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

[Jan Ardena]

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

What's to deny?
That is the title of the article I linked. I merely used it as the title of this thread.

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.

Firstly, theistic belief has nothing to do with the article. It pertains to the concept of atheism, whether it is real, or imagined.

Atheist, and theist, merely describes our positions in relation to God.

Of course you're not going to accept that, because from the atheist perspective, there is no God. But nevertheless, there is more than the atheist perspective, as I am fairly certain you can appreciate.

"I" am a footballer
"I" am a decorator
"I" am an atheist...

... what do the 3 descriptions have in common?
"I" can be all of those things in one moment, and none of these things the next, and still be "I".

On that level, there is no such thing as an atheist. Or theist, for that matter. At some point we accept these positions.

the ultimate reason of things must lie in a necessary substance, in which the differentiation of the changes only exists eminently as in their source; and this is what we call God. .. God alone is the primary Unity, or original simple substance, from which all monads, created and derived, are produced. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. ... I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Metaphysics, ultimately brings you to conclusions like the above.
Not to nothingness, or some kind of chance, or randomness. For that, you need faith.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Metaphysics, ultimately brings you to conclusions like the above.
Not to nothingness, or some kind of chance, or randomness. For that, you need faith.

That really does depend upon the metaphysical position one adheres to.
Some undoubtedly lead to a certain type of conclusion, while others might not.
I see no reason that the conclusion of "nothingness, or some kind of chance, or randomness" can not be born out of a metaphysical position, requiring no more or less faith than those you exampled.

I await your inevitable dismissal of all contrary opinions on the grounds of "of course you would think that because for you God does not exist."

So, on what grounds are you asserting that some metaphysical positions do not require faith, yet others do?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What have I diverted?

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

Jan.

Where?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

No, it's not possible to any measurable degree any more than it's possible I'm a Sith Lord.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I see no reason that the conclusion of "nothingness, or some kind of chance, or randomness" can not be born out of a metaphysical position, requiring no more or less faith than those you exampled.

Please explain why you see no reason.

So, on what grounds are you asserting that some metaphysical positions do not require faith, yet others do?

I don't recall asserting that.

However, we must acknowledge our own existence, so we can obtain knowledge. How do we get from that, to nothingness?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, it's not possible to any measurable degree any more than it's possible I'm a Sith Lord.

Why not?

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why not?

Jan.

First off, there are no gods. Second off, I've never been even slightly religious. And third, you're still dodging the question.

 

[Jan Ardena]

First off, there are no gods. Second off, I've never been even slightly religious. And third, you're still dodging the question.

You asked: Why do you think we wouldgive YOUR god special status?

I replied: But you're correct, you don't have to give special status.

Why do you attach so much importance to that question?

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You asked: Why do you think we wouldgive YOUR god special status?

I replied: But you're correct, you don't have to give special status.

Why do you attach so much importance to that question?

Jan.

You do realize that's a dodge, not an answer, right?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You do realize that's a dodge, not an answer, right?

There is nothing for me to answer. You give it special treatment if you want, or not.

Jan

 

[billvon]

Why don't you just back your claim up?

Sure. From the BBC:

======================
Who is Vishnu?
Vishnu is the second god in the Hindu triumvirate (orTrimurti). The triumvirate consists of three gods who are responsible for the creation, upkeep and destruction of the world. The other two gods are Brahma and Shiva.

Brahma is the creator of the universe and Shiva is the destroyer. Vishnu is the preserver and protector of the universe.

His role is to return to the earth in troubled times and restore the balance of good and evil. So far, he has been incarnated nine times, but Hindus believe that he will be reincarnated one last time close to the end of this world. . . .

What do the ancient texts say about Vishnu?
In the Rig Veda, which is the holiest of the four Vedas, Vishnu is mentioned numerous times alongside other gods, such as Indra.

He is particularly associated with light and especially with the Sun. In early texts, Vishnu is not included as one of the original seven solar gods (Adityas), but in later texts he is mentioned as leading them.

From this time, Vishnu appears to have gained more prominence, and by the time of the Brahmanas (commentaries of the Vedas), he is regarded as the most important of all gods.

Two of Vishnu's incarnations, Rama and Krishna, are also the subject of the epic stories Ramayana and Mahabharata, respectively.

What does Vishnu look like?
Vishnu is represented with a human body, often with blue coloured skin and with four arms. His hands always carry four objects in them, representing the things he is responsible for. The objects symbolise many more meanings than are presented here:

• The conch: the sound this produces 'Om', represents the primeval sound of creation
• The chakra, or discus: symbolises the mind
• The lotus flower: an example of glorious existence and liberation
• The mace: represents mental and physical strength

===========================

Who is Brahma?
Brahma is the first god in the Hindu triumvirate, or trimurti. The triumvirate consists of three gods who are responsible for the creation, upkeep and destruction of the world. The other two gods are Vishnu and Shiva.

