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

I must have confused you with someone else who insisted that the definition of atheist was some one without God.

You left out probably because they dont believe in made up stories.
alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a terrible mess of vague terminology, loaded concepts, and irrelevant observations all mushed together in endless equivocation. It's an almost incomprehensible mess without a single scientific finding.

Having emotions and feelings, internal dialogues, superstitious or ritualistic beliefs or practices, or even beliefs in certain supernatural concepts is not the same as, and does not imply, belief in a god.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hiya Raithere.
Long time no here from. .
Are you just passing by?

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, you are getting a little, totally, old.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you kidding.

The evolution of the whale.
Things like universes creating themselves, or just popping into existence out of nothing. To name but two.

Jan.

 

The fact is that the belief in a god supernaturally taking care of your needs is no different than a belief that those needs are supernaturally cared for by a sacred rock, tree, or opossum carcass. If you can scientifically describe the difference, go ahead and be the first to do so.

 

... as far as atheists are aware. We know that one James.

Things like what?

Is every single religion, implausible?

Oh, you worked out I'm a theist.
Well done!

Jan.

 

"supernaturally taking care of your needs"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jan.

 

Doesn't even scientifically establish Scientists know stuff all about god

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You detail what you think the atheist perspective is, and that can be summed up as not having room or anything that is not natural... i.e. no room for the supernatural.
This is almost specifically stated when you say "Everything the atheist perceives, and comprehends, is, as far as they are concerned, within the limits of nature / physics".
When you then ask, in the next sentence, how the atheist could have any metaphysical beliefs, the implication is quite clear, Jan, whether you recognise it or not, that you are saying the equivalent of: "atheists don't accept the supernatural, therefore how can they have any metaphysical beliefs".
Thus you have implied that you are equating metaphysics to the supernatural.

Now, you may not have intended the implication, but if not then your question at the end was a non sequitur.
It is quite natural for someone to read that question and assume that it is not a non sequitur, and thus assume the implication was intentional.
Your choice: intentional implication, or were you just asking a non sequitur?

Apologies, I should have said that for some reason you think only a theist can have views on these things.
Is that what you think, that a theist can have such views while an atheist can not?

I dont think metaphysics has much to say about the supernatural per se.
Metaphysics tries to answer questions of "what is existence" etc.
Supernatural is an issue of where something (is claimed to) exist.
So you might ask well ask: in terms of how to build a house, what is London?

So your defence is once again that if you don't explicitly say something then you didn't say it?
You are once again disowning any logical implication of what you say?
Dishonest is as dishonest does, I suppose.

When you say "the atheist can not do this, the atheist can not do that" you are implying that the non-atheist (i.e. the theist) can do those things.
If your intent is to claim that no-one, theist nor atheist, can do such things then you wouldn't have singled out atheists in the manner you did.
So please own the implication of your words.

Again, this acknowledgement of your interest implies that you separate theism and atheism with regard metaphysics, and that you aren't of the view that no one can hold metaphysical beliefs.
Since your questioning suggests you don't think atheists can hold metaphysical beliefs, you imply that theists can.

I am merely following the logical implication of what you say.
If you can not accept such implications, or do not intend them, then perhaps you should refrain from posting until you have learnt to identify the implications.
And if the implication is not one you wish to imply, change what you say.

Mentioned by implication.
That is sufficient.

As someone once said: there are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete information....

 

And those who extrapolate god from no evidence

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Other than stinking up its surroundings, how else would a dead opossum effect meaningful influence in the world?


He died for your sins.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That is just another made up story☺...compared to Noah I am but a young man.

No not this time Jan.

When you drop a red herring it certainly is a big one.
Evolution would seem preferrable to the hand of an intelligent designer.
We can watch evolution of certain species in the lab but we have yet to find evidence of an inteligent designer in the lab.
I will see your one book bet and raise you fifty text books on evolution ..I could go all in but I would need several truck to place the bet.
But the exciting thing about text books they are pretty correct having been written after analysis and observation of real facts and making testable predictions.
The only prediction in the God story is an after life which has not been established not withstanding the huge number of dead folk who perhaps could have sent a message to loved ones left behind.

