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

[Xelasnave.1947]

We all know that you accuse things of being made-up, if they don't agree with your worldview.

Why would you say that?
When have I called something made up if it was not on fact made up.
My world view has little to do with stuff being made up.
Certainly the scriptures are made up but their lack of credibility has little to do with my world view...they are what they are...made up.
I form my belief that there is no God because humans have a natural tendency to spot nonsence and I know in my heart I must be right.

I think he did a good job of reporting the findings. I think you're in denial and rejection mode, because of your belief that theism is make-believe.

You are entitled to believe in make believe Jan and juggle material you read so that it makes you feel that you are right ... I really have only ever tried to help you shake off your indoctrination so you can think clearly and reach enlightenment...while the heavy mist of make believe hides your path all you can do is sound the fog horn and hope you will find something in mist...when the mist is lifted you will be able to walk on the road to enlightenment ...your eyes will open to reality and your ears will hear reason and you will taste freedom from superstition.

You suggest a lot of things, most of which is supported by y

So you agree that I am right.

We don't need to. We can work it out for ourselves, by analysing what he says.

I know you dont need to ...

I made the suggestion because I thought being rational would be an entertaing and novel experience...but the way you do it works for the make believe world in which you find yourself imprisoned so sure there certainly is no need to actually read something to know what it actually says.

This is a discussion forum. Is it not?

You surprise me Jan ..you have been a member for over a decade and you need to ask?

It is irrelevant to having a discussion about the points he raised.

Sure but I would like an answer ...avoid giving an answer if you feel that to do so will errode your position...

Do you feel uncomfortable that an atheist can reach the observational understanding, that his worldview is merely an illusion?

If if if...the situation is as you alledge then I would be concerned that stupidy has claimed another victim.

We're only trying to help you see a little clearer.

And I thank you Jan I certainly see many things clearer I never realised superstition was so prevalent in this modern era.

Let's say you were right, and this stuff that I want to hear, does that make it any less valid?

I think the only matter to determine is what did the research actually say and did it get reported in an unbiased manner.

If humans have whatever it will support your belief that you are right and my belief that it may explain why there are so many folk who enjoy the made up stories.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

How is the middle sentence (which seems to contain your desired conclusion) related to the sentences that come before it and after it? Is there some logical or rhetorical connection?

This is why I don't like conversing with you sometimes. What is it my desired conclusion?

I think the sentence that came before it was a quick summary of the article.

How does the idea that "metaphysical thought processes" are "deeply wired" and that a "metaphysical outlook" is "deeply ingrained" support or justify the conclusion that "atheists might not exist"?

I would say that atheists (modern) have concocted a materialistic concept of origins.

Imagine genetically modified food, where all the nutrients have been taken out, but it still looks and taste like real food. You can eat it, and even feel satisfied. Eventually, your body will become sick, because it is not getting what it needs.

In the same way, the atheist concoction does nothing for spiritual development. It only works as long as you're alive.

As humans, we know instinctively that we are more than our machines, and are subconsciously connected to the source of what we are.
Our problem is that we want our independence. This is a problem because we are not independent we are contingent beings. Physically, we rely on nature, and everything relies on God (or whatever you wish to call i

There doesn't seem to be much connection that I can see, so it looks like a non-sequitur. (Why don't you try to explain the missing argument in more detail?)

I think you already know what is being suggested. But you have to maintain this charade of skepticism.

See this as an opportunity to break away from that mind set, by being honest to yourself. Stop fighting what is inevitable.

The error, as I see it, is in thinking that "metaphysical thought processes" (whatever that means) is somehow synonymous with "religious thought processes" and in turn that "religious thought process" means "theist".

Not everyone is hung up on theism and atheism, like modern atheists.
Religion is no more different to school, on a material platform. It is what one derives from religion (school) that really counts. In that sense, individuals have different levels of religion. IOW they are at different levels of understanding the reality of who, and what they are, in relation to the world, and their source.

You're no more or less religious than I am. The difference is us (individuals).
To pray 5 times a day is only good if it advances your spiritual connection with the Original Source. Otherwise it is simply acting, like they do in the movies.

An atheist is someone who professes a lack of belief in God, nothing more, nothing less. If from this day forward I verbally pronounce I have become atheist, it will not mean anything in reality. It will only mean something to me, if I or someone else brings it up. Why? Because there nothing to it. It is simply an affirmation, with no effects, other than what occurs in this life.

So that if it can be shown that everyone has "metaphysical thought processes", then for some as-yet unexplained reason they must all be closet-theists, hence atheism is impossible.

I like the way you guys bring theism, and religion, into this. As far as I'm aware, the article is atheist specific. Let's keep with that, you interesting people.

There is only God.
Everything else is in relationship to God.
But there are people who temporarily don't like that arrangement, and are drunken enough to want to go it alone.
That's modern atheism.

Jan.

 

[Yazata]

What is it my desired conclusion?

The subject line line of this thread (that you wrote) reads "Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that's not a joke".

And in post #316 you wrote this:

The title alone, let alone the research makes sense, which is the reason why I posted it. Obviously something about the article rings a bell with you, why you are in denial mode.

Do you want to distance yourself from it now? (That might be smart.)

The first three sentences that you quoted in your OP say this (I've numbered them):

1. Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected

2. WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

3. Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

My question is how sentence #2 is logically related to sentences #1 and #3. (Which say pretty much the same thing.)

