A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[Aupmanyav]

And you say for sure without doubt that "Quantum Mechanics" can demonstrate or prove that there is no God, right?

Quantum Mechanics is not about any fictitious entity (God, soul), but it may lead us to solve the mystery of existence and non-existence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Quantum Mechanics is not about any fictitious entity (God, soul), but it may lead us to solve the mystery of existence and non-existence.

lol ok...Besides, the word 'soul' does not mean what so many think it to mean. Soul is a word often abused in referencer to the application biblically at least. But we're all entitled to our beliefs. So far. By God.
Soul - Definition and Meaning | Bible Dictionary (jw.org)
Interestingly enough, the word soul can be translated as psyche from the Greek, and Freud used that word to demonstrate one's basic characteristics.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Besides, the word 'soul' does not mean what so many think it to mean.

Whatever be its meaning self, atma, life, individuality, psy-che, desires; after death, it has no meaning, does not exist, does not require any belief or action during the persons life-time.

 

[PureX]

Ya'll are just blindly auto-defending, now.

It's been a good thread, with some excellent comments and responses. And I much appreciate everyone's participation. I think I will have a question for the theists, next.

 

[Sheldon]

They will never find an answer unless...they recognize a supreme force enervating the universe

Ah this old canard, believe it and you will believe it, not very compelling it.

 

[Sheldon]

Men said and told you exactly their personal claim was I am God the he him his theist.

Word user.

It was your owned scientist theist human confession that you had lied.

Why it is a written self contradiction of the human form by its gained sacrifice.

You do preach father is God. In teaching the human parent voice image was recorded in an act owned by God was our teaching.

An act dust converting owned the reason of image of man.

Why we saw image and why we heard recorded voice. Science to teach the reasons why. Man's sin was science as he caused life body to change by water removal.

An act. Not of a God changes to God by man himself.

Good grief, I've read that 3 times and can't fathom a word of it? Was it translated into English through babel fish?

 

[AppieB]

In a nutshell: PureX is an agnostic theist who doesn't believe God exist and thinks it's logically impossible to be an agnostic theist. He 'overcomes' his own logical problem by stating he prefers to be a theist anyway. Meanwhile he scorns atheists to be illogical. He defends his position by using his own language/definitions which are not supported by dictionaries and/or common usage. Instead he relies on logic to define words (how is still a mystery). This all (appearently) makes sense to him and nobody else. Therefore all the others are wrong.

You claim to have "a serious question", but I doubt you looked serious at the answers you were given.

 

[Sheldon]

Ya'll are just blindly auto-defending, now.

That's untrue, but it's no worse than the trolling sophistry you've posted thus far.

Before you leave please go to amazon and order a dictionary if you do nothing else.

Theist
noun

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Agnostic
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

We can argue all day long about claims to have personally experienced a deity, but can demsonrate no objective evidence it support, but if they have to stoop to the kind of sophistry we've seen here, that involve contradicting basic word definitions, then that speaks volumes to me.

 

[Sheldon]

the word 'soul' does not mean what so many think it to mean.

Suitably cryptic and vague, it's in the dictionary, but then so is the word unicorn. If you're attaching some vague subjective esoteric meaning then it's incumbent on you to explain that accurately, since it is your belief.

Freud used that word to demonstrate one's basic characteristics.

I'd bet a year's salary he attached no superstitious connotation to it in that context.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Suitably cryptic and vague, it's in the dictionary, but then so is the word unicorn. If you're attaching some vague subjective esoteric meaning then it's incumbent on you to explain that accurately, since it is your belief.



I'd bet a year's salary he attached no superstitious connotation to it in that context.

Soul: Definition of SOUL

Here are different definitions of soul. I believe in 4 of them. Which ones do you accept?

 

[PureX]

In a nutshell: PureX is an agnostic theist who doesn't believe God exist and thinks it's logically impossible to be an agnostic theist. He 'overcomes' his own logical problem by stating he prefers to be a theist anyway.

Based on the logic of benefit, as opposed to "objective proof" that we cannot have.

Meanwhile he scorns atheists to be illogical.

Actually, all I've done is ask atheists to share their logical reasoning as I have done. I don;t see why you think that's "scorning" you. Unless you're caught up in some sort of blind auro-defense mode.