Well I dont buy that one.
I like the idea of the steady state universe mainly because the guy who presented the big bang idea was a catholic priest presumably hoping to employ science to point to a point of creation.

In any event the God story has so many flaws it is inconceivable that if scriptures are the word of God he seems to get a great deal incorrect.

First page of the bible made up clearly..the author could not be present to report upon creation and so the account can properly described as made up...

The whole thing is wishful thinking presented in an era where superstition was common place and one can see how superstition influenced the authors of scriptures.

If you are sceptical about the big bang why cant you employ such to consider the bible...
Anyways good luck Jan ..I understand many humans need to believe in something but believing a lie is not really believing in anything really.
Alex

 

Because God is the original cause.

Theism is normal.
The type of atheist being discussed here, namely the modern atheist, is a mental, material concoction, which has to be maintained. The modern atheist, in order to process metaphysical thoughts, have to leave atheism behind, because it has nothing to offer.
One does not have to profess theism, because theism is natural to humans.
Plus, not all theists worship, or even focus on (The Almighty) God. Some worship gods, some worship ancestors.
This doesn't mean they are not naturally aware that God Is. They simply focus on their cultural heritage.

If it was real, and not just a shadow, it should.
Does it?

You're asking the wrong person.
I think atheism is a mental construct.
You should probably ask an atheist spokesperson/pastor, like Dawkins.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is a quote by the atheist-god-man, Richard Dawkins. Now if he says it, you know a vast amount of sheeple are going to incorporate it into their atheist delusion.

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

You're obfuscating, and I don't wish to play the game.

Well, I'm asking you, because whilst you're careful not claim God does not exist, God, does not exist as far as you're aware. So answer the question please.

Sorry. That's flakey and none specific.
Can you be clearer?

Where have I said this?

Why do you think the "I" is absent?

Jan

 

I'm pulling your leg.
It is the body that gets old.
The spirit-soul (you), are eternal.

I know you have to believe those fairy-tale, otherwise your existence lacks total meaning. So I'm not going to mess with you belief.

Yeah!
I can see why you're atheist.

Wow!
Atheism at its best.

Jan.

 

Which assumes there is one. While there are certainly arguments that there was an original cause, it is not a given. It is, however, something you believe. Many people do. And that is before addressing the attaching of the label "God" (and associated baggage) to such an event.

If by normal you mean it is held by the majority then yes.

What exactly do you mean by "mental, material concoction"?
In what way does it have to be maintained? You think if someone doesn't "maintain" it then they will drift into what you see as a natural state of theism? Utter garbage. Most atheists give their lack of belief less thought than theists give to their belief.
And in what way do such people have to leave atheism behind? If something has nothing to offer, as you suggest, then why leave it behind? I carry with me many things that don't have anything to offer to particular issues. But they are not negated or incompatible with those issues. So there is no "leaving behind", even if one accepts that it has nothing to offer. Which I don't accept for the simple reason that atheism is a lack of belief of certain metaphysical beliefs. If one lacks those beliefs then why leave the label behind?

So you keep bleating. Yet for people not having to profess atheism there are an awful lot of churches, places of worship, declarations of belief etc. Neither the theist nor the atheist has to profess their profession. Some choose to. If you are basing your view of atheism on a forum that specifically caters to those that which to discuss such matters then you are suffering from selection bias.

So what?
Look, Jan, as interesting as this sidebar is, none of it yet answers the questions I asked. So let me ask you a simple question: Do you think atheists are able to hold metaphysical positions?

It says as much as it needs to: it is the lack of belief in certain metaphysical positions held by others. By being a lack of such things it says something. As much as a positive statement? No. There are, after all, more things that something isn't than that thing is.

No, I'm asking you your opinion, Jan. Do you think that an atheist is allowed to have faith in something?

Everything we conceive of is a mental construct. Even our conception of God is a mental construct, whether you wish to accept that or not. The important matter is whether the construct matches reality or not.

Your efforts at humour are rather lacking, Jan.

A case can be made, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean that the view is held by anyone. After all, I can (probably) make a case that you know how to argue honestly.

How is pointing out your glaring inconsistency an obfuscation? Your failure to address it is somewhat more telling.