So the question I'm putting to you boils down to -- How does the "fact" (if it is one) that:

A. "metaphysical thought processes/outlook" are "deeply wired/ingrained"

imply (or otherwise render more plausible:

B. "atheists might not exist"

I think the sentence that came before it was a quick summary of the article.

So what does the relatively uncontroversial observation in #1 have to do with the conclusion in #2 and in the subject line?

I think you already know what is being suggested. But you have to maintain this charade of skepticism.

I just asked a simple question: How do you imagine that #1 and #3 render #2 (and your subject line) more plausible?

There's a whole missing philosophical argument that fits in there. I'm challenging you to provide it.

Not everyone is hung up on theism and atheism, like modern atheists.

YOU started this thread. And this is a philosophy of religion forum. It's time that it move away from troll games towards more intelligent and substantive discussion.

 

[kx000]

Dis-belief is the bad side nothingness in my religion. Contrasted by non-violence, and the end of suffering.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do you want to distance yourself from it now? (That might be smart.)

How do you get from ''it makes sense'', to my ''desired conclusion''?
It is dishonest to put words into mouths, but you always do it.

My question is how sentence #2 is logically related to sentences #1 and #3. (Which say pretty much the same thing.)

Once again, what you regard as sentence 1, is kind of like a summary of the entire article. If you look at the link I sent, you will see that it is in italics.
The actual article begins with what you regard as sentence two. The thing about Dawkins is more tongue in cheek, than an attempt at an argument.
In the third line, he giving a little more explanation of the sub-title/sentence 1.

He's obviously not putting forward an argument. But giving his thoughts on what the scientists have concluded.
Maybe we should also simply discuss it, rather than go down the philosophical debate route. Unless it should come to that.

A. "metaphysical thought processes/Eoutlook" are "deeply wired/ingrained"

imply (or otherwise render more plausible:

B. "atheists might not exist"

I've given my thoughts on this already.

The idea of atheism does not lend itself to metaphysics, as ultimately, everything is reduced zero.
Metaphysics necessarily has to begin with ''one''. The self.
If you're atheist, there is no ''one''.
How do you get from ''one'' to ''zero'', without applying blind faith?

So what does the relatively uncontroversial observation in #1 have to do with the conclusion in #2 and in the subject line?

See above.

There's a whole missing philosophical argument that fits in there. I'm challenging you to provide it.

I don't see it like that. And that's not the point of the thread.
I said in the OP that I thought it was an interesting article, put the link up, and asked if anyone had any thoughts.
There is no need to challenge me, on the article. But if you want, you can actually respond to my own thoughts on the matter (which you seem to just ignore). Unless you're so unnerved by the article, you want to smite it with unnecessary obfuscation, and derailment.
The choice is yours.

YOU started this thread. And this is a philosophy of religion forum. It's time that it move away from troll games towards more intelligent and substantive discussion.

We're not all as brilliant as you seem to think you are.
But show me one thread, in this ''RELIGION'' forum, where the topic as maintained any philosophic integrity, then we'll talk.
Also, I don't like being called a ''troll''. Have you seen the responses in this particular forum?

If you can't respond to any of my points, I suggest you sling your hook, as far as responding to me is concerned.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dis-belief is the bad side nothingness in my religion. Contrasted by non-violence, and the end of suffering.

What is your religion?

Jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I will respond to your previous posts in more detail (probably in a day or two), but I just thought I'd comment on this one from you, quickly.

I would say that atheists (modern) have concocted a materialistic concept of origins.

I would say that, by and large, atheists keep an open mind about origins. You theists are the ones who think you already have it all figured out on that front. God did it all. That's really a placeholder explanation, but you don't recognise it for what it is.

Imagine genetically modified food, where all the nutrients have been taken out, but it still looks and taste like real food. You can eat it, and even feel satisfied. Eventually, your body will become sick, because it is not getting what it needs.

In the same way, the atheist concoction does nothing for spiritual development. It only works as long as you're alive.

I'm not sure that atheism is about "spiritual development". It's more of a belief position regarding spirits, isn't it?

What do you mean by "spiritual development", anyway? Are you talking about improving your (undetectable) soul or something? Explain.

As humans, we know instinctively that we are more than our machines, and are subconsciously connected to the source of what we are.

Nonsense. We don't know anything of the sort, instinctively or otherwise. This is just what you personally choose to believe, in the absence of any good evidence.

You constantly mistake your faith for knowledge. I think that's why you don't understand the atheist position. You're constantly pretending to know stuff you don't actually know - stuff you just believe.

Our problem is that we want our independence. This is a problem because we are not independent we are contingent beings. Physically, we rely on nature, and everything relies on God (or whatever you wish to call it)

We're part of nature, unavoidably. The God thing is just an extra that you want to tack on.

Not everyone is hung up on theism and atheism, like modern atheists.

Atheists are no more "hung up" on that than you are. Perhaps you're getting a skewed impression because some atheists (myself included) choose to engage with you on this forum. It is wrong to assume that we (I) do so because of any "hang up". At one level, you're just an interesting diversion; it can be interesting to see how the other half lives.

You're no more or less religious than I am. The difference is us (individuals).

What do you see as the defining characteristics of a religion? Is atheism a religion, in your opinion?

To pray 5 times a day is only good if it advances your spiritual connection with the Original Source. Otherwise it is simply acting, like they do in the movies.

Praying is only good if you get a benefit from it?

An atheist is someone who professes a lack of belief in God, nothing more, nothing less.

