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

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Apr 8, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,610
    Of course not, we all have different perspectives on the same subject. Mine is from an atheist POV.
    If I missed the point of your "question", please enlighten me.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,802
    Wait! I'm speaking to an actual atheist? WOW!
    You missed, I won't repeat it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,829
    Scientists who discovered that atheists might not exist did not consult me or various friends of mine.

    They are mistaken. Furthermore they are arrogant. How can they claim that I How can they claim to know what I believe?

    I would not consider telling a person what he or she believes. They might tell me what they believe.

    I do not believe in any supernatural entity commonly called god. I have a few friends who have the same POV.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Actually, when you think about it, the headline (at least) of that article is just silly. "Atheists might not exist." The only way that proposition can be sustained is, as iceaura said, to make the "no true Scotsman" argument - that everybody who claims to be an atheist doesn't really know their own mind and/or actually harbors a secret "deep down" belief in God or gods, despite any denials they might make.

    Of course, history in this forum tells us that this is exactly how Jan Ardena (who posted this thread) thinks about atheists. He asserts that atheists are all in "denial". Jan thinks that secretly, really, atheists do acknowledge that God is real. Moreover, Jan asserts that it is actually impossible for anybody to claim to be atheist unless God really, actually exists. That is, in Jan's mind, a world in which God does not exist is inconceivable; therefore atheism must equate to denial of reality, from which it follows that atheists must be deceiving themselves.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,610
    Well, then I'll continue to let Carlin speak for me. We share the same viewpoint, but he explains it much better.

     
  9. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,193
    "No true Scotsmen fallacy"?
    Interesting.

    Which is why the thread title could have significance.
    Atheists tend to accept, that for them, there is no evidence for God, yet theists believe in God. Could it be that the atheists haven't thought their position through?

    Why?

    Not only is that irrelevant, it is pure speculation which if taken seriously, can impede critically thinking about the actual proposition.
    If it is true, that there really are no actual atheists, despite what we may think, wouldn't you want to know?
    It would be difficult to come to knowledge, if you poo-poo the findings, without taking it seriously.

    Micheal Shermer is a professional atheist. I wouldn't trust that he is being mutually objective.

    No doubt he attributes that to theists, or religious people, and not to atheists. He believes that the smart, rational people, are atheists. His findings, while they be factual (for the sake of argument), they are more than likely to be loaded with presuppositions.

    That's one way of looking at it. Of course all these speculations could be absolutely wrong. The reality is that we have to work things out for ourselves. We can incorporate that idea, and try to observe ourselves, and see if we fall into that model. We could eventually believe that this correct, when we consciously observe ourselves.

    The problem is, what is going on when we're not not observing ourselves, ourselves being embroiled in the moment.

    For example, a religious person can act virtuous, while in a religious state of mind, but act differently when not in a religious state of mind. Now such a person has to justify those non-religious actions, by incorporating them into his religious outlook, deeming the actions virtuous.
    It seems to me that this is the problem.

    Theism isn't about making conscious decisions to believe in the "supernatural", it just looks like that when you say it out loud. I believe that theism is natural for humans. It only becomes a phenomenon when you introduce atheism, and/or agnosticism.
    Theism is not concerned about God's existence. It only becomes an issue when one is asked to prove that God exists.
    Then all of a sudden, God is brought into a mainstream scenario.

    Can one prove that they love their child?

    How would you measure that, in order to get to the fact.

    For others, there is a nature that simply kicks in when you have a child, which means you automatically, unconditionally, love your child.

    But how can you prove that in a mainstream way? What exactly is the mainstream looking for?

    If you don't possess that nature, but you want to find out if it actually exists, or you want to find out what it is. How are you realistically going to do that? What if you arrive at the idea that it is false, or just an evolutionary mechanism? What about the people who have it, but due to their experience, disagree?

    Jan.
     
  10. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,193
    The parts that are blocked relate to me in some sense. I added the red bold to a clearer indication of what it is you think, I think.

    Wouldn't it be great if you found out it was true? You wouldn't have to come up with excuses to validate and justify your position anymore.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Jan.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,610
    Theists seem to believe that there is only one possible solution to the emergence of the universe.
    They conveniently forget there are many scientifically based interpretations of the Wholeness coming into existence.

    This is a classic example of "a rose is a rose by any other name", but which does not imply any special attributes other than being a rose, unlike the Theist concept that the Wholeness needs an additional (and superfluous) sentient and motivated being, named God.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,610
    If there were no people who believed in the existence of a God, there would be no Theists and nothing in the universe would change, except for Religious wars on Earth.
     
  13. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,193
    Theists believe in God. If they propose a solution for the presence of the universe, it has nothing to do with theism. Even if they posit that God brought it into being.

    There are theists that accept macro-evolution (I mean, what's that about

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    ). That should be proof enough, that theism isn't a worldview.

    He says as a sentient being.
    Do you appreciate a rose? Or any beautiful arrangement of nature?
    If yes. Why? How?

    Jan.
     
  14. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,193
    But we know that's not possible. Right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Jan.
     
  15. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,193
    Maybe we put too much emphasis on cosmology. Does it matter if we know how the universe got here? If we all agreed that the universe came to be, via via X. How would that change anything?

    Jan.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,610
    Why not? How many gods have passed into oblivion along with greater scientific knowledge.

    You are part of a long line of people who have created Tulpas.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,610
    Apparently it matters to you. And we are talking about cosmology, no?

    Do you pray to God? Why? Atheists do not have to pray to an imaginary friend.
    Atheists can and do meditate, but that's interospection of self, not of an unknowable cosmic sentience.
     
  18. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,193
    For someone who's not had anything to do with religion, throughout life, you sure are obsessed with it.

    This thread isn't about religion, mate.

    Jan.
     
  19. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,802
    The US is infested with religion. And this thread is about religion, even if you don't like that. There are no gods, just people think there are gods. That's religion, that's theism.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  20. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,193
    I don't know. Please enlighten me.

    Really?

    You claim to be something that you're not. Atheist.
    With that level of delusion, how can I trust what you, or any other delusional, assert?

    Jan.
     
  21. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,193
    No it's not.
    You simply don't get it.

    Jan.
     
  22. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,193
    When "we" is put into the sentence, it usually indicates the inclusion of the author.
    Like I said, theism isn't a worldview It is a position one naturally adheres to.

    Atheism however, is a worldview, where one has to constantly maintain it, or risk losing it to the natural tenancies of theism.

    Jan.
     
  23. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,802
    And you're incapable of putting it in a "getable" fashion, right?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page