Let me clarify then: you will have to ask the atheist that makes such a claim (that God does not exist) how they can know it, because I don't know how they can know it. I can not answer because I do not know.

Look up "emergent property" in wiki. That will give you a reasonable idea of how they might categorise "self".

Where have I said you have? But to you agree with it, that everything is evidence of God? If not, what isn't evidence of God? If God is the cause of all the surely the existence of anything at all is evidence of God, right? If not, what specifically is not evidence of God?

For the same reason that light is absent from a bulb unless there is a certain pattern of activity in the circuit.

 

I know you believe such but I do not believe it simply because the soul is unevidenced other than existing as a superstition carried over from times where folk did not know where the Sun went at night.

Like so many of these notions without foundation they are born from the union of superstition and ignorance.

Another made up explanation of reality that is eargerly embraced by those who only use one book written thousands of years ago to make sence of their uninformed understanding of the universe.

Fortunately today we have a large body of work, on all matters, that has been written by folk who can actually read and write that is reliable and useful to explain reality and yet there are still superstitious folk who prefer the uninformed authority of authors from the bronze age rehashing camp fires stories about the latest God they head about from the camel driver from lands far off...heck these collective authors did not know the world to be a globe as some fool imagined it to be flat because of yet another made up story and actually believed that a God seperated the waters above from the waters below...

And that above and below dribble had origins in the pagan cosmic egg idea ( cut the egg in half top part sky bottom part land) the very idea a catholoc priest stole to build his story of creation. It is amazing how much can be traced back to the pagans who at least had the sence to regard the Sun as relevant in their lives.
But then along came more cunning humans who would claim the Sun was their father and for them to put in a good word they needed some gift or priveledge.
And that approach still goes on today I wonder if you can work out where.

Its all made up by uninformed bronze age authors and the soul notion, which existed even in ancient Egypt, probably first aired around the camp fires of goat herders when making up stories to entertain themselves and frighten the children.

And like all these superstitions surrounding imagined deities the soul is simply a made up story with no evidence whatsoever relegating it always to the status of mere delusion.

I dont believe in fairey tales and again just because you imagine something that does not make your journey through such delusions real in any way at all.

Evolution is reasonable because it needs no made up God to work so avoiding superstition to explain the universe.

Evolution draws upon physical evidence whereas God stories offer only made up unsupportable notions and no evidence other than the made up stories themselves.

God is real..why..because its in the bible..what more evidence does a non critical thinker need...none cause its in the bible and the bible is the word of God...sure so kill the neighbour who mowes his grass on Sunday.


And a news flash.
I am not an arrogant fool of a human that seeks to find "the meaning of life" and so my world is not built upon the mistaken belief that there is more to life than we are lucky to experience...So I have no problem with seeing my life as without meaning.

I think about the size of the universe and although such comprehension is impossible for a human at least realise that I / we are less than insignificant both in size and in time and wishing it to be otherwise borders on insane.

You are so very smart I expect that you could...not to change my fundamental view that its all made up but your skill in arguement would enable you to deny the Sun will rise tomorrow.

However I am reasonably confident my beliefs, which we can call facts, can survive anything you put forward against them.

I dont rely upon made up stories to understand the universe or that the Earth is not a flat disk with waters above and below separated by a firmanent with stars so small they are prophesied to fall from the sky upon the ground... and I know where the Sun goes at night but I do place a reliance upon critical thinking and enjoy a non acceptance of ancient superstition mixed with up to date stupidity.


Alex

 

Billions of humans for thousands of years have managed without theism.

"Original" cause is probably a contradiction in terms. That would explain why nobody's been able to make sense of it.
It's more or less equivalent to stating that God is the original color, or shape, or statistical distribution, or force.

 

Isn't God something you can't say exists or not, unless you see for yourself? It's the only satisfactory answer I can think of.

So if you did, would you be a theist? Unless instead you thought what you saw was something else? You then still wouldn't know the answer, right? Am I right?

Suppose you don't care anyway, if you ever find out the answer, you don't try to see if it's true?