Well, a bit more, actually. Professing isn't the main game. The main game is the belief, or lack thereof. Atheists really do lack the belief in G0d/gods. That's the truth, difficult as it may be for you to accept. (We can argue around the edges, of course, about the percentage of people who profess atheism while simultaneously retaining various supernatural beliefs. We could equally discuss those who go through the motions of being religious but who do not actually believe in God/gods when it comes down to it).

If from this day forward I verbally pronounce I have become atheist, it will not mean anything in reality.

Obviously not, if you're telling lies to people while secretly maintaining your belief in God/gods. It won't mean anything to you. Others might be taken in by your duplicity, of course, and it might mean something to them, in reality.

Talking the talk does not necessarily mean walking the walk. That applies equally to self-described theists as it does to self-described atheists.

It will only mean something to me, if I or someone else brings it up. Why? Because there nothing to it. It is simply an affirmation, with no effects, other than what occurs in this life.

How is a pronouncement that one is a theist any different? It's just a different affirmation, with no effects other than the ones you mention in regard to professions of atheism.

There is only God.

That claim is quite strongly contested.

Everything else is in relationship to God.

Not if there is no God.

But there are people who temporarily don't like that arrangement, and are drunken enough to want to go it alone.

Meh. Or maybe there are people who don't like there being no God, and they are drunken enough to want to join a comforting crowd.

That's modern atheism.

It's seem to me that you have a very long way to go towards understanding modern atheism. Which, by the way, isn't so very different to ancient atheism. There's quite an impressive, though not particularly well known, history of doubt regarding your God and all your gods.

 

[Sarkus]

The idea of atheism does not lend itself to metaphysics,...

Utter garbage. Do you know even what metaphysics is? If you did then you would probably laugh at your own stupidity here. The fact that you're not laughing....

as ultimately, everything is reduced zero.

So not only do you automatically assume that atheism is the belief that God does not exist (thereby ignoring the agnostic atheist position that you have comstantly struggled to understand) but you also fail to see how that belief (that there is no God) is itself a metaphysical position. Outstanding stuff so far, Jan.

Metaphysics necessarily has to begin with ''one''. The self.
If you're atheist, there is no ''one''.

So atheists, even the "strong atheist" that you constantly generalise their position to be, has no "self"? An intriguing concept, Jan, with only two minor drawbacks: firstly, yes they do. And secondly, yes they do.

How do you get from ''one'' to ''zero'', without applying blind faith?

I admire the equivocation on your part, Jan. To equivocate "self" with "one", and atheism with "zero" is a mountain of garbage heaped upon a cesspool of drivel.

Sure, many people believe in a metaphysical position, through faith. Determinism, materialism, dualism, monism, realism etc. All are metaphysical positions that are unprovable and unfalsifiable, and for many their atheism is a result of their metaphysical positioning, or a complementary conclusion to whatever gives rise to their metaphysical belief.
As is theism.
Some atheists, however, do not necessarily hold to any particular metaphysical school of though, at least not limpet-like as others, theist and non-theist, do.
But to say that the idea of atheism doesn't lend itself to metaphysics is simply to shout to the world that you really have no understanding of what you're talking about. Maybe you'd be better served by saying less and not actually advertising your ignorance?

But show me one thread, in this ''RELIGION'' forum, where the topic as maintained any philosophic integrity, then we'll talk.

So you're citing past failures as a reason not to even bother trying?

Also, I don't like being called a ''troll''.

I've heard it said that the truth often hurts. Perhaps if such an accusation hurts you should examine what behaviour it is of yours that is driving people to consider that of you, whether it is intentional on your part or not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Utter garbage. Do you know even what metaphysics is? If you did then you would probably laugh at your own stupidity here. The fact that you're not laughing....

the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space.

So not only do you automatically assume that atheism is the belief that God does not exist (thereby ignoring the agnostic atheist position that you have comstantly struggled to understand) but you also fail to see how that belief (that there is no God) is itself a metaphysical position. Outstanding stuff so far, Jan.

God, either Is, or isn't.
Sitting on the fence defaults to "isn't.

How is atheism a metaphysical position?

So atheists, even the "strong atheist" that you constantly generalise their position to be, has no "self"? An intriguing concept, Jan, with only two minor drawbacks: firstly, yes they do. And secondly, yes they do.

This is the point. They do have a self, and they subconsciously know that the self is not the material body. Hence atheism is about as useful to the self, as genetically modified food (lacking natural nutrients) is to the body. Which is the point of the article.

I admire the equivocation on your part, Jan. To equivocate "self" with "one", and atheism with "zero" is a mountain of garbage heaped upon a cesspool of drivel.

Nope! That's your mind.

Sure, many people believe in a metaphysical position, through faith. Determinism, materialism, dualism, monism, realism etc.

How do they?

are unprovable and unfalsifiable, and for many their atheism is a result of their metaphysical positioning, or a complementary conclusion to whatever gives rise to their metaphysical belief.
As is atheism.

What is your metaphysical belief?
Or any atheist, for that matter. You all talk alot, but don't actually advance anything. Now I'm asking. What are your metaphysical beliefs?

But to say that the idea of atheism doesn't lend itself to metaphysics is simply to shout to the world that you really have no understanding of what you're talking about. Maybe you'd be better served by saying less and not actually advertising your ignorance?

If I am incorrect, I will publically own up to it. I don't mind. But at least explain specifically how atheism lends itself to metaphysics, without appealing to blind faith.

