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

[Michael 345]

Found this jem on net

Some religious groups insist there can be no such thing as a real atheist

The creationist ministry

Answers in Genesis would be one example

One of their "proof" text - Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world gods invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse

means that god is so obviously to be inferred from his creation that deep down, everybody “knows” that god exists

Perhaps this is where Jan gets his conviction - there are no atheist - from???

 

[Write4U]

By the way, pigeons are very smart, as far as animals go.

A brainless slime mold can be conditioned to exhibit certain behaviors after being trained, even without the prior administered stimulus.

There is no God, as far as atheists are aware. That's correct.

That's why atheists will never go to war because God tells them it's a good idea.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

That such antics, namely the broadcasting if cruel and unusual punishments in order to supplicate a population, did not occur more grandly, efficiently and broadly under communism (or fascism

But we are not talking about other groups.

Or are you suggesting that as other groups behaved badly then the churches bad deeds can be somehow overlooked?

I would have thought the church could lead by example and not be involved in any bad deeds at all...but they have and your approach is to suggest a comparrison showing the church is somehow less evil is a reasonable excuse.

Its not really or do you disagree.

One of the problems I have with religion in general is that it enables folk to abdicate responsibility for their actions and your introduction of your red herring suggests you favour such an approach over recognising the horrors committed in the name of God and or religion.

The priests guilty of the rape of children for example not only committed horrible crimes but failed to live up to the trust of folk placed in them...that failure trumps most other horrors in history I expect.

Alex

 

[Musika]

But we are not talking about other groups.

You seem to be talking about authority.

Or are you suggesting that as other groups behaved badly then the churches bad deeds can be somehow overlooked?

I am suggesting that if you deem misuse of authority as sufficient grounds to dismiss authority, you will be left with a highly unusual and dysfunctional world.

I would have thought the church could lead by example and not be involved in any bad deeds at all...but they have and your approach is to suggest a comparrison showing the church is somehow less evil is a reasonable excuse.

Maintaining the integrity of any institution or society is not as straight forward as rubber stamping.

Its not really or do you disagree.

One of the problems I have with religion in general is that it enables folk to abdicate responsibility for their actions and your introduction of your red herring suggests you favour such an approach over recognising the horrors committed in the name of God and or religion.

If recognizing "the horrors committed" is your thing, you would be better off renouncing your pet hates against religion on the basis of antiquated ecclesiastical accounts dramatized by antagonistic protestants .... and instead take a closer look at contemporary world events.

The priests guilty of the rape of children for example not only committed horrible crimes but failed to live up to the trust of folk placed in them...that failure trumps most other horrors in history I expect.

Alex

The higher the ideals, the greater the chances of hypocrisy. Human society is such that it is not possible to run unless there is some sort authority structure around higher ideals..... theres the crunch.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Generally an atheist seeks truth and including superstitious beliefs founded in the bronze age they find unnecessary and unhelpful whereas the theist denies truth if it contradicts their scripture.

An atheist thinks about the world and seeks evidence to support their opinions and the theist thinks about an unevidenced future in which their status as the pets of a mythical being is paramount.

An atheist employs reason and asks questions and a theist throws out reason and follows the party line even if that line is against well evidenced science and accumulated knowledge.

Theists become evasive if they sence their answer confirms their ignorance or exposes flaws in their scripture or in the logic of their story.

There is little effort needed to determine their stories are made up or that their made up God mirrors the accepted immorality of the era when their superstitions considered it moral to kill folk for various crimes where someone failed to tow the party line...and in that era they did not know the Earth was sphere like nor did they know where the Sun went at night.
And the theist maintains these primative folk should be considered authority for their science.

The theist insists on talking about their God yet are unable to point to any action that would indicate that any God exists.

Jan seems like a nice person and even he surcumbs to the failure to provide evidence for his make believe claims and can on the odd occassion become evasive rather than confront the reality that he is unable to provide a rational answer.
He becomes evasive rather than confront the telling issues others find in his superstition.

Theists claim faith as their key to knowledge and of course faith is no more than mere opinion and susceptible to hiding the truth rather than to find it and faith will then slam the door shut if truth happens to knock.

I conclude that the op provided a great opportunity to observe the approach of the theist as to cherry picking to shore up their fear of irrelevance and how they can sort through anything to find hints of their non existent God.
So far after many many pages of discussion all we are left with...God is...simplistic and uninformative which is in keeping with the whole made up God story.
Alex

///
A nice person does not try to tell others what they think & believe.

<>

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You seem to be talking about authority.

I was thinking about the problem and maybe you are correct but irrespective of how we look at the matter the problems remain.

I am suggesting that if you deem misuse of authority as sufficient grounds to dismiss authority, you will be left with a highly unusual and dysfunctional world.

Yes but again the fact remains the church and religions generally have grave problems.

and instead take a closer look at contemporary world events.

I prefer to go for the low hanging fruit☺
Alex

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

As far as you're aware, there is no God, so it is understandable why you would think that.