 

///
Yes. Falling stars.
Revelation 6:13 - And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth
Mark 13:25 - And the stars of heaven shall fall
That came from times when people had no idea what stars are, how big they are & did not know about meteors or gravity.
When they saw the flash of a meteor, they thought it was a star falling.
It is impossible for a star to fall to Earth & quite a silly notion for anyone who knows what a star is & knows what falling means.
I cannot blame primitives for not knowing but this is 1 of very many good examples of the ignorance of people who wrote scriptures which people today trust to be true & accurate.
How anyone with a 7th grade education or better can read such crap & not see it for what it is is insane.

<>

 

Well one must factor in where folk have been educated.

So many of the private schools have specific support for a particular religion.

So folk learn in an environment where their particular scriptures are never questioned and are supported by all in the system in which they are educated.

How many private schools have daily prayers and scripture classes.

Hard to think if your brain is washed in nonsence daily.

They, theists, seek the larger picture but rush quickly past the undeniable fact that all the God stories are mere speculation and as speculation we can only call the God storys made up..there is no counter claim to that proposition.

That makes them uncomfortable when their story is reduced to simply all it can be...made up stuff.

Yet they waffle in the belief that waffling injects the mystery they seek but waffle as much as they like they do no more than waffle.

Follow some folk here as they discuss God over months and try as you may even with all the waffle they never say anything meaningful...oh they think they do, but that is them just kidding themselves ... read any of it and ask...what did he she they actually say...mmmm nothing..nothing but waffle...and in their defence at employing waffle I ask what else can they do...they really have nothing to work with...so they speculate waffle and speculate some more on all matters about their made up God ...what God expects, what happens when you die, ... well its all waffle sadly not even their ideas, nothing original or indicative of originality,... but learnt from the ancients, that really ...really did not know where the Sun went at night ..seriously they take their information from folk who did not know the Earth orbits the Sun...today most folk know that...and we have real evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun...they thought stars small enough to fall on the ground. ..totally crazy if you say that today...imagine some one at the shopping mall starts chatting and tells you stars will fall on the ground...he is insane you would say.. but if its in the book thats credible and still folk look to these uneducated and uninformed ancient folk as authority.

And worse still..they can not or will not see that such reliance is a problem if you care about truth and reality.

The well educated theist waffles that atheists talk about stuff they dont understand and therefore are somehow unable to understand the greater level of spirituality felt by the theist.

Yet these theists fail.

They, theists, actually believe their hopeless waffle is above any request for evidence or proof...oh you have not been brain washed so you cant understand☺


Look at so many here on this forum...obviously very well educated, express themselves in often an excellent manner and seemingly inteligent... yet none are able to do more than waffle and side step simple requests for information.

They can be so clever but never do more than waffle.

We read their waffle and it is such good waffle we get taken in and forget we are still only talking about made up stuff... made up stuff..and no one comes forward and seeks to show that it is not made up stuff..they cant ..I know that they cant and they show they cant...so waffle is the only option.

And how tiresome is the line that the atheist does not know what they are talking about as if years of private school religious brainwashing really was an education and not a careful destruction of the ability to apply critical thinking to ancient scriptures written by folk who simply did not know the workings of the world and employed superstition and wishfully thinking.

Presumably private schools, with a religious flavour, produce folk who seem to have a wonderful education but for me perhaps one could say they are turned out to be respectful and accepting of authority and somehow although they sincerely believe they are more capable of critical thinking than those they arrogantly rank themselves above yet they demonstrate total failure to muster the skill of critical thinking if called upon to apply critical analysis to their scriptures or rather their interpretation of their respective cults scripture.

And so although a child should be able realise the context for the production of the absurd anomalies by the ancient ill informed authors who wrote their scriptures it is probably impossible given that the child is trained to toe the line, respect authority and believe what you are told and above all dont rock the boat with questions that hint how stupid the stories actually present to anyone who stopped and wondered how could it be that the ancient superstitious authors knew so much about the universe ...today a ten year old child knows more than the ancients... about things that in the past were mysteries and explained using superstition and made up inaccuracies.

Let them waffle that is all the theist has to hide the fact that they lack any ability to employ critical thinking to any of their made up stories.

Alex