Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Wow, undoubtedly it is you who witnessed the event.I'm an atheist because I've seen the Lord smote!
The likeness is unmistakable.
Last edited:
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
The likeness is unmistakable.
Makes no difference.
They do. We just have different levels of denial and rejection
For the conditioned pigeon, yes.
How does the pigeon act without such constrains?
I neither deny, or reject Santa Claus.
You deny, and reject God, which means you simply cannot accept God. You force yourself to not connect with God.
Rom. 1.19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood so that people are without excuse.
That's not the definition of theist. A theist is a person who believes in God.
If you want to add in, there is no evidence, it is your prerogative. As an atheist, it is quite likely that you will deny and reject the obvious evidence, and continue with the pretence that there is no evidence.
The theist, and the atheist, play their respective roles.
Not sure how this follows on from the quote.
Jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Sounds like what I call stupidity☺
I have been enjoying my time waiting for astro photos to stack which is taking days, by watching Matt Delahunty, an atheist but otherwise a decent sort of chap.
I just love the way he exposes how these poor christian folk are incapable of logical thinking.
But I find it extremely sad that these poor believers have been so damaged they are incapable of seeing through the cruel con job that has been played upon them.
I also get the impression there are many folk who in effect feel trapped by their religious group such that having decided the god story is made up they find they cant escape.
I also find it interesting the lies that theists must tell each other about atheists given the expression of theists that atheists are immoral.
And is that not a joke given the way the bible drips immorality...killing folk for any hint of non belief and being ok presenting a book approving and regulating slavery as their basis for morality.
It should be a law..or as Bill Maher would introduce a proposition...New Rule☺...theists should have to read their bible cover to cover before they are allowed to claim it is the word of God.
Just think of the numbers that would become atheists immediately...I am assuming that they are of reasonable intelligence but lets face it even someone with a very low IQ would convert to atheism if they read the bible cover to cover.
As I said it is sad the lie that is religion survives in a modern world. Just look at the harm and brain damage caused by the brain washing and promise of torture in hell..how that must frighten children into becoming theists and result in them being brain damaged for life.
Still I suppose the bright side is society needs a way to control and manage humans that is self policing.
..many folk will fear God and judgement day which is fictional yet have little respect for the penalities of their real legal system.
Well they dont really fear God necause he will forgive them just like he forgives child rapeing priests.
Dirty filthy scum bags they are but they are no doubt more respected than one of those immoral atheists..such is the nonsence these brain washed stupid people are happy to live with.
Is the word hypocripte a suitable synonym for theist?
Would they buy a car from a corporation involed in child rape.. of course not but praise the pope as head of an organisation that has not really addressed these crimes presents them with no moral problem...and they just dont get it.
In any event theists insist that there is a God, without evidence, as it were a fact when all they have are camp fire made up stories passed by word of mouth, because the folk telling the stories were so minimally educated they could not read or write or offer a answer as to where the Sun went at night.
Great place to source your knowledge.
I can understand folk from the bronze age living in ignorance but in this day and age for folk to look to the bronze age for knowledge is really pathetic more so because they have no idea just how ignorant that is...
Anyways as atheists we waste our time with the Jans of this world because they are beyond help as their ability to think rationaly has been crushed beyond repair and sidelined from the very moment they could open their eyes...its sad but there is nothing we can do.
But just as natural selection sees species come and go it will be the humans who are not abdicating their ability to think that eventually will dominate the future and their off spring will be able to write history books on how humans finally shook off bronze age superstition to see all religion disappear and the current "one true God" will be relegated to the hall of past fame inhabited by all the mythical Gods of the past...
Just another God that has become extinct to join all the other extict Gods.
Must happen to the one true God just like all the previous true Gods.
I hope for the future humans introduce two reforms.
First no childhood brain washing.
Second all religions to pay tax.
Hopefully in the future a political party will appear containing those virtueous ideas in their platform.
ALEX
Last edited:
You know via your magical God sense.
Because they are consistent and rational in a way that theists of your stripe are not.
Apart from your God, what other things do you believe in without any "supporting proof"?
Of course, we know a few of them. They tend to fall into the same supernatural basket as your God. Thus we have things like souls, for example. No doubt you have a special sense for just knowing that souls exist, in the same way that you have a special sense through which you can just know, magically, that God exists.
