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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I say "God Is".
There is a difference.

It's a fundamental.
Either you accept God, or you don't.
Or you accept multiple Gods. Or you accept a God-like entity that is different than your conception of God.

All beliefs, all just as supportable as yours.
You cannot support your position.
You just don't accept God, whereas I accept God.
And you cannot support that acceptance, since there is no way to objectively prove that God (or anything like God) exists.
You say there is no evidence for God. That is an assertion . . . .
Correct. It is also a fact.
Your arrogance allows you to think that your position is correct, and mine is false. Can you support your position?
Your position is just as valid as a hard polytheist's.
[/QUOTE]
 
Define the word gobbledygook.....:)

In scripture God refers to himself as a thing not a self-awareness. A subtle difference overlooked by most. "I am That, I am"
Apparently you have made God into what you wanted it to become.....convenient...:)

I am what I am
I don't want praise, I don't want pity
I bang my own drum
Some think it's noise, I think it's pretty

Gloria Gaynor

Songwriters: Mark Owen
I Am What I Am lyrics © Warner/Chappell Music, Inc, BMG Rights Management US, LLC


https://genius.com/Gloria-gaynor-i-am-what-i-am-lyrics

All god problems solved

She's Gloria Gaynor - or Shirley Bassey

Fits like a glove

:)
 
///
Can you refer me to a post where he does that?

<>

In defence of space aliens Post #18 and #86

Since the thread is more than 1,000 post I'm sorry I'm not going to spend any more time going through them all, pick out relevant post

If you require more I can spend odd bits of time checking the thread but it would be a slow process

:)
 
That's a good point.

Jan spends most of his time telling us all that we have no idea what God is. But then, Jan himself is unable or unwilling to describe his God, either. Here's his latest effort:

What are we to take away from this? It's all a bit vague, isn't it? Perhaps I can help.

I suppose "Almighty" means omnipotent. "The Totality" presumably means everything that exists. This probably reflects Jan's notion that you and me and Paris Hilton and that tree over there are all parts of his God.

As for "Transcendent", my dictionary suggests that it means "Exceeding or surpassing usual limits especially in excellence" or possibly "Beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding".

But if the Totality is everything, how can it be Transcendent? How can Everything exceed its boundaries or limits? "Totality" means everything. How can anything exceed Everything? It sounds illogical.

Besides, if Jan equates God with the Totality (i.e. everything that exists), then the universe/multiverse and God are indistinguishable. Are we to understand that Jan worships the universe, then?

"Being" introduces the idea that this Totality is like a person. That is consistent with Jan telling us that we can have a relationship with God. He doesn't talk about that the same way that he would talk about us having a relationship with our houses, for instance. He's not thinking of us relating to the universe as a mostly-inanimate collective, but to a personality. Presumably, Jan's God has plans, desires, likes and dislikes, just like human beings.

"Supreme" tells us that Jan's God is the "greatest in status, authority and/or power". But compared to what? Why is this qualifier necessary? Are there other God-like Beings who are competing with Jan's God for supremacy? Is this why Jan has to specify "one" Almighty God - because he is worried there might be others? It sounds like Jan is trying to talk up his God's importance by giving him titles (witness also all those important-looking Capital Letters). But maybe this is just Jan being insecure about his God.

Jan says that his God "brings everything in and out of being". Does this happen continuously, or are these one-off actions by God? Science suggests, for instance, that energy is conserved in the universe. Is it Jan's contention that his God is continuously creating new energy/mass, or destroying it? It's unclear.

Jan asserts that the atheists here don't know his God. Not surprising if his God is "outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding". The question then arises as to how Jan knows this God. Jan likes to give the impression that he understands his God, but here he is telling us that his God is, by his own definition, beyond the understanding of mere mortals. Not very consistent, is it?

For atheists like myself, of course, the important question is: given Jan's definition of his God, how would we go about testing whether this God is real or a fiction? Are there any hints in the definition that Jan has provided?

"Almighty" doesn't help us, because Jan's God hides himself and his mightiness away from human experimental discovery. We know we can see part of a Totality (I like to call it the universe), but if calling it God is just slapping an extra label on it, then nothing new or useful is added to that idea.

Perhaps we can investigate God's Supremacy. But no. That would require evidence of some activity that God has undertaken, and there don't seem to be any actions that can unequivocally be attributed to Jan's God. That only leaves us looking for things that are brought in and out of being, and conservation of energy appears to be a hurdle there. At best, we have the unproven contention that God created (Is) the universe (Totality), but that's an untestable assumption.

Other questions occur to me that Jan never discusses. If God is a Being, a personality, what does God want? If this God has a relationship with all of us (even us non-existent atheists, according to Jan), what does that involve? Does God communicate with (some of) us? If so, what does it communicate? How are we to recognise God's communications, given that it is obviously not keen on communicating unambiguously?
///
Evidently, we should just accept it because Jan says so.

