

Right back at you. Unless you can provide evidence for your claims.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Absurd. There is no modern baldness.
There is no modern atheism. Atheism is atheism.
What is different about modern times concerning atheism is we now have freedom to speak out & stand up for ourselves against theist bullies. Something I am confident most atheists always wanted. Tho that freedom is by far not yet what it should be.

Strange as it may seem, I agree with you.
Among the sea of personalised definitions of atheism, atheism is atheism. Without God. It is the only description that perfectly, and equally, embodies every atheist. Past, present, and future.

Jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Strange as it may seem, I agree with you.
Among the sea of personalised definitions of atheism, atheism is atheism. Without God. It is the only description that perfectly, and equally, embodies every atheist. Past, present, and future.

Jan.

///
I told you this before : The original definition of atheos (the root word of atheist) was without gods, not without god & it was coined in reference to people who did not believe in the correct gods of that society. It had nothing to do with the christian god or any monotheistic belief. It was used by people who believed in many gods to mostly refer to people who believed in many other gods.
If you want to use that definition, you must include yourself unless you believe in the many gods that they did.
There was a French word which was very close to the Greek atheos but adapted to mostly refer to 1 god. I am not certain whether the new meaning came with the coining of the French version of the word or changed later. It changed again in English. In English, atheist has long meant simply not theist. In English the prefix A means not. That is what it means regardless of whether you can admit it. It is evident in many English words.

There is no sea of personalized definitions of atheism.
Without god describes atheists no more than it describes theists. You may believe there is a god but you do not know & until some god shows itself, you are without god. All you have is your fevered fantasy.
Saying someone is without god means no more than saying they are without Odin or vampires or unicorns or pixie dust. Being without something imaginary does not mean anything. It is simply your incessant babbling.

Not surprising that you ignore the point of my post you "replied" to. Probably just as well.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I take it you have evidence?



Right back at you. Unless you can provide evidence for your claims.

Jan.

///
I have evidence that you do not even understand what know means. Unless it is simply part of your trolling.

While you are perpetually evasive when prompted to give evidence for your claims.

<>

 

[Capracus]

People can have any conceptions they want yet that does not mean their conceptions fit what they or someone else calls it. Someone can have a conception that cats are people yet that does not make them people. The definition of people excludes cats.

Defining cats and people involves actual knowledge and experience with cats and people, that isn’t the case with gods. Since these perceived supernatural entities are beyond our knowledge and experience, they can only be imagined. And since they only exist in our imaginations, their descriptions and qualities are as varied as the minds that conceive them.

If super advanced aliens had visited Earth prior to a few centuries ago, most people would have called them gods.

If super advance aliens landed on Earth today, and they were technically capable of of demonstrating godlike behavior, how could you tell they were not gods?

IF someday humans land on a planet inhabited by primitives, they will bow down & pray yet that will not mean those humans are gods.

To those primitives they will be gods. All gods that have been worshiped here on Earth only existed in the imaginations of the worshipers. Whether or not any of these gods actually exist in reality has not been determined, and until their legitimacy as a god can be ruled out, their status as gods remains intact in the minds of believers. What is god is always a matter of the perception by the believer, and gods real or imagined will always remain gods until proven to be otherwise.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I told you this before : The original definition of atheos (the root word of atheist) was without gods, not without god & it was coined in reference to people who did not believe in the correct gods of that society.

What would it matter, God, or gods?
What does it matter to you? You, and all atheists, are simply, without.

God, created, gods. Of course it means nothing to you, or any atheist, because aside from being without God, you disbelieve God, gods, or whatever.
I would say you are without God (gods), because you disbelieve.
There are many combinations that constitute your position, that makes defending it near impossible.

Without god describes atheists no more than it describes theists.

You can only speak for yourself.on this matter. Anything outside of that, is speculation (at best).

You may believe there is a god but you do not know & until some god shows itself, you are without god.

How, in your estimation, would God show itself?

Jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

What would it matter, God, or gods?
What does it matter to you? You, and all atheists, are simply, without.

God, created, gods. Of course it means nothing to you, or any atheist, because aside from being without God, you disbelieve God, gods, or whatever.
I would say you are without God (gods), because you disbelieve.
There are many combinations that constitute your position, that makes defending it near impossible.



You can only speak for yourself.on this matter. Anything outside of that, is speculation (at best).



How, in your estimation, would God show itself?

Jan.

///
It matters because of what I explained in the previous post. Can you not read???
You & all theists are without god.
It is not that it means nothing to me. It means nothing.
I say you are without god because you do not know there is a god. You do not know there is or is not 33 gods. IF there is a god, there are so many possibilities that the odds are whatever you think you know about it is wrong.
I am not speaking for myself. I am stating facts. Without facts, you cannot even speak for yourself. Do you think you know what facts are???
You do not know what constitutes my position. Not only am I successfully defending what I say but you are the 1 who cannot defend yourself or chooses not to.
It is your god claim which is impossible to defend. Until you start making sense, we actually have nothing to defend.
You are the 1 speculating at best. Stop looking in the mirror when talking about others.
Not believing bullshit does not need defending. Your delirious dreamworld means nothing outside of your baffled brain.
Find out what the word know means. Google logic fallacies. Learn something useful.

<>