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

[iceaura]

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

That's dishonest. Your point was nothing of the kind.

It's not. It is simply a topic, which we could be discussing,

The only topic of interest is the falsehood of the OP, and its subsequent defense by theists.

It's not the basis of discussion with you.

It would be, if there were discussion with me. You are not going to engage in discussion - you are going to deflect and evade your posting of falsehood, your bearing of false witness, and your various bad faith attempts to defend that behavior explicitly as a theist.

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.

That's irrelevant. The OP is the falsehood posted here, and the defense of posted falsehood here is not from that guy. He's not here.

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.

You posted falsehood, and you continue to bear false witness, deceive, and defend it.

The topic of discussion is why you and other theists do things like that. It's a good example for starting such a discussion, because it's fairly clear.

 

[Musika]

Not at all.

I am not sure how you could meaningfully discuss context and content and avoid philosophy .... so if you don't think these things are important, it begs the question exactly what sort of convetsation you are looking for

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.

Well you didn't dive into the hair splitting realm to explain what sort of humanist you are ... and even if you did, the next question would be to ask what that means in philosophical terms.
You did however reveal a behaviour that was incongruent with humanism. In the same way, I have given a few behaviours that I take of representative of monotheism.

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?

I am not even sure how one could frame the worship of Xenu as monotheistic, much less arrive at that conclusion as a consequence of anything I said. The fact that you ran to scientology indicates that at this stage there is no point in honing my take on monotheism according to instution. Sure, monotheism casts a broad net, but if you can't present even a ball park estimation of what that involves, its meaningless to get into specifics. It would be just like you identifying as a humanist and me pressing you on what ways you plan to re-implement Stalinism in contemporary society.

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?

I'm not looking for followers, if that's what you mean.

 

[Write4U]

I am not sure how you could meaningfully discuss context and content and avoid philosophy.

Morals are not a philosophy. Moral behavior is practised.

W4U said,
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.

Well you didn't dive into the hair splitting realm to explain what sort of humanist you are ... and even if you did, the next question would be to ask what that means in philosophical terms.

Did I ask you for hairsplitting details. I asked you a simple question, and you keep avoiding it as if have something to hide. Are you a Satanist?

You did however reveal a behaviour that was incongruent with humanism.

I am to old to deal with dishonesty.

In the same way, I have given a few behaviours that I take of representative of monotheism.

I asked you what monotheistic religion you believe in and I don't have the time to deal with your evasions and bland generalities which a 10 year old child can recite. God IS? give me a break!

I am not even sure how one could frame the worship of Xenu as monotheistic, much less arrive at that conclusion as a consequence of anything I said.

OK, then what DO you believe in and how do you practice your belief? I won't judge you unless I find it immoral and then I'll tell how and why I feel that way.

I'm not looking for followers, if that's what you mean.

Good for you.

 

[Musika]

Morals are not a philosophy.

Even if all you want to talk about are morals, you still require philosophy to establish content and context. For instance a solider can kill 100 men and be applauded by the president. If he kills his next door neighbour there is a good chance he will spend 20 years in jail.

Did I ask you for hairsplitting details. I asked you a simple question, and you keep avoiding it as if have something to hide.

If you don't display the capacity to hit anything within the ballpark of "monotheism", I can't see the point of going into specifics within the ball park. If you can't properly understand monotheism, what is the point of presenting a refinement within the category?
As far as I can tell, you are just interested in institution bashing ... which of course is a pursuit famous for requiring careful thought and comprehension.

I am to old to deal with dishonesty.

But we are never too old to partake of it.

I asked you what monotheistic religion you believe in and I don't have the time to deal with your evasions and bland generalities which a 10 year old child can recite. God IS? give me a break!
OK, then what DO you believe in and how do you practice your belief?
Good for you.

Well, in short:

That God is the ultimate cause of all causes, existing eternally in a position of absolute independence and self sufficiency yet also as the topmost person, in possession of all qualities in full that we deem as good and attractive.

And the best form of practice is to act in such a way that one constantly remembers God as the owner and enjoyer of everything and not succumb to the illusory nature of proprietorship in a world constantly undergoing creation and annihilation.

 

[iceaura]

That God is the ultimate cause of all causes, existing eternally in a position of absolute independence and self sufficiency yet also as the topmost person, in possession of all qualities in full that we deem as good and attractive.

