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

[Xelasnave.1947]

Jan I goto give it to you get something in your head and you dont let reality stand in your way.

I often say we are each at the center of the observable universe (which by definition each of us are at the center) in an effort to imply we can have things any way we want...and so you are at the center of your universe and can have it anyway you want it...keep out what does not suit you.

No doubt you dont need a dictionary to decide the meaning of a word...in fact I suspect you have no need to use one at all however for those folk who like using a dictionary I post the entry I found for atheist.

Atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

But by all means Jan for your universe you apply whatever meaning you wish.

You can say I am without God if that makes you feel better or happy or even superior and I say hang what the dictionary says.

If you can shore up your universe by adjusting the dictionary please do so.

And everyone please have some compassion for Jan we really should give him a break as clearly he has some difficulty fitting his reality into modern times.
But that is his problem so if we cant help we need to leave him be.

I mean who wants to be the grown up who tells the kids there is no Santa... so why are we all so determined to show Jan that there is no God or no soul or that the flood was impossible.

I feel somewhat guilty and so I should.

It would have been better that I had not pointed out scriptures are made up...

If someone needs a God and an afterlife perhaps we should let them have their reality and do nothing to upset it for them.

Jan presumably has not had the opportunity to think in any way other than there is a God and that he, Jan, has an immortal soul.

If he wants to believe in the made up stories and that he owns his body as an immortal soul why not let him indulge whatever notion he wishes...and if he wants to be evasive to protect his reality why not let him.

We dont have to force him to conceed that point we can make our own observations without judgement.

If he wants to refuse to supply evidence of his position yet demand evidence from others let him do so I have no problem with that..that is just the way it is..and it wont change I expect...no problems.

It really should not upset anyone given that Jan has shown how he behaves and will defend his belief.

God is his hobby and so he enjoys trying to share his joy with us..that is nice really...we all know Jan has particular traits and we should be accepting that he has to live with those burdens.

We should be tolerant of others and overlook their peculiarities and praise their good features as good atheists can do.

Jan is an inteligent person and I am confident that if he was not defending his position such that he could take time to think for himself rather than constantly trying to manage questions from atheists he could probably work things out for himself.

I mean have you ever been wrong but even knowing that you are wrong felt bound not to lose the arguement.

Jan is always defending so probably gets no time to think things through for himself.

I ask that we all take a moment to think how it must be for Jan and extend the tolerance and understanding that atheists can freely give.

We dont have to ask God to help and so we have the power to be understanding and tolerant.

I have to sit and listen to a friend who is convinced bigfoot is real...he enjoys thinking there is mystery in the world so should I be the one to tell him he is the victim of liars and con men.

I think it is best that I let him enjoy the fantasy...he has such a terrible existence and believing the big foot stories clearly makes him happy.

For my part I feel very sorry that I may have ever made Jan feel uncomfortable or acted in a disrespectful way to him or his beliefs.

Alex

 

[Write4U]

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.

Then why the need for prayer?

 

[Write4U]

For my part I feel very sorry that I may have ever made Jan feel uncomfortable or acted in a disrespectful way to him or his beliefs.

I don't. Theists insult atheists over and over. Atheists never start this argument.
Atheists are not required to prostletize or convince anyone of a non-existent anything.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You & all theists are without god

Excellent, and detailed explanation.
I really mean it. You have gone right to the edge of your reasoning, and, explanatory ability, and come up with that. And all I can do is repeat myself...

... You, and all atheists, are simply, without God, so it appears that everybody is without.

I am not speaking for myself. I am stating facts.

Wake up!
You've not stated one fact, other than, as far as you're aware, there is no God.

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.

So you'd like to think.
You are atheist, a person who does not believe in God. As opposed to a theist, who does believe in God.
You are defending your position, as you say, because everything you spout, confirms your atheism.

Oh! How, in your estimation, would God show itself?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Oh! How, in your estimation, would God show itself?
Jan.

Why don't you tell us? You are making the claim It does exist.

Please do not give an explanation which can be scientifically justified. That doesn't count. It has to be of a supernatural nature. Then you can make your claim of a supernatural entity.

btw. "It" is at least a partial concession, which allows for a non-sentient causality. Good for you.

 

[Sarkus]

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

I know what you asked. I responded.
Furthermore, if you ask "Do you have any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known?" then you are asking if I have evidence of God... specifically about whether God can be known without evidence. To have evidence of that is to have evidence of a property of God, and thus would be evidence of God.
Simples, really.

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

It's not a trolling question, and it follows because by asking the question you asked you are alluding to the possibility that something can be known to exist without needing evidence. Thus I asked: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?
And given your on-going evasion, I am still waiting for a response.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why don't you tell us?

