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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been listening to folk talk about religion God and atheism.
It seems believers to varying degrees just can not for a moment imagine there is no God.
So I think Jans approach is perhaps quiet normal in the context of the similar ways so many believers regard atheists. I will leave biased comment as to normal in a wider context.
They are perhaps incapable of thinking they could be wrong.
Interesting.
Thor always says I am right.
I get it. Jan I just worked it out..these made up Gods can really work for you.

MmmmI am thinking maybe a holiday for the festival of Thor... $50 a head give the band a third ...should work.
This Thor fall back is really starting to work.
Better still run it over three days and clean up on tent rental.

I cant believe Thor supports every idea I have.

Alex
 
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I have been listening to folk talk about religion God and atheism.
It seems believers to varying degrees just can not for a moment imagine there is their God.
So I think Jans approach is perhaps quiet normal in the context of the similar ways so many believers regard atheists.
They are perhaps incapable of thinking they could be wrong.
Interesting.
Thor always says I am right.
I get it. Jan I just worked it out..these made up Gods can really work for you.

MmmmI thinking maybe a holiday for the festival of Thor... $50 a head give the band a third ...should work.
This Thor fall back is really starting to work.
Better still over three days and clean up on tent rental.

I cant believe Thor supports every idea I have.

Alex
Click to expand...
///
My god can beat up your god.

<>
 
StrangerInAStrangeLand said:
///
My god can beat up your god.

<>
Click to expand...
I heard a rumble. I thought is was Thor and he was angry but it wasnt thunder after all it was just a train.

Now there is an idea all these various Gods must turn up at a prearranged place and time to claim the title of the one God.
The title will go to who turns up and if more than one turns up a fight to the death and three after lives.
If no one turns up we have our atheists proof.
Alex
 
Actually you could take the idea nation wide ...world wild..tv rights ...so we sellect a day a time and multiply locations where people pay an entry fee to see which Gods turn up...if some fools dress up as a God you throw them into the cage and announce the first bout.
Sensational entertainment I mean service.
Alex
 
Yazata said:
I can't speak for Sarkus. (He does a very good job of speaking for himself.)

But with regards to me, I do go further than Sarkus and actively believe that the named personalized deities of religious mythology don't literally exist, at least as anything more than fictional characters. That view applies to the Biblical Yahweh, to the Quran's 'Allah' version of Yahweh, and to the whole panoply of Indian deities like Shiva, Vishnu and Jan's Krishna.

At the same time I take a more agnostic view of the various metaphysical functions that natural theology traditionally associates with the actions of 'God', such as the reason why existence exists, first-cause, source of cosmic order, ultimate ground of being and so on. I consider these to be open metaphysical questions and don't have a clue what the answers are. Personalizing the mystery doesn't seem to be a positive step.

What behavioral difference does my disbelief in the personalized deities make in my life?

Well, I don't seek God or think that 'finding God' or having some kind of 'God realization experience' needs to be my ultimate goal. (Of course I do seek deeper and deeper philosophical understanding, which might amount to much the same thing in some theologies.) I don't associate goodness and virtue with adherence to God's supposed will. I don't believe that society should be organized so as to conform to God's will either. I don't believe that the deepest secrets of the universe are to be discovered in "scripture" and I'm largely unmoved when others make arguments from scripture, quoting passages from this or that supposedly holy book.
Click to expand...
Its not clear what direction you could possibly go if you affirmed a stronger stance on atheism. You are rejecting not only the notion of a personal God expressing any sort of prescriptive model for people either individually or collectively, but also the notion of a personal God. Its not clear how you could be "more" atheist than what you are already.
 
Musika said:
Its not clear what direction you could possibly go if you affirmed a stronger stance on atheism. You are rejecting not only the notion of a personal God expressing any sort of prescriptive model for people either individually or collectively, but also the notion of a personal God. Its not clear how you could be "more" atheist than what you are already.
Click to expand...
///
Yazata provided you with some good exposition & it is you who reject & refuse to understand.
It is not a matter of a strong stance or being more or less atheist.
As I said before, you claim there is a god & I do not believe you. I have no obligation or responsibility to believe you. You give no reason to believe you.
You cannot handle the fact that some cannot believe you & that is your problem not ours.

<>
 
StrangerInAStrangeLand said:
///
Yazata provided you with some good exposition & it is you who reject & refuse to understand.
It is not a matter of a strong stance or being more or less atheist.
As I said before, you claim there is a god & I do not believe you. I have no obligation or responsibility to believe you. You give no reason to believe you.
You cannot handle the fact that some cannot believe you & that is your problem not ours.

<>
Click to expand...
I'm pretty you haven't, can't and won't understand the q being posed.
 
