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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just got why you replied "one gods" .
My bad. I meant the ones in the dictionary.

In answer to your question all gods.

Jan.
 
Because it does.

Jan.
///
You perpetually try to ask why not when the question is why. You will not answer, you only try to sidestep.
IF you cannot explain god more than this & why you believe , we must conclude you do not actually believe in any god.
You may as well say you believe in a wisp of smoke.

<>
 
Last edited:
Given that it seems polytheism, etc seems to only ever get introduced in these threads to slight monotheism and given that monotheism is the only serious contender in terms of offering persistent, influential philosophical traditions in contemporary society, is it not obvious?
It is obvious that the presence of polytheism is very disturbing to several theists here.
 
///
You perpetually try to ask why not when the question is why. You will not answer, you only try to sidestep.
IF you cannot explain god more than this & why you believe , we must conclude you do not actually believe in any god.
You may as well say you believe in a wisp of smoke.

<>

You're entitled to conclude what you like, just like God. The only difference is, God is perfectly correct. You are prone to error, just like any other human.

I bet this will go straight over your head.

Jan.
 
Given that it seems polytheism, etc seems to only ever get introduced in these threads to slight monotheism and given that monotheism is the only serious contender in terms of offering persistent, influential philosophical traditions in contemporary society, is it not obvious?
Why would monotheism be considered a more desirable option today, when its terrestrial equivalents of kings and dictators have mostly been replaced with today’s models of delegated authority more resembling polytheism?
 
Well where have we been and where have we got to.

Where have we arrived?

Clearly atheists exist and they fail to match Jans straw man of an atheist which he can only comprehend as folk who dont believe in his mythical made up God and reject something he just knows is real or exists...I am never sure exactly what Jan is putting forward and who knows what he is really thinking.

We are able to consider the folly where Jan and other theists find themselves and unable to escape teir circular arguemets... which is the failure to realise many folk simply do not buy the worn out God stories born out of superstition in the bronze age when folk did not know where the Sun went at night.

The God story has been demonstrated to be made up and the author of the creation event shown to report on an event when, by the creation story, there was no human present to witness the various steps this mythical God took to create the world... and the first human male from a mud pie and the first human female using a rib from that single human male...an extrodinary claim that remains an extrodinary claim because no one can offer evidence that God let in a sole, as yet to be created, human to have a box seat at creation and record the account.

And yet even with such a water tight presentation of facts the claims that a God exists continue and the attempt by any atheist here to exttact information about this mythical God fail due to the now undeniable sidestepping we now know is all the theists can do when asked a simple question as to why they have decided to in effect live in a world of superstition similar to the bronze age.

And I return here today and read the posts and notice the sidestepping continues and instead of restricting himself to throwing tomatoes Jan now throws meaningly one liners in the same fashion an ape throws his crap around his cage and at passers by.

So we find there is no lack of evidence to show atheists exist who simply dont believe in a God or Gods leaving Jans proposition demonstratably wrong and perhaps shows how casual Jan considered the proposition he put forward.

We find the God story starts with a lie which is somewhat a recurring feature what with the flood story and its 800 year old human building a boat with his 100 year old sons.

And of course by the time one gets to read a second hand account of a God visiting a backwater in the Mediteranian the continued lies become so common that one tends not to notice how that qualifies the content.

These theists have no problem it seems accepting the superstitious explanations for their world by relying upon the superstitious stories from the bronze age...and one wonders if these modern theists know where the Sun goes at night given they are happy to ignore the accumulated knowledge of the modern era.

Our theists have proved themselves to be capable of making wild claims then throw poo at anyone who politely asks for some reason why they are so superstitious and rivetted in the bronze age.

Atheists are real and God is made up and that fact will stand and walk through the superstition down the road of eightenment whilst our theists side step and throw poo and make as much sence as their poo throwing cousin the ape.

There is only one God and that is Thor I know that in my heart and so does everyone else but they can only reject and deny him.

I joke of course...the fact is there are no Gods a fact that our resident theists are unable to sidestep or hit with their poo flings.

Alex
 
Why is it disturbing to you or why is it obvious?

It is obvious because of how angry you got when it was pointed out that there are hard polytheists out there who really do believe in multiple separate Gods and have done so throughout history. It conflicts with your claims that there's really only one God, and only your view on that is valid.
 
Why is it disturbing to you or why is it obvious?

It is obvious because of how angry you got when it was pointed out that there are hard polytheists out there who really do believe in multiple separate Gods and have done so throughout history. It conflicts with your claims that there's really only one God, and only your view on that is valid.

Firstly, I wasn't angry.
Secondly. Didn't you read that description of God, given by SB (thanks SB). "God" with an upper-case G, is One.
So people can't worship God's. The idea alone is illogical.
What you meant to say was, "people have worshipped gods throughout history, right up to the present day.
Do you get it now.

conflicts with your claims that there's really only one God, and only your view on that is valid.

How is it possible to have more than one God, if God is One, without a second.

Jan.
 
I don't think that's always true. Atheists often write "God or gods" in pursuit of completeness, trying to encompass all of the personalized supernatural powers that religious believers have over time insisted are relevant to human life.
Sure, that can be an angle.
But more often than not it seems people merely play polytheism as some sort of intellectual short cut to problematize monotheism .... the old "there are tens, of thousands of gods and you only worship one of them".
IOW they play polytheism in a lazy manner to ignore the unique philosophical contribution monotheism brings to the table.


I think that the idea that monotheism is somehow superior to polytheism is an artifact of history.
It's an artifact of philosophy. The philosophical traditions arising from polytheism are not anywhere near as encompassing as those arising from monotheism.

EDIT : just read Jan's comment. Technically you are right, it is an artifact of history :) .

It's the result of the hugely outsized influence that Judaism, and its subsequent offspring Christianity and Islam, have had on intellectual history.
Philosophically speaking, you are talking about the neoclassical revival of the philosophy of ancient Greece (since this is the philosophical "work horse" appropriated by Islam and Christianity)

Since I'm not a monotheist, I have no interest in defending the honor of monotheism against any association with polytheism.

I kind of like polytheism for intellectual reasons, even though I don't literally believe that it's true. In polytheism, the various gods and goddesses often seem to serve as personifications of various principles that people perceived as being at work in the world. We have storm deities and war deities and fertility deities, Apollonian gods of dispassionate reason and Dionysian gods of pleasure and ecstatic abandon.
I'm not sure how your professed liking translates into any intellectual reason. At the very least, Plato and Aristotle are credited with distancing themselves from polytheistic thinking for the sake of philosophically discussing pure actuality/the unmovable mover etc.

The thing is that in real life, principles like these often do seem to work in contradiction to each other. A monotheist can always fall back on the rather lame excuse that 'God works in mysterious ways', but it's easier and more straight-forward to just say that different cosmic principles sometimes work at cross-purposes.
Its not clear how "cosmic principles sometimes work in mysterious ways" provides relief from the perceived lameness.
 
Last edited:
Clearly atheists exist and they fail to match Jans straw man of an atheist which he can only comprehend as folk who dont believe in his mythical made up God and reject something he just knows is real or exists...I am never sure exactly what Jan is putting forward and who knows what he is really thinking.

Perhaps if you take your head out of that bucket of sand around your neck, you may find out. :)

Seriously though. You need to come up with something new.

Jan..
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top