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

[Jan Ardena]

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

Obviously you are going to deny and reject the word "God", because you are atheist, and you are without God, by your own choice. This means that no matter what, as far as you're concerned, there is no God. But you are clever, because you get around it, by pretending to be in awe of mathematics, which is your way of keeping connected to God.
Good call.

"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.

It depends how you look at it. You see it the context of there is no God, and everything can be explained through nature. So obviously it has no meaning to you. Maybe one day, hey?

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?

God's language. Duh!

Look! I agree with everything you say, from an atheist perspective. There just is no God, as far as they're aware. When God is mentioned, to atheists like yourself, your back is automatically up, and you consciously go into denial and rejection mode. There is no reasoning with you, just offending and defending.
But that behaviour also reveals certain parts of you character, that you consciously try to hold in. It is fascinating.

But the book of genesis is a great book, if you care to shed your mental constuct, and open your mind. Unfortunately, you seem stuck, so we will not be discussing it.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

On the contrary. It is very easy to get past the initial comprehension of the OP, if you know about tongue in cheek.

You posted a falsehood as the OP of this thread. You then defended it, argued for it, as a legitimate claim. You explicitly stated that it was not a joke.

People who identify as atheist exist, but their world view is a mental construct, and not rooted in the reality of being.

Your posting here is rooted in falsehood.

In that actuality, the question "do atheists exist" is a plausible one.

In the actuality of this thread, the OP is a falsehood. Nothing based on it is plausible.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

What do you mean by "religious violence"?

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.

Your experience? Really?
Care to elaborate?

You posted a falsehood as the OP of this thread. You then defended it, argued for it, as a legitimate claim. You explicitly stated that it was not a joke.

Who said it was a joke?
Your subconscious gives you away.

Anyway, am I to understand that you're pulling the classic Sarkus, and, Baldeee stunt of repeating the same stuff over and over.

Jan.

 

[James R]

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.

This is your way of backing off from your original silly claim in this thread, Jan, is it?

You didn't start with tongue in cheek, but I guess you have to rationalise it to yourself somehow in order to save face after another poor showing in this thread.

Theism is, of course, just as much of a mental construct as atheism. Actually, theism requires much more to be constructed than atheism does.

Do theists actually exist?

 

[Jan Ardena]

This is your way of backing off from your original silly claim in this thread, Jan, is it?

Sorry James, I don't think it is neither, a claim, or silly.

You didn't start with tongue in cheek, but I guess you have to rationalise it to yourself somehow in order to save face after another poor showing in this thread.

In the world of non dogmatic, religious atheism, it's obvious satire.

Theism is, of course, just as much of a mental construct as atheism. Actually, theism requires much more to be constructed than atheism does.

No it's not. Theism is natural to the human beings. Atheism is the anomaly.

Do theists actually exist?

Yes.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

Who said it was a joke?
Your subconscious gives you away.

You said it was not a joke, all on your own, reacting to nobody. You posted that claim in the OP, immediately after posting the falsehood - before anyone else had posted anything.

Anyway, am I to understand that you're pulling the classic Sarkus, and, Baldeee stunt of repeating the same stuff over and over.

You keep posting as if you had forgotten that the OP was a falsehood posted by you, and tripping yourself. So the best response is to remind you, which gives you the chance to correct your repetition of error, and make sense.

 

[iceaura]

No it's not. Theism is natural to the human beings. Atheism is the anomaly.

Atheism of various kinds has apparently been far more common among human beings, historically, than theism. It is so much the common tendency that large fractions of the people in even the most rigidly theistic cultures seem to lack actual belief in deity.

Odd that the norm would be described as an anomaly.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You said it was not a joke, all on your own, reacting to nobody. You posted that claim in the OP, immediately after posting the falsehood - before anyone else had posted anything.

Okay, not sure what you mean. But I'll assume you do, and we'll leave it at that.

You keep posting as if you had forgotten that the OP was a falsehood posted by you, and tripping yourself. So the best response is to remind you, which gives you the chance to correct your repetition of error, and make sense.

I'll take that as .. a yes?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Atheism of various kinds has apparently been far more common among human beings, historically, than theism. Odd that the norm would be described as an anomaly.

Examples please?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You said it was not a joke, all on your own, reacting to nobody.

My bad, can you give me the post number which contains this explicit claim?

You're right though. It's not a joke. It is a humorous way of catching people's attention. And the notion of whether or not atheists might actually exist, in terms of being without God, not actually not believing in God, or rejecting and denying God, is a is plausible one.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

What do you mean by "religious violence"?

