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

[iceaura]

I think you posted this in the wrong thread.

I don't.
It's directly relevant to the study referenced by the OP - which atheism is not - and it's an interesting approach to the findings of the study.

Denial of what?

That you posted a falsehood as something you meant to claim, and did claim, as a truth.

Of course it's universal

No, it's not.

Some people accept, subconsciously ,"there is no God".
This is the root of atheism.

Nope. Plenty of atheists have never heard of your God. Others are completely conscious of their acceptance or lack of same.

How is walking down the street analogous to believing in God?

It's not.

Maybe you aren't aware of what faith is, and how it is used

That would be you. You have it confused with your deity - a common crippling effect of theism.

 

[Baldeee]

Already have.

Where?
Please point it out.

Call it what you like. But I have answered your question. The ball is now in your court, and I await your response.

No, you have at best given a response but, alas, not one that had any bearing on the question/issue at hand.
Care to offer something relevant to what I had posted?

It makes the truth accessible.

Utter garbage.
The truth is either accessible or it is not.
Belief does not change that.

Maybe you aren't aware of what faith is, and how it is used. But there is actually no reason to exhibit faith, to believe in God, anymore than I have to consciously, purposely move my stomach in and out to breath.

No one has mentioned the need to exhibit faith, Jan, so please stop with the red herring.
Whether you exhibit it or not is irrelevant to whether you have it or not.
So to repeat, so that you actually address what has been said: having a propensity to believe something does not mean that it is absent faith, whether that faith is exhibited or not.

Yet you cannot adequately explain why it requires faith.

already explained, Jan.
Anything that is believed in the absence of proof requires faith.
Are you saying you can prove God exists, for example?
I await the proof if that is what you are saying.
Even ignoring the question of existence, that I know you consider theists to simply accept, can you prove that God is what you understand God to be?
And no, "proofs" that require question-begging are not proof.

I understand that, for you, there is no God. Therefore one needs faith to believe in something, that apparently does not exist, as other other things exist.

With regard the question of existence, one needs faith to accept the existence of that for which there is no proof of existence.

But that is an atheist (someone for whom there is no God) perspective. For the theist, it's simply business as usual. God just Is, we accept that. As a result, we believe in God.

I'm sorry you don't recognise the faith upon which your belief in God is based, Jan.
Remember, you have claimed, in the past, a theist to be someone not who simply believes that God exists, but someone who "believes in" God.
Are you honestly now trying to tell me that being a theist, as you understand the term, requires no faith whatsoever?

And before you knee-jerk a response, note that I am genuinely asking you to be honest in your response.
Can you do that, please?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Where?
Please point it out.

The bit you ignored.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

The bit you ignored.

So nowhere, then, and you're just making stuff up.
Figures.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So nowhere, then, and you're just making stuff up.
Figures.

Bye.

Jan

 

[Musika]

The storylines (theories) that scientists are employing are based on demonstrable and repeatable proofs, not because they just tell you.

Who is talking about the storylines of scientists?
I am talking about the storylines of atheists.

Then it is just a "proposition" or "hypothesis", subject to critical scientific analysis and falsification.

The hypothetical existence of a biblical god is neither subject to critical scientific analysis nor to falsification. Where's the proof?
Theists are the ones who claim that a god exists by just telling us he does.

Oh, we do have an illustration of Moses coming down the mountain with a 300 lbs stone slab, on which god wrote the Ten Commandments. That must be true, because he told us so.

Ever looked at the story of "loafs and fishes"? AFAIK, there are three true accounts, except each has a different number of loafs and fishes to start with. If you're going to tell a story, at least be consistent in the fundamentals. It helps the credibility of the story.....

So you have a few reservations about Christianity. So do I (although it tends to be more with notions of the living entities ultimate relationship with this world and God, as opposed to obscure irregularities of historical narratives presented within).

If there is an angle how this establishes atheism as somehow employing critical thinking to take their take on the subject out of hearsay, you are yet to present it.

 

[Musika]

Yet your responses remain as such.

Remember I am not the one advocating that there is a position one can argue from bereft of beliefs, values, etc

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.

Are we talking about what conditions give rise to a particular belief or what a particular belief entails once one arrives there?

But that does nothing to demonstrate in any way that atheism itself is a belief.

Yet for some reason they all adhere to the belief that theists subscribe to an illusory world view and anything they profess, in either speech or literarure, is actually a relative aspect of the grander categories of culture and/or psychology.
I mean if you believe God doesn't exist, would it be possible to frame that (atheistic) belief in any other context?

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.

