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

[Baldeee]

Jan, the disconnect here seems to be that you are not aware of what you alluded to.
You clearly did allude to it, whether you are consciously aware of doing so or not, indeed whether it was even your intention or not.
Sarkus has, quite clearly to me at least, not only pointed out to how you alluded to it but he has also explained why his question is therefore relevant.
You simply putting fingers in your ear and claiming not to hear....
Well, it sayeth much.
Eventually, though, you will get your wish and evade the point simply because your desire to evade seems to be greater than most people's willingness to feed your behaviour.
And you will see it as a triumph of your tactics and thus continue to employ it.
Sad really.
But there you go.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You don't even understand the point of your own arguments. Sad.

Regardless of your opinions. How did you

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

Makes no difference. The question has been asked.
Stranger, or yourself should answer it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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?

I'm not prejudiced against atheists.
Do real atheists (people who actually don't believe in God) even exist?
Which happens to be the point of the thread.

Atheists (purpose of discussion), think the issue is whether or not God exists, or not.
They look at things that exist, like pots and pans, and think God should exist like that.
Hence when God cannot be produced, in the way pots and pans are produced, they claim, basically, God does not exist.
Although they may put different spins on it, like, there is no evidence, or there is no good reason.
Either way, they lack belief in a strawman, of their own creation, and theists play into their game, unbeknown to themselves.
God Is, may not be very enlightening for the atheist, because there is nothing for the atheist to deny or reject.
They prefer when theists use their strawman god, and use the term God exists. Then the atheist can go into their strawman rant.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not as yet.

 

[billvon]

Atheists (purpose of discussion), think the issue is whether or not God exists, or not.
They look at things that exist, like pots and pans, and think God should exist like that.
Hence when God cannot be produced, in the way pots and pans are produced, they claim, basically, God does not exist.

Nope. You have once again constructed a strawman argument. You could not argue the actual point, so you created your own position (i.e. "atheists think that God has to have a present and physical existence") and tried arguing against that instead. It is a dishonest method of argument - but sadly the only sort you can win.

 

[James R]

Do real atheists (people who actually don't believe in God) even exist?

Clearly they do. There is a bunch of them right here attempting to talk to you. You're not actually listening, though.

Atheists (purpose of discussion), think the issue is whether or not God exists, or not.
They look at things that exist, like pots and pans, and think God should exist like that.

What other ways are there for things to exist? Explain why you think God isn't like pots and pans.

Hence when God cannot be produced, in the way pots and pans are produced, they claim, basically, God does not exist.

They claim there is no evidence that God exists in the way that there is evidence that pots and pans exist.

It comes back to objectivity vs subjectivity - a distinction you have failed to grasp despite years of discussion here.

Either way, they lack belief in a strawman, of their own creation, and theists play into their game, unbeknown to themselves.

You believe in a God that has no physical manifestation in the world. This God of yours only interacts with human brains, in a way that is apparently undetectable by science. Only people who share your magical God sense can detect your God.

The fact is, it's quite reasonable for atheists to doubt the existence of the God you say is real, because you are completely unable to provide any objective reason why anybody should accept that your God is real. All you have is your own subjective belief, plus a bunch of "scriptures" that you clam are divinely inspired or dictated by your God (through other people who also only have a subjective belief).

God Is, may not be very enlightening for the atheist, because there is nothing for the atheist to deny or reject.

Right. It's either an empty phrase that communicates nothing, or else it reduces to a statement about your subjective belief again. There really is nothing there to deny or reject.

 

[Michael 345]

Whoever said no such thing as perpetual motion can exist obviously never looked at this thread and the same cog turning up with no sign of any wear or tear

 

[iceaura]

Atheists (purpose of discussion), think the issue is whether or not God exists, or not.
They look at things that exist, like pots and pans, and think God should exist like that.

None of that is true of any atheist I know personally.

Do real atheists (people who actually don't believe in God) even exist?
Which happens to be the point of the thread.

The OP is a falsehood. That is the point of the thread.

 

[Write4U]

They prefer when theists use their strawman god, and use the term God exists. Then the atheist can go into their strawman rant.

jan.

Exactly, you just cannot grasp that atheists are able to understand your perspective. It's just that your perspective as presented is wrong......

