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

[Baldeee]

I spent part of life in the law game and I can tell you that you dont stand before a judge and get anywhere with your approach.

If the jury were all believers who shared the same view, I beg to differ.
Evidence is an observation that fits the theory.
But the strength we apply to that evidence varies, is subjective, such that an atheist might see it as not strong at all, while a theist might see it as being very strong.
That you or I might think the strength of the evidence as zero in support of the claim that God exists, does not in itself negate the observation from being evidence with some strength to the theist.
The evidence, the observation, remains the same for both: everything exists.
If it fits a theory then it is evidence for that theory.
It can be evidence for many theories.

I do understand what you are saying but just remember in the parent thing you have examples all around you...all most real and tangible so the application of your approach hardley is justified when we move to an area where folk make an unsupported claim about an unevidenced God.

It's unsupported and unevidenced from your perspective, though, not theirs.
Which is fine, as we all start from different premises, assumptions, beliefs etc.
You see the evidence the theist presents and consider it weak at best, whereas because of their underlying belief they might see it as evidence that strongly supports their position.

Perhaps you could consider why I for example can look at the world and not need to inject a creator using circular reasoning.

Because you are not wedded to the belief that God exists.

The fact I dont find the need to inject a creator means your answer is not the only conclusion one can reach..it is not the only conclusion available I have just pointed that out..so dont say it is the only conclusion..it is not.

I have never said that it is the only conclusion, so please don't put words in my mouth.
In fact if you read my previous post you will note that i have specifically said that evidence does not necessarily rule out other theories.
If it did then it would actually be proof.
But if it fits more than one theory then it is but evidence and can be taken as evidence in support of that theory by anyone who chooses to use it as such, with each individual considering it as strong or as weak as they see fit.

Well that sounds nice but evidence is more than what you suggest.

Evidence presents an objective picture and actually does amount to proof if it objectively demonstrates the validity of the point that it is introduced to support...all you suggest is that evidence is subjective and that is just wrong.

First, I am not suggesting evidence is subjective.
What I think is subjective is how strong one considers the evidence to be.
Second, evidence is not proof simply because it might demonstrate the validity of the point it aims to support.
For evidence to be proof it must also necessitate the impossibility of any other competing theory, as more than one valid conclusion might be reached from the same evidence.

You need to take that on board.

And you need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths.

All you claim to be evidence is mere opinion...opinion is not evidence do you find that so difficult to accept?

Where have I said evidence is mere opinion, Alex?

There is no place for opinion.

Says the person who says he spent his time in courts of law??
Seriously?
Or is evidence not weighed up by each individual arbiter on a case?
If that is not opinion, what is?
If the judge does not set out his opinion in the case, then what does he do?

If you want to attribute creation to a God you cant just say that because you make a speculative finding that is evidence...opinion is not evidence and certainly has no bearing on proof.

Try that approach in court and if you persist with that line the judge will find you in contempt of court.

You have a statue of justice showing a figure with scales in one hand with a blind fold over the face...think about what the message is there.

It does not mean blind faith is acceptable☺

Your "evidence" (opinion) wont move those scales...

Once again, Alex, it will help if you stick to what I have actually written.

I realise the whole deal requires blind faith but really if you want to claim there is a God back up your claim.

The default is there is no God just like you have no race car and the only way you can aquire credibility is to open the garage and roll out your race car and for God similar until then your claims are less than believable.

The default might well be that there is no God, but not everyone is in default mode.
Those people will not necessarily view the evidence in the same way you or I do.

At the very least, Alex, you surely accept that if an observation fits a theory then it is evidence (weak or strong) in support of that theory?
Not necessarily proof, but it is evidence, right?
So if you agree to that, then if you believe that God is the creator of all, how is the existence of everything an observation that does not fit the belief that God exists?
I know it's circular reasoning.
You know it's circular reasoning.
But it is still evidence that supports the claim.
We just happen to place no strength on that evidence, because it is borne from circularity.

 

[Musika]

And you support my observation by example.

I'm not wrong in what I posted. What I posted was an accurate and fair description of the situation.
When you sign on with Jan's posting here, you sign on with falsehood and slander and bad faith and all manner of unethical behavior, beginning with the OP - that OP is a serious breach of standards in a science forum. A moderator here would be within their purview to expunge it, without comment, as trolling.

You are fine with it, and all the rest. That means you are not, as you claimed, "fine" with actual discussion in this matter. Do you want to be?

Then deal with that, first. Get the log out of your eye, and other people's actions will come into clearer focus.

