So what then is your point in replying to this thread ?
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
So what then is your point in replying to this thread ?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I don't make that claim outright, but there is strong evidence that what we understand of natural universal functions manifests via implacable (sometimes variable) mathematical functions, both at the metaphysical and physical levels, but wholly sans intent or motivation.
But don't take my word for it. Ask any cosmologist.
Last edited:
Because you lost it? Or maybe haven’t found one yet?
I do this because I get bored of long drawn out arguments . I get to the point .
Theists are about one god , in ancient times , back to Sumer there were many .
Last edited:
God is god . One without a second
Not one you personally relate to like a personal physician, but one you have knowledge of based on reasonable evidence. I’ve never seen a blue whale, but I have seen pictures of them. And If I were so inclined I feel very confident that I could find reliable eye witnesses and loads of well documented physical evidence that would substantiate claims for their existence. Do you have anything comparable in regards to the existence of gods?
Because we think that this god is a god .
Jan Ardena:
You're right in a sense, though. Atheism isn't a way of life. Atheism in and of itself doesn't provide moral instruction, or indeed any instruction on how to live your life. As a theist, you're used to having your God belief tied up in a neat package with instructions for living, but atheism doesn't work that way. Atheists have to look elsewhere for a way of life. And we appreciate that there is no supernatural guide for that - just the ideas of fallible human beings.
)?
I do find it interesting the kinds of knots you're willing to tie yourself in to support your belief system, though, Jan. I mean, it would be more sensible in my world to assume that what you see is what you get. I don't need to pretend, for instance, that really you're a closet atheist, subconsciously. Why are you so needy?
The point is that while your belief in God confirms that theism is real, it does nothing to confirm that God is real (unless God is no more than your belief).
(Whoosh. There goes that point over your head again.)
Tell me something about God, why God is necessary and why God is real, so we can discuss.
I dare you.
I appreciate that your belief is not evidence-based. Nor is it argument-based. It's faith-based. So, indeed, questions of evidence and argument are neither here nor there for you. They are, as you say, beside the point, for you.
You asked what would make atheists believe in God. The answer is basically: evidence. But to you it doesn't matter how scanty the evidence is for God. Nothing to do with evidence would ever convince you that God doesn't exist, would it?
Is there anything that would convince you that God isn't real, Jan? Let's see if you can answer this as honestly as I answered your question.
On the other hand, nothing compels me to infer a first cause, either. I don't need to pretend to doubt it, because it's just an assumption that you make without evidence, like your other assumptions.
I know that you're at odds with the major religions on certain fundamental points of theology, so I suppose it's your prerogative to say that their conceptions of God are wrong and yours are right, for the purposes of this discussion. But then, you don't really tell us much about your conception, do you? If there's a straw man, why don't you point out what's wrong with the picture?
The trick is (partly) not to think too much about it. Just believe. Faith it up.
Are you saying warm, fuzzy feelings aren't part of your theism? Christianity, for one, is quite big on those in its theology.
What exactly do you want me to talk about in regard to God? Why don't you start by telling me what you think is important, and we can go from there?
Do you think that most Christians aren't theists? What proportion of Christians would you say are theists, if you had to estimate?
Atheism works for me. Seems practical enough.
You're right in a sense, though. Atheism isn't a way of life. Atheism in and of itself doesn't provide moral instruction, or indeed any instruction on how to live your life. As a theist, you're used to having your God belief tied up in a neat package with instructions for living, but atheism doesn't work that way. Atheists have to look elsewhere for a way of life. And we appreciate that there is no supernatural guide for that - just the ideas of fallible human beings.
I see. Tell me: does this subconscious theism that I have deep inside have any practical effects on my life at all? Would it be different if my subconscious theism wasn't there and I was a real honest-to-god atheist (so to speak
)?I do find it interesting the kinds of knots you're willing to tie yourself in to support your belief system, though, Jan. I mean, it would be more sensible in my world to assume that what you see is what you get. I don't need to pretend, for instance, that really you're a closet atheist, subconsciously. Why are you so needy?