He defends his position by using his own language/definitions which are not supported by dictionaries and/or common usage.

Actually, I defend it based on it's functional value, as opposed to it's meeting some otherwise impossible criteria. Any atheist could do the same. They would just have to give us some idea of what atheism's functional value, is. Several here have done so.

Instead he relies on logic to define words (how is still a mystery). This all (appearently) makes sense to him and nobody else. Therefore all the others are wrong.

You claim to have "a serious question", but I doubt you look serious at the answers you are given.

Now you're just whining and punching at the wind because you feel "attacked". But no one is attacking you.

 

[Sheldon]

Here are different definitions of soul. I believe in 4 of them. Which ones do you accept?

I only count three?

1 : the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever.

I don't believe this claim, can you demsonrate any objective evidence to support it?

2 : a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature

I think these are a product of the human brain, as they always occur in humans with a fully functioning brain, if that brain dies or is damaged sufficiently the those behaviours in that person either are diminished or cease to be observed. So again, can you offer any objective evidence they can exist without a functioning brain?

3 : the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.

(see my response above for (2))

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I only count three?

1 : the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever.

I don't believe this claim, can you demsonrate any objective evidence to support it?

2 : a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature

I think these are a product of the human brain, as they always occur in humans with a fully functioning brain, if that brain dies or is damaged sufficiently the those behaviours in that person either are diminished or cease to be observed. So again, can you offer any objective evidence they can exist without a functioning brain?

3 : the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.

(see my response above for (2))

Yes, for 2 there is no objective evidence for all human behavior as it currently appear. That includes you and I. So we hit that for norms, rules, opinions and all that including including that nobody seems to be able to do the is-ought problem objectively for the ought.

It is so that we can do science.
Ought we do to do science?

We might be able to agree on what science is, but I don't we can agree on the ought and not just for doing science.

 

[Sheldon]

Actually, all I've done is ask atheists to share their logical reasoning as I have done.

You also insisted atheism is a belief or claim, or involves a belief or claim, which it need not. Since atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Logically a claim or belief is is not proved because it cannot be disproved, and vice versa, this is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

I can only offer my own position, which is that I don't believe in any deity or deities, for the same reason I disbelieve anything, that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for it.

God concepts can be split into falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims, we can know nothing about unfalsifiable claims, thus I would also have to be agnostic about those.

I am therefore an atheist, and an agnostic where the deity being premised is an unfalsifiable concept, this seems logically consistent to me.

just have to give us some idea of what atheism's functional value, is.

Why must it have a functional value? Does your disbelief in say invisible mermaids have a functional value? You can replace that with a falsifiable concept if you prefer, but nothing that simply feeds into your belief in a deity as that strikes me as a circular reasoning fallacy, but if you think otherwise present it and I will see.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I can only offer my own position, which is that I don't believe in any deity or deities, for the same reason I disbelieve anything, that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for it.
...

So how do you do all that which science can't do? https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[PureX]

You also insisted atheism is a belief or claim, or involves a belief or claim, which it need not.

It's a counter claim by logical default. And if you can't defend it you shouldn't hold yourself to it. But that's your business.

Why not just remain agnostic (undecided)? What benefit is there to labeling yourself as claiming that no gods exist?

 

[ratiocinator]

Actually, all I've done is ask atheists to share their logical reasoning as I have done.

The irony is that you've asked atheists about their reasoning for a position that you've just made up, not what they, or the standard usage of the word, actually mean. Then you accuse them of being illogical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a counter claim by logical default. And if you can't defend it you shouldn't hold yourself to it. But that's your business.

Why not just remain agnostic (undecided)? What benefit is there to labeling yourself as claiming that no gods exist?

I don't. I just use the words differently and that is how the world works. The end game of your game is that I am doing something illogical, but then that is a part of how the world works and we use different norms for the logical and illogical.

 

[Sheldon]

So how do you do all that which science can't do?

Such as?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Such as?

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Now we can nitpick the understanding behind that, but it is simple. I can do morality and all those above in the link subjectively different than you, thus science doesn't apply, because we can observe subjective differences.