And the best form of practice is to act in such a way that one constantly remembers God as the owner and enjoyer of everything and not succumb to the illusory nature of proprietorship in a world constantly undergoing creation and annihilation.

There is no reason to take such baldfaced assertions as incorporating a philosophy, or as serious intellectual positions of any kind. We have seen too much of their track record - including the election of our current Republican government.

People who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - that's a rule of thumb we have too much neglected in recent decades, and the price is to have atrocities committed in our name. Enough.

 

[Musika]

There is no reason to take such baldfaced assertions as incorporating a philosophy, or as serious intellectual positions of any kind. We have seen too much of their track record - including the election of our current Republican government.

People who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - that's a rule of thumb we have too much neglected in recent decades, and the price is to have atrocities committed in our name. Enough.

Sure.
Politics (or even religion) sans philosophy.
What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Write4U]

Sure.
Politics (or even religion) sans philosophy.
What could possibly go wrong?

And what is right now?

 

[Musika]

And what is right now?

Religion without philosophy is just sentimentalism.
Philosophy without a sense of the absolute is a waste of time.
So what is now? A royal mess.

 

[Write4U]

Religion without philosophy is just sentimentalism. Philosophy without a sense of the absolute is a waste of time.

Only if you just talk about moral values, without adhering to them.

So what is now? A royal mess.

Right, applied moral values are rapidly disappearing. Separating 9 mo. old children from their parents and locking them in tent cities without proper identification is wrong on so many levels it is morally inexcusable.

 

[Musika]

Only if you just talk about moral values, without adhering to them.

Usually you will find that in any tricky situation, choosing one moral stance over another boils down to the greater good or lesser evil. Like many situations, defaulting to "no philosophy" is synonymous for "bad philosophy". Regardless whether you want to talk about case law or religion, its not possible to make a law or rule for everything (although in the case of the former, perhaps they haven't realized that), so we tend to negotiate the moral environment by general philosophical principles ... regardless whether we are pondering the foundations of society or surmising that if there is no immediate policeman to subdue me with a truncheon or gun, it must be fine. If we can't bring out these general principles, we will be robbed of the capacity to be proactive.

 

[iceaura]

Sure.
Politics (or even religion) sans philosophy.
What could possibly go wrong?

You exemplify it. So take a look around.

Start with the OP of this thread, and your defense of it.

 

[Musika]

You exemplify it. So take a look around.

Start with the OP of this thread, and your defense of it.

Frankly, as far as this topic goes, all I see from you are broad swaggering assertions. I already responded with my take on the OP.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's dishonest. Your point was nothing of the kind.

Can you not see how you have become incommunicable?
Or is that your MO?

You posted falsehood, and you continue to bear false witness, deceive, and defend it.

Explain the falsehood.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

You're not even making sense.
Is this all that lies behind the bluster?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

You're not even making sense.
Is this all that lies behind the bluster?

Jan.

Yep, I learned it from you.....

 

[Write4U]

Frankly, as far as this topic goes, all I see from you are broad swaggering assertions. I already responded with my take on the OP.

Good for you. But whatever take you put forward, it's utterly wrong in context of the common scriptural interpretation of a sentient and motivated being that merely IS and therefore is embuid into all humans whether they know it or not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But whatever take you put forward, it's utterly wrong...

Classic!

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

If you can't properly understand monotheism, what is the point of presenting a refinement within the category?

I understand the term "monotheism", and I reject the common scriptural interpretation as being a sentient and motivated being that IS.

 

[Write4U]

Classic!

Jan.

Of course it's classic from a scientific point of view, because without assigning provable properties it is a vacuous and unprovable proposition. The more you analyze it, the less probable the proposition becomes as defined and one is left with the choice of rejection or blind acceptance. I prefer the former.

Therefore I am and will remain an atheist, unless and until someone can objectively and not subjectively (emotionally) prove otherwise

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Never post after a stressful day and half a bottle of wiskey.
I was thinking about writing a book and I was going to quote a biblical passage cause there seemed some parrallels in the style.
But I passed out and it did not come together.
I have decided to cease being an atheist.
I am selecting Thor cause he has a hammer and I have a hammer..
Darn it there is still half a bottle left.
I think sleep deprivation has caught up with me...I did three weeks of astrophotography staying up till 3 and 4 am.
I have been thinking about the article.
What can we take from it.
One introductory sentence and discuss what it does say.
I feel better but I cant find my bible for the quote.
And if you were building a universe you would use a big hammer.
Alex