Actually you are now retreating to another sort of belief, that while common to atheism, is not uniformly represented by it : namely the belief that atheism has no values.

It is false posturing in a vain attempt to gain the upper hand in discussion "Look at me, I am being objective. I am bringing to values to the discussion (because I just told you I don't ) while you theists (insert drum roll as the atheist prepares to roll out their values and beliefs) ...... deluded .... false world view .... control of the masses .... social hierarchy ..... FSM ..... Russels teapot ..... yada yada.

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".

So you struggle to find memes or jokes that sum up the atheist position?

Why do you not accept atheism for what it is: an absence of the specific belief that God (or gods) exist?

Because before an atheist even comes to that position, they are stacked to the hilt with very specific (and genetally uniform) ideas about what God "actually" is .... namely a false idea propositioned by a deluded population of society.
Far from atheism being an absence of belief, it is an operating knowledge filter (fancy wotd for employing values and beliefs) that defines how one approaches a subject.

If you want to argue against someone's atheism then you need to explore that person's rationale, and not generalise to all atheists.
And Gawdzilla is but one among many, with undoubtedly different views from many atheists.

His distinction is merely that his bluntness doesn't enable him to hide behind the pretense of not bringing values and beliefs to the discussion.
Regardless, I'm pretty sure you would agree with him on what theists really are, etc , even if you beg to differ on delivery.

 

[Musika]

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.

You were discussing a divide between religion and philosophy, in the sense that religion subscribes more to myth (or narrative, if we want to use more philosophically neutral terms) as opposed to philosopy for sake of exploring questions of existence. You cited early greek philosophers, who paved the way for what would become the philosophical basis for christianity (and islam). You also mentioned shamanism (which is obviously not compatible with any rigorous philosophical model).

In terms of great religions (great in the sense of having exercised a substantial influence on the world), they are seen to originate from two places : the middle east and india. In terms of rigorous philosophical models (as opposed to wisdom traditions), they are also seen to originate from two places : southern europe and india.

IOW this epistemological divide of religion and philosophy is relevant to middle eastern religions which saw a development divorced from what would become the basis for their philosophical content. In india, that is not the case.

This is what led me to think you are exclusively talking about Christianity (you did cite genesis as an example of the narrative aspect of religion).

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Because before an atheist even comes to that position, they are stacked to the hilt with very specific (and genetally uniform) ideas about what God "actually" is .... namely a false idea propositioned by a deluded population of society.

Well lets start from there and conceed that atheists have formed an incorrect idea or view of God.
There still remains the proposition that whatever God it is that the atheist had been confused about has yet to be defined and evidenced.
How do you answer my claim that " its all made up" and that all scriptures suffer from the absence of a reasonable demonstration that there is any God of any kind or form.
It is certainly interesting studying the history of humans and the development of religions and philosophy but really it is all " made up" and I dont mean that as an insult but to point out within all of the scriptures and philosophy there is not one feature that suggest that any God whatever you may perceive him to be or that any of the multitude of Gods that have fallen out of favour has or have any evidence which can point to them being a part of reality or to exist in any form...Can you not conceed that all notions of God have come from the minds of men and as such are no more real than Santa or the Easter Bunny which really enjoy the same made up status.
And out of all the scriptures, writings and philosophy can you point to any aspect that is not "made up".
Put simply is it not reasonable to rely upon our sences to determine if something is real?
I can reasonably believe a tree is real that it exists by employing my sences...I can see it and touch it and even hear sounds of wind in its leaves or the movement of its braches as they knock against another...
If someone reports they have seen a UFO do we accept that they exist and further do we believe the fantacies extrapolated by those who claim such sightings as to these UFOs being from other worlds or dimentions or indeed that they are time travellers...
The whole idea about a God irrespective of how wrong I may be about what this God is happens to be so nebulous that it bears ignoring. And yet authors write about the features of God its very desires and how humans fit into that Gods plan...Of course these beliefs are simply made up and just because the assembled scriptures could fill many libraries one cant forget that volume of writtings on a matter adds nothing to the subject matter having any basis in reality.
Take UFOs...many many reported sightings and still nothing that gives any indication that they are anything other than unidentified flying objects ... and certainly there is nothing to support that these UFOs are from another planet time or dimention which interestingly does not prevent many humans making up stories to propogate such a fantacy...but their stories are made up...baseless...and the God story is no better. ..someone has taken a fuzzy feeling and given it existence and attributes that dont not exist.
You seem like a well educated human and I comiment you upon your expression and ability to argue a case however what is it that allows your reason and judgement to embrace a concept that has no evidence and can be clearly shown to be no more than an evolvement of superstition over time.
Sorry have to rush off please overlook the lack of an edit.
Alex

