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

[Xelasnave.1947]

Lol

I take it that you have not taken anything personally so I am happy.

I dont wish to come over as insulting or condecending but that can be an inevitable consequence when trying to demonstrate where you are and what you miss.

It may sound insulting to suggest that you are a victim of a con job but perhaps move past your initial responce and consider you do indeed fall victim to superstition from a bygone era.

You are in site of the finish Jan so hang in there.

(seeing as you can't elevate your responses),

It is more a case of that I choose not to elevate any response because for me this discussion is no different to discussing Santa.

You waffle so I waffle and God just is...for you.

That is nice for you but enlightement escapes you.

All your reasons for not believing in God, are only your reasons.

Yes indeed.

And your position derives from the unsupported opinions of superstitious bronze age folk.

I just think it is a shame you are content to let others dictate your world view.

I am content that I have the luxury of not being tied to the unsupported beliefs of folk from the bronze age and you are content that you are running away from enlightenment.

How does anything change, if me, or anyone, even everyone, becomes atheist.

Well it does not change reality which offers no evidence of any God.

Believing in Santa or not does not change the reality that the invented character is no more than an invented character.

We could insert Santa in place of God in this thread and little will change.

Santa is, God is, the easter bunny is...is not actually.

That's all you could muster?

I was being kind and yes that is all I could muster.

No. You only reject, and deny God.

And that is not easy to reject something that has been put to you as a mere unsupported claim.

Its more that I reject unsupported claims that a God exists particularly when such God is clearly absent in this world and depends on superstition to hint at any existence other than just made up.

When he debates with professional theists, more often than not, he gets caned.

Interesting.

All he asks for is evidence so I take it that at some point a believer came up with evidence in support of the God story.

You would think that would be head line news.

I wonder why it was not...perhaps something more important pushed such news to the back page.

I think his position is if one makes a claim then it must be supported and that faith is not worth a bean to offer up as support of a superstitious claim.

Alex

 

[Write4U]

To wit: let's take your argument and, ooh, I don't know, let's be crazy and switch it around...
"But if God Isn't, as according to reality. Theism is only a temporary manifestation, to the choice of the adherent.
It cannot exist, in reality. Because God Isn't."
Do you get it yet?

Hear, hear...!!!!!

 

[Musika]

While praying will not ease your physical pain

Why?
Do you have experience with sincere prayer?
Or are you simply speaking from the view point of atheism, that God does not exist?

(nor will calling on Cthulu stop the Earth's rotation) there are fortunately many options that WILL ease your pain, from chiropracty to physical therapy to surgery to drugs to implants.

As I said, there's more to it than benevolent pharmacy. I thought you immediately knew what I was talking about, but I guess I was wrong

There is one joke, "there are two types of doctors in this world : those who stop us living and those who help us die". You are not thinking about the problem of suffering in this world broad enough.
The option of relief from suffering is not an experience this world affords easily.
How much pleasure can your little toe grant you? Now compare that to what it can deliver in the name of pain.

Unfortunately many think prayer is a valid replacement for those things.

Its unfortunate that people have bitter experiences that default all avenues of problem solving to their limited intelligence.

 

[Write4U]

It is derogatory because you are asserting a meaning of "atheism" that belittles the position of a vast number of atheists. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. One can not have a stronger or weaker absence of belief. What you are referring to is the holding of a suplementary belief or not, namely the belief that God does not exist. But I assure you that my lack of belief that God exists is exactly the same lack that every other atheist has. I just happen to not share another belief that others might hold. To refer to me as somehow being not "fully fledged" is derogatory.

The result of religious prejudicial exclusivity.

 

[Write4U]

"Person on ignore" said,

IOW the whole point of identifying as an agnostic atheist, doesn't appear to establish any distinguishing behavior.

Sarkus said,
I've never said it does. Where do you think I have said it does? Can you point it out to me?

Of course "Person on ignore " has not identified any distinguishing behavior of atheists, but by implication is proposing that agnostics exhibit the same kind of flawed behavior as atheists.

I would not be surprised if "Person on ignore" will take your answer as confirmation that both perspectives are behaviorally unacceptable.....

 

[Musika]

"Person on ignore" said, Of course "Person on ignore " has not identified any distinguishing behavior of atheists, but by implication is proposing that agnostics exhibit the same kind of flawed behavior as atheists.

