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

[Jan Ardena]

It does not rest well with me to feel like I am in line to take my turn at kicking a corpse

Ooh! What a hot-head thing to say.
It's best you cool off for a bit, and get yourself together.

All the best Alex.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

LOL! Billvon. You cannot penetrate my chart without blatant dishonesty.

And you cannot upset my hovercraft with a complete lack of logic, either! LOL!

And you also think Santa is real, in the same context as me.

No, I don't. I think he is fictitious, like your version of God. Both have plenty of people who believe in them. Neither one exists the way their believers think they do.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, I don't. I think he is fictitious,

Yes you do. Fictitious-ness is a characteristic is Santa Claus. Try again.

like your version of God.

You are ignorant of my version of God.

Both have plenty of people who believe in them. Neither one exists the way their believers think they do.

You have no idea how they exist. You didn't even comprehend fictitious-ness as a characteristic of Santa Claus.
Try again

Jan.

 

[Yazata]

The outcome of the three points is not to show that God exists, but that God is the common denominator, despite belief, or lack of.

The word 'God' appears in each of the sentences. Why do you think that's important and what conclusion do you think people should draw from it?

I personally think that it's rather trivial.

People can disagree about 'invisible pink unicorns' or about 'celestial teapots', and both sides would be using the same linguistic expressions, but that wouldn't tell us anything about the existence of invisible unicorns or celestial teapots.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Ooh! What a hot-head thing to say.

Interesting responce.

Perhaps you misread what I said and failed to understand the compassion I feel when I perceive that folk are outnumbered and outgunned.

You are outnumbered and although you will argue that you are not out gunned, that is my perception.


However I can see that you are concerned for me with your advice as to how to feel better.

That is nice.

All the best Alex

And all the best for you Jan.

Here is my latest effort.

It is known as the Lagoon Nebula.

Alex

 

[billvon]

Yes you do. Fictitious-ness is a characteristic is Santa Claus. Try again.

That's what I said. Santa, like God, is fictitious - although people like to talk about both.

You have no idea how they exist. You didn't even comprehend fictitious-ness as a characteristic of Santa Claus.

Your mind is like a French tank - one forward gear and six reverse.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Perhaps you misread what I said and failed to understand the compassion I feel when I perceive that folk are outnumbered and outgunned.

Outgunned?

We're not in a schoolyard Alex.
This is basically an atheist board. I am a theist. Of course I'm outnumbered.
So what?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's what I said. Santa, like God, is fictitious - although people like to talk about both.

Do you really think I'm surprised that you deem God to be fictitious?

Have you not been paying attention?

Your mind is like a French tank - one forward gear and six reverse.

What a pointless remark.
Is that really all you have?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The word 'God' appears in each of the sentences. Why do you think that's important and what conclusion do you think people should draw from it?

That theism is natural.

Theism does not make any claim.

The only claim on the table is an atheists one.

The article is correct, as long as it is understood that the author does not mean atheists physical form is not in question. Which shouldn't be too difficult.

The biblical verse, The fool has said in his heart, there is no God, is not an insult, but a description of a person who simply chooses to not believe.

That God just Is, regardless of belief...

I personally think that it's rather trivial.

I think the points against it, are silly.

People can disagree about 'invisible pink unicorns' or about 'celestial teapots', and both sides would be using the same linguistic expressions, but that wouldn't tell us anything about the existence of invisible unicorns or celestial teapots.

If God was purely about "existence" you or these other atheists wouldn't need to be talking about God.

How many science /philosophy sites do you see with a Unicorn forum, or thread dedicated to the existence of unicorns.

Me? I'm prepared to go out on a limb and say none.

If there were people who believed in unicorns on sciforums, I doubt you all would be up in their face, for 90 pages.
That alone says heaps.

The fact is, you are all defending a faith, a dogma, which is why you all take it so seriously.

All you've done is shown that article has a real point.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

That theism is natural.

So you believe. There is no evidence of that. There is evidence, it seems, of a propensity toward belief in something greater, but that is a far cry from saying theism is natural. But of course, in your blinkered approach to the issue, you latch on to whatever interpretation fits your worldview and can then no longer see beyond it.

Theism does not make any claim.

Other than that God Is, and by implication that God is real, and through scriptures and revelation that God interacts with his creations, you mean? There are many more things that theism claims.
But I guess you're right in that, other than all the things it does claim, theism makes no claims.

