Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Good morning Jan.
I am so happy to awake and find everyone are having a wonderful discussion and playing nicely.
Firstly with respect if you quote something it is proper to include the source and author and given that your quote presumably comes from the bible why not link to that solid authority.
Quote the bible and you beat most non thinkers because lets face it you are quoting God. But your QUOTE sounds silly if it is indeed God saying that...
I approach things differently and this is not a shot at you because many folk quote someone as if by doing so they have laid wisdom on the table and others must nod with respect at the profound words...I like to use my own words and have little respect for others who must use someone else to express their opinion.
And just because some one said something neat why carry it around all your life.
How about this one....
"He baths three times a day so he must be either a very dirty man or a very clean man"...oh isnt that cute because I cant think of something clever myself I will quote that...
Make up your own funny yarn I say.
And the one I absolutely hate..."God does not play dice"...smart man dumb words...and how folk roll that out...deepity is all it is.
The quote you presented could backfire if you look to the role of the fool in the various royal courts in the past in which fools were employed.
Often the fool was someone who was the smart fella in the bunch able to offer comment in an inoffensive way that could correct the monarch or cause the monarch to reconsider his view... and no one else it seems had such power and indeed privilege. The fool was non threatening in a political sence.
So in some courts your quote could be seen as somewhat opposite to the meaning you no doubt attach.
It is almost like saying on the subject of religion the fool has other ideas to the rest of the court☺ and the rest of the court are wrong.
The fool could get away with injecting reason in an inoffensive way that did not undermine the monarch.
But in any event you using such a quote could be taken as offensive by some dont you think?..and as I notice you have drawn attention to name calling by others... so I thought I should point the negative aspect out to you so no one is able to call you a hypocrite. ..but for them not to do so you really would need to withdraw that quote or confirm you see the fool as the clever fella in the bunch.
And I thank you for inviting me to write a couple of pages here, I take it that is what you meant☺
As to being a fool I like to take that role in an effort not to be offensive and drop the odd thought that folk may have missed.
Say like my proposition that the bible is made up.
I mean no one ever really thinks about page one...in the begining God created etc etc...who stops to ask who was this witness that saw God do all this creation stuff...well it takes no time at all even for slower folk to realise there could not have been any witness so page one is just made up...no one was there so its made up..now presenting that proposition with childlike simplicity and causing no offence allows folk to say..he is right...there could be no one there as a witness so the creation story is obviously made up...there is no other conclusion.
Made up cosmology from the bronze age is all we have.
I suppose you could offer the "God inspired the writer" trip but that only shows God to be mistaken on various aspects which detracts from any credibility for giving correct guidence to the author of the first page or any page for that matter...solid evidence dont you think.
Its a no win situation which can be best pointed out by reducing analysis to a childlike observation of whats going on...that is why I dont think there is any place for deep philosophical discussions on these matters as such an approach lends a respect to the subject it does not deserve.
Same with my comments about killing your neighbour for mowing the grass on the day of rest..I present it as a fool (the clever fella kind☺) to draw attention to the reality that the bible contains some horrible stuff not relevant to today.
Its there if you were an atheist you would have read it and if an atheist you would call it out for what it is...recorded camp fire stories from the bronze age when folk did not know where the Sun went at night...I bet you are getting sick of that comment..well good as that observation is the way it was and should cause pause to looking to the bronze age campfire stories as a reliable guide to understanding the universe...you cant offer made up camp fire stories as useful cosmology.
And the bible contains this stuff and brainwashed folk must not know its there ...if they do and they still buy it what does that suggest about their professed God inspired morality.
Can you imagine facing court...why did you kill your neighbour? Cause he was working on the day of rest and my good book from the bronze age written by God told me I must kill him...
Yes of course the bible is absurd whilst it hangs on to bronze age superstition but that is my point and hopefully if anyone who has some ability to think has one example of such nonsence they may look for more...and we all know they will find more nonsence on a page by page search.
I think being an atheist and a cover to cover bible reader takes you past the simplistic preacher dribble to make a paying audience feel good about their apparently meaningless lives.
Jan I think you are somewhat like me really and that you dont take any of this seriously and I see you, in the nicest way, as the fool, the clever fella, and somewhat the entertainer... and you really do a good job at whatever it is you do here...certainly you generate traffic which is good ..I bet the site owners are pleased you are on board...some site owners probably employ folk who dont generate the traffic you do...its all good Jan.