I have no doubt at all that you do not accept the same lack of evidence in many other areas of your life. Your religious beliefs are most likely nicely compartmentalised and kept apart from things like the belief that you can fly (unassisted), and the belief that you can survive without food or water (for an extended period of time). I'm quite sure you find evidence persuasive when it comes to forming your beliefs about those things.
You are not unusual, of course, in being oblivious to your own double-standard. Religion is like a big blind spot.
Why not?
I'd like to note, for the record, that I do not consider Jan Ardena to be a very good advertisement for theism. This is why I tend to qualify my statements about Jan's beliefs by using phrases such as "theists like you". I am wary of tarring all theists with the same brush, and there are lots of theists who aren't at all like Jan.
I know thoughtful and reflective theists who do not share Jan's dogmatic inflexibility. They concede that, in the end, their belief in God relies on faith, because they understand what faith is. They also concede, where appropriate, that any direct contact with God that they believe they have is subjective, because they understand the distinction between the subjective and the objective.
In contrast, it seems to me that Jan believes that he has some kind of direct line to God and to special knowledge about God. Jan claims to know lots of things, and asserts that he has this knowledge independent of any evidence. That is, Jan claims to have a priori knowledge about God, souls and so on. He claims it is "natural" for him to have this sourceless knowledge. Jan struggles to separate the subjective and the objective, so much so that he assumes that subjective truth equals objective truth, at least when it comes to God. This is atypical of reflective theists.
Jan will probably tell us that all those "other" theists aren't doing theism properly, because the proper way to do it is Jan's way. Ergo, theists are only real theists if they are theists like Jan.
Jan is unable to get to grips with the idea that atheists really don't believe in his God. His way to rationalise this is to claim that (a) atheists are in denial (they must be, because Jan just knows that God is real), and (b) atheists secretly do believe in God, deep down - they just don't realise it. This is the only way that Jan can make sense of atheism, because, for him, there is only one reality - the subjective one that he cannot distinguish from the objective one. In the subjective reality, God Is, and the rest follows.
I have come to the conclusion that discussion with Jan on the subject of God's existence and the nature of theism and atheism is most likely pointless, because there are deeper issues that Jan will need to address before he is equipped to have a real discussion about such topics. As things stand, I expect we'll only see repeated bluster from Jan about how atheists believe this or that "because you're an atheist and you're in denial", coupled with repeated statements of faith about how "God Is".
As far as the topic of this thread goes, I think I'm done. I posted quite a detailed analysis of the content of the article earlier in the thread. Jan really wasn't interested in discussing that, but never mind. iceaura's observation that the thread title is essentially a misrepresentation of the article's content is accurate. I don't think Jan will concede the point that the scientific studies mentioned in the article in no way show that "atheists do not exist", and that, in fact, none of those studies set out to show any such thing.
Unless anything new or interesting comes up, I'm out of this thread.
I know thoughtful and reflective theists who do not share Jan's dogmatic inflexibility. They concede that, in the end, their belief in God relies on faith, because they understand what faith is. They also concede, where appropriate, that any direct contact with God that they believe they have is subjective, because they understand the distinction between the subjective and the objective.
In contrast, it seems to me that Jan believes that he has some kind of direct line to God and to special knowledge about God. Jan claims to know lots of things, and asserts that he has this knowledge independent of any evidence. That is, Jan claims to have a priori knowledge about God, souls and so on. He claims it is "natural" for him to have this sourceless knowledge. Jan struggles to separate the subjective and the objective, so much so that he assumes that subjective truth equals objective truth, at least when it comes to God. This is atypical of reflective theists.
Jan will probably tell us that all those "other" theists aren't doing theism properly, because the proper way to do it is Jan's way. Ergo, theists are only real theists if they are theists like Jan.
Jan is unable to get to grips with the idea that atheists really don't believe in his God. His way to rationalise this is to claim that (a) atheists are in denial (they must be, because Jan just knows that God is real), and (b) atheists secretly do believe in God, deep down - they just don't realise it. This is the only way that Jan can make sense of atheism, because, for him, there is only one reality - the subjective one that he cannot distinguish from the objective one. In the subjective reality, God Is, and the rest follows.
