No Atheist Shall Pass

154 posts / 0 new
Last post
rat spit's picture
Probably the first, Sheldon.

Probably the first, Sheldon. Calm down. ;)

NeverHappened's picture
You are perfectly free to

You are perfectly free to believe what you want, though I suspect you're hearing your own subconscious.

Now if one of these voices could provide specific details of something hidden (ancient artifact, lost artwork, etc), that could be found and verified.....

xenoview's picture
@rat spit

@rat spit
The article in no way disproves Atheism, or proves the supernatural.

Atheism has nothing to do with hearing voices, it is the lack of belief in gods.

I must apply xenoview's razor to your claims that hearing voices is supernatural.
Provide objective evidence the voices are supernatural, and not just subjective thoughts from your mind.

Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence

rat spit's picture
@xenoview

@xenoview

Ha ha. Yes. You do like your razor, don’t you? Well, I have my fork. Let’s see now. You have rejected and dismissed my first hand account of the supernatural and, therefore, I will reject and dismiss any and all claims you may make that your inner voice is “proof” of a “Self”. You have now lost your Selfhood - and with that (also) any and all claims of an Atheist persuasion. If you would like your Selfhood back, simply take my claims at face value and I will do the same with your “Cogito ergo sum”. Of course, you will then cease to be an Atheist from that point on!!! Ha ha ah aha aha ha ahababa. *cough cough* ugh.

Sheldon's picture
"rejected and dismissed my

"rejected and dismissed my first hand account of the supernatural"

Of course, you can demonstrate no evidence for it. ll you keep doing is trying to reverse the burden of proof by insisting someone disprove your claim, this is call argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and you've had ample time to find out what this means and why it makes your claim irrational by definition.

Do you believe "first hand accounts" that mermaids are real? Can you prove there aren't any mermaids? Do you even understand what unfalsifiable means?

Your intransigent and dishonestly strident claims are nothing new, sorry to burst your bubble but every theists that comes here tries to insist atheists prove their beliefs wrong. Pretty funny when like you they can demonstrate no objective evidence for their claims. Invisible unicorns anyone?

rat spit's picture
Sheldon. I don’t recall ever

Sheldon. I don’t recall ever asking anyone to prove me wrong. I have however asked for the benefit of the doubt in accepting my testimony of the Supreme Being. And that is the exact same benefit of the doubt I extend to you and others when you declare Selfhood on the basis of having your “own” inner voice. Much different than switching the burden of proof.

xenoview's picture
@rat spit

@rat spit
You have failed to prove that the supernatural is real. All you have is subjective evidence from your mind. You have failed to provide objective evidence of the supernatural.

I'm still an Atheist, still don't believe in any god or gods.

Cognostic's picture
Actually, the article, in no

Actually, the article, in no way, supports the existence of anything supernatural. The only thing the article asserts is that "hearing voices" should not be a pathological symptom because lots of people hear voices. The article is based on an ad populum assertion. "Because many people do it, it is not a pathology." This is not actually true in any way. When normal people hear voices they either know they are hearing them and simply don't listen or are sick or delusional for a physical reason. Many people who are in a state of grief, for example, will hear or even see the people they have lost. This is not support for a supernatural existence of anything. It is in fact and example of a brain under stress and nothing more.

Cognostic's picture
I think we should begin

I think we should begin posting our favorite Ratspit experiments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxR57OGayQM

rat spit's picture
My people. Utterly speechless

My people. Utterly speechless.

Bad Santa's picture
@OP

@OP
Oh my....!!!! *sighing heavily*... What a load of mumbo jumbo! You spin a word salad with finesse rat, I have to give you that!

And this?

Who would you like to hear from. I’ve spoken to Isaac Newton, Einstein, Keirkagaard, uh. Let’s see. Jesus, Buddha, Mahavira - the list goes on really. Maud’dib - His sister. Kirk Cobain in heaven. Too many to name.

I believe this is called schizophrenia, you know, there are medications for this condition?... Maybe you should consider it?... Just sayin'?
Oh, BTW, I have never, EVER, heard actual voices in my head... where do I fall in your mumbo jumbo word salad?

rat spit's picture
Not even your own thoughts?

Not even your own thoughts? Deny and dismiss. Congratulations. You have been poked by rat spit’s fork and have lost your claim to Selfhood!

Bad Santa's picture
Oh, I do have my selfhood but

Oh, I do have my selfhood but you lost your sanity....rat poked!

Sheldon's picture
"Oh, I do have my selfhood

"Oh, I do have my selfhood but you lost your sanity....rat poked!"

I'm not sure he ever had it to lose to be honest, his posts suggest not.

Sheldon's picture
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 21:42

Fri, 01/04/2019 - 21:42
rat spit "Please prove that it originates solely and exclusively in the brain."