I've heard it said that the truth often hurts. Perhaps if such an accusation hurts you should examine what behaviour it is of yours that is driving people to consider that of you, whether it is intentional on your part or not.

Blah! Blah!

Look, this is a discussion forum. I don't know you, and you don't know me.
Let's be rational, get on with the discussion, and leave out the childish name-calling, or isolating.
How does that sound?
Let's start over.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

He's obviously not putting forward an argument. But giving his thoughts on what the scientists have concluded.

You posted a falsehood as the title of this thread.
Was that one of his thoughts, and you disagree with him?

The idea of atheism does not lend itself to metaphysics, as ultimately, everything is reduced zero.
Metaphysics necessarily has to begin with ''one''. The self.

Your idea of atheism is not in agreement with observation.
Several very deep and sophisticated metaphysical traditions - including ones with deities - flatly deny the existence of the self as anything other than illusion.
And, on the other hand, atheistic metaphysical traditions are widespread, and some involve significant incorporation of the self.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your idea of atheism is not in agreement with observation.
Several very deep and sophisticated metaphysical traditions - including ones with deities - flatly deny the existence of the self as anything other than illusion.

Such as?

And, on the other hand, atheistic metaphysical traditions are widespread, and some involve significant incorporation of the self.

Can you elaborate on some of these traditions. Thanks.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I would say that, by and large, atheists keep an open mind about origins. You theists are the ones who think you already have it all figured out on that front. God did it all. That's really a placeholder explanation, but you don't recognise it for what it is.

Isn`t that typical modern atheist thinking though?

I'm not sure that atheism is about "spiritual development". It's more of a belief position regarding spirits, isn't it?

What do you mean by "spiritual development", anyway? Are you talking about improving your (undetectable) soul or something? Explain.

Already explained.

Nonsense. We don't know anything of the sort, instinctively or otherwise. This is just what you personally choose to believe, in the absence of any good evidence.

You constantly mistake your faith for knowledge. I think that's why you don't understand the atheist position. You're constantly pretending to know stuff you don't actually know - stuff you just believe.

And you constantly throw ad-hominems around, instead of talking about issues that I have raised.
If you think they`re nonsense, then please explain, rather than sling mud.

We're part of nature, unavoidably. The God thing is just an extra that you want to tack on.

And you`re simply in denial.
See! I can claim things about you too.
But what`s the point in that.
Are you going to discuss my points, or are you going to engage in distraction?

Atheists are no more "hung up" on that than you are. Perhaps you're getting a skewed impression because some atheists (myself included) choose to engage with you on this forum. It is wrong to assume that we (I) do so because of any "hang up". At one level, you're just an interesting diversion; it can be interesting to see how the other half lives.

Well, that`s nice to know!

What do you see as the defining characteristics of a religion? Is atheism a religion, in your opinion?

Nope. Atheism is a description of people who do not believe in God (for whatever reason).
Religion, is what human do.

From wiki: There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[1][2] 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...

Arguably the best the definition on the web (that I have come across). The reason being, it covers the whole spectrum of religion, not just going to church, or mosque.

Praying is only good if you get a benefit from it?

And non-nutritious food is good if you get benefit from it.
The only thing is, it is not beneficial to the bodily system, in the long term.

Well, a bit more, actually. Professing isn't the main game. The main game is the belief, or lack thereof. Atheists really do lack the belief in G0d/gods. That's the truth, difficult as it may be for you to accept.

No. I do accept it.

. (We can argue around the edges, of course, about the percentage of people who profess atheism while simultaneously retaining various supernatural beliefs. We could equally discuss those who go through the motions of being religious but who do not actually believe in God/gods when it comes down to it).

We already have done James.
Lot`s of atheists were, and are religious, professing belief in God.
But the reality is, they cannot believe in something that they are without.
Eventually they discard their religion, and religiously become atheist.

Talking the talk does not necessarily mean walking the walk. That applies equally to self-described theists as it does to self-described atheists.

There is no ``talk`` or ``walk``.
One is theist, or one is without God.

That claim is quite strongly contested.

Yes. By atheists.

Not if there is no God.

How can there be no God?

Meh. Or maybe there are people who don't like there being no God, and they are drunken enough to want to join a comforting crowd.

They are atheists, James.

It's seem to me that you have a very long way to go towards understanding modern atheism. Which, by the way, isn't so very different to ancient atheism. There's quite an impressive, though not particularly well known, history of doubt regarding your God and all your gods.

Start a new thread, and we`ll discuss.
But let`s get back on topic in this one.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space.

Your copy/paste skills are indeed impressive, Jan.

God, either Is, or isn't.
Sitting on the fence defaults to "isn't.

Other than the idiom you use demonstrating yet again that you don't grasp the agnostic position, the agnostic position tends to default from a practical perspective to that but not from a metaphysical perspective.

How is atheism a metaphysical position?

I never said it was, and in and of itself it is not, if taken simply as the lack of belief that God (or god/s) exists. But as you understand atheism, the belief that God does not exist, it is very much a metaphysical position that asserts the absence of a cause of all, or whatever else one ascribes to the deity.
Be that as it may, you asserted that "the idea of atheism does not lend itself to metaphysics", which is somewhat a different matter than whether or not atheism is itself a metaphysical position.
And I reiterate that atheism very much lends itself to metaphysics... often being based on, or complementary to, the metaphysical positions one might adhere to.