Yeah. I get it. You think my stubborn atheist conscious nature is fighting my Godly, righteous subconscious. I'm at war with myself and I don't even know it! It's far from the simplest explanation for what you see here, but whatever floats your boat, Jan.
To find out what we know so far, you could start with an encylopedia, perhaps. Check out wikipedia. It's not too bad, mostly. You can follow the references on various topics if you want more depth.
No. There are various hypotheses about that, but none has been confirmed. It's even possible that the universe has no cause.
Again, there are some ideas, but we don't know for sure. But even talking about a "before" for our observable universe is problematic, as I said previously. Appropriate tenses don't really exist for what we're talking about when it comes to the multiverse (if it exists).
It seems likely that it is an emergent property of complex nervous systems - at least in biological life forms. My personal opinion is that consciousness is more of a continuum than a binary. It's not you either have it or lack it; it's more that you can have more or less of it.
Believe me, I'm very well aware that you're no more likely to grasp the point than you have been previously, so I'm probably wasting my time mentioning it again.
Actually, my subjective belief that I'm an atheist does make atheism real. It can do that because atheism is about subjective belief.
The point is that while your belief in God confirms that theism is real, it does nothing to confirm that God is real (unless God is no more than your belief).
(Whoosh. There goes that point over your head again.)
After you.
Tell me something about God, why God is necessary and why God is real, so we can discuss.
I dare you.
Great. It might be good to start unpacking your assumptions.
And you're not about to explain why it should, either.
I understand.
I appreciate that your belief is not evidence-based. Nor is it argument-based. It's faith-based. So, indeed, questions of evidence and argument are neither here nor there for you. They are, as you say, beside the point, for you.
You asked what would make atheists believe in God. The answer is basically: evidence. But to you it doesn't matter how scanty the evidence is for God. Nothing to do with evidence would ever convince you that God doesn't exist, would it?
Is there anything that would convince you that God isn't real, Jan? Let's see if you can answer this as honestly as I answered your question.
My issue, fundamentally, is not with the idea of a first cause, per se. It's more with all the baggage that gets attached to that, like the idea that the first cause is personal, conscious, purposive, etc.
On the other hand, nothing compels me to infer a first cause, either. I don't need to pretend to doubt it, because it's just an assumption that you make without evidence, like your other assumptions.
In discussion with you, I'm constructing the imaginary character based on what you say about him, and what the various major religions say about him.
I know that you're at odds with the major religions on certain fundamental points of theology, so I suppose it's your prerogative to say that their conceptions of God are wrong and yours are right, for the purposes of this discussion. But then, you don't really tell us much about your conception, do you? If there's a straw man, why don't you point out what's wrong with the picture?
I think other people don't believe in God because they say they don't believe in God. Sure, they might all subconsciously be pretending, too, but I find it easier to take things at face value, unless there is evidence that appearances are deceiving.
Does a person have to accept God before they can have a real concept of him? Seems kinda backwards to me.
I understand how it works. Been there, done that. Remember?
The trick is (partly) not to think too much about it. Just believe. Faith it up.
You've never, to my knowledge, said what God is to you. It's all abstract Creators and First Causes and God-in-every-atom with you, based on what you write. We're all God, you say. You're God. I'm God. Paris Hilton is God. We're all God together. What are the practical implications of any of this on how you live your life? Who knows? You're not telling.
Hmmm... interesting.
Are you saying warm, fuzzy feelings aren't part of your theism? Christianity, for one, is quite big on those in its theology.
What exactly do you want me to talk about in regard to God? Why don't you start by telling me what you think is important, and we can go from there?
Do you think that most Christians aren't theists? What proportion of Christians would you say are theists, if you had to estimate?
(continued...)