Sarkus said:
I can't answer that any more honestly the saying that I don't know. It would be a fairly significant shift in my thought processes, that I can not honestly foresee what impact that might have.
I have previously thought that it might have no impact, but the more I think about that the more I realise that that answer stems from the same agnostic mindset I have now, and all I would be doing is giving lip service to the notion of there being no God. Hence no change.
But since believing God to nog exist would be a change of mindset, a change of thinking, I am not sure I can honestly say what changes it would cause.
Perhaps none. But even if none one must still acknowledge the different intellectual paths taken to reach the same practical position,
Click to expand...
Perhaps then you can see some notable distinctions between the lifestyle you lead as an agnostic and the lifestyles lead by people who identify as atheist? (At the very least, I assume you could answer in regard to theist lifestyles)
 
Musika said:
Perhaps then you can see some notable distinctions between the lifestyle you lead as an agnostic and the lifestyles lead by people who identify as atheist? (At the very least, I assume you could answer in regard to theist lifestyles)
Click to expand...
I identify as both agnostic and atheist, since I consider myself an agnostic atheist. If you mean by atheist the strong atheist, then its possibly only in discussion I think you would you see any difference, although I imagine the strong atheist may be more vocal about such things outside discussion.
But similarly I don't see much lifestyle change with the theist, other than what allegiance to any particular religion may instil upon them. I see the religion as being the practical difference, but one need not be religious to be a theist, and I know many non-religious theists who seem to live the same lifestyle as me. They may appeal to God with an actual belief that it will be heard, but other than that I can't think of too many differences.
But the theist is obviously more likely to be part of a religion, and that religion may require of them, or simply encourage of them, a different lifestyle. But then non-theistic religions can do the same.
So no, I don't see too many lifestyle changes, if any at all, relating solely to the belief or otherwise in the existence of God.
Do you? If so, can you example some, please, so that I can understand your view? And it may be that I'm just not thinking of the same sorts of things as you are.
 
Capracus said:
The only way to know the nature of reality is to assume that it is in some way accessible to our senses, which would necessitate it’s physicality.
Click to expand...
So things like people's minds, notions of justice, equality etc (or even ideas about how everything, including things we cannot explain coherently in terms of the sense objects is actually made up of physical things, ie rain chequed empiricism), and other things which all stand beyond the power of our 5 senses to examine, all partake of an essentially unimportant reality?

It’s all a matter of perspective. You can look at any process as the sum of it’s elemental processes, or narrow the perspective to the sub-processes.
Click to expand...
But you are arguing for a uniform "playing field" for processes ... IOW whatever processes are available to God must be apparent in the lives of humans in order to rendered acceptible .... IOW it's a proposal the suffers from qualitative comparisons .... in fact there is no need to even introduce notions of God or ants to highlight the problems.... even if you solely use technological advancements available of current human society, you necessarily alienate the same human society of 400 (what to speak of 4000) years previous. IOW today's notions of the ceiling of cutting edge empiricism are tomorrow's out dated processes.

It’s the hand that nature dealt to us. How else would you expect to describe reality?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the Wonderful Wide World of Ontology
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Biology is simply one aspect of a physical reality, and the one we happen to be saddled with, so for us it’s presently the only game in town in regards to examining the nature of anything.
Click to expand...
Granted, its one aspect of reality, but your decision to bring it to the discussion brings in to focus your choice of saddles.

You can’t postulate the existence of a god or anything else other than form the perspective of your own biology.
Click to expand...
Says who?
Certainly not biologists (or at least biologists who wish to make statements on the authority of their discipline).

Other entities may be slaves to some other form of physicality, but the constraints of biology are the shackles that currently bind us all.
Click to expand...
If you can't even authoritatively say all life are "slaves" to the constraints of our biology (what on earth can you talk about to reference something not on earth :) ?), you have severe ontological problems in place well before you are approaching any meaninful definition of "God".
 
iceaura said:
There isn't anything obvious, on the face of the matter, that would indicate theistic belief of itself would destroy an educated person's ability to converse in good faith, post without dishonesty and falsehood and trolling and evasions. So what is going on?
Click to expand...
Thread OP's, unlike the validity of an individual's vitriol, are for everyone.
 
Sarkus said:
I identify as both agnostic and atheist, since I consider myself an agnostic atheist. If you mean by atheist the strong atheist, then its possibly only in discussion I think you would you see any difference, although I imagine the strong atheist may be more vocal about such things outside discussion.
But similarly I don't see much lifestyle change with the theist, other than what allegiance to any particular religion may instil upon them. I see the religion as being the practical difference, but one need not be religious to be a theist, and I know many non-religious theists who seem to live the same lifestyle as me. They may appeal to God with an actual belief that it will be heard, but other than that I can't think of too many differences.
But the theist is obviously more likely to be part of a religion, and that religion may require of them, or simply encourage of them, a different lifestyle. But then non-theistic religions can do the same.
So no, I don't see too many lifestyle changes, if any at all, relating solely to the belief or otherwise in the existence of God.
Do you? If so, can you example some, please, so that I can understand your view? And it may be that I'm just not thinking of the same sorts of things as you are.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
If you perceive there is not much of a prescriptive difference between being a theist, agnostic or atheist, it's difficult to understand why you would even bother to come forward in this subforum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top