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

[iceaura]

I am not arguing the historical accuracy of that statement. My question is if spiritual authority was a necessity in being prosperous?

It was universal in establishing the hunting and foraging strategies that ecologists tell us offer the highest sustainable return.

We have no examples of humans achieving such more optimized ways of life without spiritual authority - which is reasonable, since the considerations involved are patterns at "higher" - Daoist "more central", even "lower" - levels than maximizing predictable gain via cause and effect, or reasoning deductively from immediately available evidence, can incorporate.

And not everybody can do it. It takes time, and attention to different things than other people. Alternatives exclude. Hence the "authority".

How do foraging animals prosper? Do they have a spiritual authority to lead the way?

Animals do many things without thinking or learning that humans must learn and think to accomplish.
That means they cannot do differently.
And so humans prosper in many different places, often even more than the animals long adapted to the locales. Having a better grasp of the level of patterns labeled "spiritual" is an advantage - perhaps even a key advantage.

 

[Write4U]

And so humans prosper in many different places, often even more than the animals long adapted to the locales. Having a better grasp of the level of patterns labeled "spiritual" is an advantage - perhaps even a key advantage

I agree in all but your use of ; "level of patterns labeled "spiritual".
I would have replaced "spiritual" with "abstract" (thinking).

 

[Capracus]

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.)

Mathematical laws of physics are products of evolution in our own plane of existence. When mathematical laws are shown to be invalid, they are discarded. Deities on the other hand have the luxury of being able to avoid the scrutiny that would challenge their validity by inhabiting in these alternate planes of existence.

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.

1-800-Psychics

The desire to know the future has been a constant in human history and the people of China during the Shang Dynasty were no different along these lines than people today. Fortune-telling during the Shang Dynasty was considered an important resource in making decisions, and these 'psychics' were consulted by everyone from the farmer to the king. These fortune-tellers were thought to be in touch with the spirit world of the ancestors who lived with the gods and knew the future. These spirits would communicate with the psychics through the oracle bones. Each fortune-teller had his or her area of expertise (love, money, work, etc) but could answer questions on any topic.

Fortune-tellers either got the bones and shells themselves (and prepared them) or bought them from a merchant who scraped and cleaned them. The bones/shells were then kept in the fortune-teller's shop. If someone wanted to know whether they should take their cattle to market, or go visit a friend on a certain date, they would visit a fortune-teller who could predict how well their plans would work out.

https://www.ancient.eu/Oracle_Bones/

Can't imagine a better way to maximize social efficiency. Nancy Reagan brought this kind of stuff into the White House. No wonder Ronnie was so successful.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And as there is no God we must also say theists are also without God.

Of course you must, that's why you are atheist.

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

Dictionary only goes as far as current common usage. I dare say the compilers will get a good dressing down from religious atheist organisations, if tell the truth.

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

No need. I'm aware of some of the designer labels, should the question of what is an atheist, come up in a pub quiz.

Jan you missed my joke.
It was a tounge in cheek attempt.

What was the joke?

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.

Whatever floats your boat.

And dont ever forget that Jan.

I've forgotten already.
What's that you were saying?

I would not say a thing if I thought it may change your belief.

Sorry. What did you say?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

Why don't you just back your claim up?
Don't worry about things you don't comprehend.

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.

I believe in God.
There is a reason why one is capitalised, and the others aren't. If you can't be bothered to work with the difference, don't bother to respond.

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

That's not how belief works, mate.

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.

And you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that. Such is your subconscious denial, and rejection of your creator.

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

Another claim. Let's see how avoid backing this one up.
Why is faith required to believe in God?

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.

What is this a response to?
And what would you like me to do with it?

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I believe in God.
There is a reason why one is capitalised, and the others aren't. If you can't be bothered to work with the difference, don't bother to respond. "
Why do you think we would give YOUR god special status?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why do you think we would give YOUR god special status?

The fact that you do to not give special status, says more about you than you think.

But you're correct, you don't have to give special status. I know quite a few teenagers who have issues with their fathers. I can imagine them not wanting to give their fathers special status as well. Especially if they got to the point of denying and rejecting them.

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, you can't explain why YOUR GOD should have special status. No surprise there.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So, you can't explain why YOUR GOD should have special status. No surprise there.

You act as though you asked me to explain. But we both know why you changed the subject.

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You act as though you asked me to explain. But we both know why you changed the subject.

Jan.

Try to follow along. Diversions aren't going to help you.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Of course you must, that's why you are atheist.