I would not be surprised if "Person on ignore" will take your answer as confirmation that both perspectives are behaviorally unacceptable.....

Ironically, discussing points made by a person on ignore are remarkably similiar to atheists attempting to analyze theistic claims. Maybe 5% content with 95% speculation. Goodluck.

 

[billvon]

Why?
Do you have experience with sincere prayer?

Yep. I came from a very religious family.

Or are you simply speaking from the view point of atheism, that God does not exist?

No, I am saying that prayers don't work to relieve your pain (which you agreed with in the last post.)

As I said, there's more to it than benevolent pharmacy.

Agreed.

You are not thinking about the problem of suffering in this world broad enough.
The option of relief from suffering is not an experience this world affords easily.

Also agreed. But fortunately there are methods that _can_ relieve suffering.

How much pleasure can your little toe grant you? Now compare that to what it can deliver in the name of pain.

Same for pretty much every part of your body. Nobody thinks about their pancreas until it starts giving them problems. Again, fortunately, we can sometimes fix such problems.

 

[Musika]

Yep. I came from a very religious family.

I wasn't aware that having a "very religious" family was some sort of yardstick for sincere prayer.

No, I am saying that prayers don't work to relieve your pain (which you agreed with in the last post.)

I was suggesting an earnest ease-loving world view begets the employment of a high level of fantasy. You say you come from "a very religious family" but seem to have a very inferior notion of God, this world, and our relationship with them both.

Also agreed. But fortunately there are methods that _can_ relieve suffering.

Those methods are simply brief reprises in a broader context of suffering. If one cannot understand how this world is built on immutable principles of suffering, its not clear how one can form anything but a derranged version of God.

Same for pretty much every part of your body. Nobody thinks about their pancreas until it starts giving them problems. Again, fortunately, we can sometimes fix such problems.

So if one has a functioning pancreas, one has no problems?
Is this how "ease" exists in the world, IYHO?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because the positions themselves are not arbiters of God's existence or not, but are rather just labels for our ontological position, I.e. our positions with regard belief in God (or not).
Thus, quite clearly, the denominator is belief in God, and not God.

No one is saying those position are arbiters of God's existence, and I'm not discussing God's existence. God's existence could easily be dismissed, if God did not alleviate it's fear, come from behind the sofa, and reveal itself to StrangerInAStrangeLand, as Stranger... demanded.
Theism and atheism are, in relation to God, as capitalism, or communism, is to society.

Sure. As soon as you start with the premise "God Is" and conclude "God Is" or anything that can otherwise be reframed as "God Is" you are begging the question.

God Is, is a description of God, not a premise. If I were to say "God Is, because the Bible says God Is, and the Bible is from God", your accusation would be correct.

I fail to see what you are attempting with this. Are you seriously suggesting that because you think the common denominator of theism and atheism is God that this somehow proves that "God Is"? Otherwise all you have done is restate your initial comment without actually addressing the point I made.

I don't think God is the common denominator.
God is the common denominator. Regardless of what I think.

There is nothing to suggest that there is no God. It suggests that atheists arbitrarily choose to not to believe in God, by convincing themselves there is no God.
But we know you can't pick and choose what you believe. Hence the reason why the article has a ring of truth, also the biblical verse... The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

Reality is neutral to everything until we place upon it our interpretation.

A
greed.
Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

Your interpretation is that God Is. It forms the a priori assumption of all your arguments.

For one to be an atheist, God, has to Be. Otherwise what is it you disbelieve.

If it is only a matter of God's existence, you could be satisfied, like Stranger, that God only exists if he loses his fear and show himself from behind the sofa.

That is why atheists are comfortable arguing purely against God's existence.

You can not seem to comprehend, even intellectually unfortunately, any argument that does not hold God Is as a premise.

"God Is" is the description.
From that we can argue if God exists, or not.
We tend not to have debates entitled "Is God Is", or, "Does God Is".

No, they are in relation to belief in God.

No. They are in relation to God.
Either one believes in God, or not. Theism, and atheism. The belief or lack of belief in God.

But, even if one accepts that they are in relation to God, are you somehow asserting that this is proof of the existence of God???