As for describing God, in most such discussions we did not waste the kind of time you like to waste trying to define what God is and isn't. Mostly there was an unspoken assumption about what kind of thing God is supposed to be. Most people are indoctrinated with descriptions of God from an early age, so that further description and definition is not the main point of such discussions.
Of course, having said that, I did have a number of discussions with atheists about God when I was a theist, and they drew my attention to various issues with the assumptions I as a theist was making at the time.
When it comes down to it, most theists' descriptions of God are fairly vague. It's not really their fault. Descriptions of God from religion are fairly vague in important respects, and they are what we're all taught. That's part of the problem. Most "scriptures" do not describe the features of God. They assume that God is a given. All personify him to a greater or lesser extent. There's lots of discussion about what God wants, especially in regard to his followers.
How do you describe God, Jan?
A minute ago, though, you were saying how evidence and probability are irrelevant, weren't you? So, if what you say is true, and I really have no idea about those things, it doesn't matter, does it?
I think what you're really trying to say is that I should just faith it until I make it.
The eternal universe, if it exists, is likely to be far more interesting and unexpected than anything found in religious scripture.
I'm glad we understand each other at last.
There's a whole thread I started, asking theists what God does in the world. I don't think you responded. Now you're telling me God has relationships with people? How do they manifest? What does God do in your relationship?
For instance, I'm not sure whether you believe in astrology - the idea that the arrangements of the planets in our solar system at the time of birth have ongoing effects on our daily lives. Let's assume you don't believe in it. Ask yourself: why don't I believe in that? (You can tell me, too, if you like.) Then ask yourself: why do I not believe in astrology, yet I believe in God? If you can't come up with a meaningful distinction between your lack of belief, on the one hand, and your embracing of the belief on the other, then you have a case of cognitive dissonance that you really ought to resolve.
How is this relevant to what you said? It is relevant because I'm confident that, in regard to these kinds of questions, I do "even know what I'm talking about".
Normal discussion-type dialogue. You know, an honest exchange of ideas and thoughts. You know how do do that, right?
I don't know what you're asking about my "state of being". I was alive. I was talking. I was thinking about what I was saying, forming words and sentences etc. All the usual stuff.
As for describing God, in most such discussions we did not waste the kind of time you like to waste trying to define what God is and isn't. Mostly there was an unspoken assumption about what kind of thing God is supposed to be. Most people are indoctrinated with descriptions of God from an early age, so that further description and definition is not the main point of such discussions.
Of course, having said that, I did have a number of discussions with atheists about God when I was a theist, and they drew my attention to various issues with the assumptions I as a theist was making at the time.
When it comes down to it, most theists' descriptions of God are fairly vague. It's not really their fault. Descriptions of God from religion are fairly vague in important respects, and they are what we're all taught. That's part of the problem. Most "scriptures" do not describe the features of God. They assume that God is a given. All personify him to a greater or lesser extent. There's lots of discussion about what God wants, especially in regard to his followers.
How do you describe God, Jan?
What's to recognise?
You know I was not a theist because you're reluctant to say what lies at the core of your belief?
So tell me what I need to accept, beyond empty mantras like "God Is". Tell me something meaningful.
Probably a fair summary. What's wrong with that?
So tell me. What constitutes evidence of God? What makes God probable?
A minute ago, though, you were saying how evidence and probability are irrelevant, weren't you? So, if what you say is true, and I really have no idea about those things, it doesn't matter, does it?
I think what you're really trying to say is that I should just faith it until I make it.
I assure you that when I discuss things like reason and evidence in this context, none of it is lip service. I'm telling it like I see it.
Like I said, I'm a trained scientist, and I have a natural curiosity about things. But that also means that I am comfortable in not knowing everything, and I am very aware that there is still much to discover about this universe we live in.
The eternal universe, if it exists, is likely to be far more interesting and unexpected than anything found in religious scripture.