 

[billvon]

Regardless of your opinions. How did you

I did it by

Simple.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Clearly they do. There is a bunch of them right here attempting to talk to you. You're not actually listening, though.

Of course I'm listening.
There are people here who identify as atheist.

What other ways are there for things to exist?

Necessary existence.

Explain why you think God isn't like pots and pans.

No thank you.

They claim there is no evidence that God exists in the way that there is evidence that pots and pans exist.

The gateway to disbelief.

It comes back to objectivity vs subjectivity - a distinction you have failed to grasp despite years of discussion here.

No it doesn't.

What is there to grasp, James?

You believe in a God that has no physical manifestation in the world.

I believe in a God that is Cause of All Causes. You reject and deny God, the Cause of All Causes.
Unless you believe the universe is eternal, you have to accept God. even though you deny and reject. Hence you are a conscious atheist, but a subconscious theist.

The fact is, it's quite reasonable for atheists to doubt the existence of the God you say is real, because you are completely unable to provide any objective reason why anybody should accept that your God is real.

You doubt the existence of a strawman.
You deny, and reject God.
By creating a standard which you deem worthy, embodies this rejection and denial.
You don't actually discuss God.
I don't think you dare.

All you have is your own subjective belief, plus a bunch of "scriptures" that you clam are divinely inspired or dictated by your God (through other people who also only have a subjective belief).

You only know what you have.
It's obvious that if you reject and deny God, you will never be satisfied with a situation where God Is, is even a possibility. You never, ever, will. Until you decide to give up on this notion that there is no God, because there is no evidence.

Right. It's either an empty phrase that communicates nothing, or else it reduces to a statement about your subjective belief again. There really is nothing there to deny or reject.

What is this, if not a rejection, and denial of God.
We already know there is no God, as far as you're aware. Anything else you add, is simply evidence of disbelief.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

None of that is true of any atheist I know personally.

Evidence?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nope. You have once again constructed a strawman argument. You could not argue the actual point, so you created your own position (i.e. "atheists think that God has to have a present and physical existence") and tried arguing against that instead. It is a dishonest method of argument - but sadly the only sort you can win.

When atheists ask for evidence of God, what do they require, to accept God's existence?

Jan

 

[billvon]

When atheists ask for evidence of God, what do they require, to accept God's existence?

I don't know. I imagine it's different for everyone. There would likely be a range, from a small number of provable supernatural events, all the way to repeatable, verifiable experiments.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't know.

So why ask for evidence, as though you know what you are looking for?

I imagine it's different for everyone. There would likely be a range, from a small number of provable supernatural events, all the way to repeatable, verifiable experiments.

What makes you think that, if God can be known, or comprehended, it would require those particular types of effort to achieve that?

Would you become a theist if you realised God, was actually there, and you were a minute particle of it?

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

What makes you think that, if God can be known, or comprehended, it would require those particular types of effort to achieve that?

Not wishing to beat a dead horse, but can you provide an example of something that is known, or comprehended, to objectively exist (so as to discount purely the subjective) that doesn't require those particular types of effort to achieve?
Yes, this is very similar to the question from Sarkus you still haven't asked, and just as it was when he originally asked it, it is clearly relevant.
So let's make it just like Sarkus' previous question, and ask you to provide an example of it that doesn't involve circular reasoning.
Can you do that, please?

 

[billvon]

So why ask for evidence, as though you know what you are looking for?

I didn't.

What makes you think that, if God can be known, or comprehended, it would require those particular types of effort to achieve that?

I don't.

Not sure who you are arguing with here, because I didn't say any of that.

 

[iceaura]

Evidence?

I compare the statements and conversations and so forth of the atheists I know personally, and note the large differences between them and your claims. None of them think any of the claimed existing deities could possibly have the material nature, occupy the same logical level, etc, as pots and pans, for example.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not wishing to beat a dead horse, but can you provide an example of something that is known, or comprehended, to objectively exist (so as to discount purely the subjective) that doesn't require those particular types of effort to achieve?

We can beat this dead horse again if you want. I have my preset responses ready and waiting.

Explain how your question is relevant to my question.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I didn't.

I don't.

Not sure who you are arguing with here, because I didn't say any of that.

Have you never asked someone, if they have evidence of God's existence?

They weren't arguments. I just threw a couple of hypothetical situations your way, off the back of your response.

jan.