The possibility that you don't understand something or have misinterpreted something doesn't appear to cross your mind even as a theoretical concept.
Just to be clear, I am not talking about understanding God or some particular POV on a subject. I am talking about simple interpersonal communication skills.
Or to put it another way, if you are so jam packed full of yourself, where is the space for anything else?
I am guessing you are one of those types who trawls through discussions just to find things to disagree on and meters success not on comprehension but according to how many enemies they can create, either real or imagined.
I guess this approach is effective in certain political contexts or hazard saturated environments, but as far as internet discussions go, its just a means for routing the shortest possible exchange with others. The only exception is if you encounter another hyper-vigilant, 100% jam packed full-of-self combatant .... in which case, the two of you could lock horns for an eternity, I guess.

 

[Musika]

I am glad you agree with me. So when are you going to offer content and context?

I thought I was pretty clear ... content and context lies in philosophy.

So what is your belief system? Don't you think it is only fair? You demand I declare my belief system so you can tear it down as being disingenuous, but you refuse to give even a hint of what the statement "God IS" means to you.

You declared yourself as a humanist. So I analyzed your beliefs according to that standard. I have declared I am a monotheist. You are welcome to do the same.
Saying "God IS", is to say God exists, but not in the sense of being mutable by contingency. In short, when we look at something that "is", we look at its essence/characteristics, its existence, and its actuality or relationship with other things that exist. Hence, in the case of God, "IS".

 

[iceaura]

The possibility that you don't understand something or have misinterpreted something doesn't appear to cross your mind even as a theoretical concept.

So?

Look, regardless of my presumed intellectual flaws, there remains the simple fact relevant here on this thread - which you have never even attempted to contest (nor has Jan, in any relevant manner) - that my description is accurate, and the situation here with Jan's posting is exactly as I described it.

The OP is a simple enough declaration, and Jan has had 60+ pages to clear up any misunderstandings. He has instead confirmed the original and obvious meaning, a falsehood, and defended it in the manner visible. So that's where we stand. You sign on with Jan's posting, that's what you sign on with.

I guess this approach is effective in certain political contexts or hazard saturated environments, but as far as internet discussions go, its just a means for routing the shortest possible exchange with others.

I wish.
Instead, you offer apparently endless repetitions of confirmation that you have, indeed, signed on with Jan and Jan's posting - which is antithetical to discussion, and further demonstration that you (like all in Jan's crowd) are not, contrary to your claim, "fine" with discussion.

Saying "God IS", is to say God exists, but not in the sense of being mutable by contingency

Anything you can name by necessity implies entities excluded from that name. That establishes mutability by contingency for anything you can name. Things that exist would be a subset of that.

In short, when we look at something that "is", we look at its essence/characteristics, its existence, and its actuality or relationship with other things that exist.

And if we discover that none of those things themselves exist, we draw the appropriate conclusion.

And people who have drawn that conclusion exist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So that's where we stand. You sign on with Jan's posting, that's what you sign on with.

Has it occurred to you that he signs on with nobody? That upon reading what has been written, he draws his own conclusion?
Must everything be about war, with you?

Why don't you simply take part in the discussion?

You can start by giving a proper reason as to why you think this thread is a falsehood. If you like.

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Once again, Alex, it will help if you stick to what I have actually written.

Hi Baldeee
Firstly I am very sorry for my bad behaviour this morning.
I did not intend to go on the net until my day was complete and yet I did and I was somewhat stressed as what lay before me was rather daunting.
However I was pleased and actually excited to see you had postedand that prompted me to reply but I really did go off half cocked and in my stress and rush completly misread what you said... I only saw one part and I reacted badly.
I am sincerely sorry I was wrong very wrong.
Secondly there is little that I disagree with in what you said.
Thirdly thank you for remaining a gentleman when you could have really taken me to task.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Stop with the apologising, Alex.
You purposely condescend, and you get away with it.

I do have a flaw in my character or rather my presentation where I do tend to sound condescending ..its not that I really mean to be that way but I do recognise what you say is valid.

I know that I have made a mistake with my over the top approach and promise that I will be better in the future.

I am sincerely sorry.

alex

 

[Baldeee]

Hi Baldeee
Firstly I am very sorry for my bad behaviour this morning.
I did not intend to go on the net until my day was complete and yet I did and I was somewhat stressed as what lay before me was rather daunting.
However I was pleased and actually excited to see you had postedand that prompted me to reply but I really did go off half cocked and in my stress and rush completly misread what you said... I only saw one part and I reacted badly.
I am sincerely sorry I was wrong very wrong.
Secondly there is little that I disagree with in what you said.
Thirdly thank you for remaining a gentleman when you could have really taken me to task.

Nay worries, Alex.
And I hope your days are less stressful moving forward.