It makes no difference whether one is atheist or theist, or what I think.
We could jump ship every other week.
God Is the common denominator.

So if one person is a Zarxist (they believe Zarx to exist) and the other person is an Azarxist (they do not have that belief) then since the common denominator is Zarx, this would, to you, indicate that Zarx is a reality???

Define Zarx?

It will indeed continue, whether that is with or without God.

From our personal perspectives, yes.
But as far as reality goes, there is nothing that suggests there is no God.

Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

What importance are you pinning to God being what you see as the denominator?

God is the common denominator, it is not just the case of me seeing it.

It shows that the idea "there is no God", does not figure in reality. Hence the accuracy of the article, and the biblical verse "The foohas said in his heart, there is no God" That's the importance.

So you believe, at least. Your belief is not the arbiter of reality.

The reason why debate about God's existence is so important, is because God Is.

If God doesn't exist, "there is no God" can be maintained. That debate is not in the interest of the theist. And it is only temporarily in the interest of the atheist.
IOW, existence or non existence of God, is a futile argument, as it can be dragged on forever.

Take Alex, for example. He is happy to talk nonsense about God being made up by bronze age people sitting round a fire, till the cows come home. He convinces himself.

If we talk about the common denominator God, the God that supercedes futile arguments. The God that Just Is. There is no for or against?

It really is telling how you don't bold "believe in God" as the common denominator.

"Belief in God" is what the theist does.
God Is the subject.
God Is also the subject of the atheist.
God, is not "belief in God"

Some believe in Santa, others don't, and therefore the common denominator is Santa. The same for the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, elves, monsters under the bed, aliens having visited earth etc. So do you think all these exist?

It doesn't matter, because those subjects aren't important. It "belief" that is important, and necessary to metaphysics.

Jan.

 

[Yazata]

For one to be an atheist, God, has to Be. Otherwise what is it you disbelieve.

Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

This reminds me of the philosophical problem that W.V.O. Quine famously discussed in his 1948 paper On What There Is.

He begins by raising the question of how is it possible to talk about non-existent objects, setting out the kind of view that he wants to criticize in a way that almost sounds like he's channeling Jan:

"How can we talk about Pegasus? To what does the word 'Pegasus' refer? If our answer is, 'Something,' then we seem to believe in mystical entities; if our answer is 'nothing', then we seem to talk about nothing and what sense can be made of this? Certainly when we said that Pegasus was a mythological winged horse we make sense, and moreover we speak the truth! If we speak the truth, this must be truth about something. So we cannot be speaking of nothing."

My own approach to the problem is like this:

Theist - believes that the word 'God' and the ideas we associate with it actually refer to something with its own independent reality.
Atheist - believes that the word 'God' and the ideas we associate with it fail to refer to anything with its own independent reality.
Common denominator - the word 'God' and the ideas we associate with it.

Which still leaves us with the problem of the ontological status of fictional characters. (The 'analytical' tradition in philosophy seems to commonly think that Quine's theory of ontological commitments proposed later in the same paper solves this problem. I'm less sure.) But however we conceive of it, the existence of fictional beings seems to be dependent on us in a way that beings with their own independent reality aren't. And when we are talking about the purported creator of the entire universe, that's a crucial matter. We're supposed to be dependent on God, not the other way around.

 

[Write4U]

Theist - believes that the word 'God' and the ideas we associate with it actually refer to something with its own independent reality.

Also known as a "tulpa".

What is a tulpa?
A tulpa is an entity created in the mind, acting independently of, and parallel to your own consciousness. They are able to think, and have their own free will, emotions, and memories. In short, a tulpa is like a sentient person living in your head, separate from you. It’s currently unproven whether or not tulpas are truly sentient, but in this community, we treat them as such. It takes time for a tulpa to develop a convincing and complex personality; as they grow older, your attention and their life experiences will shape them into a person with their own hopes, dreams and beliefs.

https://www.tulpa.info/what-is-a-tulpa/

Of course the crux lies in the fact that a tulpa is a subjective creation by the individual.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Theist - believes that the word 'God' and the ideas we associate with it actually refer to something with its own independent reality.
Atheist - believes that the word 'God' and the ideas we associate with it fail to refer to anything with its own independent reality.
Common denominator - the word 'God' and the ideas we associate with it.