<>
 
In defence of space aliens Post #18 and #86

Since the thread is more than 1,000 post I'm sorry I'm not going to spend any more time going through them all, pick out relevant post

If you require more I can spend odd bits of time checking the thread but it would be a slow process

:)
///
In Defence Of Space Aliens is the title of the thread?

<>
 
Define the word gobbledygook.....:)

In scripture God refers to himself as a thing not a self-awareness. A subtle difference overlooked by most. "I am That, I am"
Apparently you have made God into what you wanted it to become.....convenient...:)

In what way does "I am That, I am", make God "a thing"? How is that not the actual meaning of "self-awareness"?

Apparently you have made God into what you wanted it to become.....convenient.

I would say God is more than I want God to become.
Speaking of the biblical quote you posted though, I think it is a lot simpler than is commonly understood.

YHWH instructed Moses to tell the people of Israel, that he was sent by "I Am". Who else is "I am"? We all are.
But God is "That I AM". Or, the source of all I ams.

Jan.
 
Or you accept multiple Gods. Or you accept a God-like entity that is different than your conception of God.

All beliefs, all just as supportable as yours.

It's a matter of comprehending, what is God. It's difficult to do that if you're simply denying, and rejecting. So I accept your analysis on the understanding that you are atheist, in part, but for the most part, a denier and rejector of God.

Jan.
 
t's a matter of comprehending, what is God. It's difficult to do that if you're simply denying, and rejecting.
It's also difficult to get past the initial comprehension of the OP as a falsehood - the rejection of falsehoods is one of those features of analysis that are hard to give up.
 
You just typed a bunch of "just a word(s)". Are they also gobbledygook?

Jan.
A bunch of words wihout meaning would be gobbledygook. A single word without demonstrable meaning is gobbledygook.

"In the beginning was the word " has no demonstrable meaning . I would guess that the first human words were grunts and clicks. We can see this today in the various languages spoken by other hominids.

I bet you cannot even identify the language in which this "word" was spoken, especially when there were no ears to hear this word or respond to it. To whom was the "word" intended?
 
Last edited:
It's a matter of comprehending, what is God. It's difficult to do that if you're simply denying, and rejecting.
Yep - which is why you don't understand hard polytheists.
So I accept your analysis on the understanding that you are atheist, in part, but for the most part, a denier and rejector of God.
You are wrong again.
 
In what way does "I am That, I am", make God "a thing"? How is that not the actual meaning of "self-awareness"? Jan.
Two reasons
a) Self-awareness cannot exist in a void.
b) That is not a noun, which makes the rest gobbledygook.....:)

Why else has scripture later been modified to read, "I am who I am", a falsehood?

I can just as easily say, "I am Potential (That which may become reality), I am" . IOW the latent ability for the creation of the Universe.
Potential ,
noun
  1. possibility; potentiality: an investment that has little growth potential.
  2. a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed
  3. Electricity. electric potential (def 1).
  4. Mathematics, Physics. a type of function from which the intensity of a field may be derived, usually by differentiation.
I like Potential, it actually refers to something we understand and use in many practical applications of "the word".
 
Last edited:
I am thinking about talking in tounges ... is that even gobbledygook?

Anyways Jan has acknowledged atheist exist which is a concession to a degree so thats nice.

Alex
Perhaps he has, but with a form of derision which I find offensive.
It smacks of exclusivity, the root of prejudice.
 
Perhaps he has, but with a form of derision which I find offensive.

Well lets focus on the good part which after all is, for Jan, presumably a huge step to recognise atheists exist...lets face it at the start of this thread he was inclined to think there were no atheists which he really wanted to be the case.

No doubt he would be happier if although an atheist that you did not reject God☺

And I would like to think that Jan is not trying to be offensive as in his world God is real and certainly exists and I expect he feels the need to help others find God so they can feel warm and fuzzy as that self delussion delivers.

Certainly for an atheist dealing with a believer becomes frustrating but really given we are dealing with a non event we need not get offended.

I really believe we should feel pity for folk who have been brainwashed to such a degree that they turn to the bronze age for direction.

They just do not understand the way science reveals the biblical accounts to be no more than made up stuff by folk with no understanding of the world. Even though into animal husbandry they had not idea..check the account of breeding animals in the bible.. if you know your bible you will know to what I refer.

Back then crazy folk were held up to be possessed by the divine spirit rather than mentally ill.

These days we understand mental illness and realise such folk are not the source of wisdom or relevation but back then it met you were intouch with God.

It is unfortunate believers will not consider the context of the various relevations.

I was watching David Attenborough and he mentioned how in the recent past a chap who proposed butterflies came from catapillars was arrested for heresy because it was believed that God created them seperate creatures.