There's no need to maintain theism, as it is natural.
Atheism on the other hand, has to maintain its denial, and rejection of God.



No need to create a strawman. That's what atheists do, to maintain their atheism, otherwise their foolishness will become apparent to them.



No need to create a strawman. The theist accept God, but not blindly. It doesn't match with the definition of theism, which states that a theist is a person who simply believes in God.
Whereas an atheist does not believe in God. If you want to pretend there is no evidence for God, be my guest. But it still amounts to disbelief in God.



An atheist can go no further than, there is no God. Everything regarding God, will be negative, it cannot, under any circumstances be positive. So any remark you say, has to be taken on that basis.
That is your lot, until you stop being an atheist.



From an atheist perspective, it can be anything. Which is why your mimicking is to be taken with a pinch of salt. You have nothing to say past, there is no God as far as you're aware. You present comedy (not very funny), ad Homs, mimicry, mockery, which is basically blasphemy (from theist perspective). Please prove me wrong, if you can?

jan.

///
YOU are saying there is no evidence of god.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Yes. There are people who identify as atheist. That's never been disputed.
I just agree that, you aren't atheist in reality. I don't think it is actually possible.

jan.

///
I do not think you are possible. You must be a sick troll.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Why not?

Jan.

///
WHY is it possible for adults to believe in fantasy.

<>

 

[Musika]

///
A nice person does not try to tell others what they think & believe.

<>

What?
A nice person is duplicitous or inscrutable?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

What?
A nice person is duplicitous or inscrutable?

///
A nice person does not try to tell others what the others think or believe.
I cannot believe you did not understand that.

<>

 

[Musika]

///
A nice person does not try to tell others what the others think or believe.
I cannot believe you did not understand that.

<>

I can't believe that you just said that.
You just told us what to think and believe .

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I can't believe that you just said that.
You just told us what to think and believe .

///
I did not.

<>

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

///
A nice person does not try to tell others what they think & believe.

<>

Yes but we all make mistakes.
I thought I made a mistake once but fortunately I was wrong..but others can and do make mistakes ...just dont sin.h

I get the impression Jan enjoys talking about God and I recognise that I get tiresome when talking about my pet subjects so I can hardly say I am better than Jan cause I can go on about astronomy and certainly try to get others interested because I know it will be good for them.

Jan sees the world through different eyes I expect.

He perhaps thinks its his duty to promote God and so he opens threads about God. And I certainly enjoy hearing from a theists and having a chat...

In a room full of atheists he will have problems and perhaps he is driven to be defensive of his God.
He does a great job given he defends an entity that we cant observe.
He has nothing to work with when you think about it.

I also believe that Jan thinks he can help bring God to others and from his point of view that would be the kindest thing he could do for another human.

As an atheist one can find such an approach annoying and rude but I am sure Jan simply does not understand how an atheist thinks or feels, and can only measure the world with his ruler.

That is not unreasonable.

It is hard to understand another who is very different in their view of reality.


I watch Matt Delahunty and you can tell from the callers, theists, just cant imagine the bible is just a book written by humans..to them its Gods word...they get confused when the various problems are pointed out and they just do a reset saying they have faith...which is really saying no matter what they are confronted with they will believe God is nevertheless the wonderful entity they have made him up to be...I get it.

They never think they have lost the arguement but think either they have not made their point clear enough for the atheist to convert or that the other person did not understand their point.

They are totally blind to their dishonesty so can we call them dishonest?

Still I think they try to be nice..they just dont see being evasive or circular in arguement as a problem.

I should say something in the appropriate thread but I take this opportunity to thank you for all the cat photos...if there was any case for God and intelligent design certainly cats could lead the arguement for both. How can such a wo derful creature not be created other than by a very clever God☺.

I could happily belong to a religion who worshipped cats☺

The true test for Jan is his position on cats.

If he has a cat he is a good person ...even a dog ...at least I am sure he does not have a vulture as a pet although vultures are ok hollywood has painted them badly thats all.
Alex

 

[James R]

I get the impression Jan enjoys talking about God ....

I get the impression that Jan is more interested in talking about atheism. Which is interesting...

He perhaps thinks its his duty to promote God and so he opens threads about God.

I don't think Jan does much to promote his God. From his posts we get nothing about what his belief in God means to him, or what it does for him, on a personal level. If he actually wanted to encourage somebody to believe in his God, I think the best way to do that would be to describe his God to that person. Instead, Jan spends most of his time bogged down in minute matters of definition, as well preaching to atheists about what Jan imagines they think (rather than listening to what they have to say).

I never get the sense from his posts that Jan's God is a personal God who actually matters to Jan in terms of emotional connection, or anything like that. Jan's God seems to be largely an abstraction, based on convoluted definitions that are subject to endless change as the winds of debate blow them one way or another.

In a room full of atheists he will have problems and perhaps he is driven to be defensive of his God.

