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

[Musika]

Again you reveal your sloppy reading . I quoted that link in my post #1147.

The word apostate is not used by atheists to identify another atheist. It is a word only used by theists or other believers to identify non-believers or believers in a different religion.

.

Sure.
Thats why they persecute on the basis of being a mere traitor (enemy of the state, dissenter, nonconformist etc).

.

And contrary to the OP question atheist are non-believers to begin with and that's why they are called apostate by religious believers.

So what do you suppose they did when they looked at civic registries to determine who to purge from society?
Draw straws?

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

The quote in question does not suggest one is a clown or jester. It describes the thoughts and actions of an unwise person.

A person who convinces the self, there is no God, and proceeds to act in that context, is, IMO, an unwise person.

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.

There is no God as far as you're aware, therefore God could neither have inspired anyone, or manifest the material world. That is as far as we can go, in this discussion.

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.

Yet here you are.

But if I can identify you as the fool how shall we now regard your quote?

However you like.
I understand you're position.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

You say "tit for tat" ?
What did he call you?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

You must do your own research, biting up the evidences, and state why you think it's not evidence. If you're being serious, I might just bite.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So let me ask do you now agree that its all made up or do you have any thing to reject my evidence?

You look at the bible from a specifically, modern-Christian POV. I don't.

I don't see where it says Adam and Eve were the first two humans. Just for starters.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

Explain how you know the pigeons we're exhibiting some kind of reverence to the supernatural.
Unless you can actually demonstrate this, it will funny, bordering on hilarious, as far as I'm aware.

Even if your slanderous claim were true, so what? How do his personal characteristics remotely affect the validity of the demonstration?

The demonstration is fine. It's the unprovable claim, that the pigeons can display an excessively credulous belief in, and reverence for the supernatural.

That's kooky!
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

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.

Well it is a good thing I don't. Hey!

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.

Which religious bubble are you talking about? In case you hadn't noticed, I talk about theism.
As for your insult. I'll just put that down to frustration due to lack of control.

Santa is the guy who lives at the North Pole, who delivers presents in a flying sleigh to children around the world on Christmas

One doesn't need those substrates to recognise Santa. Just like one does not need to know Superman's planet got destroyed by another race. One simply need to put on the gear.

But you know all this. Why play the fool?

When in Rome...

Is that what you believe

I believe in God.
But you know that. Right?

Would you really have us believe that your belief in your God works the same ways as your professed belief in Santa?

Belief is a lot more complicated than you seem to think. It seems you are not really listening to me, but trying your hardest to get the better of me, any way necessarily. But you fail miserably.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

If you think the statistics are an assimilation of war dead, you were not paying attention.
If you think the statistics were meddled with in some way to specifically avoid going further back in history than the standard field of modern history, you were not paying attention.

And if you think you can pass off cherrypicked data to prove your point and think no one here will notice - you are in the wrong forum.

 

[billvon]

I don't see where it says Adam and Eve were the first two humans. Just for starters.

Genesis 2:7. Just for starters.

 

[billvon]

Explain how you know the pigeons we're exhibiting some kind of reverence to the supernatural.

No "reverence" nor did anyone suggest that. Re-read the post; it talks about superstitious BEHAVIOR - a belief that doing something completely unrelated to the task at hand (spinning in circles, strutting, praying) will have an effect on the amount of food you get.

The demonstration is fine. It's the unprovable claim, that the pigeons can display an excessively credulous belief in, and reverence for the supernatural.

No one said anything about the supernatural.

You do this all the time. You do not seem to have the ability to debate the topic, so you change the topic to something you CAN debate, hoping no one will notice your deception.

One doesn't need those substrates to recognise Santa. Just like one does not need to know Superman's planet got destroyed by another race. One simply need to put on the gear.

Ah, so you believe in God, Superman and Santa. Your belief makes more sense now.

 

[Musika]

And if you think you can pass off cherrypicked data to prove your point and think no one here will notice - you are in the wrong forum.

At this stage I don't think you even understand the point I was making ... but don't let something as pesky as seeking clarification or reading posts prior to yours stop you. Feel free to carry on like a person who enters an empty room with no one present and starts an argument.

 

[Write4U]

You look at the bible from a specifically, modern-Christian POV. I don't.

I don't see where it says Adam and Eve were the first two humans. Just for starters.

Jan.

So which account do you believe? Priestly or Jahwistic?

If there is a third codified account, can you reference it?

 

[Write4U]

Belief is a lot more complicated than you seem to think. It seems you are not really listening to me, but trying your hardest to get the better of me, any way necessarily. But you fail miserably.
Jan.

Now do you understand my strategy of tit-for-tat? It's the very game you play.

Moreover you believe that your belief makes you invincible and superior to all others.
Belief is more complicated than anyone else can comprehend? And if only we were capable of listening closer to what you are spouting, it all would become clear? Hubris!

Behold the new Bible! It consists of not one but two Words; God Is.

 

[billvon]

At this stage I don't think you even understand the point I was making.

Ah. Your deception was discovered so now you are going for the insults. Sad!

 

[Musika]

Ah. Your deception was discovered so now you are going for the insults. Sad!

An important aspect of winning an argument is hearing it first.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Genesis 2:7. Just for starters.

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

How so?

jan.

 

[Write4U]

Ah. Your deception was discovered so now you are going for the insults. Sad!

It's a game and calls for a strategy of tit-for-tat.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No "reverence" nor did anyone suggest that.

That's what superstition is, and you say the pigeons were superstition.

it talks about superstitious BEHAVIOR - a belief that doing something completely unrelated to the task at hand (spinning in circles, strutting, praying) will have an effect on the amount of food you get.

If it got food by spinning in circles before, why is it considered superstitious to think you're going to get food if you di it again?
Especially when that is your only option.

No one said anything about the supernatural.

You do this all the time. You do not seem to have the ability to debate the topic, so you change the topic to something you CAN debate, hoping no one will notice your deception.

See my first response.

Ah, so you believe in God, Superman and Santa. Your belief makes more sense now.

Does it though?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So which account do you believe? Priestly or Jahwistic?

If there is a third codified account, can you reference it?

Why does it have to be another persons account?. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Now do you understand my strategy of tit-for-tat? It's the very game you play.

I don't call people ''arseholes''.
There was no need for that toxic level of insult.
You should apologise.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Moreover you believe that your belief makes you invincible and superior to all others.

You clearly haven't understood what I have written.

jan.