Are you kidding me? Are you wearing blinders? Wake up a look around you.

Your experience? Really?
Care to elaborate?

I grew up in Holland in a town which was 99% catholic and I had to run from a mob many times to avoid being beaten for being atheist. The people did not want my family in "their town".

You seem to be purposefully ignorant of prejudicial violent behaviors around the world.
Be honest Jan.

 

[iceaura]

My bad, can you give me the post number which contains this explicit claim?

You have now claimed to have forgotten what you posted in the OP - and been reminded - at least four times. You were complaining about repetition?

That was the first time. Several other defenses of the OP followed, every single one taking it seriously.

I'll take that as .. a yes?

You argue from and defend your OP falsehood over and over. Whenever I feel like it, I point out that it's still a falsehood.
Like now: the OP is a falsehood, posted by you.

You're right though. It's not a joke. It is a humorous way of catching people's attention

The OP is a falsehood. Posting falsehoods to catch people's attention, defending falsehoods as "plausible" and "interesting" and so forth, is posting falsehoods, which is what you did and kept doing in this thread.

This is a science forum. The falsehood you posted is about a report of legitimate scientific research. It is particularly bad to make false claims about scientific research in a science forum.

And the notion of whether or not atheists might actually exist, in terms of being without God, not actually not believing in God, or rejecting and denying God, is a is plausible one.

No one has any visible reason to believe that atheistic people do not exist. On the evidence, they seem to have been a majority of the human population for many thousands of years.
If you want to make an extraordinary claim, you need considerable evidence and argument. You have provided nothing, so far.

 

[Sarkus]

This is your way of backing off from your original silly claim in this thread, Jan, is it?

Dishonest is as dishonest does, James. So we shouldn't expect anything different while he trolls these boards.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

From......https://www.inc.com/jack-schafer/an-fbi-agent-on-how-to-detect-deception.html
A Former FBI Agent Reveals 3 Techniques to Detect Deception
Here's how to look out for liars--without being too obvious.
By Jack SchaferAuthor, 'The Like Switch'@jackschafer

I want to believe salespeople when they say the product they are selling really does what they say it can do. I want to believe that the people I do business with are telling the truth. I want to believe my kids when they tell me what they did or whom they were with. But sometimes I suspect some of the people I deal with are not being completely honest.

Directly confronting the people who I suspect are lying is often awkward because of the sensitive nature of our relationships. The challenge is to identify disingenuous behaviors without damaging relationships. To solve this problem, I compiled several techniques in my bookThe Like Switch to detect deception without being detected. The beauty of these techniques is that people are not aware you are testing them.

Land of Is
Yes-or-no questions deserve a yes or no answer. When people cannot or do not want to answer yes or no, they typically go to the Land of Is. This concept was derived from President Clinton's now infamous statement, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means 'is,' and never has been, that's one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement." The Land of Is occupies the space between truth and deception. The Land of Is consists of half-truths, innuendos, suppositions, assumptions, and verbal judo. Most people want to tell the truth, so they go to great lengths to contort the English language to maintain the illusion of truth without telling it entirely. People often find themselves in the Land of Is without ever being aware of it.

To test people for the truth, simply ask them a yes or no question. If they fail to answer yes or no, a red flag should pop up. After someone provides a convoluted answer to a direct question, ask the same question again. If he or she once again fails to answer with a yes or no, the probability of deception increases significantly.

 

[Michael 345]

From......https://www.inc.com/jack-schafer/an-fbi-agent-on-how-to-detect-deception.html
A Former FBI Agent Reveals 3 Techniques to Detect Deception
Here's how to look out for liars--without being too obvious.
By Jack SchaferAuthor, 'The Like Switch'@jackschafer

I want to believe salespeople when they say the product they are selling really does what they say it can do. I want to believe that the people I do business with are telling the truth. I want to believe my kids when they tell me what they did or whom they were with. But sometimes I suspect some of the people I deal with are not being completely honest.

Directly confronting the people who I suspect are lying is often awkward because of the sensitive nature of our relationships. The challenge is to identify disingenuous behaviors without damaging relationships. To solve this problem, I compiled several techniques in my bookThe Like Switch to detect deception without being detected. The beauty of these techniques is that people are not aware you are testing them.