Vishnu is the preserver of the universe, while Shiva's role is to destroy it in order to re-create.

Brahma's job was creation of the world and all creatures. His name should not be confused with Brahman, who is the supreme God force present within all things.

Brahma is the least worshipped god in Hinduism today. There are only two temples in the whole of India devoted to him, compared with the many thousands devoted to the other two.

What does Brahma look like?

Brahma has four heads and it is believed that from these heads came the four Vedas (the most ancient religious texts for Hindus). Some also believe that the caste system, or four varnas, came from different part of Brahma's body.

He has four arms and is usually depicted with a beard.

Brahma's consort is Saraswati, goddess of knowledge.
==========================
Who is Shiva?
Shiva is the third god in the Hindu triumvirate. The triumvirate consists of three gods who are responsible for the creation, upkeep and destruction of the world. The other two gods are Brahma and Vishnu.

Brahma is the creator of the universe while Vishnu is the preserver of it. Shiva's role is to destroy the universe in order to re-create it.

Hindus believe his powers of destruction and recreation are used even now to destroy the illusions and imperfections of this world, paving the way for beneficial change. According to Hindu belief, this destruction is not arbitrary, but constructive. Shiva is therefore seen as the source of both good and evil and is regarded as the one who combines many contradictory elements.

Shiva is known to have untamed passion, which leads him to extremes in behaviour. Sometimes he is an ascetic, abstaining from all wordly pleasures. At others he is a hedonist.

It is Shiva's relationship with his wife, Parvati which brings him balance. Their union allows him to be an ascetic and a lover, but within the bounds of marriage.

Hindus who worship Shiva as their primary god are members of the Shaivism sect.

What does Shiva look like?

In his representations as a man, Shiva always has a blue face and throat. Strictly speaking his body is white, but images often show him with a blue body too.

Shiva is represented with the following features:

• A third eye
• A cobra necklace
• The vibhuti
• The trident

Why is Brahma not worshipped so much?
There are a number of stories in the Hindu mythology which point to why he is rarely worshipped. These are two
================================

Don't worry about things you don't comprehend.

Ah. You prefer ignorance. Carry on then!

I believe in God.
There is a reason why one is capitalised, and the others aren't.

Yes - you like yours better and figure it therefore deserves a proper noun. Other people prefer other Gods and capitalize them. And their reasoning is just as valid as yours.

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

Because there is no objective evidence for God. (Or god, or Gods, or gods.)

What is this a response to?

Your question. If you are unsure what you asked, re-read your own post. If you are still unsure, let me know and I will tell you what you said.

 

[Baldeee]

Please explain why you see no reason.

It is not for me to explain why I see an absence, but for you to demonstrate that there is something to see.

I don't recall asserting that.

To remind you, you wrote: "Metaphysics, ultimately brings you to conclusions like the above.
Not to nothingness, or some kind of chance, or randomness. For that, you need faith."

"For that, you need faith", coming as it does after the alternative view of "nothingness, or some kind of chance, or randomness" is an explicit claim, by you, that one needs faith in order to reach those alternative conclusions.
Further, by asserting that those alternative conclusions require faith, you are implying that the ones you exampled do not.

It's not rocket science, Jan.
So, again, I ask: on what grounds are you asserting that some metaphysical positions do not require faith, yet others do?
Or are you simply going to deny any implication from what you have written?

However, we must acknowledge our own existence, so we can obtain knowledge. How do we get from that, to nothingness?

Why focus on nothingness, and not chance, or randomness?
But in answer to your question, Jan: I don't know.
It's a matter of metaphysics - there are no answers, only positions one takes.

So once again, I ask: on what grounds are you asserting that some metaphysical positions do not require faith, yet others do?

 

[Jan Ardena]

It is not for me to explain why I see an absence, but for you to demonstrate that there is something to see.

I'm asking you, just as you are asking me. If you feel you don't have to answer a simple question, put to you. Why do you feel I have to?

"For that, you need faith", coming as it does after the alternative view of "nothingness, or some kind of chance, or randomness" is an explicit claim, by you, that one needs faith in order to reach those alternative conclusions.

"I" presupposes any ability to obtain knowledge.

"I" must know that "I" exists, in order to obtain knowledge.

For the "I" to work from the basis that "I", at some point did not exist, the "I" is forced to imagine that at one time "I" didn't exist, but came into being at some point.

Since the "I" has never experienced this, the "I" accepts that at some point, it never existed, on faith.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Billvon, you claimed that there are hundreds of Gods (upper-case G).
You claimed that the God(s) theists believe in, and the God that I believe are different.

