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

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's the point. It shows an empathy with the thoughts of another at different times or places.

I pointed out that the story had no relation to anything I said considering that I'd never heard it. You then said "that's the point". It's not the point, it's a coincidence.

 

[Capracus]

And I think that 'shamanism' might be best conceived as the belief that there is a higher spiritual world besides this one, and that the higher world can be contacted and influenced by ecstatic means (by altered states of consciousness). We supposedly all experience something of it in dreams. I think that it's entirely possible (and probably most common historically) to conceive of such powers and abilities among specially endowed people without belief in the existence of named and personified gods.

Whether it’s a person, place or thing, if it’s perceived to exhibit divine characteristics, then it may as well be considered an aspect of theology.

That sounds like a theist straining to draw parallels from metaphors - describing impersonal aspects of the world using that kind of metaphorical language (what the water wants to do) is standard among human beings - especially, as in poetry, when attempting to communicate matters lacking adequate standard vocabulary.
And you would still have the great majority in that tradition, time, and place - the Taoists, followers of Confucious, and so forth.

Whenever a philosophy actively incorporates mystical elements into its practice, its open to being defined as theistic. The Chinese philosophies you mentioned have all at times incorporated mystical elements into their practice.

Nope. Only if the entity is a deity - which it commonly isn't.
An owl spirit (I'm inventing) is not a deity, for example - it's the spiritual aspect of owls, or some owl. Owls in this view have a spiritual aspect, more or less in the same sense as they have feathers, or nesting behaviors (higher logical level, maybe). So do trees, weather phenomena, springs and rivers, you get the idea.

Generally theism is a belief in supernatural beings, which would include spirits. If a person believes that they can mystically commune with an owl spirit, they are engaged in theism.

That's simply false. The connection is immediate, direct, and purposeful. The basic approach is found world-wide and through millenia, in nomadic foragers.

So was it the reading of entrails by the shaman or the evolved tracking skills that best directed the hunter to its prey?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Atheists are not without god .... there is no god to be without

Hence, atheists are without God.
Thanks for that clarification.

but your use of the word Atheist does not fit the definition or current usage.

I wasn't aware that the essential meanings were dictated by mood swings. Thanks for the heads-up, but I will stick with the literal meaning.

I have hinted in the past there is no god but today I will just come out and say it...there is no god and its all made up.

I haven't hinted at anything, and I've always been straight. But thanks for saying what others are denying/rejecting, you are without God, which is the literal definition of atheist. It matters not a hoot that you think God is not real for everybody. That is only to be expected.

Further your useage of the word "Atheist" implies that somehow there is a god and that somehow Atheists dont get it which is of course wrong

Theists believe in God, atheists don't. You handle things from your perspective, I'll handle them from mine.

Your choice to use the word "Atheist" as being without god is condecending hinting at an underlying arogance which I find offensive but can and will forgive putting it down to just another negative spin off related to holding unsupportable made up beliefs.

Why is it condescending? It is the literal translation, which you yourself have verified in this discussion.
If it mattered, I could find your accusation that theists are being conned, offensive. But I don't, because I can understand how it appears from your perspective.

This god stuff ...its all just superstition so if you must say an Atheist is without something it would be more appropriate,indeed more truthful, to say an Atheist is without superstition...but even to do that would not remedy failure to apply current meaning and usage to the word Atheist.

Hmm! Thanks, but I will stick with the literal definition, because it appears to be correct, from my perspective

If atheists are without anything they are without gullibility☺

Of course you're entitled to believe what it is you believe. Good luck with that.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sure. Here is one for Vishnu, one of the three Gods that many Hindus worship. I will let you google the other two if you want to

Okay, you've only managed to Cite one, but let's go with that.
How Vishnu different from my understanding of God?

Unless he is three (Hindus.) Or twelve, as in the case of ancient Greek religion. (To be specific, Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Athena, Ares, Aphrodite, Apollo, Artemis, Hephaestus,

Hindu is a human designation.
The Greek pantheon describes gods, not God. You said there hundreds of different God's (upper-case G), and they differed to the God I, or theists believe in. So far you have failed to back up your claim.

Nope. I am talking about what they believe, which some of them have described to me.

Yet you can't describe them on here.
Why should anyone believe you?