 

[Musika]

Well lets start from there and conceed that atheists have formed an incorrect idea or view of God.
There still remains the proposition that whatever God it is that the atheist had been confused about has yet to be defined and evidenced.
How do you answer my claim that " its all made up" and that all scriptures suffer from the absence of a reasonable demonstration that there is any God of any kind or form.
It is certainly interesting studying the history of humans and the development of religions and philosophy but really it is all " made up" and I dont mean that as an insult but to point out within all of the scriptures and philosophy there is not one feature that suggest that any God whatever you may perceive him to be or that any of the multitude of Gods that have fallen out of favour has or have any evidence which can point to them being a part of reality or to exist in any form...Can you not conceed that all notions of God have come from the minds of men and as such are no more real than Santa or the Easter Bunny which really enjoy the same made up status.
And out of all the scriptures, writings and philosophy can you point to any aspect that is not "made up".
Put simply is it not reasonable to rely upon our sences to determine if something is real?
I can reasonably believe a tree is real that it exists by employing my sences...I can see it and touch it and even hear sounds of wind in its leaves or the movement of its braches as they knock against another...
If someone reports they have seen a UFO do we accept that they exist and further do we believe the fantacies extrapolated by those who claim such sightings as to these UFOs being from other worlds or dimentions or indeed that they are time travellers...
The whole idea about a God irrespective of how wrong I may be about what this God is happens to be so nebulous that it bears ignoring. And yet authors write about the features of God its very desires and how humans fit into that Gods plan...Of course these beliefs are simply made up and just because the assembled scriptures could fill many libraries one cant forget that volume of writtings on a matter adds nothing to the subject matter having any basis in reality.
Take UFOs...many many reported sightings and still nothing that gives any indication that they are anything other than unidentified flying objects ... and certainly there is nothing to support that these UFOs are from another planet time or dimention which interestingly does not prevent many humans making up stories to propogate such a fantacy...but their stories are made up...baseless...and the God story is no better. ..someone has taken a fuzzy feeling and given it existence and attributes that dont not exist.
You seem like a well educated human and I comiment you upon your expression and ability to argue a case however what is it that allows your reason and judgement to embrace a concept that has no evidence and can be clearly shown to be no more than an evolvement of superstition over time.
Sorry have to rush off please overlook the lack of an edit.
Alex

Your issue that it is all made up and has no origins outside of the mind's of humans is simply a position dictated by values. Sure, you could reference some historical anomaly in the bible or whatever but that can just as easily be attributed to historiography as opposed to evidence of outright fabrication.

Its kind of like there may be a university that, for whatever reason, one cannot respect as authoritative. So one could go up to the enrollment officer and challenges them that this university is useless and their courses have no merit. If the officer was feeling kind, they might offer a few terse words of explanation, but more than likely they will just send you on your way. From that point, one could say "It just proves that their courses are useless" but actually one was never in the running for looking at what was on offer (because one's values would not permit it).

There is a certain realm in these sorts of discussions where people are more or less satisfied with mere suggestions open to infinite regress (tagging "But how do you know that?" to challenge every assertion). Of course as far as atheism is concerned, there is no assertive position to take beyond infinite regress (perhaps this is what atheists are mistakenly alluding to when they say it is a position that has no beliefs?). That, of course, is not the case with theism .... which then lands to the oft repeated demand of atheists "Where is the evidence?".

As with any dialectic, there is a case where A influences B, or vice versa (or A and B neutralize each other). So in the war of suggestions, there is the space to jump camp or abandon ship. But as far as approaching a state where the existence of God establishes itself as an irrevocable fact, it's not clear how that can be applied if one has values to the contrary. Of course being omnimax, God could just steamroll us and cram whatever shaped peg we are into a round hole, but it appears He has greater interests than mere obedience.

I recall a Louis Theroux documentary where he travelled all over the world trying vatious religious things (despite being an avowed atheist). Another one that explored a similar theme was with Karl Pilkington .... both similar in that they test the character of quaint English gentrification when pitted against extremes of culture (for the sake of establishing a subtext of the latter being outlandish). Of course neither of them changed their outlook on atheism but on occasion, despite pursuing a narrative in pursuit of the zany, they did get some experiences of upliftment. What is interesting however is that they interpreted such experiences as having arisen from psychology etc .... not to say that such experiences are warranted as evidence, but the very moment they begin to experience something that may challenge their values (such as "theism is a waste of time"), immediately their values (aka beliefs) come to the fore to reassert their dominance.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Sure, you could reference some historical anomaly in the bible or whatever but that can just as easily be attributed to historiography as opposed to evidence of outright fabrication.