Here chooses to come here, and he clearly loves coming here. I'm confident that he perceives himself as an attacker, not a defender.

I also believe that Jan thinks he can help bring God to others and from his point of view that would be the kindest thing he could do for another human.

I could do a better job bringing people to God, if I was so inclined. Seriously.

As an atheist one can find such an approach annoying and rude but I am sure Jan simply does not understand how an atheist thinks or feels, and can only measure the world with his ruler.

The main problem is that Jan refuses to listen to what atheists have to say. Mostly he just repeats comfortable mantras, and ignores a lot of the substance that is put to him. His most common response of late has been "You would say that. It's because you're an atheist." No thought goes into that kind of knee-jerk response.

 

[Write4U]

What?
A nice person is duplicitous or inscrutable?

No, you are still missing the point. Atheists can be nice moral people without being duplicitous and living a lie.
Belief in the existence of a God, i.e. being a theist, does not necessarily make one a nice moral person.
Not believing in the existence of a God, i.e. being an atheist, does not necessarily make one a bad, immoral person.

The difference is that; Atheists do not persecute Theists for being Theists, but Theists do persecute people for being Atheists, but also for being Theists (of a different faith).

 

[Jan Ardena]

OK so you have no reply. You said you think Santa Claus is real, but when your own definition is used to define God as real, you panic. You have once again backed yourself into a corner and are flailing around trying to find a way out.

Are toy cars real, are paintings real, are adverts real.???
The answer is, yes, they are all real.
For the atheist, there is no God, so God is not real, as far as you're aware. Why? Because you deny, and reject God.
You are desperately trying to justify your denial, and rejection, by telling lies.

Ah, so you reject scientific research. As expected.

How does that even work?
Show me how the pigeon was superstitious, then you may have a point.

Superstition - excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

Good luck with that.

Jan.

 

[James R]

Superstition (n.): an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear.
Superstitious (a.): showing ignorance of the laws of nature and faith in magic or chance.

If a pigeon spins around in a circle in the belief that doing so will produce food (in circumstances where it does no such thing), then this is superstitious behaviour, by definition.

Also, using your definition, since there is no natural connection between the spinning and the appearance of the food, the belief that the spinning causes the food to appear evidences a creduluous belief in a supernatural cause.

Why is it so hard for you to get to grips with science, Jan?

 

[Write4U]

Are toy cars real, are paintings real, are adverts real.???
The answer is, yes, they are all real.

Because you can see them and prove they exist

For the atheist, there is no God, so God is not real, as far as you're aware. Why? Because you deny, and reject God.

No, because you can't see nor prove that God exists.

You are desperately trying to justify your denial, and rejection, by telling lies.

No, you are now spouting pure nonsense.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I get the impression that Jan is more interested in talking about atheism.

He may be trying to escape a cult like environment and wants to make sure he is making the right choice in becoming an atheist.

He is seemingly intelligent so he must have doubts I would think and is here because he enjoys the refreshing company of atheist who are honest and have read the bible.

If he actually wanted to encourage somebody to believe in his God, I think the best way to do that would be to describe his God to that person.

Maybe he sees his God as being secretive and he tries to be similar.

Jan's God seems to be largely an abstraction, based on convoluted definitions that are subject to endless change as the winds of debate blow them one way or another.

To be fair God has remained "is" and really what more could one say☺

I'm confident that he perceives himself as an attacker, not a defender.

Maybe he subscribes to the notion that the best form of defence is attack.

I could do a better job bringing people to God, if I was so inclined. Seriously.

No doubt maybe you could give him some pointers☺

The main problem is that Jan refuses to listen to what atheists have to say.

No he listens and then he ignores whst they have said.

Mostly he just repeats comfortable mantras, and ignores a lot of the substance that is put to him.

Yes but that is standard behaviour for a theist...it is part of their make up like spots on a tiger.

His most common response of late has been "You would say that. It's because you're an atheist." No thought goes into that kind of knee-jerk response.

Theists tend to have a bag of one liners and clearly Jan is pleased with the mileage from that one.

We need to press him harder so he is forced to quote from the good book in line with standard practice for true believers.
I have become suspicious because he rarely quotes the bible suggesting he may be one of us not one of them.

I think its all a game to Jan and so he treats it that way.

Presumably he wants to keep the entirety of his beliefs secret otherwise I am sure he would have gone into detail about his God.

I sometimes think Jan maybe an atheist pretending to be a theist to give theists a bad name.

His failure to confront my standard "its all made up" suggests that is a conclusion he is happy to leave out there ... I mean really I give him so many easy opportunities but he lets them go with little comment to erode my message.

Maybe Jan seeks attention which is reasonable as who knows what the real world is for him ... at least here folk enjoy his presence and arguing with him which he may not get in his real world.
In any event if anyone finds Jan too much they can simply ignore his posts.
Personally I enjoy him being frustrating and evasive.
You can think you have him done and yet back he comes...and it would be sad to see him crushed or be anyone other than Jan.
Alex