The only claim on the table is an atheists one.

If claims were apples, atheists would be hungry, while theists fill their bellies. And being natural or not doesn't stop something being a claim. A claim, as you know, is any assertion of the truth of something. It takes a special kind of dishonesty to deny that theism makes claims, or that you don't claim anything.
Sure, some atheists, as you are aware, make the claim that God does not exist. But atheism itself, the simple lack of belief that God exists, does not.

The article is correct, as long as it is understood that the author does not mean atheists physical form is not in question. Which shouldn't be too difficult.

Yet despite almost 90 pages of your turgid manure, you haven't managed to successfully argue why, but instead just fill the pages with specious nonsense.

The biblical verse, The fool has said in his heart, there is no God, is not an insult, but a description of a person who simply chooses to not believe.

And calling your posts utter garbage that even dung beetles would find too awful, is just a description.

That God just Is, regardless of belief...

If God Is then yes, God Is, regardless of belief. However, and here you're missing something rather vital (hint: it's called an unbiased viewpoint), if God Isn't then God Isn't, regardless of belief.
Every time you simply assert that "God just Is" you are simply asserting a claim, a belief on your part. And you dishonestly deny that you make any claims. You instead expect it to be accepted by all as the default position, which is again dishonest of you.

I think the points against it, are silly.

Of course you do, Jan. But then you don't recognise valid arguments, whether through your ignorance or dishonesty.

If God was purely about "existence" you or these other atheists wouldn't need to be talking about God.

It may not be purely about existence to you, Jan. Understanding your critical thinking doesn't at least start there is certainly one thing I try to understand. Until I realise you have limited skill in that area. But for the atheist it starts with the question of God's existence. Not with the a priori assumption that God exists.

If you want to discuss other aspects of God then go for it. Instead, rather hypocritically, you start a thread designed to antagonise the very group of people you don't really seem to want to discuss with.

How many science /philosophy sites do you see with a Unicorn forum, or thread dedicated to the existence of unicorns.

Me? I'm prepared to go out on a limb and say none.

If there were people who believed in unicorns on sciforums, I doubt you all would be up in their face, for 90 pages.
That alone says heaps.

Not unicorns, but there are pages of threads dedicated to the belief in ufos, aliens, monsters, the paranormal etc. This is the umbrella that the existence of unicorns would be discussed under. So while not unicorns specifically, you are wrong in principle.
Although I'm going to bet you'll dishonestly focus on the specifics of "unicorn" as if that proves your point, while rejecting the wider topics that "unicorn" otherwise stands for.

The fact is, you are all defending a faith, a dogma, which is why you all take it so seriously.

All you've done is shown that article has a real point.

Yet in these two sentences you miss the entire point of the article that you posted in the OP. That should say enough to anyone that even after 90 pages you don't actually have a clue what you're on about. That you just post to flame, to troll, to spread your detritus across the fields of discussion and turn everything into a wasteland. You are Destruction to discussion. And I'm fairly sure you're only still allowed to be active on this forum because of the traffic your utter garbage generates.

And heck, if that's the case then I only have myself to blame for your continued embarrassment on this website.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Of course I'm outnumbered.
So what?

Thats the spirt Jan.

My point was you cant support your claims and yet you dont conceed.

I bet if you were in a cage fight the opponent could break your arm with an arm bar and you would believe you had not lost the fight.

I admire such a self belief.

Never give in even when you have been repeatedly beaten.

And dont ask for me to list your defeats ... we have near one hundred pages that loosly makes up your list of losses.

With me addmittedly it is clear when you have a loss...like it all being made up backed up with solid before your eyes evidence.
My simple approach allows you to see clearly that you have lost.

But the amusing losses, indeed the most entertaining ones, are the ones you dont even realise that your opponent has done you over and you believe its you who has won.

Mind you the non stop kicking of your corpse adds weight to the life after death myth.

Hang in there the hundred marker is near.

Good work..the site owner must be just so very happy to have you generating traffic☺
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

I bet if you were in a cage fight the opponent could break your arm with an arm bar and you would believe you had not lost the fight.

I'm torn between delusion and wilful ignorance

 

[Jan Ardena]

Thats the spirt Jan.

"Spirit"?