 

[iceaura]

Has it occurred to you that he signs on with nobody? That upon reading what has been written, he draws his own conclusion?

Sure. That's why I asked, and others asked, and he confirmed on his own as well.

Why don't you simply take part in the discussion?

I am. This is my part - pointing out that the OP is a falsehood defended by slander and bad faith rhetoric. As the OP is the basis of the discussion here, the interesting aspect of that discussion is why the author posted falsehood and then defended it as they did.

You can start by giving a proper reason as to why you think this thread is a falsehood. If you like

You keep posting examples of my description - really, we don't need any more. There are plenty to support a discussion of the OP and its defense.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Well, if atheists do not exist, then technically no human being can be totally bereft of spiritual knowledge.

That is true but I think atheists really do exist.

Sure, we have a wealth of information and facility in this age, but I'm not sure how that automatically makes us more brilliant.

I would have said that back then they were more superstitious but looking around today there are still a great percentage of people who are superstitious I expect...not just with religion but I hear of sport stars having good luck charms, and for what ever reason I like to buy my petrol at number three pump...that is superstitious I guess.

It is like a body that has strong arms and legs, but no head, so it inevitably just runs into a ditch (in spectacalur fashion).

I dont think a body with out a head would move at all but I understand what you mean.

So that's probably where you have to start when you look at this problem.

Possibly but thinking about it today I realise I do not have to concern myself with anything at all...I knock religion and I think I seize on the various flaws but when I look at it all I see generally most people are good and decent and if religion helps them to cope who am I to judge.
I am rather tuff mentally I feel or at least I dont need spirituality..and I just dont understand it at all... I tend to think it is weakness so I unfortunately start from a position of thinking that folk who are religious are weak and what concerns me most is that they are being conned..but I guess its like a woman conning a man and playing up to him and his ego...why should I care so long as he and she are happy.
If he knew the truth he probably would not like it...if each get what they want out of the relationship why should I care what the respective motives may be even if I think truth is compromised....Its none of my busness really.

I mean if there are scriptural injunctions regarding the care and maintenance of camels, do you think the devout should go out purchase a few just for the sake of applying scripture?

I would like the bible to be perfect.
Why leave stuff in there that is just wrong.
Anyways it should be of no concern to me but I think it would be tolerable if edited to get rid of calls to kill folk, references to slavery ...that sort of thing.
Even though I dont believe there is a God I just feel if folk must have one at least get it upto date..this determination to hold onto the past when it leaves such stuff there I just can not handle...I mean we have a book that is held in high regard why not use it to educate folk on what is right...It upsets me that it is held up as a moral compass when clearly it is not unless you cherry pick.
I think it would be nice if you could pick it up and read it cover to cover and it be credible truthful and accurate. That seem reasonable to me but when one points out the problems believers cant acknowledge it is flawed when the flaws stand out to me and other reasonable people. Science moves forward religion does not... I dont like children being indoctrinated because that is wrong in my view but if folk must why not start with a decent book of scripture setting out decent ideals clearly and throw out the bad fruit...would anyone have a problem editing out references to slavery? or to killing another human for what ever reason.

Before you try any of this you should first purchase a camel.

I see your point but it could be so different and better...why leave such things in there..it is wrong and leaving it makes it even more wrong.

Its not so much that you are simple but rather that you are overly complex.

Inteligently designed I guess...no I am a very simple person I expect truth fairness and decency I prize kindness above most things and I can not stand one human taking advantage of another human or someone thinking they are better than anyone else with a right to have more or fail to respect their ability or lack of same.
I really would like to see equality ..in wealth, opportunity, education health care etc.
I have mixed with what most folk would call low life..when you hear of some backgrounds you could wonder how they did not turn out worse..so many if they had a fair go would not be low life.

It is an external representation of God.

Therefore it should be credible..someone like me should not be able to pull it apart on a page by page basis...it should be such that it presents decent morals ...is that too much to expect?

I did enjoy your post in fact I enjoy your style of presentation. I do understand where you are coming from and I understand where Jan is coming from... I respect all people ...you know I have only met one person who I could not tolerate or find some redeeming feature or quality... he was evil... ended up killing three people ..I should have stopped him when I realised I was in front of pure evil...but he is in jail...son of a best friend and I often think I should have culled him..pity if I had three people would still be alive... I could see his future yet I did nothing.

alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Nay worries, Alex.
And I hope your days are less stressful moving forward.

Today was hard but I faded and that was weak and I hate it when I am weak.
Does not happen much but there is no excuse for being weak.
I have to live with it and minimise it...
I hate it when I lose control of my emotions and become horrible.
I feel so terrible when I finally realise I have been unkind.
And thank you again for being so kind to me because I really do appreciate it.
alex

 

[Michael 345]

I think I seize on the various flaws but when I look at it all I see generally most people are good and decent and if religion helps them to cope who am I to judge.