Are you suggesting that centuries, prior to the sixth century, when it is believed the word "God" came into existence, people didn't believe in God?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

No one is saying those position are arbiters of God's existence, and I'm not discussing God's existence. God's existence could easily be dismissed, if God did not alleviate it's fear, come from behind the sofa, and reveal itself to StrangerInAStrangeLand, as Stranger... demanded.

If you are not trying to argue that God exists through your notion of common denominator, to what purpose state the common denominator?
And you are discussing God's existence, Jan, every time you use the words theist or atheist, or variations thereof. Whether you accept it or not, a theist believes God to exist. If you believe God Is then you believe God exists. Period.

Theism and atheism are, in relation to God, as capitalism, or communism, is to society.

False comparison, Jan. Theism and atheism are beliefs in relation to God, and being beliefs there is no necessary reality of that belief. Capitalism and communism are types of social system, and thus if capitalism or communism exist then there must necessarily be a society that exists.
So if atheism and theism exist then it is necessarily true that a position regarding belief in God exists, but there is no necessity for God to exist.

God Is, is a description of God, not a premise. If I were to say "God Is, because the Bible says God Is, and the Bible is from God", your accusation would be correct.

Utter garbage. What you seem to think of as a premise is in fact an entire argument, with premises of the Bible saying God Is, and the Bible being from God. (Hopefully I don't need to point out the question begging in the argument, though?)
You, however, start most of your claims and arguments from the assumption that God Is. This makes "God Is" a premise to those arguments.

I don't think God is the common denominator.
God is the common denominator. Regardless of what I think.

Well, you think it is. That much is clear.

There is nothing to suggest that there is no God. It suggests that atheists arbitrarily choose to not to believe in God, by convincing themselves there is no God.

There is so much wrong with this that I'm not sure where to begin...
1. There is nothing to suggest that there is a God. There is, however, everything to suggest that there is an idea of God. You, as a theist, believe the idea to be a reality.
2. Atheists arbitrarily choose to not believe in God? You think atheists wake up one morning and go "Hmmm, today I am choosing not to believe in God, for no reason whatsoever!" That is what it means to do something arbitrarily.
3. You think atheists convince themselves there is no God... which simply harks back to your inability to cope with agnostic atheists. Put your strawman away, Jan.

But we know you can't pick and choose what you believe. Hence the reason why the article has a ring of truth,

4. So you think the argument goes something like: everyone starts as a theist; atheists are those who arbitrarily choose not to believe in God; no one can choose what to believe; thus there are no atheists, only theists.
Seriously? You think that has a ring of truth to it?

also the biblical verse... The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

"also the biblical verse..." what? What about it? You think it means anything, or adds weight to anything you say? It is pretty much the oldest trick in the Salesman's handbook: convince the person that only fools don't buy what you're selling.
But heck, if we're just going to throw around quotes: "All thinking men are atheists." - Ernest Hemmingway.

A
greed.
Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

Okay, for the sake of argument let's say that the the common denominator is God... so what? What do you think it means to be the common denominator of theism and atheism?

For one to be an atheist, God, has to Be. Otherwise what is it you disbelieve.

??? Are you being serious with this? So if someone doesn't believe that 2+2=5 then this proves that 2+2 has to be 5? After all, what is it that the person disbelieves, if not the reality that 2+2=5?
Sheesh, Jan, do you genuinely believe these bollocks arguments you spout? Are you not capable of thinking them through before you commit them to this website? Or are you happy displaying your stupidity?

If it is only a matter of God's existence, you could be satisfied, like Stranger, that God only exists if he loses his fear and show himself from behind the sofa.

That is why atheists are comfortable arguing purely against God's existence.

Put your strawman away, Jan. If you can't even compete on the issue of existence then of what purpose is there in anything else. After the issue of existence you are left with just the idea of what God is (small "i") but you keep claiming that God Is, and that necessarily entails that God is more than just an idea.
But you would much prefer if everyone shared the same a priori assumption that God Is. That way everything you want to be true about the atheist, that they consciously reject what they otherwise know to exist, would be true. But, here's the rub, Jan, we don't start with that a priori assumption.

"God Is" is the description.
From that we can argue if God exists, or not.
We tend not to have debates entitled "Is God Is", or, "Does God Is".