I asked first.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I know what you asked. I responded.
Furthermore, if you ask "Do you have any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known?" then you are asking if I have evidence of God... specifically about whether God can be known without evidence. To have evidence of that is to have evidence of a property of God, and thus would be evidence of God.
Simples, really.

If I wanted to ask if you have evidence of God, I would have asked. But I didn't.
The question I did ask, you answered, and I'm satisfied with your answer. Thank you very much.

It's not a trolling question, and it follows because by asking the question you asked you are alluding to the possibility that something can be known to exist without needing evidence. Thus I asked: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?
And given your on-going evasion, I am still waiting for a response.

Neither you, or I have a clear understanding of objective existence, enough to say something definitely, objectively exists.

I think you'll find that those kind of discussions are primarily philosophical, between philosophers. The everyday person sees no real practical value either in those discussions, or whatever conclusion that may be drawn.

Discussions between musicians, despite their standard, does nothing to influence the reality of people's tastes in music. The musician, like the philosopher, is at best, a servant of the people. Not the other way round.

What's interesting is, those philosophical discussions seek only to unravel the reality of human experience, not beyond.

So please explain to me, what is objective reality? Does it extend beyond my reality? If so, how much?

Thanks in advance
Jan.

 

[Write4U]

I asked first.

Jan.

I am the atheist.
I did not put forward the concept of a supernatural motivated causality.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan I goto give it to you get something in your head and you dont let reality stand in your way.

Yet another ridiculous statement, without being brought to task. Congratulations for getting away with it, and for not feeling silly.

Atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Thank you for that Alex. I am forced to accept that definition, as it really encompasses the moder atheist.

The dictionary definition of disbelief is...

inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

... a description that fits you and modern atheists, so well.

I've always said it mate, you're an honest atheist, unlike the fakes that fill the boards with inane drivel. As though you need all that crap.

The reality is, you are currently incapable of theism, because you go all out to deny God, by any means necessary. You will even pretend to use science.

You are incapable of holding a conversation on the subject matter, because you know you will have to accept, God Is, and admit you have been deluding yourself all along.

All that is left for you, and your atheist chums, is to invoke falseness, and make insults. It seems to work, because you are still fixed in your delusion.

and I say hang what the dictionary says.

No probs mate.

And everyone please have some compassion for Jan we really should give him a break as clearly he has some difficulty fitting his reality into modern times.
But that is his problem so if we cant help we need to leave him be.

What a pitiful tactic.
You should be embarrassed.
But your delusion, and other like minds, will keep you fixed in this illusion.

Rather than go for the popularity vote, why don't you actually use your brain.
Don't you know that if one blind person leads another blind person, they will both possibly end up as road kill. Unless of course, compassionate people with the ability of sight helps them out.

I will be that person to lead you across the busy road of life. Don't rely on other blind folk.

For my part I feel very sorry that I may have ever made Jan feel uncomfortable or acted in a disrespectful way to him or his beliefs.

Sad face...



Your compassion is about as real as your atheism. And so far it appears that atheism is so insignificant, it ain't real.

See what I did there, I pulled it back to the actual topic. You should try it sometime.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I did not put forward the concept of a supernatural motivated causality.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Jan.

I know you don't know what you're talking about. That's why you cannot explain it.

 

[Sarkus]

Neither you, or I have a clear understanding of objective existence, enough to say something definitely, objectively exists.

Yet there you are, looking at something that emits photons that you observe. One doesn't need to know what it is that is emitting the photons to know that there is something there emitting photons.

I think you'll find that those kind of discussions are primarily philosophical, between philosophers.

And here we are, in a philosophy sub-forum. Go figure.

The everyday person sees no real practical value either in those discussions, or whatever conclusion that may be drawn.

You mean you refuse to answer the question.

Discussions between musicians, despite their standard, does nothing to influence the reality of people's tastes in music. The musician, like the philosopher, is at best, a servant of the people. Not the other way round.

Interesting that you example something that is subjective (taste in music). I am not asking about the subjective but the objective. Either you think God is wholly subjective, or you think that God has some element of objectivity - either in part or wholly. If you think God is objective, can you name something objective (i.e. not wholly subjective) that is known to exist without evidence - and without circular argument?

What's interesting is, those philosophical discussions seek only to unravel the reality of human experience, not beyond.

So please explain to me, what is objective reality? Does it extend beyond my reality? If so, how much?