They did not even understand bird migration thinking birds hide and slept thru winter...


They thought some geese came from barnacles.
And that was only a while back so imagine how it went in the bronze age.

If one spent the time you could find lots of stuff along similar lines to demonstrate the bone headed ignorance suffered by religious folk and that is easy to understand because everything they made up, including the God concept, was born from ignorance and the ramblings of folk who often were simply mentally ill.

There is presumably 20% of the USA who believe the Earth is not a globe like object orbiting the Sun because the bible presents the Earth as flat.

It is rather worrying.


Their (believers) belief in the flood story is extraordinary ... a 800 year old man and his 100 year old sons built a boat to house all animals, including young dinasours some 4500 years ago and from those animals and 8 people the world was repopulated with both humans and animals from there...

And these folk reject evolution????

It is tragic.

They say over and over that the bible is the word of God and ignore the fact it was written by humans from the bronze age who simply did not have a clue.


Their ( believers) brains dont work anymore and they profess ignorance and blind acceptance is a virtue.

They donot see and cant see that in itself is a big big problem.

It is simply just so sad that they (believers) were damaged beyong repair when children.
I saw one poor kid...he did not believe evolution..why his parents told him God created it all...that is just so very wrong.

I dont think such unfortunate folk mean to be offensive they just have been brainwashed to such a degree that they cant think rationally.

They are pumped with the idea to have faith which slams the door on reason and enquirey.

So many (believers) think science is some kind of trickery and have no idea what a scientific theory is or how if flawed will be happily torn to pieces by other scientists.

"Its only a theory" they rattle as if they have delivered the killer blow...just that shows their unfortunate ignorance.

I just hope we can help Jan.

It is so sad that someone who seems intelligent well read and decent has been so terribly harmed such that he is seemingly incapable of working out that he has been conned.

He should not be treated as a source of fun he needs respect pity and help.

Alex
 
Alex, I admire your generosity, but if you have been subject to persecution for being an atheist as I have, it is more a feeling of fear than pity or respect that I can muster.

As atheist I am a committed pacifist, unlike most theists to whom prejudice and religious violence against atheists (infidels) is a negotiable proposition.

It is my experience that theist believe atheists should not exist and once you are branded, violence in the form of prejudicial treatment or physical harm is permissible.

A perfect example is the story of Hypatia
As the historian Deakin writes, "The most detailed accounts we have of Hypatia's life are the records of her death. We learn more about her death from the primary sources than we do about any other aspect of her life" (49). She was murdered in 415 CE by a Christian mob who attacked her on the streets of Alexandria. The primary sources, even those Christian writers who were hostile to her and claimed she was a witch, portray her as a woman who was widely known for her generosity, love of learning, and expertise in teaching in the subjects of Neo-Platonism, mathematics, science, and philosophy in general.
https://www.ancient.eu/Hypatia_of_Alexandria/

Here we are a millenia and a half later and nothing has changed. Religious zealots are just as active and dangerous today as they were then.
 
Last edited:
Alex, I admire your generosity, but if you have been subject to persecution for being an atheist as I have, it is more a feeling of fear than pity or respect that I can muster.
But but but...they love their fellow man dont they?

I aready suspected believers dont practice what they preach.

I really think you guys have a serious problem over there.
I have been looking at various utube videos...faith healing, talking in tounges, evangalists asking for money so they can buy another private jet.

They are a crazy bunch on first impressions.

I posted a while back how the Arabs went from leaders in knowledge back to the bronze age because one religious leader proclaimed maths as evil and man you guys are in danger of being sidelined by a similar approach.

As I said...there must be 20% of your population if pressed would declare the Earth to be flat because its in the bible...maybe more...that must be a grave concern.
We are lucky.
We had a female prime minister who was atheist which I gather would be unthinkable in US.

Do you like Bill Maher?

I have been watching his videos with delight.
I think I have seen all George Carlins work.

There is an Australian ..Jim Jefferies who I am surprised has not been shot.
He actually looks very much like me when I was young so it feels funny watching him.

Anyways if it gets out of hand come over here I can put you up somewhere.

Alex
 
Do you like Bill Maher?
I am an avid fan.
I have been watching his videos with delight. I think I have seen all George Carlins work.
As have I. I met him in Seattle a long time ago. We were playing across the street from his venue. He was great then and continued growing with age.

p.s. I live in Idaho...my wife was called the anti-christ because she is a Democrat, enuf said.....:eek:
 
Last edited:
It's also difficult to get past the initial comprehension of the OP as a falsehood - the rejection of falsehoods is one of those features of analysis that are hard to give up.

On the contrary. It is very easy to get past the initial comprehension of the OP, if you know about tongue in cheek.
People who identify as atheist exist, but their world view is a mental construct, and not rooted in the reality of being. In that actuality, the question "do atheists exist" is a plausible one.

Jan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top