You're right! I choose not to accept God on faith. Faith is not enough for me, like I said. And that's how I became an atheist, in a nutshell.
I'm glad we understand each other at last.
No. It's based on a conscious non-acceptance of faith-based belief. My lack of belief in God is just a side-effect of that, no different from my lack of belief in astrology or tarot cards.
What relationship?
There's a whole thread I started, asking theists what God does in the world. I don't think you responded. Now you're telling me God has relationships with people? How do they manifest? What does God do in your relationship?
You really ought to take a little time to consider not just whether your various beliefs are true, but whether they are self-consistent.
For instance, I'm not sure whether you believe in astrology - the idea that the arrangements of the planets in our solar system at the time of birth have ongoing effects on our daily lives. Let's assume you don't believe in it. Ask yourself: why don't I believe in that? (You can tell me, too, if you like.) Then ask yourself: why do I not believe in astrology, yet I believe in God? If you can't come up with a meaningful distinction between your lack of belief, on the one hand, and your embracing of the belief on the other, then you have a case of cognitive dissonance that you really ought to resolve.
How is this relevant to what you said? It is relevant because I'm confident that, in regard to these kinds of questions, I do "even know what I'm talking about".
Is that likely to happen any time soon? Do you want to talk about your God?
Last edited:
Picking up the baton again, from Baldeee...
But let's use a different example, of two builders.
Builder A: "Do you have evidence that a building needs to be made out of bricks?"
Builder B: "No, but can you give me an example of a building that isn't made out of bricks?"
If so inclined, builder A could then show builder B a picture of a building made out of steel and glass as an example.
But by asking if one has evidence that a building needs to be made out of bricks, builder A has introduced the notion of buildings being made out of other materials, whether they already exist or just in concept. Do you agree that builder A has opened this door, Jan? Or can you still not see how questioning the need to be made out of bricks raises the notion of buildings being made out of other materials?
Similarly, two people standing on the banks of a river, looking at some white swans.
Person A: "Do you have evidence that swans need to be white?"
Person B: "No, but can you show me a swan that isn't white?"
Can you see how raising the question of swans needing to be white, even if questioning indirectly by asking if one has evidence of the need to be white, alludes to the notion that there might be non-white swans? The question by B is thus relevant.
Please note, Jan, that this forum should be a discussion board, not a place to educate people in the basics of how what they say might have implications that they might not have intended. For almost every discussion that you are involved in to break down in some manner due to this inability of yours to understand those implications of what you write, for you to disown them as not something you have said, and for the the thread to break down as a result, would likely give an honest person pause for thought about their own ability (or lack thereof). And they would adapt accordingly.
You, though... you just stick your fingers in your ears, and the path of destruction you cause through the forum is testament to your dishonesty.
Neither Baldeee nor myself have merely just said that you have alluded to it but have both explained how this allusion arose. The allusion itself, however, is fairly obvious.
But let's use a different example, of two builders.
Builder A: "Do you have evidence that a building needs to be made out of bricks?"
Builder B: "No, but can you give me an example of a building that isn't made out of bricks?"
If so inclined, builder A could then show builder B a picture of a building made out of steel and glass as an example.
But by asking if one has evidence that a building needs to be made out of bricks, builder A has introduced the notion of buildings being made out of other materials, whether they already exist or just in concept. Do you agree that builder A has opened this door, Jan? Or can you still not see how questioning the need to be made out of bricks raises the notion of buildings being made out of other materials?
Similarly, two people standing on the banks of a river, looking at some white swans.
Person A: "Do you have evidence that swans need to be white?"
Person B: "No, but can you show me a swan that isn't white?"
Can you see how raising the question of swans needing to be white, even if questioning indirectly by asking if one has evidence of the need to be white, alludes to the notion that there might be non-white swans? The question by B is thus relevant.
Both Baldee and I have already been quite clear in where you made the allusion and how it arose. It has been pointed out to you several times already. To humour you, the above is even further explanation.