If objective reality exists then it exists for everyone in the same way. We would overlay that existence with our own subjectivity, our own experience of it. But we can minimise that subjectivity through methods of enquiry. It is what science does, for example. So if you see "your reality" as your experience then yes, it extends beyond that. It is what you experience.
If you think God is objective, or has an objective aspect/element then can you name something objective that is known to exist without evidence - and without circular argument? Or perhaps you see God as wholly subjective?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yet there you are, looking at something that emits photons that you observe. One doesn't need to know what it is that is emitting the photons to know that there is something there emitting photons.
And here we are, in a philosophy sub-forum. Go figure.
You mean you refuse to answer the question.
Interesting that you example something that is subjective (taste in music). I am not asking about the subjective but the objective. Either you think God is wholly subjective, or you think that God has some element of objectivity - either in part or wholly. If you think God is objective, can you name something objective (i.e. not wholly subjective) that is known to exist without evidence - and without circular argument?
If objective reality exists then it exists for everyone in the same way. We would overlay that existence with our own subjectivity, our own experience of it. But we can minimise that subjectivity through methods of enquiry. It is what science does, for example. So if you see "your reality" as your experience then yes, it extends beyond that. It is what you experience.
If you think God is objective, or has an objective aspect/element then can you name something objective that is known to exist without evidence - and without circular argument? Or perhaps you see God as wholly subjective?

God Is. That is my understanding of God. Everything that exists, regardless of our subjective, or objective cognition, is because of this.

So what does it mean, for God to objectively exist? You tell me.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I know you don't know what you're talking about. That's why you cannot explain it.

What are you talking about?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

What are you talking about?

Jan.

No, what are you talking about? I am talking about you because you don't know what you are talking about, except your attitude and words speak of prejudice against atheists as somehow being unable to understand your God.

"God is"...??????? Well problem solved then........
Might as well say "shit happens". Not very enlightning is it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yet there you are, looking at something that emits photons that you observe. One doesn't need to know what it is that is emitting the photons to know that there is something there emitting photons.

Do ghosts and aliens emit photons?

And here we are, in a philosophy sub-forum. Go figure.

Yet no one can truly explain what is objective existence, or if it actually exists.
Don't you find it amusing (at the very least) that you're asking me to explain something that trained philosophers have difficulty explaining?

You mean you refuse to answer the question.

I don't fully understand the question, and have trouble comprehending how it follows on from the question I asked you.
I suggest you explain what objective existence is, then explain how it fits into this particular discussion. If you are sincere, and it doesn't run the risk of derailing the thread, we'll see.

Interesting that you example something that is subjective (taste in music). I am not asking about the subjective but the objective.

Why do regard taste in music as subjective? What about music, is objective?

Music... vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.

Either you think God is wholly subjective, or you think that God has some element of objectivity - either in part or wholly.

That's your analysis, not mine.
I've given you my analysis of God. Use that if you are relating to me. Or use your analysis on someone who thinks similar to you.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Do ghosts and aliens emit photons?

If they are visible.

Yet no one can truly explain what is objective existence,...

I have explained what it is: that which remains the same irrespective of perspective.

...or if it actually exists.
Don't you find it amusing (at the very least) that you're asking me to explain something that trained philosophers have difficulty explaining?

I'm not asking you to explain what trained philosophers have difficulty explaining. I'm asking you if you can provide an example of something objective that is known to exist without evidence?

I don't fully understand the question...

So you chose to evade for the past 5+ pages rather than admit that? How dishonest of you.

and have trouble comprehending how it follows on from the question I asked you.

I have explained. What of that explanation do you still not comprehend? Or are you simply going to continue to evade?

I suggest you explain what objective existence is, then explain how it fits into this particular discussion.

Both of these I have already done, Jan. Now stop with the continued evasion.

If you are sincere, and it doesn't run the risk of derailing the thread, we'll see.

I have been sincere throughout, Jan. You, on the other hand...

Why do regard taste in music as subjective?

Do people all have the same taste in music?

What about music, is objective?

The notes on the score, for example.

That's your analysis, not mine.

It is not my analysis but pretty much a truism. You have either wholly subjective, wholly objective, or a mix. What do you dispute about that?

I've given you my analysis of God. Use that if you are relating to me. Or use your analysis on someone who thinks similar to you.

So,, if you think "God Is", do you think that this means God is objective, subjective, or a mix of the two?

I await your inevitable continued evasion.

 

[Write4U]

Oh! How, in your estimation, would God show itself?

Certainly not by way of Jan Ardena.....

 

[Capracus]

Then why the need for prayer?

Prayer can be seen as a mode of interface with the supernatural entity, just as typing a keyboard or using a voice command is on a computer. I know this may sound ridiculous considering some gods are conceptualized to have perceptive capabilities that would negate the need for such petitioning, but that’s just one of the countless inconsistencies that arise when a philosophy is governed by poorly defined logic.