Argumentum ad ignorantiam yet again. Your own argument accepts the human brain, and the thoughts in it, exist as an objective fact. You are adding a supernatural cause you can demonstrate no evidence for beyond your demand people disprove your claim, which by definition is a common logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance fallacy, thus by definition your claim is irrational.

Same old same old rat spit...it doesn't stop being irrational BS because you waited a week or two and then repeated it in a new thread.

I look forward to the usual angry ad hominem, and your cringeworthy boasts about the size of your penis...

Your claims remain nonsense.

rat spit's picture
I doubt what you assert here

I doubt what you assert here is objective fact. Science has found a correlation between neural transmissions, brain activity and thought - but they are miles away from understanding consciousness. And thus thought. Tell me how it’s an objective “fact”? It’s a mere correlation - you horrendously ugly fecalphiliac (mandatory ad hominem of course).

Sheldon's picture
"Science has found a

"Science has found a correlation between neural transmissions, brain activity and thought - but they are miles away from understanding consciousness. And thus thought. "

So you are claiming the gap in science's understanding has a deity hiding in it. That's the very definition of a god of the gaps polemic. Here are some objective facts:

1) The physical brain exists.
2) Thoughts emerge from humans with functioning brains.
3) When the physical brain dies there is never again any evidence for it producing thoughts.

Please demonstrate one single objective fact to support your inane claims. It's not as if no one asked already.

rat spit's picture
Sheldon, You have no evidence

Sheldon, You have no evidence that consciousness does not survive death. Your claims are dismissed.

rat spit's picture
Regarding objectivity. Do you

Sheldon,

Regarding objectivity. Do you regard your thoughts and perceptions as objective. You’ve premised the illusion paradigm to counter the perception argument. And I asked you a question about it which you failed to answer.

Why is perception not objective?

Sheldon's picture
rat spit's claims have

Rat spit's claims have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in a deity or deities, it makes no claims about anything, least of all about the "voices" in rat spit's head.

rat spit's picture
Surely to be Atheist is to

Surely to be Atheist is to believe in one’s own Self? No? Then you don’t even exist! What gives you the right to posit a position with regard to some hypothetical God-being if you don’t even have ownership of your thoughts?

arakish's picture
rat spit: "Surely to be

rat spit: "Surely to be Atheist is to believe in one’s own Self? No? Then you don’t even exist!"

And I have never said that I do exist. It is other persons who say I exist that proves it. Not me.

rmfr

rat spit's picture
@arakish

@arakish

Which part of that observed existence is the Self? The body? The actions? The words?

arakish's picture
@ rat spit

@ rat spit

All of the above.

rmfr

rat spit's picture
However, the body is subject

However, the body is subject to death and decay; actions and words point to thoughts and intentions.

If the body is subject to death and decay, is it proper to designate it “Self”? Is your Self subject to death and - you know what? Never mind. This nut is too hard to crack. You called my bluff. Hiss!!!!. Take your Selfhood for now. I will come for it later, damn you!

Sheldon's picture
"Is your Self subject to

"Is your Self subject to death "

Yes, all the objective evidence we have of every single human life demonstrates that they die, and after the death of their brain their thoughts are never evidenced again....every-single-time.

Tin-Man's picture
@Rat Spit and Arakish

@Rat Spit and Arakish

So, I'm trying to wrap my brain around this...

If I am an Atheist and believe in myself, I don't exist. But if I am a theist and believe in god, I do exist. And if somebody else believes in ME, I DO exist, regatdless of whether I am atheist or theist? But... What if the person who believes in me is an atheist? Does that count? Because if an atheist doesn't exist, how can he/she believe in me? Unless, of course, he/she doesn't actually believe he/she exists, which could possibly mean they DO exist? Oh! And what if I'm having one of those days where I'm just not feeling like myself? Does that "self" I feel like actually exist? Or is that really just my real self acting like somebody else?... *quickly places hands to sides of head*... *eyes clinched tightly shut*... *grimace on face*.... Ooow!... I think I just sprain something in my head!...

arakish's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

Sorry. Did not mean for you throw a gear or two. I was just stating a fact. Me trying to prove I exist without the input of others is like saying the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God. If no one else were around, how would you prove you do exist? You would actually have to rely on the objective evidence of others stating their acceptance and admittance that you do exist. For you to prove to yourself that you exist would have to utilize the Circular Logic Fallacy to yourself.

Next time, I'll try not to be as succinct.

You know, your mechanic's bills must be monstrous...

rmfr

Tin-Man's picture
@Arakish Re: "You know, your

@Arakish Re: "You know, your mechanic's bills must be monstrous..."

It's okay. I have AAA.

Sheldon's picture
"Surely to be Atheist is to

"Surely to be Atheist is to believe in one’s own Self? No?"

No.

Atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing in that definition is a belief.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.