Please note, Jan, that this forum should be a discussion board, not a place to educate people in the basics of how what they say might have implications that they might not have intended. For almost every discussion that you are involved in to break down in some manner due to this inability of yours to understand those implications of what you write, for you to disown them as not something you have said, and for the the thread to break down as a result, would likely give an honest person pause for thought about their own ability (or lack thereof). And they would adapt accordingly.
You, though... you just stick your fingers in your ears, and the path of destruction you cause through the forum is testament to your dishonesty.
I've come to the conclusion theist don't exist
Lots of people do. You, like most religious types, consider your god "the God" and everyone else's invalid (or only valid to the degree that their idea matches yours.) They think the same of you - and are just as correct.
Apart from your assertion, what about your life could be considered atheist?
I see. Tell me: does this subconscious theism that I have deep inside have any practical effects on my life at all? Would it be different if my subconscious theism wasn't there and I was a real honest-to-god atheist (so to speak
I don't understand the question.
Deep inside, where?
Tell me something you do, that could be considered atheist. If it is subconscious, so be it.
So basically, you don't know enough, to make any decisions about God.
Why lie to yourself?
So it's not known. Okay.
Why does it?
But you don't know.
So what are you talking about when you say we know enough about the universe, to rule out God's necessary agency?
As there is no God, as far as you're aware, it stands to reason that you may come to that conclusion. IOW, it is hardly surprising.
I asked first.
Are you afraid to talk about God (for a change).
You've made your choice.
You are so confident in that choice, you say silly things like, we know enough about the universe to know God is not necessary, let alone exists. That's deep-rooted belief. Only you can start the redemptive process.
No it's not.
You use "evidence" as a place holder.
Atheists won't accept God, until they give up the construct, and return to normal.
You're making the mistake of thinking you're talking about God. If God Is, there is no, could God be real, or not.
But in answer to your question, I can convince myself that God exists, and because God doesn't show itself, like pots and pans, it doesn't exist. Therefore God would not exist, as far as I was aware.
But you believe them, because there is no God, as far as you're aware.
A person needs to be at least, fairly open-minded. Acceptance is a good way to let things in, so that you can process them.
Atheism is a close-minded system.
James, please don't lie. It's totes unnecessary. Thanks.
It was your life, James.
I doubt very much you were ever a theist, do stall as much as you like. You only confirm my doubt.
I know that some Christians, aren't theist.
Jan.
LOL!
I get you.Stop it James! You're killing me.
I'm beginning to wish I hadn't asked these questions of you. Just to save your embarrassment.
Verbally, mostly. Sometimes through music.
Nothing, as far as you're currently aware.
I don't recall saying that, a minute ago.
Is that based on the same reasoning that we now know enough about the universe to rule God's necessity, out?
It sounds like it.
A minute ago you said we know enough to rule God's necessity out.
It's a good thing I take most of what you say, with a pinch of salt.
Really? Is that objectively speaking?
Yes you are now, the most faithful.
Here lies the face of denial.
Call it what you want mate.
I hear yah!
Your spiritual one.
Well, I don't know what you're talking about. Everything you bring up, is an entire subject matter in and of itself. Yet you just wave it away, like brushing fluff of your jacket.
Like I said, when you're ready, we'll talk.
Jan.
You really think that answers the question?
Now that you've got that off your chest, can you get back to answering the question. Thanks.
Jan.
Slight digress. Are you and Baldeee an item?
Well, how hard would it be for either of you to lay it out, in your response, so we can move on.
Initially, I asked if you have any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known, As an example of how to keep asking for evidence, the way atheist in this thread do, is a stall tactic (p428)
So your context is way off.
Please give contextual examples, not ones you make up.
Jan.
Yes. The fact that you don't like the answer does not change that.
You are not special. You have a belief in your god that some others share, some others don't.
- Status