But if I can identify you as the fool how shall we now regard your quote?
Alex
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Only in response to ad hominems against atheists, which is typical of the exclusive and prejudicial theist thought processses.
I am not above giving tit-for-tat . The offender needs to be made aware of his trespasses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
Yet you are somehow ignorant of major recent events of about half the planet?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
Just as well you told us because we would never have known.
For the record, using the internet to research modern history involves looking at more than funny cat pics.
Ummm, dude ... given what you wrote ...
.... i did tone it down quite a bit.
In many people's books, calling someone an asshole on the strength of one's ignorance is pretty high in the impertinence scale.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Humour us Jan.
Present just one thing you see as evidence...just one good or bad just one single piece of evidence.
Please dont refer us to goggle but in your words tell us something you regard as evidence of God.
Now you have a reputation for being evasive so my money is on you sidestepping my request...I mean that is a given. ..but I want to see you do it...again.
So just to be clear Jan will you offer one piece of evidence or have you not understood my request☺
Come on do what we all come here to see...sidestep ...if you do offer evidence you will disappoint all of us...come on we want to see you side step...let the croud chant...side step side step...
Alex
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
None of these states repress belief in a God. The repress the political power of religions....difference.Yet you are somehow ignorant of major recent events of about half the planet?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
OTOH, Islam actively repress apostasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy
Note that these are the most populated regions in the world.
Last edited:
Well, I guess that makes all the difference if you are getting murdered simply due to your religious beliefs by state forces while your place of worship is getting demolished.
Btw, your ideas about world population are as off kilter as modern history. I would send you a link to clear up your misunderstanding but I can't find a relevant link that also incorporates funny cat pics.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You are not seeing the difference.
Political power struggles are common throughout the world and indeed can be brutal. But that is different from individuals being murdered for believing in the wrong God or for not believing in a God at all.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
"Remarkably brutal", would probably be more accurate if you wanted to examine State Atheism.
The difference is that it involves individuals being murdered by people who dont believe in God.
Ummm ... no.Siberia is highly populated?
But Russia, China and SE asia are.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
A political , not religious stance.
Just as individuals being murdered by people who do believe in God.
Why are we revisiting this? It has been discussed ad nauseum. There are bad people, theists and atheists alike, everywhere.
Politics with the aim of eliminating religion, to be precise.
Except when atheists are involved in the killing, it magically becomes "politics, apparently.
Revisiting?
Because just a few posts ago you were suggesting atheists don't persecute theists.
From a couple pages back ...
You : 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).
Me: I trust you are drawing on something other than modern history to makes such assertions?
Or perhaps a version of the "true scotsman" argument?
So now you have come to grips with modern history, you are apparently moving on to the "true Scotsman" phase.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I guess this is progress, of sorts.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Jan I am so happy you ask for my explaination for not only can I explain why I say "its all made up" but I can offer reams of evidence in support...And although I am tempted to offer only one piece of evidence your encouragement will drive me to review the bible on a page by page basis so I can list every item that is clearly made up.
I did refer to page one above which is a good example of how the bible presents something as fact when even the most casual consideration quickly shows the story was simply made up.
Made up means the story was invented by someone not present at the event that they in fact made up.
The first page presents an account of creation and a time table of events.
You should read at least the first page but I can make it simple for you.
The timetable of events shows the various heavenly objects were created and after that God created man...so it becomes obvious that there was no witness to any of these creation events because man was not created until after creation had been completed.
Now you can see where that leaves us...there could not have been any witness to creation by the bibles account as no witness was created until everything was done and complete.
So any account can only be made up by someone who was not there to provide an eye witness account.
So no matter which way you approach the story the inescapable conclusion is that in the absence of an eye witness any story about creation is made up as indeed the account in the bible has been made up.
My explaination is reasonable in fact undeniable and to say the creation story is not made up is a lie.
No one there means no one saw it so any account has been made up.
Next the first man story...made up.
Who was the witness who saw this alledged event?
Could not have been the man who was created so again any account is made up...
I will let you take that on board and say you can not overturn my explaination that it is all made up.