"God Is" is a description of the nature of something that may or may not exist. If God does not exist then God Isn't. If God does exist then God Is. But you can't start with God Is and logically try to argue that God exists without a serious case of question begging that makes the argument pointless.
So don't start with "God Is", Jan, and let's see where you get to.

No. They are in relation to God.
Either one believes in God, or not. Theism, and atheism. The belief or lack of belief in God.

And once again I note that you didn't bother to bold the word "belief".
But again, what point are you trying to make with something being the common denominator? That it therefore exists?

It makes no difference whether one is atheist or theist, or what I think.
We could jump ship every other week.
God Is the common denominator.

As above.

Define Zarx?

There is no need for purposes of discussion. If you have to ask for me to define Zarx is then I assume you can't say you believe in Zarx, as far as you are aware?

From our personal perspectives, yes.
But as far as reality goes, there is nothing that suggests there is no God.

Nor anything to suggest that there is, other than the belief people have in the notion.

 

[Sarkus]

Cont'd (2 of 2)...

Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

And still you can't bring yourself to bold the word "belief", common to both theism and atheism. But, as before, you think God is the common denominator... So what?

God is the common denominator, it is not just the case of me seeing it.

It really is, Jan. But again... What is it about being a common denominator that so makes you want God to be one?

It shows that the idea "there is no God", does not figure in reality.

Excuse me??? You'll have to do more than just jump to that conclusion, Jan. How does it show it? So Zarx is real, is it? The idea that "there is no Zarx" does not figure in reality?
Or is all you genuinely have, after all this time, the idea that only existent things can not be believed to exist?

Hence the accuracy of the article, and the biblical verse "The foohas said in his heart, there is no God" That's the importance.

You're quickly becoming a laughing stock, Jan.

The reason why debate about God's existence is so important, is because God Is.

You're contradicting yourself, Jan, as you have repeatedly tried to claim that the question of God's existence is irrelevant.
Secondly you're simply asserting your belief that God Is, claiming it as fact, and expecting the discussion to start from that premise.

If God doesn't exist, "there is no God" can be maintained. That debate is not in the interest of the theist. And it is only temporarily in the interest of the atheist.
IOW, existence or non existence of God, is a futile argument, as it can be dragged on forever.

Any unprovable argument can be dragged on forever, whether God exists or not. If you only want to discuss with other theists, where you start with the as priori assumption that God exists, then I suggest you only partake of such threads, rather than flame the forum with claims that atheists may not exist.

Take Alex, for example. He is happy to talk nonsense about God being made up by bronze age people sitting round a fire, till the cows come home. He convinces himself.

Good for him. If all you want to do is talk to Alex, do so. I'm not stopping you.

If we talk about the common denominator God, the God that supercedes futile arguments. The God that Just Is. There is no for or against?

The common denominator that you presume to exist and that others don't, you mean? The God that you believe supercedes futile argument (luckily for you), the God that you believe Just Is? There very much is a for or against, and many an agnostic position, depending on whether one starts with the a priori assumption that God Is or not.

"Belief in God" is what the theist does.
God Is the subject.
God Is also the subject of the atheist.
God, is not "belief in God"

So are you now saying that belief in something makes that something real? I thought you had gotten past that ridiculous idea?
Being the subject of a belief doesn't make it the common denominator, it merely makes it the subject of the common denominator of belief.
Theism - belief in God
Atheism - no belief in God
The common denominator seems quite clear to me. But obviously not to you, who wants to assert that because God is the common denominator God can't possibly not exist.
No, Jan, belief in God is is the common denominator, and it is quite true that if there is a theist then "belief in God" does exist.

It doesn't matter, because those subjects aren't important. It "belief" that is important, and necessary to metaphysics.

Wow, are you going off the deep end or what!
So now it is "belief" that is important and not the subject of the belief? Yet the common denominator of theism and atheism isn't a matter of belief but the subject of the belief?
Seriously, the more you write the more twisted and pathetic your arguments become, as though you're grasping onto any straws you can find without there being any coherent whole to your thinking. It's all rather pathetic. And it's no longer worth my time. Each time I come back to discuss with you I keep hoping that there is something there, something hidden in the fluff and bluster you spout. Each time I leave again disappointed.
C'est la vie.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I spent time today watching various utube videos produced by believers.