I can see your point but certainly with the Bible as one example there really is a great deal to set aside to avoid a conclusion that it is "made up".

I certainly did enjoy reading your post and must complement you upon such an enjoyable style.

I suppose I will never understand how folk can believe in a God.

For me I can only see it as a con fortunately or unfortunately.

And of course my objections are two fold...firstly there is in my view nothing to support the notion that a God exists and secondly even if one were to for only a moment accept that there could be something "God" like, that the various interpretations of the expectations of that God have no basis other than wishful thinking.

It surprises me that so many humans expect more and need to believe there is some purpose.

More so from a point of being curious as to why they can not find contentment with their "lot" in life.

I am so very happy and very pleased to be alive and enjoy the now almost limitless opportunity to do things and to learn things.

I really feel theists have some sort of problem which prevents enjoyment of the wonderful life modern era humans enjoy.

I can imagine back when the various superstitions I call religion were invented times would have been harsh and it would be easy to wish for something more..but today in this era what more could heaven offer?

And I dont follow the arrogance that has folk believing that they being so very special must have a purpose beyond this life or within it.

So I remain puzzled and sad that so many humans are not particulary happy and need "something more".

And I still wonder why if there is a God who apparently demanfs respect and worship that he would not want a more close relationship with his pet humans.

I mean you get a dog or a cat ...why..to ignore it and let it wonder if it has a master? To let it wither away then have it stuffed and sat by the fire...

Humans are strange creatures. Many so capable of thought and reason and yet also capable of, in my view, living a delussion.

Thank you for such a well considered well constructed reply.

Alex

 

[Baldeee]

Bye.

From someone claiming they are wanting to discuss.
Rather than actually point out where you think I've ignored your points, or actually have the decency to respond to the issues I've raised, or answer my questions honestly, you simply decide to close up shop.
Why do you even bother here, Jan?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Baldeee. Respond to the points I laid out, or let's end the discussion. It's your call mate.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I suggest that is yet one more unsupportable statement you throw away with a disturbingly casual failure

Atheist have become like spoilt children.
You exemplify that brilliantly.
Thanks for being one source of material.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Remember I am not the one advocating that there is a position one can argue from bereft of beliefs, values, etc

No, you are advocating that it is impossible, and I have yet to see anything from you to support that.
I merely leave open the doors of possibility, but if you want to close them then support that argument.

Are we talking about what conditions give rise to a particular belief or what a particular belief entails once one arrives there?

Neither, we are talking about what atheism is, i.e. whether it is a belief or not.

Yet for some reason they all adhere to the belief that theists subscribe to an illusory world view and anything they profess, in either speech or literarure, is actually a relative aspect of the grander categories of culture and/or psychology.

They do?
I don't, yet I'm atheist.
Many atheists I know outside of this forum also don't believe that theists subscribe to an illusory world view.
Certainly there are some aspects of theistic religions that they might consider to be as you describe, but not theism itself (as in belief in the existence of God).
I lack belief that God exists as much as I lack belief that God does not exist.
Yet it is the former alone that makes me atheist.

I mean if you believe God doesn't exist, would it be possible to frame that (atheistic) belief in any other context?

That belief is an aspect of strong atheism that is not shared by all atheists.
If you wish to only argue against strong atheists, then have at it and I won't stop you, I might even join in.
Just don't assume that all atheists share that belief.
I, for one, do not.

Actually you are now retreating to another sort of belief, that while common to atheism, is not uniformly represented by it : namely the belief that atheism has no values.

Perhaps, although I've been fairly consistent and explicit with regard the nature of belief that I am discussing (as in not open to change) and I don't see this belief, if indeed it is one you think I am retreating to, as being in that category.
Either way, one does not need to be an atheist to hold that particular belief, and I'm sure not all atheists hold it

It is false posturing in a vain attempt to gain the upper hand in discussion "Look at me, I am being objective. I am bringing to values to the discussion (because I just told you I don't ) while you theists (insert drum roll as the atheist prepares to roll out their values and beliefs) ...... deluded .... false world view .... control of the masses .... social hierarchy ..... FSM ..... Russels teapot ..... yada yada.