I have come to the conclusion that discussion with Jan on the subject of God's existence and the nature of theism and atheism is most likely pointless, because there are deeper issues that Jan will need to address before he is equipped to have a real discussion about such topics. As things stand, I expect we'll only see repeated bluster from Jan about how atheists believe this or that "because you're an atheist and you're in denial", coupled with repeated statements of faith about how "God Is".
As far as the topic of this thread goes, I think I'm done. I posted quite a detailed analysis of the content of the article earlier in the thread. Jan really wasn't interested in discussing that, but never mind. iceaura's observation that the thread title is essentially a misrepresentation of the article's content is accurate. I don't think Jan will concede the point that the scientific studies mentioned in the article in no way show that "atheists do not exist", and that, in fact, none of those studies set out to show any such thing.
Unless anything new or interesting comes up, I'm out of this thread.
Write4U
But was a theist?
No idea
Never looked at his administration sheet
Some nurses were paranoid about recording patients religion
Scared of sending them off to the wrong god???
But was a theist?
No idea
Never looked at his administration sheet
Some nurses were paranoid about recording patients religion
Scared of sending them off to the wrong god???
Because there is no need.
I wouldn't waste my time arguing for, or against their existence.
jan.
Why?
My flexibility has yet to be tested. Atheists seem only to be interested in defending their position.
We all have a direct line to God, and we all have the ability to know what is God, and who we are in relation to God.
That doesn't make sense. A theist is a person who believes in God. While ones belief is tied to ones actions, one does not ''do theism''.
Your problem is, you want to tie religion, and religious practices to theism. It doesn't work.
It depends on how you use the term ''believe''.
I accept you don't explicitly believe in God.
It seems that is where you want to keep the discussion.
If you simply accept your atheist title, then you must realise that are very likely to not agree with the theist position, as long as you are an atheist.
Look at the article itself, it does not suggest that atheists don't physically exist.
The title merely provokes curiosity. Is it wrong for doing that? I doubt that.
Surely you can move past that I would have thought.
Jan.
Last edited:
I know the same way you know, I choose not to deny and reject it.
That it's time for you to stop peeing in the sink.
It always comes down to this with you, James. You make stuff up, then proceed as though it is fact.
What religious beliefs, James?
Who is talking about religion, James?
jan.
There it is. The roots of fascism, totalitarianism, and the like.
Imagine if someone of similar ilk to what you're saying, got in a position of great power.
Hang on! There already has been.
Where in this thread have any theist alluded to that expression?
Let's it strengthened their belief. What next? Concentration camps? Murder biblical teachers, and scholars? Burn down places of worship?
You're a dangerous man, Alex.
I hope someone like you doesn't rise to power.
jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
"God forbid", we would not want to incur the "Wrath of God", and be subject to "Vengeance is Mine?", as "Thou shalt have no other Gods before thee" !!!!!Write4U
But was a theist?
No idea
Never looked at his administration sheet
Some nurses were paranoid about recording patients religion
Scared of sending them off to the wrong god???
How does a theist know how to distinguish one God from another God? The secret sign?
And which God is the God that IS?
As Carlin said, it's all very confusing.....
And apparently the most confusing to theists. They are always at war with the blessing of their God.
Death to the apostate!!!
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes, it's called Theocracy.
You line all gods up on parade
"OK YOUS MISERABLE EXCUSES FOR GOD ALL THIS GODS WHOES ISN'T TAKE A STEP BACK"
Turns to Jan and points to the one who didn't move
"Is that the one who just IS?"
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
OMG, Jan just nodded!You line all gods up on parade
"OK YOUS MISERABLE EXCUSES FOR GOD ALL THIS GODS WHOES ISN'T TAKE A STEP BACK"
Turns to Jan and points to the one who didn't move
"Is that the one who just IS?
Wait,.... his pants are on fire!
Must have been the Devil who done it..
No it's not. A theocracy is a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
Forcing people to do what you personally want, is what Alex is talking about. And we've seen the result, of godless (atheist) regimes.
Jan.
Last edited:
OMG, Jan just nodded!
Wait,.... his pants are on fire!
Must have been the Devil who done it..
This is atheism, when it runs out of presets. Mockery..
Jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Is that how they came up with the term "Dread Naught" ?All that insisting for naught
- Status