Their proof of God stuff.

I am not generalising, because every movie that I saw was transparently dishonest with no exception, but all were dishonest.
Only six so far but the dishonesty was extremely disappointing.

From explaining fossils as Satan putting them there to mislead believers...to stating that science favours inteligent design...to claiming the big bang is proof of a creator.

I was shocked.

They were absolute liars...not just little fibs but over the top lies.

But I dont think they actually realise they are being dishonest.

The problem is they start from God is, as does Jan, and anything and everything is evidence and I tend to think they have no idea that they are being dishonest..

I guess that is why one tends to laugh at them but lieing is not really a laughing matter.

I think they are absolutely incapable of accepting they have no proof of a God but totally incapable of getting past arguement from ignorance...the universe was created therefore God.. .I mean what else could it be therefore proof of God ..

All demonstrate an arrogance that atheists are somehow lacking because they wont buy a claim based on someones faith and offer their personal faith as acceptable evidence.

I conclude treating a discussion with a believer as serious is the only mistake an atheist makes.

Dont treat them seriously or think they understand what it means to be honest.

In this thread I suspect few adopt my approach which is a refusal to treat the matter seriously and so Jan becomes frustratingly annoying.


He does not annoy me ... cause I dont take it seriously.

All will notice he can not counter a simple statement of truth that "its all made up" backed with example and evidence with anything in reply other than to say the facts are nonsence...no witness to creation so its account is made up..no arguement is possible or presented against...so arrogance takes over and he proclaims it nonsense...well his proclaimation is nonsense...but funny reslly...its all made up I say..made up in the bronze age I say ... the rebutal from Jan..nonsense..
an apt description of his rebutal...but clearly he is not treating any discussion here seriously.


But it is fun, I believe entertaining and silly and should be kept at that level unless Jan gets real and backs up any claim he makes. Which he can not do so we will never move past entertainment.

The OP makes a claim via Jan and you guessed it Jan cant back up yet another claim. And he does not try.

I doubt if Jan is any more serious in applying himself to this thread than am I...and so those who offer serious input can only be disappointed because Jan will do his trade mark crab walk...what else should we expect given his past performance.

I must go my imaging run is near finished so I move on to doing important stuff (to me) ... but it is nice to be here and witness the profoumd input of others.
..you are all an intelligent and well educated bunch and I consider it a wonderful priveledge to have spent some time off with all of you.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you are not trying to argue that God exists through your notion of common denominator, to what purpose state the common denominator?

Already stated.

And you are discussing God's existence, Jan, every time you use the words theist or atheist, or variations thereof. Whether you accept it or not, a theist believes God to exist. If you believe God Is then you believe God exists. Period.

If I was discussing God's existence, I would talk about God's existence.

False comparison, Jan. Theism and atheism are beliefs in relation to God, and being beliefs there is no necessary reality of that belief.

So you believe.
As a theist, I accept that God Is, and believe in God.

So if atheism and theism exist then it is necessarily true that a position regarding belief in God exists, but there is no necessity for God to exist.

Says you, an atheist, for whom there is no God. A theist doesn't see it like that.
A theist believes in. God.

You, however, start most of your claims and arguments from the assumption that God Is. This makes "God Is" a premise to those arguments.

Point these arguments out and we'll take it from there.

1. There is nothing to suggest that there is a God.

Both theist and atheist suggest there is a God. One party accepts God. The other party doesn't.

You think atheists wake up one morning and go "Hmmm, today I am choosing not to believe in God,

No. It is a process which involves rejection, and denial.

You think atheists convince themselves there is no God...

They have to. It is not as simple as making a decision, like "should go I to Alicante, or Benidorm for my summer hols. But it involves their cooperation.

you think the argument goes something like: everyone starts as a theist;

Theism merely describe ones position in relation to God.

You think it means anything, or adds weight to anything you say?

Yes. It's very obvious.

But heck, if we're just going to throw around quotes: "All thinking men are atheists." - Ernest Hemmingway.

Obviously false.

?? Are you being serious with this? So if someone doesn't believe that 2+2=5 then this proves that 2+2 has to be 5?

2+2 needs to be 4, to understand that it is not 5.

Put your strawman away,

Explain the strawman.