Land of Is
Yes-or-no questions deserve a yes or no answer. When people cannot or do not want to answer yes or no, they typically go to the Land of Is. This concept was derived from President Clinton's now infamous statement, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means 'is,' and never has been, that's one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement." The Land of Is occupies the space between truth and deception. The Land of Is consists of half-truths, innuendos, suppositions, assumptions, and verbal judo. Most people want to tell the truth, so they go to great lengths to contort the English language to maintain the illusion of truth without telling it entirely. People often find themselves in the Land of Is without ever being aware of it.

To test people for the truth, simply ask them a yes or no question. If they fail to answer yes or no, a red flag should pop up. After someone provides a convoluted answer to a direct question, ask the same question again. If he or she once again fails to answer with a yes or no, the probability of deception increases significantly.

Jan - + others - in other threads to a

T

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Jan - + others - in other threads to a

T

I got sidetracked.
Some JWs just came to the house here and my daughter saw them off before I could get to them.

I am so disappointed.

I wanted to ask them how many slaves the bible allows me to own per acre.

Also I wanted to ask if you can kill Saturday workers with stuff other than stones.

If you cant get the mob together could you just smash them with a club...

Strangley the point of my post was in Jan's defence...

Most people want to tell the truth, so they go to great lengths to contort the English language to maintain the illusion of truth without telling it entirely.

The fact that Jan goes to the trouble of being creatively evasive suggests to me that he is basically an honest person who really does feel uncomfortable in not telling the truth.

Look at things from his view point.

His belief is difficult to defend rationally and when we point that out it makes him feel uncomfortable and therefore tries to defend his opinion and of course that is very difficult to do when everything is based on mere feelings and so it must cause him extreme confusion.

He realises I expect that to answer directly will further erode his position so he tries to answer in a way that can make him feel comfortable that he is not really being dishonest.

That approach is ok but I suspect deep down he may realise that, not withstanding his efforts, it is wrong and perhaps he feels a little guilty and that he has indeed sinned...but that is ok if he asks God for forgiveness which presumably he does and presumably God forgives him...and as we know there is no limit to Gods graciousness so one can ask again and again and again ...God is happy with that because he knows man is a sinner and the whole relationship is predicated on that basis.
But that really does not help Jan become a better person unfortunately.

Jan needs our help and although it will not be appreciated we must persist with the good fight and guide him to enlightenment, which as I have said earlier is little more than the ability to be entirely honest with oneself and with others.

If we are honest with ourselves we can see religion for what it is which is a cruel fairey tale that demands obedience to rules made up in the bronze age to suit management of a society who did not know where the Sun went at night.

Clearly anyone who is held capitive by the accumulated superstitions is to be pitied and helped.

I would like to see Jan saved as it is such a shame that such an intelligent decent person is held captive by a parcel of unsupported lies.

And just as believers see it their duty to spread " the word" normal rational folk should do all they can to expose the superstition that is religion.

Alex

 

[Michael 345]

The fact that Jan goes to the trouble of being creatively evasive suggests to me that he is basically an honest person who really does feel uncomfortable in not telling the truth.

Your to kind

The White House would class many of answers alternative truth

Jan needs our help

You got him to the water along with others in the thread
Don't go making the mistake of pouring it down his throat
Let his thirst take over

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Don't go making the mistake of pouring it down his throat
Let his thirst take over

But he will continue to drink from the poisoned well that is superstition.

Cant you hold him down while I get the garden hose.☺

Alex

 

[Michael 345]

But he will continue to drink from the poisoned well that is superstition.

Cant you hold him down while I get the garden hose.☺

Alex

You didn't take him to the the holy font water of superstition

YOUR quality of mercy is not strained
It droppeth as the gentle rain
(sorry Bill)

NOT the garden hose, let it be a slow gentle drop of rain

 

[iceaura]

To test people for the truth, simply ask them a yes or no question. If they fail to answer yes or no, a red flag should pop up. After someone provides a convoluted answer to a direct question, ask the same question again. If he or she once again fails to answer with a yes or no, the probability of deception increases significantly

One election year I committed, in front of the woman of the house, to voting for the first gubernatorial candidate in my State who answered a yes/no question with the word "yes" or the word "no". I ended up voting for Jesse Ventura - no regrets.
Ventura, btw, apparently (look at the breakdown) got a lot of what became the Trump vote - here are his positions on various issues, which he was not shy about: http://www.ontheissues.org/Jesse_Ventura.htm

That's what large numbers of Trump voters will vote for - not the evangelicals (Ventura was atheist, although not publicly until out of office), but most of the others.