Nt News newspaper other day had a letter to the editor regarding cyclists which I have adapted to fit the religious

"The problem with religious people, 99% of them give the rest a bad name"

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It is a funny world.

I realised only to night you have an impact. Look to who are your followers ypu dont need them but they need you.

I have one property which is like a country.

On a road with all the property owners acting like kings.

But they are easy to rule..
However it is work.
They fear the power to kill efficiently or the ability to deliver.

I still rule But only because the others are weak.

I have a variety of crazy people who I have to manage rather care for.. I love them so to me they are not crazy.

I do what I do for them not for me but for them.

My life against his.

I have to protect them who else will do so. Who else will help them?

They should not look to me but I am all they have.

Not for me but for them.

I have an empire just a little bit big to be of benefit..
But they need me..
Why me.
There is a baby on the way with no home unless I provide. Why cant the father stand by my side.

Controlling them is is for them not me.

And I get back and there is more here to control.

Not for me but for them.

But what crazy person sends the folk under their control to war.
He stands to confront me and it took him twenty years.

He is weak no value in his destruction but he should not rule.
It is my option and all want the war. I must cut off the head of the evil one.. I hate doing that.
I must cut the head off the snake but I must save him also. How. He should be saved.

My folk are happy so far and no deaths...the fire killed no one...a meaningless ploy...the losses are trivial. .he still has not stood before me in battle...he won't ..a no win at best we both die.. .he fears death but I do not.


And now I am back in Sydney they settle so I get to sleep.
But tomorrow they ask what to do.. .down here or up there I have no peace ..they want action but I want peace...
All want to be dominant.
If you only knew.

I can't be responsible any more I want to be alone.
How to save all of them ..
How.
If he could rule great but he is a dog.

No not him he will die first.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Nt News newspaper other day had a letter to the editor regarding cyclists which I have adapted to fit the religious

"The problem with religious people, 99% of them give the rest a bad name"

It is not easy for so many.
I tend to think folk are strong and that is not correct.
Maybe its a herd mentality.
They huddle and group..
Not everyone can use a gun.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

He would send his underlings to me and say if I would kill them he would dispose of the bodies ... and I must save him somehow...what a test.

Where is God ...shouldn't he be doing this sort of stuff.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sure. That's why I asked, and others asked, and he confirmed on his own as well.

What does it matter, who he, or anyone, signs on with? Is more my point.

I am. This is my part - pointing out that the OP is a falsehood defended by slander and bad faith rhetoric.

It's not. It is simply a topic, which we could be discussing, instead of engaging in anything but. Are you afraid the proposition might be true, why you have serious problems discussing it?

As the OP is the basis of the discussion here, the interesting aspect of that discussion is why the author posted falsehood and then defended it as they did

It's not the basis of discussion with you. You seem afraid to discuss, by burying your head in the sand, talking about it's false. Especially as the misunderstanding, has been cleared up.
You have to learn to let go.

You keep posting examples of my description

Why don't just say it, as your are asked, Instead of playing hide and go seek. Fair enough, he didn't give any citations from the scientists, or leave any clue as to who they were.

I've already stated that it takes the edge off the proposition. But nevertheless, it is a good proposition, and definitely has the makings of a good discussion. So why not join in, instead of being a party popper.

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

He runs two meth labs is it wrong to take him out?
The cops can't get him he now corrupts and responsible for deaths. . Do I stand by or should I take him out? I cant face this alone.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

World view is everything.
Yours holds that, there is no God, period.

Don't you hold that God is an other-worldly being? And you call that a world view?

 

[Write4U]

I thought I was pretty clear ... content and context lies in philosophy.

Not at all.

You declared yourself as a humanist. So I analyzed your beliefs according to that standard. I have declared I am a monotheist. You are welcome to do the same.

Saying "God IS", is to say God exists, but not in the sense of being mutable by contingency. In short, when we look at something that "is", we look at its essence/characteristics, its existence, and its actuality or relationship with other things that exist. Hence, in the case of God, "IS".

I have defined what a Humanist is and does. You haven't defined which branch of monothiesm you belong to and what that means specifically. For all I know your God is Xenu. That's why I asked. I know you said no, but that does not establish anything further does it?

Or are you a rogue monotheist? Do you have your own congregation, or do you aimlessly wander the desert in deep communication with the One that IS?

 

[Write4U]

Nay worries, Alex.
And I hope your days are less stressful moving forward.

A wonderful exchange and resolution of what appeared to be a genuine misunderstanding.