"God Is" is a description of the nature of something that may or may not exist. If God does not exist then God Isn't.

That is your take on it.
Bear in mind you are an atheist, for whom their is no God.

But you can't start with God Is and logically try to argue that God exists without a serious case of question begging that makes the argument pointless.
So don't start with "God Is", Jan, and let's see where you get to.

I don't argue that God Is. I accept that God Is. You don't That is why you struggle with it.
You don't even understand that you have accepted that there is no God.
You think you can be in a place where you can, or don't have to accept God, until such time you make your decision.

But you would much prefer if everyone shared the same a priori assumption that God Is.

What a silly suggestion.
It seems like you're beginning to lose it like Stranger.
Calm down, take a deep breath, and gather your thoughts.

That way everything you want to be true about the atheist, that they consciously reject what they otherwise know to exist,

It's not enough to consciously reject, and deny God. It has to become subconscious, for it to appear real.
Hence the biblical verse.

But, here's the rub, Jan, we don't start with that a priori assumption.

Who is we?
Team Atheist?

There is no need for purposes of discussion.

Then it's pointless to bring it up.

Nor anything to suggest that there is, other than the belief people have in the notion.

Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

Everything is in relation to God.
Nothing suggests no God.
You may think that is nothing, which is understandable. But I think it means heaps.

So Zarx is real, is it?

I don't know.
Define Zarks, and I'll give my opinion.

Secondly you're simply asserting your belief that God Is, claiming it as fact, and expecting the discussion to start from that premise.

For me, a theist, it is obvious. But I understand that for you, an atheist, it isn't. However feel free to explain how God isn't, or could be isn't.

Any unprovable argument can be dragged on forever, whether God exists or not.

How is God's existence uprovable, given the defition of God? Of course if you're going bang on about definitions, then I am wasting my time.

Good for him. If all you want to do is talk to Alex, do so. I'm

I think you miss the point.
But never mind.

So are you now saying that belief in something makes that something real?

No.
I'll leave it here as you are just repeating yourself.

Jan.

 

[Michael 345]

He does not annoy me ... cause I dont take it seriously.

He annoys the shit out of me

I possibly could put up with him if I thought he was just stupid or misguided

But the answers I saw before I hit Iggy for me pointed to wilful ignorance

For me no no

 

[Jan Ardena]

I take it that you have not taken anything personally so I am happy.

I dont wish to come over as insulting or condecending but that can be an inevitable consequence when trying to demonstrate where you are and what you miss.

It may sound insulting to suggest that you are a victim of a con job but perhaps move past your initial responce and consider you do indeed fall victim to superstition from a bygone era.

You are in site of the finish Jan so hang in there.

It is more a case of that I choose not to elevate any response because for me this discussion is no different to discussing Santa.

You waffle so I waffle and God just is...for you.

That is nice for you but enlightement escapes you.

Of course I take it personally.
Unless you mean it as a joke.
Then I would have to conclude that you're less funnier than I thought. But I do find some things you say quite amusing.

One thing I have noticed is that you're becoming less honest, which is quite sad, because you were the one who demonstrated the reality of atheism, IMO.

All he asks for is evidence so I take it that at some point a believer came up with evidence in support of the God story.

He's asking for evidence of his idea of God. We both know that will never happen, because all he has to do is say that it is not satisfactory. In reality who is he, or anyone, to ask for evidence of God. Like God needs to be proven.
Pfft!
If he wants evidence, go and find it like everybody else who actually believes in God.

I think his position is if one makes a claim then it must be supported and that faith is not worth a bean to offer up as support of a superstitious claim.

Then back up the claim "there is no God", as that is the only claim on the table.

Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

Quite simple really.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

Or are you simply speaking from the view point of atheism, that God does not exist?

There are many and various different view points from which your God does not exist. There is no such thing as "the" view point of atheism.

That is one of the many ways in which the OP's falsity was immediately obvious to anyone - except, apparently, a subgroup of Abrahamic monotheists given to dumping such posts unto science forums.

Which immediately becomes the matter of interest, if there is one. What else would there be?

 

[Jan Ardena]

He annoys the shit out of me

Alex, tell your mate its not me that make him shit-less, it the fact that he can't wallow in his atheism in a way he sees fit.

Jan.