No...because I am a realist I say things consistent with sounging like an atheist.

religious atheist organisations,

???? That like saying whites only against racism Jan.
As a supporter of religion I protest calling atheism a religious organisation.☺

What was the joke?

The funny thing I said.

I've forgotten already.

I say that all the time☺

What did you say?

There is no God particulary not that you or we could know about and we should avoid relying on superstitious dellusions rooted in the past.
But even though you are wrong you may believe anything you wish but enlightenment needs a base of ignoring the ramblings of ancients and looking at the facts.


Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Lucky I read my last post.
I could not edit but I meant to say in the last paragraph...even though you could be wrong you may believe anything you wish...sorry about that Jan I dont know what I was thinking.
Alex

 

[James R]

Since Jan obviously doesn't want to explain himself, I might briefly summarise his position, as I understand it.

Jan thinks that all gods are essentially different manifestations of the one true God. That is, Jan believes that the differences between the gods of different religions are superficial and ultimately unimportant. Jan thinks that, whatever god or gods you happen to believe in, it's all good because really you're subconsciously striving to understand the one True God.

So, if you're a fan of the ancient Greek gods, Zeus, Athene, Poseidon, etc. then, according to Jan you're really just worshipping different aspects of the one true God. You might think that these different gods are separate, but they are all really the same, deep down.

Also, Zeus and Yahweh and Vishnu and Odin are really all the same, deep down. They are just different ways of recognising the one true God.

Jan has progressed beyond mere religion. Jan has a direct line to the one true God, so he knows that all the apparently-significant differences between the various gods are illusory. All gods are part of (or the same as) the One God. God is One, according to Jan, not many.

It's not an argument that can withstand a lot of scrutiny, but it's what Jan runs with.

 

[Write4U]

Jan has progressed beyond mere religion. Jan has a direct line to the one true God, so he knows that all the apparently-significant differences between the various gods are illusory. All gods are part of (or the same as) the One God. God is One, according to Jan, not many.

Thus, being that almost all of these aspects of the One God have been relegated to mythology, what's left of the One True God? God of the gaps?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Since Jan obviously doesn't want to explain himself, I might briefly summarise his position, as I understand it.

Jan thinks that all gods are essentially different manifestations of the one true God. That is, Jan believes that the differences between the gods of different religions are superficial and ultimately unimportant. Jan thinks that, whatever god or gods you happen to believe in, it's all good because really you're subconsciously striving to understand the one True God.

And it just happens that this one True God is the one Jan worships...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Try to follow along. Diversions aren't going to help you.

What have I diverted?

I know you diverted by changing the subject in mid discussion.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No...because I am a realist I say things consistent with sounging like an atheist.

An atheist a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. You fit that description, hence you are atheist. IOW you presuppose there is no God.

???? That like saying whites only against racism Jan.
As a supporter of religion I protest calling atheism a religious organisation.☺

Protest all you like, it doesn't change the facts.

From wiki...

... There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. It may be defined as a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, prophesies, ethics, or organizations, that claims to relate humanity to supernatural,
transcendental, or spiritual elements.

The funny thing I said.

That would be almost everything. Can you narrow it down.

I say that all the time

Couldn't have been anything meaningful then.

There is no God particulary not that you or we could know about and we should avoid relying on superstitious dellusions rooted in the past.

I keep telling you, you are an atheist because for you there is no God. You couldn't be an atheist if you thought God just Is, as far as theists are concerned. For you, and every last atheist past, present, and future, there is no God, and there never will be as long as you're atheist.

even though you could be wrong you may believe anything you wish...sorry about that Jan

I can't believe anything I wish, and the fact that you think you can, helps with your delusion.

I dont know what I was thinking. Alex

That should be...

"I don't know what I was am thinking".
Alex

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Since Jan obviously doesn't want to explain himself, I might briefly summarise his position, as I understand it.

Explain what.

As for the rest of your monologue, I feel that it is incumbent of me to tell you that the title of this thread is
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke.

Maybe you should start yet another "Does God Exist" thread.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And it just happens that this one True God is the one Jan worships...

But seriously, is it possible that you're not an atheist (literal or designer meaning allowed), that you're just angry at your creator (assuming you are creation of God) ?

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

Can't imagine a better way to maximize social efficiency.

You aren't paying attention.

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

You denied posting that as your own claim, said you just typed what you found without endorsing it.

That's how you avoided having to deal with the fact that the scientists discovered no such thing - that the metaphysical beliefs they found humans shared were not even correlated with theistic belief, but were instead almost universal.