And if you are going to tell me that you understand their faith better than they do, or better than I do after they've explained it to me, I will have a good laugh at your expense.

Why are you bringing faith into it?
We're talking about the hundreds of different God's (upper-case G) people believe in, and how they all differ from the God I, and theists in general, believe in. Youade the claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all monotheistic religions. Almost every other one is polytheistic. And even if you wish very, very hard, they will not go away.

We're talking about theism, not religion. If you're not aware of their differences, I suggest you go and do some research.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

On the contrary, when you start getting repetitive, uniform one-liners from various atheists to account for the phenomena of god and religion, as they understand the terms, you start to get a picture that is neither vague nor meaningless.

Yet your responses remain as such.

Granted, you could suggest a type of atheism that does not meet that criteria (like an atheism that arises out of the greater ignorance of the norms of society) ... but when you start getting mockery, internet memes, historical references, seminal writings of advocates etc that coalesce the subject, far from just a mere belief, one can indicate the very tools that shape beliefs. Introducing spurious arguments to suggest no belief exists simply adds another layer, so you can then start talking about atheists who believe that no belief is involved with their atheism (and their associated internet memes, seminal writers, etc utilized to coalesce a more stronger belief in that position).

And once again you are saying nothing to actually address the point I raised, but rather merely reinforcing it for me.
Noone disputes that atheism may be the result of numerous beliefs, some of which may even be shared by a majority of atheists.
But that does nothing to demonstrate in any way that atheism itself is a belief.
I have asked you to detail to me the belief that atheism represents, and your responses thus far are notable for their absence of such.
Instead you simply reinforce that atheism is a position that might be founded upon any number of beliefs.

I have no issue with you arguing those foundational beliefs with the individuals that hold them, but why do you insist on grouping atheists under a single "belief", when you seem unable to detail what that belief is, and what you have written thus far suggests you don't even hold that there is a "belief".
Why do you not accept atheism for what it is: an absence of the specific belief that God (or gods) exist?
If you want to argue against someone's atheism then you need to explore that person's rationale, and not generalise to all atheists.

Gawdzilla is a classic case in point.

And Gawdzilla is but one among many, with undoubtedly different views from many atheists.

And here atheist is distinct from theist: the theist is identified through a single common belief: belief that God (or gods) exist - although many might define the common belief as being "belief IN God".
But whichever, there is a common belief.
The atheist is identified through a single common lack of belief: lack of belief that God (or gods) exist.
There is no unifying belief underpinning atheism.
Please stop arguing as if there is.
Argue the atheist (if that is what you wish) for the beliefs they actually hold, not for the ones you think they have.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Atheism is a characteristic, not a character.

 

[Yazata]

You seem to be exclusively discussing christianity.

I don't recall mentioning Christianity once. I discussed myth, ancient theogonies, contrasted a couple of Presocratic Greek philosophers with those, and said something about shamanism.

Whether it’s a person, place or thing, if it’s perceived to exhibit divine characteristics, then it may as well be considered an aspect of theology.

Like the mathematical laws of physics? (These seem to exist on a 'higher' abstract plane, to be timeless, and control and determine pretty much everything that happens in the physical world.)

I persist in thinking that collapsing together 'religion' and 'theism' is a mistake. (There are non-theistic religions and not all religious people are theists. Many religious practices have nothing to do with gods. Vipassana for example.) Belief in 'the supernatural' shouldn't be equated with 'theism' either.

Wikipedia says: "Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities. In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) or gods found in polytheistic religions - a belief in God or gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

I think that's pretty good, but it's a more restrictive definition than I favor. I'm inclined to consider deism a species of theism, even if deism is skeptical about special revelations (like the Bible and Jan's "scriptures") as opposed to the evidence of the natural world (natural theology).

Wikipedia again (from the same article):

"Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in God or gods. The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism."

I agree with that (it corresponds to the academic use of the word 'atheism'), but much of Sciforums probably won't. They prefer to consider atheism the 'lack' of belief, as opposed to the stronger 'rejection'. And here on Sciforums, there's an even broader sense of 'theism' in play, one that equates 'theism' to belief in anything 'supernatural'.

That's going too far in my opinion. It's possible to be an atheist and believe in something we might call 'the supernatural'. And it's possible to believe in some sort of 'supernatural' without necessarily being a theist. (Dualists regarding mind and body might illustrate this, provided they don't believe in any gods.)