This is the point. They do have a self, and they subconsciously know that the self is not the material body.

So you at least believe, Jan. Many, however, believe the self to be entirely derived and emergent from the material, even if they hold to property dualism. I.e. They do believe that the self IS the material body.
You can not simply refuse to accept that, and claim that they subconsciously know otherwise.
So do you have an argument that does not rely on begging the question?

Hence atheism is about as useful to the self, as genetically modified food (lacking natural nutrients) is to the body. Which is the point of the article.

Or alternatively atheism (taken here as the belief that God does not exist) is a recognition of what the self truly is, and that atheism is the removal of a placebo that for them has become ineffective in curing them of something they no longer have.
You see, if you beg the question the other way you can conclude the other way.

Nope! That's your mind.

It is certainly my mind that you are speaking garbage, yes. It also tallies with reality, Jan.

How do they?

How do people believe metaphysical positions??? You're seriously asking me that?

What is your metaphysical belief?
Or any atheist, for that matter.

I can't speak for any other atheist. Why do you think I could? Other than sharing a lack of belief in the existence of God (or gods) we could be utterly distinct from one another. Personally I don't adhere to any particular metaphysical position as the absolute truth, and personally see metaphysics as a tad pointless.

You all talk alot, but don't actually advance anything.

Oh, the absolute irony in this statement of yours, Jan. Priceless. Truly priceless.

Now I'm asking. What are your metaphysical beliefs?

I don't have any. I tend toward the philosophies of materialism and physicalism, with a side salad of emergentism, and I guess any metaphysical notions I have would likely be informed by those. But even those are not set in stone for me.

If I am incorrect,

You are.

I will publically own up to it.

I look forward to it.

I don't mind.

Thats fortunate.

But at least explain specifically how atheism lends itself to metaphysics, without appealing to blind faith.

Why do you now bolt on the "without appealing to blind faith"? Since when is the issue of blind faith the deciding factor as to whether atheists exist or not?
But in answer to your question: atheism, whether taken as a belief or a lack of belief, is a position relative to theism. Now, you can try to argue that theism doesn't lend itself to metaphysics or natural theology until you are blue in the face, if that is your wish? No? Didn't think so. As such, any position that is in relative to theism (be it a strong or weak rejection) lends itself to metaphysics, even if just by way of (strong or weak) rejection of the metaphysics of theology.

How does that sound?

It sounds like the petty criminal who constantly gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar asking for a clean slate... when all anyone wants is for him to go straight.
If that is your honest intention then lead on, and I look forward to you proving your numerous doubters wrong.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your copy/paste skills are indeed impressive, Jan.

A pointless remark there.
Next time I will announce that I am using a basic dictionary definition, for your purpose.

Other than the idiom you use demonstrating yet again that you don't grasp the agnostic position, the agnostic position tends to default from a practical perspective to that but not from a metaphysical perspective.

What does that even mean?

I never said it was, and in and of itself it is not, if taken simply as the lack of belief that God (or god/s) exists.

So as far as metaphysics are concerned, atheism (atheists) does not exist. Right?

But as you understand atheism, the belief that God does not exist, it is very much a metaphysical position that asserts the absence of a cause of all, or whatever else one ascribes to the deity.

In the sense that atheism opposes it, but atheism has nothing to say regarding metaphysics. Right?
In fact, atheism defaults to nothing but opposition to theism. It does not have a positive voice. Right.

And I reiterate that atheism very much lends itself to metaphysics... often being based on, or complementary to, the metaphysical positions one might adhere to.

It is merely an opposing force, as already stated. Right?

So you at least believe, Jan. Many, however, believe the self to be entirely derived and emergent from the material

How do they get to that point without appealing to faith, or magic?

So do you have an argument that does not rely on begging the question?

I`ve not put forward an argument as yet.

Or alternatively atheism (taken here as the belief that God does not exist) is a recognition of what the self truly is,

How so?

It is certainly my mind that you are speaking garbage, yes. It also tallies with reality, Jan.

Ooh! You got mi!
Satisfied?

How do people believe metaphysical positions??? You're seriously asking me that?

I just want you to explain what you said.
Is that okay?

I can't speak for any other atheist. Why do you think I could?

Sorry, it was a universal question, for other atheists who are probably reading this.
Guess I should have made it clear.

Oh, the absolute irony in this statement of yours, Jan. Priceless. Truly priceless.

One only needs to read atheist replies to realise they have nothing to say. They only oppose.
Then again, that`s what atheism is. It is in opposition to theism/Theos.

I don't have any. I tend toward the philosophies of materialism and physicalism, with a side salad of emergentism, and I guess any metaphysical notions I have would likely be informed by those. But even those are not set in stone for me.

Okay.

Why do you now bolt on the "without appealing to blind faith"? Since when is the issue of blind faith the deciding factor as to whether atheists exist or not?

I didn`t say it was.

Now, you can try to argue that theism doesn't lend itself to metaphysics or natural theology until you are blue in the face, if that is your wish?

Why would I do that?

As such, any position that is in relative to theism (be it a strong or weak rejection) lends itself to metaphysics, even if just by way of (strong or weak) rejection of the metaphysics of theology.

Do you think atheism can lend itself to metaphysics without relying on theism?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

A pointless remark there.
Next time I will announce that I am using a basic dictionary definition, for your purpose.

You missed the point, Jan. Anyone can copy/paste a definition, but that doesn't mean they understand it. You simply posting a definition did nothing to evidence you knew what it meant.