You're learning Alex.
It's a slow process, but you are learning.

My point was you cant support your claims and yet

Which claims can't I support?

I bet if you were in a cage fight the opponent could break your arm with an arm bar and you would believe you had not lost the fight.

It always comes down to violence with you. Doesn't it?

I admire such a self belief.

You don't even admire your own self belief.

Never give in even when you have been repeatedly beaten.

More violence?
Do you ever stop?

And dont ask for me to list your defeats ... we have near one hundred pages that loosly

You could at least choose one encounter.

With me addmittedly it is clear when you have a loss...like it all being made up backed up with solid before your eyes evidence.
My simple approach allows you to see clearly that you have lost.

You are simple.
At least that much of what you said is true. Do we have to wait for another hundred pages to receive another snippet of truth from you?

But the amusing losses, indeed the most entertaining ones, are the ones you dont even realise that your opponent has done you over and you believe its you who has won.

Let me guess. You're not going to demonstrate. Or are you going to put forward more of your simpleton nonsense as an example?

Mind you the non stop kicking of your corpse adds weight to the life after death myth.

Deeeeeeeeeep!

Good work..the site owner must be just so very happy to have you generating traffic☺

You keep saying that, as though it means something. Care to share?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you believe. There is no evidence of that. There is evidence, it seems, of a propensity toward belief in something greater, but that is a far cry from saying theism is natural. But of course, in your blinkered approach to the issue, you latch on to whatever interpretation fits your worldview and can then no longer see beyond it.
Other than that God Is, and by implication that God is real, and through scriptures and revelation that God interacts with his creations, you mean? There are many more things that theism claims.
But I guess you're right in that, other than all the things it does claim, theism makes no claims.
If claims were apples, atheists would be hungry, while theists fill their bellies. And being natural or not doesn't stop something being a claim. A claim, as you know, is any assertion of the truth of something. It takes a special kind of dishonesty to deny that theism makes claims, or that you don't claim anything.
Sure, some atheists, as you are aware, make the claim that God does not exist. But atheism itself, the simple lack of belief that God exists, does not.
Yet despite almost 90 pages of your turgid manure, you haven't managed to successfully argue why, but instead just fill the pages with specious nonsense.
And calling your posts utter garbage that even dung beetles would find too awful, is just a description.
If God Is then yes, God Is, regardless of belief. However, and here you're missing something rather vital (hint: it's called an unbiased viewpoint), if God Isn't then God Isn't, regardless of belief.
Every time you simply assert that "God just Is" you are simply asserting a claim, a belief on your part. And you dishonestly deny that you make any claims. You instead expect it to be accepted by all as the default position, which is again dishonest of you.
Of course you do, Jan. But then you don't recognise valid arguments, whether through your ignorance or dishonesty.
It may not be purely about existence to you, Jan. Understanding your critical thinking doesn't at least start there is certainly one thing I try to understand. Until I realise you have limited skill in that area. But for the atheist it starts with the question of God's existence. Not with the a priori assumption that God exists.

If you want to discuss other aspects of God then go for it. Instead, rather hypocritically, you start a thread designed to antagonise the very group of people you don't really seem to want to discuss with.

Not unicorns, but there are pages of threads dedicated to the belief in ufos, aliens, monsters, the paranormal etc. This is the umbrella that the existence of unicorns would be discussed under. So while not unicorns specifically, you are wrong in principle.
Although I'm going to bet you'll dishonestly focus on the specifics of "unicorn" as if that proves your point, while rejecting the wider topics that "unicorn" otherwise stands for.
Yet in these two sentences you miss the entire point of the article that you posted in the OP. That should say enough to anyone that even after 90 pages you don't actually have a clue what you're on about. That you just post to flame, to troll, to spread your detritus across the fields of discussion and turn everything into a wasteland. You are Destruction to discussion. And I'm fairly sure you're only still allowed to be active on this forum because of the traffic your utter garbage generates.

And heck, if that's the case then I only have myself to blame for your continued embarrassment on this website.

Sarkus, I would love to chat with you, but I have set you a task. And would prefer you deal with it, than join you on your merry-go-round.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

Only when you think the various failures do not result in a very specific world view.

So it's not a mere hypothesis, my guesswork above - there actually are theists who think all the billions of atheistic people share one and the same "very specific" world view,

and apparently these are the theists who are dumping posts like the OP here unto science forums, like dogshit on a restaurant table.