 

[sideshowbob]

One is a god, the other a unicorn.

That's like saying, One is a Golden Delicious, the other is a Granny Smith.

If there really was a major difference, you should be able to explain it a little better.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Hence, atheists are without God.

And as there is no God we must also say theists are also without God.
(I put God in capitals out of respect for your beliefs Jan)

Thanks for that clarification.

You are welcome Jan.

I wasn't aware that the essential meanings were dictated by mood swings.

Yet you choose to be a little reckless and avoid use of the dictionary it seems.

Thanks for the heads-up, but I will stick with the literal meaning.

I guess we need two dictionaries then...I hope one will be published to include your definition.

I haven't hinted at anything, and I've always been straight.

Jan you missed my joke.
It was a tounge in cheek attempt.
But good on you for attempting to capitalise and twist my words to support your unsupportable position. Your are indeed a wonderful representation displaying the approach of a theist.
I guess it all turns upon me seeing the God thing as a joke and that you can take the matter seriously.

It matters not a hoot that you think God is not real for everybody.

And dont ever forget that Jan.
I would not say a thing if I thought it may change your belief.
I recognise how some folk need to invent things to help them along.
I am no doubt fortunate in that I can deal with the reality that although real God does not exist.
However I realise not everyone can cope with reality and fall victim to superstition and believe that the many made up stories supporting religion are more than just stories made up thousands of years ago by well meaning humans to somehow explain a world they could only wonder about.
However when we look at history things certainly have improved and the superstitious practices of religions are abandonded as human knowledge improves...and so we see the use of human and animal sacrifice, once essential to please the God (s) phased out.
And we arrive at our current indulgence of superstition that no longer has the rumble of thunder interpretted as the grumbling of an angry God (s)...and fortunately all things can now be explained with out involving a God (s).
I suppose as humans evolve the need for reliance on superstition will diminish.
It is interesting how something that does not exist can play such significant roll in the evolvement of humans.

If it mattered, I could find your accusation that theists are being conned, offensive.

You are right Jan.
It probably does offer reason to be offended but I dont say that to offend.
I just dont see there is any foundation to the offerrings of religions and view so much as transparently false such that I feel folk are being decived and I dont like to think that folk are being taken advantage of and given false hopes....still I guess there is a case that any hope false or not is better than none for folk who find reality impossible to deal with.

Of course you're entitled to believe what it is you believe. Good luck with that.

Thank you Jan and all the best to you.
Alex

 

[billvon]

Okay, you've only managed to Cite one, but let's go with that.
How Vishnu different from my understanding of God?

He may not be at all. He is, however, separate from Shiva.

The Greek pantheon describes gods, not God. You said there hundreds of different God's (upper-case G), and they differed to the God I, or theists believe in. So far you have failed to back up your claim.

You believe in one god, they believe in several gods. (Or, if you prefer upper case, you believe in one God, they believe in several Gods.) Who is correct? Both are just as correct.

Yet you can't describe them on here.
Why should anyone believe you?

No one should believe me any more than they should believe you.

Apparently, your only way to demonstrate how your god is 'special' is that one upper case letter. If that is the basis of your faith, it is a poor faith indeed.

Why are you bringing faith into it?

Because faith is required to believe in one god, many gods, one God, or many Gods.

We're talking about the hundreds of different God's (upper-case G) people believe in, and how they all differ from the God I, and theists in general, believe in. Youade the claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.

OK simple.
Brahma - the creator God. He has four heads and he created the universe.
Vishnu - the God responsible for preserving and protecting the universe.
Shiva - the destroyer God. He is blue with a third eye in his forehead.

 

[iceaura]

We're talking about theism, not religion.

The OP refers to research into the prevalence of metaphysical belief. Theism would be a much smaller aspect of that than religion.

Whether it’s a person, place or thing, if it’s perceived to exhibit divine characteristics, then it may as well be considered an aspect of theology.