All you have done is given me a BBC report. You'll have to do better than that.

Yes - you like yours better and figure it therefore deserves a proper noun. Other people prefer other Gods and capitalize them. And their reasoning is just as valid as yours.

What "other people"?

Because there is no objective evidence for God. (Or god, or Gods, or gods.)

Not if you presuppose there is no God. I don't suppose there is a God.

You don't need faith to believe that God Is. It is a natural human state. We need faith to uphold and maintain the idea that God does not exist.

Your question. If you are unsure what you asked, re-read your own post. If you are still unsure, let me know and I will tell you what you said.

Can you back up your claims, or not?

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

I'm asking you, just as you are asking me. If you feel you don't have to answer a simple question, put to you. Why do you feel I have to?

As said, Jan, it's not for me to explain an absence but for you to explain why (or demonstrate that) there is something to see.
If you can not do that then you are simply providing justification for the absence that others perceive.
As such, your refusal is answering your own question of me.

"I" presupposes any ability to obtain knowledge.

"I" must know that "I" exists, in order to obtain knowledge.

For the "I" to work from the basis that "I", at some point did not exist, the "I" is forced to imagine that at one time "I" didn't exist, but came into being at some point.

Since the "I" has never experienced this, the "I" accepts that at some point, it never existed, on faith.

I'm sure you think this is relevant, Jan, but the point I actually raised was your inability to understand where you had asserted (or worse, your outright refusal to acknowledge you had asserted) that some metaphysical positions do not require faith while others do.
Simply trying to explain one side does nothing to address the point raised.

So I'll ask yet again, as you do seem to be struggling with it: on what grounds are you asserting that some metaphysical positions do not require faith, yet others do?
I'm guessing you think you have shown where some do... so perhaps you can offer something you think shows where some don't?

 

[Baldeee]

You don't need faith to believe that God Is. It is a natural human state. We need faith to uphold and maintain the idea that God does not exist.

The first two of these claims are utter garbage.
First, being a natural state does not preclude something from being based on faith, if that state for example includes having faith.
Second, you do need faith to believe that "God Is" - it is not a demonstrable truth, neither is the alternative.
As such, belief in either requires faith, whether you consider it a natural human state or not.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is nothing for me to answer. You give it special treatment if you want, or not.

Jan

You're do double talk. I asked you why YOUR GOD gets special treatment, you sashay around and around because you can't give us a good reason. Therefore your god isn't much and doesn't deserve a G, just a g, like all the millions of other gods.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

An atheist a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Yes...a realist.

IOW you presuppose there is no God.

Yes...a realist.
A realist is realistic about the realities of reality and if reality revealed a God a realist would regard it as real realistically.
One must first be a realist before one can be an atheist.
A theist does not examine reality to form their belief in God so they are in opposition to the realist.

So perhaps rather than labling folk with labels that hold connotations dependant on a religious view we should leave religion out of the matter and just classify folk as either rational or irrational.

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.

And atheism is a religion because????

Can you narrow it down.

Yes..the really very funny thing I said.

Couldn't have been anything meaningful then.

You really have forgotten.

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.

When did you say that?

I can't believe anything I wish,

And yet you do.

That should be...

"I don't know what I was am t

What do we call the practice of misquoting folk...a mistake?

Alex

 

[billvon]

Billvon, you claimed that there are hundreds of Gods (upper-case G).

And then I explained three separate Gods in detail.

You said that you were not aware of any descriptions of different Gods. I provided three. Now you are aware of them. If you would like to further educate yourself on the subject of polytheism, knock yourself out. Or continue to pretend it doesn't exist. Up to you.

You claimed that the God(s) theists believe in, and the God that I believe are different.

Nope.

You claim to believe in one God. They believe in more than one God. They are just as right as you.

What "other people"?

Polytheists. People like Hindus. As has been explained now four times.

You don't need faith to believe that God Is. It is a natural human state.

So is believing in Santa Claus for children. That does not mean that Santa Claus is real, or that belief in him doesn't require faith. (Indeed, there's a lot more evidence for Santa than for God, or Gods.)

Can you back up your claims, or not?

Yes, and I have.

 

[Jan Ardena]

First, being a natural state does not preclude something from being based on faith, if that state for example includes having faith.

Then tell me. Why does it require faith to believe in God?

Second, you do need faith to believe that "God Is" - it is not a demonstrable truth, neither is the alternative.
As such, belief in either requires faith, whether you consider it a natural human state or not.

I don't consider it to be natural, it is natural.
It doesn't seem natural to to you, because you uphold and maintain you atheism, which requires constant revision, defending, and faith.

As such, belief in either requires faith, whether you consider it a natural human state or not.

What is the "alternative"?
Why is faith required to believe in God?

Jan.