What does that even mean?

It means that the idiom you used with regard agnosticism ("sitting on the fence") shows you don't grasp what agnosticism is. It also means that while agnosticism might default in a practical sense to "God isn't" it does not mean that the agnostic defaults to "God isn't" whendiscussing metaphysics. They default to "don't know".

So as far as metaphysics are concerned, atheism (atheists) does not exist. Right?

Not sure how you conclude that from what I said. Just because atheism per se isn't a metaphysical position doesn't mean the atheist does not exist as far as metaphysics are concerned. The atheist (or at least those who believe God to not exist) will just have different metaphysical beliefs to those who believe God to exist. Metaphysics does not equivocate to "belief in God".

In the sense that atheism opposes it, but atheism has nothing to say regarding metaphysics. Right?

If you are referring to atheism in the sense of "belief that God does not exist" then yes, it has something to say regarding metaphysics: notably that God does not exist, that the metaphysical beliefs involving the notion of God are wrong.

In fact, atheism defaults to nothing but opposition to theism. It does not have a positive voice. Right.

Not having a positive voice is not the same as not having a voice at all. To say that "something is not..." is still a voice, even if it itself does not go on to offer an alternative.

How do they get to that point without appealing to faith, or magic?

You would have to ask them. But of what relevance is the issue of faith to whether atheists exist or not? Are you equivocating atheist with "not having faith in anything"?

I`ve not put forward an argument as yet.

Disowning the argument you offered in the OP? You may have merely linked it but you put it forth, for discussion or otherwise, and you have subsequently said it makes sense to you. By doing so you therefore take on the argument as your own, even if just for discussion. Either stand by it or refute it. Anything else is dishonest of you.
Furthermore, the irony you're coming out with today is quite remarkable. But I guess you'll miss why this latest comment of yours is ironic?

How so?

If God does not exist then the atheist who believes it has somehow recognised that, come to realise that, and thus the notion of "self" must have arisen through non-God means.

I just want you to explain what you said.
Is that okay?

At some point, Jan, you need to answer your own questions. Just simply responding with "why?" or "how?" is what most of us grew out of when we were five or six. If you have queries about what someone has written, at least offer your understanding of what they have said first so that they might then correct you. Or if you really are interested in how people arrive at metaphysical beliefs then start a new thread. It is not a small topic.

One only needs to read atheist replies to realise they have nothing to say. They only oppose.

Atheists have plenty to say, but it is not their atheism that informs their replies. If you want to understand the atheist then engage them on why they believe what they believe, or why they don't believe what you do.

Then again, that`s what atheism is. It is in opposition to theism/Theos.

It is simply the lack of a belief that you and all other theists share. It can be informed by any number of philosophies, any number of rationale or reasonings. All you see, though, is the atheist and their atheism, and that is enough for you to turn to your strawman and ask his views. You don't want to understand them, Jan, no matter your pretence otherwise. Yet you say you want to discuss. Any wonder you are seen as something of a troll?

I didn`t say it was.

Then why bolt on that caveat when it is of no relevance?

Why would I do that?

Because you see no link between atheism and metaphysics.

Do you think atheism can lend itself to metaphysics without relying on theism?

Without theism there would be no notion of atheism. Without someone coming up with a belief there is no need to consider the lack of that belief. If you wish to consider that a reliance then so be it. I see it more as simply a response.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You missed the point, Jan. Anyone can copy/paste a definition, but that doesn't mean they understand it. You simply posting a definition did nothing to evidence you knew what it meant.

How condescending.

It means that the idiom you used with regard agnosticism ("sitting on the fence") shows you don't grasp what agnosticism is. It also means that while agnosticism might default in a practical sense to "God isn't" it does not mean that the agnostic defaults to "God isn't" whendiscussing metaphysics. They default to "don't know".

I didn't say agnosticism was the position of sitting on the fence. Agnostic is a person without knowledge, just like an atheist is a person without God.

I was referring to your use of the agnostic position.

The atheist (or at least those who believe God to not exist) will just have different metaphysical beliefs to those who believe God to exist.

They will have metaphysical beliefs, but they have to leave their atheism at the physical door.

Metaphysics does not equivocate to "belief in God".

It has to. Ultimately.
That's why atheism cannot actually exist.

If you are referring to atheism in the sense of "belief that God does not exist" then yes, it has something to say regarding metaphysics: notably that God does not exist, that the metaphysical beliefs involving the notion of God are wrong.

Does it have anything else to say, without involving theism?

Not having a positive voice is not the same as not having a voice at all. To say that "something is not..." is still a voice, even if it itself does not go on to offer an alternative.

Okay.
My bad.

You would have to ask them. But of what relevance is the issue of faith to whether atheists exist or not? Are you equivocating atheist with "not having faith in anything"?

Atheists are usually, vehemently opposed to faith. Some are of the idea that faith is belief without evidence. And evil.

Disowning the argument you offered in the OP? You may have merely linked it but you put it forth, for discussion or otherwise, and you have subsequently said it makes sense to you. By doing so you therefore take on the argument as your own, even if just for discussion. Either stand by it or refute it. Anything

I've already stood by it, and I have invited challenges to my points. So far all I've had is a bag ad-hominems.

If God does not exist then the atheist who believes it has somehow recognised that, come to realise that, and thus the notion of "self" must have arisen through non-God means.

So how would the atheist know God doesn't exist?
Would he not have to assume God does not exist, thereby begging the question?