Next step: that very specific world view involves rejecting Jan's God, overtly. (Because we know it does for some, fundamentally, and they all share the one).

Fascinating. Crazy-ass paranoid of course, to imagine a billion Chinese and Africans rejecting one's God for thousands of years, but a quite interesting and possibly enlightening approach to explaining things like the OP falsehood and its no-holds-barred defense here. We're seeing desperation driven dishonesty, in the spirit of whatever might work, then? That is more forgivable than the alternatives that first suggested themselves.

As I said, any fool can employ the exact same sophistry to deny the validity of labeling anything a world view.

You can't. So that's one.

 

[Musika]

So it's not a mere hypothesis, my guesswork above - there actually are theists who think all the billions of atheistic people share one and the same "very specific" world view,

and apparently these are the theists who are dumping posts like the OP here unto science forums, like dogshit on a restaurant table.

Next step: that very specific world view involves rejecting Jan's God, overtly. (Because we know it does for some, fundamentally, and they all share the one).

Fascinating. Crazy-ass paranoid of course, to imagine a billion Chinese and Africans rejecting one's God for thousands of years, but a quite interesting and possibly enlightening approach to explaining things like the OP falsehood and its no-holds-barred defense here. We're seeing desperation driven dishonesty, in the spirit of whatever might work, then? That is more forgivable than the alternatives that first suggested themselves.

You can't. So that's one.

As I said, one can employ the same sophistry to demand there is no singular "view" to anything.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You're learning Alex

Thats what I do.

Which claims can't I support?

All atheist claims.

It always comes down to violence with you.

I am not talking about violence I am talking about sport.

You don't even admire your own self belief.

Of course ...looking at you I realise I am so unworthy.

More violence?

No thanks I couldnt fit in another helping.

Do you ever stop?

Never...there is so much to do and only one life in which to get it done.

You could at least choose one encounter.

Yes of course I could.

You are simple

Thanks Jan I appreciate you giving me the recognition ... some say I am manipulative and that really hurts.

At least that much of what you said is true.

Thanks sincerely.

Do we have to wait for another hundred pages to receive another snippet of truth from you?

No ... here is another snippet...the universe is a real big place.

You're not going to demonstrate.

Well I was going to but I thought it better not to embarase you...

Or are you going to put forward more of your simpleton nonsense as an example?

No and I am not going to put forward any of yours either.

Deeeeeeeeeep!

I knew you would appreciate how my simple observation may support the idea.

Care to share?

Sure..the site owner must be just so happy to have you generating traffic.

People no doubt follow your adventures, your up and your downs, your skillful thing that you do.

You entertain.

It is a wonderful thing you do Jan.

Alex

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, I would love to chat with you, but I have set you a task. And would prefer you deal with it, than join you on your merry-go-round.

"Set me a task..."? Do you hear yourself, Jan? How arrogant and ridiculous you sound?
I've already told you that I have no intention of answering your question that seeks to shift any burden of proof to me. I am not making any claims, Jan. You are. You are the one that claims "God Is". That theism is natural. To knowingly shift the burden is more dishonesty from you.

But let me set you a task: stop being an ass, stop being dishonest, stop with your blatant disrespect for people, and stop being a troll. Can you do that? Are you even going to try?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I'm torn between delusion and wilful ignorance

I do like cage fighting.
It reminds me of the bronze age for some reason.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Set me a task..."? Do you hear yourself, Jan? How arrogant and ridiculous you sound[/QUOTE ]

Nothing ridiculous, or arrogant about setting a task Sarkus. But if you can't undertake it, I will understand.

I've already told you that I have no intention of answering your question that seeks to shift any burden of proof to me. I am not making any claims, Jan.

I didn't you say you made a claim.
You asked what if God isn't, as an alternative to God Is.
If you can put forward an alternative, it stands to reason that you have some idea how such an idea could be.
Of course if you can't put forward an alternative, it would be understandable.

You are the one that claims "God Is". That theism is natural. To knowingly shift the burden is more dishonesty from you.

Theism is natural Sarkus. As a theist I can account for it. But if you think it is not natural, that's for you to show. I believe God Is, yes. But, I am a theist.so it stands to reason.

Jan.