As pointed out several times above, page 1 post 3 initially, and others including

One thing a lot of theists believe is that their deity or deities encompasses or bestows all of metaphysical and spiritual life - that anything metaphysical or spiritual involves their deity or deities. We can see that in the commentary on the discoveries reported in that article.

the custom of theists to simply declare that anything spiritual is somehow an aspect of or incorporated in or even identical with deity - and nine times out of ten their own particular god(s) - is one of the more striking features of theisms. It gets to the point where even the atheistic raised among theists have often been crippled, and reduced to denying the very existence of the logical levels of the universe involved simply in order to get some distance from a particularly irrational or obstinately screwed up theism.

 

[Write4U]

I pointed out that the story had no relation to anything I said considering that I'd never heard it. You then said "that's the point". It's not the point, it's a coincidence.

After second thought, you are correct. The circumstances under which the the remark was made were competely different.....

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

One can only wonder why a creator God who loves humans would not play an active and visable role.

Imagine if the President of USA kept quiet, never ever appeared and never ever showed himself...well I suppose such a prospect could be rather appealing when one thinks about it☺

However for God not to make himself visable or contribute in some small way (anyway at all) to the running of the planet must leave any thinking person wondering why this total failure to revel himself to his created love ones...and more likely than not a thinking person could form an opinion that in all reasonable probability there is in fact no God.

So we now find that according to the "science" in the op there is indeed a reason to be found in the fact there is something arguably wrong with the human brain ... well thats my suitably twisted interpretation otherwise known as belief so there is no point in challenging me that I failed to understand what the research actually did say for I choose to interprete the research to fit my world view...I think thats the way things work☺
Isnt faith and belief wonderful.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

So we now find that according to the "science" in the op there is indeed a reason to be found in the fact there is something arguably wrong with the human brain .

"Behold, they have become like us". Does that mean there is something wrong with God's brain?

And what does the "us" mean? How many gods are there and what do they do? Perform mathematical functions, per chance?

 

[Write4U]

The atheist is identified through a single common lack of belief: lack of belief that God (or gods) exist.
There is no unifying belief underpinning atheism

At last, some sanity in the chaos of interpretations what it is to be an atheist.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

"Behold, they have become like us". Does that mean there is something wrong with God's brain?

And what does the "us" mean? How many gods are there and what do they do? Perform mathematical functions, per chance?

Look I have thought it though and conclude there must be many many Gods like a room full of accountants...lets face it there are a lot of numbers to run and carefully check...heck I nearly overlooked the need for a room for all the designers...and not to forget the contractors required to build everything.
I know I am right cause in my heart I feel very strongly about this.
Alex

 

[iceaura]

So was it the reading of entrails by the shaman or the evolved tracking skills that best directed the hunter to its prey?

The heat-cracking of turtle shells was apparently the main method of the best documented tradition - the one culminating in the I Ching, which is used for similar or metaphorically analogous purposes to this day.
Both the tracking skills and the spiritual authority were critical in sustaining a prosperous tribe of nomadic foragers.

'There is no unifying belief underpinning atheism'
- - -
At last, some sanity in the chaos of interpretations what it is to be an atheist.

The research reported in the OP gainsays that, or at least complicates it. Apparently there are common metaphysical beliefs underlying human nature itself, that of atheists and everyone else.
That is not news to those familiar with atheistic religions, or casino owners for that matter.

 

[Write4U]

The heat-cracking of turtle shells was apparently the main method of the best documented tradition - the one culminating in the I Ching, which is used for similar or metaphorically analogous purposes to this day.
Both the tracking skills and the spiritual authority were critical in sustaining a prosperous tribe of nomadic foragers.
The research reported in the OP gainsays that, or at least complicates it. Apparently there are common metaphysical beliefs underlying human nature itself, that of atheists and everyone else.
That is not news to those familiar with atheistic religions, or casino owners for that matter.

Metaphysics should not be confused with theism, or even spiritualism, IMO

 

[Write4U]

Look I have thought it though and conclude there must be many many Gods like a room full of accountants...lets face it there are a lot of numbers to run and carefully check...heck I nearly overlooked the need for a room for all the designers...and not to forget the contractors required to build everything.
I know I am right cause in my heart I feel very strongly about this.
Alex

And who does the housekeeping? A form of purgatory?.....

 

[Write4U]

Both the tracking skills and the spiritual authority were critical in sustaining a prosperous tribe of nomadic foragers

I am not arguing the historical accuracy of that statement. My question is if spiritual authority was a necessity in being prosperous?
How do foraging animals prosper? Do they have a spiritual authority to lead the way?