And how would he categorise his"self"?
As physical, due to his illogical reasoning?
Isn't that what explicit atheists do anyway?

At some point, Jan, you need to answer your own questions. Just simply responding with "why?" or "how?" is what most of us grew out of when we were five or six.

Obviously atheists aren't used to being questioned. I think they like to do the questioning. But the atheist position is so full of holes, I'm begin g to think people let you of the hook. Probably they feel sorry for you. Now you've become pompous and spoilt, thinking you shouldn't be questioned.
I think theists should a little more aggressive with atheists in discussions (as aggressive as atheists, if needs be) .
This meek and mild method, only invites more complacency.

Atheists have plenty to say, but it is not their atheism that informs their replies. If you want to understand the atheist then engage them on why they believe what they believe, or why they don't believe what you do.

Been there. Done that.
All you get is "there's no evidence" song.
There's nothing wrong until it becomes clear that you don't know what to look for. Then it becomes tedious because it is nothing but lip service. The reality is most of you simply deny, and reject God.

You don't want to understand them, Jan, no matter your pretence otherwise. Yet you say you want to discuss. Any wonder you are seen as something of a troll?

There's not a lot to understand Sarkus.
I've read lots about modern atheism. I've seen a bag of lectures and debates. I've spoken to, been spoken to, discussed, and debated lots of atheists for years.
And while as people, atheist are as diverse as anyone else. They are extremely narrow when it comes to atheism.

Then why bolt on that caveat when it is of no relevance?

The one thing that every individual knows is "I". We have no experience
of not being.
To accept or believe that "I" ceases to exist at some point, has to be accepted on faith.

Because you see no link between atheism and metaphysics.

When you wrote...

Now, you can try to argue that theism doesn't lend itself to metaphysics or natural theology until you are blue in the face, if that is your wish?

Did you mean...

Now, you can try to argue that [a]theism doesn't lend itself to metaphysics or natural theology until you are blue in the face, if that is your wish?

Without theism there would be no notion of atheism. Without someone coming up with a belief there is no need to consider the lack of that belief. If you wish to consider that a reliance then so be it. I see it more as simply a response.

Fair enough.
I see it as a rejection, and, or, a denial of.
I think it is rebellious.

Jan.

 

[Yazata]

How do you get from ''it makes sense'', to my ''desired conclusion''?

HOW does it "make sense"?

What does the rather uncontroversial observation that "Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected" have to do with "atheists might not exist"? What's the connection?

Once again, what you regard as sentence 1, is kind of like a summary of the entire article. If you look at the link I sent, you will see that it is in italics.
The actual article begins with what you regard as sentence two. The thing about Dawkins is more tongue in cheek, than an attempt at an argument.
In the third line, he giving a little more explanation of the sub-title/sentence 1.

He's obviously not putting forward an argument.

So you're admitting that the whole thing is bullshit?

But giving his thoughts on what the scientists have concluded.
Maybe we should also simply discuss it, rather than go down the philosophical debate route.

Presumably "the scientists" had some reasons and justification for reaching whatever conclusion they reached. (Otherwise whatever they were doing wouldn't be science, would it?) We don't even know what that those conclusions were. Something about "metaphysical thought processes" apparently.

The connection between "metaphysical thought processes" and "atheists might not exist" seems to be the contribution of Nuri Vittachi, apparently based on nothing at all as far as I can see.

The idea of atheism does not lend itself to metaphysics

Doesn't that contradict what "the scientists" are said to have said?

"Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged."

If "a metaphysical outlook" is common to all human beings, then atheists must share it as much as anyone.

I addressed this in my post #338.

Everyone has ideas about what does and doesn't exist. (Ontology) They have ideas about what kinds of things can be reduced to other kinds of things, and conversely, what kind of things can emerge from other kinds of things. They have ideas about how wholes are composed of their parts. (Mereology) They have ideas about causation, about time, about their own and other minds, about the nature and function of mathematics, about possibility and necessity and many more issues typically addressed by metaphysics. Most people just naturally employ natural logic.

Not only do all human beings possess ideas and intuitions about those kind of issues, my dog does too. She has some implicit concept of causality when she does one thing to make another thing happen. It's probably impossible for beings like us to successfully live in a universe like this without having some metaphysical intuitions.

None of that makes it impossible for them to be atheists.

 

[Sarkus]

How condescending.

Then do tell: how is copy/pasting evidence that you understand it?

I didn't say agnosticism was the position of sitting on the fence. Agnostic is a person without knowledge, just like an atheist is a person without God.

I was referring to your use of the agnostic position.

Ignoring what you think atheism is, how is my use of the agnostic position "sitting on the fence"? Are you of the opinion that I actually believe God does not exist? If you do then you are wrong, Jan.

They will have metaphysical beliefs, but they have to leave their atheism at the physical door.

Why?

It has to. Ultimately.

Why does it have to, ultimately or otherwise?

That's why atheism cannot actually exist.

Ah, so you believe metaphysics equates to theism, and therefore that everyone with a metaphysical belief is actually theistic? And you think that everyone has a metaphysical belief, therefore everyone believes in God? Thus atheism cannot actually exist? Have I got that right?

Does it have anything else to say, without involving theism?

Should it?

Atheists are usually, vehemently opposed to faith.

Some are. Some are not. Atheism is simply not having the belief that God (or god/s) exist. Whether they have faith in anything else is up to the individual.