I am not posturing in any way.
You not only seem to have confused me with arguing about strong atheism but now you are conflating the fact that atheists hold values and beliefs with atheism itself being a belief.
Why?
Yes, atheists, as people, may hold values and beliefs about many things.
Atheism may stem from one or more of those.
It may even give rise to some.
But atheism itself is not a belief but the lack of a specific belief: lack of belief that God (or god/s) exists.
What else an individual chooses to overlay their atheism with, or what might give rise to their atheism, is pretty much irrelevant to this point.

So you struggle to find memes or jokes that sum up the atheist position?

I have never come across one that covers atheism for what it is, rather than covering what, perhaps, a majority of atheists might also beleive.
The mainstream view of atheism is "belief thatGod does not exist" so as soon as a joke or meme relies on that it can be seen as only including a portion of atheists.
Similarly it may highlight some particular views that might be popular among atheists, but then it doesn't include the ones that don't hold those views.

Because before an atheist even comes to that position, they are stacked to the hilt with very specific (and genetally uniform) ideas about what God "actually" is .... namely a false idea propositioned by a deluded population of society.

Then you are only referring to those atheists who hold those ideas, and while they might be atheists, atheists as a whole are not defined by what those people believe.
Again, if your intention is to argue against strong atheism, or just other particular branches, rather than trying to appreciate what atheism is at its core, then let me know.
But if you want to continue arguing about atheism as a whole then I am happy to tell you where I, an actual atheist, who is likely no different to many others, do not conform to your view.

Far from atheism being an absence of belief, it is an operating knowledge filter (fancy wotd for employing values and beliefs) that defines how one approaches a subject.

Rather I would say that it is the absence of the filter that belief otherwise grants you.

His distinction is merely that his bluntness doesn't enable him to hide behind the pretense of not bringing values and beliefs to the discussion.

There's no pretence on my part with regard my atheism.
I merely don't conflate it with the myriad of values and/or beliefs i might otherwise hold.
And because those values and/or beliefs will likely differ from atheist to atheist, it is wrong to argue with someone on the basis of them being atheist.
As said, argue against their specific beliefs and values.
Just don't conflate those with atheism as a whole.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure you would agree with him on what theists really are, etc , even if you beg to differ on delivery.

And what do you think I would agree with about what theists really are?
Brainwashed?
Deluded?
Wrong?
Let me know so that I can correct you where necessary as to my views.
Or do you want to continue coming up with a strawman version that you think covers all atheists, and continue to argue against each atheist as if they all hold the same views and values, without discussing with each on an individual basis?
Your choice, really.

 

[Baldeee]

Baldeee. Respond to the points I laid out, or let's end the discussion. It's your call mate.

It's your call, Jan.
I've asked you to point out where I have ignored your points, and you have yet to respond with anything other than the deliberately unhelpful "the bit you ignored".
So it's all up to you, Jan.
You can actually be honest and try to have the discussion you claim you want, or you can continue your current path.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Big brass balls to demand other people respond to his points while ignoring theirs.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Atheist have become like spoilt children.
You exemplify that brilliantly.
Thanks for being one source of material.

Jan.

I suggest that is yet one more unsupportable statement you throw away with a disturbingly casual failure to address the issue presented and in this case you play at being judgemental ...nay I doubt if the knee jerk dismissive reactions you display to fact show any attempt to employ judgement.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Big brass balls to demand other people respond to his points while ignoring theirs.

Certainlyt he must ignore the points of others or else reality would need to be engaged by Jan ... and given his reckless investment in the con, which is the made up God story, of which he has become a victim, he can only realise he has everything to lose and must avoid the hints of reality running thru the points he will not and can not respond to ..and therefore he must avoid meaningful discussion that threatens to present him with the gift of reality.

His demands make sence when one recalls the notion that the best form of defence is attack.

The bottom line Jan has nothing to defend other than his determination that wishful thinking will make made up fantasy real.

Jans game is to talk about God in the hope that by doing so God will become real...again wishful thinking at best and delusional at worst.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't.
It's directly relevant to the study referenced by the OP - which atheism is not - and it's an interesting approach to the findings of the study.

You can explain how it is relevant if you want. But for the amount that I read, I cannot see any relevance.

That you posted a falsehood as something you meant

Blame the atheist that wrote it.
I just happen to think there is something to it. Which is why I created a thread out of it.

Nope. Plenty of atheists have never heard of your God.

The "your" in this statement is irrelevant.
Which atheists have no concept of God?

Others are completely conscious of their acceptance or lack of same.

Some atheists accept God?
And are conscious of it?
Why do you call them atheist?

That would be you. You have it confused with your deity - a common crippling effect of theism.

???

Jan.