If you want more examples of made up stories I am happy to provide more and more evidence given I have a whole made up book to select evidence on a page by page basis...but really Jan is what I have pointed out not sufficient for you or anyone to conclude I am correct here...its made up..you can not side step that proposition. .. my case is water tight.
No witness so any story is made up.
Made up sounds so simple and it is...but calling it fiction wont change the outcome that its made up...and made up in the bronze age when folk were so uninformed they did not know where the Sun went at night...any account as to where the Sun went would have been made up because they simply did not know...
Anyways think of it this way ..back then they had limited knowledge so most stuff was simply made up. ..what else could you expect..and remember so much of this stuff was made up in times where they could not even read or write.
Anyways I will go now and if you wish for more examples and evidence for the proposition that its all made up please ask but know this if you ask I will go on to show page by page one a week if you like showing you evidence that it is all made up.
Your call.
So let me ask do you now agree that its all made up or do you have any thing to reject my evidence?
Alex
Last edited:
Jan Ardena:
None of this is new to me, but obviously this is the first time you've ever come across Skinner's research. Since this is basic stuff in psychology and behavioural studies, I assume that you have very little insight into why you or other people behave as you do. That much is also clear from your posts. Your closed-mindedness is an impediment to useful discussion and to your own learning.
So far, you have made no response to the example of pigeons displaying superstitious behaviour, other than to try to laugh it off. This is exactly the same behaviour I see from Magical Realist when he is confronted with inconvenient facts about UFOs. It's like a nervous tic.
You really ought to get out of your religious bubble and find out more about the world you live in. You're obviously oblivious to whole areas of human knowledge.
You're just being silly.Nobody is buying that act.
Santa is the guy who lives at the North Pole, who delivers presents in a flying sleigh to children around the world on Christmas Eve.
You can't see that guy. Daddy isn't that guy. Santa is not a woman.
But you know all this. Why play the fool?
Of course, the other alternative is that your not playing the fool, but you actually are a fool. Maybe you think that every representation of your God is the true God, and that's why you believe. If Daddy dresses up in a God suit, so to speak, that's good enough for you. That's foolish. Is that what you believe?
Would you really have us believe that your belief in your God works the same ways as your professed belief in Santa?
Your video is irrelevant, because it shows an example of conditioning.
None of this is new to me, but obviously this is the first time you've ever come across Skinner's research. Since this is basic stuff in psychology and behavioural studies, I assume that you have very little insight into why you or other people behave as you do. That much is also clear from your posts. Your closed-mindedness is an impediment to useful discussion and to your own learning.
So far, you have made no response to the example of pigeons displaying superstitious behaviour, other than to try to laugh it off. This is exactly the same behaviour I see from Magical Realist when he is confronted with inconvenient facts about UFOs. It's like a nervous tic.
Even if your slanderous claim were true, so what? How do his personal characteristics remotely affect the validity of the demonstration?
You think that psychology and behavioural science are areas of study restricted to atheists? That's a very naive view, and closed-minded once again.
You really ought to get out of your religious bubble and find out more about the world you live in. You're obviously oblivious to whole areas of human knowledge.
You're just being silly.Nobody is buying that act.
Santa is the guy who lives at the North Pole, who delivers presents in a flying sleigh to children around the world on Christmas Eve.
You can't see that guy. Daddy isn't that guy. Santa is not a woman.
But you know all this. Why play the fool?
Of course, the other alternative is that your not playing the fool, but you actually are a fool. Maybe you think that every representation of your God is the true God, and that's why you believe. If Daddy dresses up in a God suit, so to speak, that's good enough for you. That's foolish. Is that what you believe?
Would you really have us believe that your belief in your God works the same ways as your professed belief in Santa?
That has happened far more often under religious rule than under "atheist rule."
Usually you put more thought into your responses.
The proven bad track record on multiple levels of state atheism has been a major stumbling block in providing a vast array of examples to draw from. You will be hard pressed to find even one example where it didn't turn out to be a wall to wall jar of shit.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, to eliminate the political power of religion..,difference in motive.
Yes, atheist don't use terms like apostate.
And to which agreement by others was expressed. But thanks for reposting. Perhaps more will confirm the veracity of that statement.
Except I did not try to counter your argument. I never denied that there are bad people of all stripes. I brought attention to motive.
No, I merely focused on the aspect of motive, which is the current subject under discussion.
Apparently not on your part.
- Status