Some are of the idea that faith is belief without evidence.

That is one view of faith, yes. Do you think that an atheist is not allowed to have such faith in something?

And evil.

I have not met an atheist that thinks faith is inherently evil. Care to example such?

I've already stood by it, and I have invited challenges to my points. So far all I've had is a bag ad-hominems.

I'm confused, Jan. First you say that you have not put forward an argument, and now you say you have already stood by it??? I've commented on your inconsistency many times before, Jan, and it is still not conducive to discussion.

So how would the atheist know God doesn't exist?

You would have to ask those that claim to know God doesn't exist.

Would he not have to assume God does not exist, thereby begging the question?

Not necessarily, I don't think. They might be able to come up with an argument without begging the question, but you would have to ask them for their argument, and analyse it.

And how would he categorise his"self"?

In some physical or material manner, possibly - or a property thereof.

As physical, due to his illogical reasoning?

What would be illogical about it?

Isn't that what explicit atheists do anyway?

Some do, yes. But it isn't a necessity.

Obviously atheists aren't used to being questioned. I think they like to do the questioning.

That is not my experience.

But the atheist position is so full of holes, I'm begin g to think people let you of the hook.

For a position you think is so full of holes there doesn't seem to be many atheists floundering in the waters of your questioning. But then you only understand some atheist positions. Feel free to raise a thread to discuss the holes you think you see.

Probably they feel sorry for you.

That's their prerogative.

Now you've become pompous and spoilt, thinking you shouldn't be questioned.

Again, not my experience. And none of this has any bearing on my criticism of you simply responding with "how?" to a rather complex matter that ultimately has no bearing on the issue.

I think theists should a little more aggressive with atheists in discussions (as aggressive as atheists, if needs be) .
This meek and mild method, only invites more complacency.

Think and do what you want, Jan. No one is stopping you, although I'm sure people will criticise when you overstep boundaries.

Been there. Done that.
All you get is "there's no evidence" song.
There's nothing wrong until it becomes clear that you don't know what to look for. Then it becomes tedious because it is nothing but lip service. The reality is most of you simply deny, and reject God.

Ah, the magical spectacles theists wear that highlight the evidence of God.
If you believe in God then everything is evidence of God. Of course, the question-begging nature of this eludes you.

There's not a lot to understand Sarkus.
I've read lots about modern atheism. I've seen a bag of lectures and debates. I've spoken to, been spoken to, discussed, and debated lots of atheists for years.
And while as people, atheist are as diverse as anyone else. They are extremely narrow when it comes to atheism.

Very narrow indeed, in fact. All of them only share one thing, as you have been told repeatedly: they lack the belief that God (or god/s) exist. It's really no more complex than that.

The one thing that every individual knows is "I". We have no experience
of not being.
To accept or believe that "I" ceases to exist at some point, has to be accepted on faith.

Ever been unconscious? If you have then you should appreciate that there had been a period of time when your "I" was absent. From there it is, for many, a small step to extrapolating that lack of experience to when the brain is dead.

When you wrote...

Now, you can try to argue that theism doesn't lend itself to metaphysics or natural theology until you are blue in the face, if that is your wish?

Did you mean...

Now, you can try to argue that [a]theism doesn't lend itself to metaphysics or natural theology until you are blue in the face, if that is your wish?

No. I meant what I wrote. If you accept that theism lends itself to metaphysics then atheism, as a reaction to theism, must lend itself to the questions of metaphysics, by association.

Fair enough.
I see it as a rejection, and, or, a denial of.
I think it is rebellious.

Rejection, denial, perhaps (assuming that you do not have within your understanding of those terms an a priori assumption of the truth of what is being rejected or denied, rather than just the notion of what is rejected or denied). But rebellion? It may be for some atheists, but rebellion speaks to motive, and I don't think you can speak for even the majority of atheists. But if you see it as rebellion then that is for you to come to terms with. It might even go a small way to explaining (but not excusing) your belligerent nature in such discussions.

 

[iceaura]

Do you think atheism can lend itself to metaphysics without relying on theism?

Doesn't matter what anyone "thinks": Atheistic metaphysical traditions have existed, worldwide, for thousands of years. Some regard these - even today, in the West - as the most profound of metaphysical traditions extant.

Such as?
Can you elaborate on some of these traditions. Thanks.

There exist atheistic metaphysical traditions that incorporate the self, and theistic metaphysical traditions that deny it.
The basic existence of them is their only relevant feature here. You've seen them named dozens of times.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

How can there be no God?

I pleaded a similar wish when I was told by the smart kids that "there is no Santa its just stuff your parents made up to make you be good".

" How can there be no Santa" I bargained.

I mean I figured the Easter Bunny was made up as it was not realistic but somehow a man giving gifts to all the children in the world seemed most reasonable as I was a beneficiary.
I never stopped to consider the details that would bring the story crashing down.

But sadly Santa was indeed made up to keep kids well behaved using the promise reward if you were good for a year..which then seemed like a lifetime.
Imagine having to behalve a certain way for a life time and then find you should have realised it was just a made up story.

I suppose worse would be to never realise you have believed a lie.

But when I thought it through I could see the Santa story was rather transparent.

It is so hard to realise your facts were nothing but made up lies...

At least I had the good sence to think about what others had said and did not hold on to my belief in Santa.

Very enlightening experience.

It is a shame parents tell their kids there is a Santa and even though its nice making stuff up that is not true is just a lie really.
Alex