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

[iceaura]

The atheists position is to rely on his senses, to understand God.

That's not true.

The title of this thread is a falsehood. You continue to pretend otherwise. Why?

You even pretend when you can clearly describe the nature of the falsehood, like this:

Secondly, trying to prove God to an atheist, is a futile task. The atheist is so, because there is no God, as far as the atheist is aware.

But many atheists are keenly aware of metaphysics, as described by the research underlying this OP.

 

[Jan Ardena]

By the absence of evidence Jan.

How do you know there is an absence of evidence?

That general statement is supported by scientific observation and research and notably none of that scientific research or observation offers any evidence of a soul.

A lot of that is pretty-much bunkum (my use), according quite a few brave scientists. The rest of them daren't come out of the closet for fear of losing their credibility.

So please Cite the observation, and research, that gives you such confidence. Otherwise you have to default to the idea that you own your body, making you not your body, but an entity that owns, and controls (to a point) his vehicle (physical body).

I dont understand what an "essential you" is...I am me... a simple human, I live and breath eat etc and think...
Nothing special when compared to other humans or indeed other animals.

Does your body belong to you?

As to me, when I die there is no more me..the brain dies and me isjust a construct of my brain.

Oh! So now it's the brain!
Which brain are we talking about?
There are probably a kazillion brains out there.
But to your credit, brains do die.

But how do you know that the "I" dies, along with its brain? Or is it an uneducated guess?

If you have evidence of a soul you should publish your evidence in a medical journal as it will no doubt be the first evidence ever published.

You are the soul.
The very act of publishing, even if it atheist delusions, is evidence that you are essentially a spiritual-soul.

How do humans go from goo, to publishing articles, or speaking poetry.
Please explain that via your bunkum theories.

I say there is no soul and until someone provides real evidence I will continue to say there is no soul and presume it just is yet another made up story speaking to us from the bronze age and before.
Alex

That's atheism!

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's not true

Care to elaborate?

The title of this thread is a falsehood. You continue to pretend otherwise. Why?

On the contrary. Why do you deny, and reject the feasibility of the topic.

What are you afraid of?
You keep asking the wrong questions, like where is the evidence for God, or soul.

But the reality is, you deny, and, or, reject anything that is Godly.

Its like going through life taking a brave step forward, followed by two steps back.

At least you can attempt to break that loop, by learning that habit is the result of a mental construct, which has to be maintained, and updated, to give the appearance of it being natural, like theism.

But many atheists are keenly aware of metaphysics, as described by the research underlying this OP.

That's the point of this thread.
There are no atheists in reality.
It is simply an idea that keeps you in the loop.

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

How do you know there is an absence of evidence?

By its absence☺

Further I tend to think if you or any soul supporter had any evidence it would been have been tabled even before this thread.

You have nothing to present other than bronze age camp fire stories.

Still maybe there is some medical evidence of a soul that I have missed so if you know of any now would be the time to show us what you have got.

Some fool claimed to have weighed the soul but like all of this stuff just a made nonsence that had less substance than smoke and that is being far too kind.

The rest of them daren't come out of the closet for fear of losing their credibility.

Well that is understandable but their credibility must already be suspect if they hide in closets.
Their main problem may be they are theists first and scientists second...that causes problems..think of the way it goes for some..raised in a religious house hold and totally brainwashed then they have to fit their science into their religious views...wont work but still they try...but science is science and as inconvenient as it may be the scriptures are not regarded as helpful to scientific enquirey.

So please Cite the observation, and research, that gives you such confidence.

No Jan.

I am not the one trying to assert bronze age goat herders know more about science than an unbrainwashed child from the modern era.

Otherwise you have to default to the idea that you own your body, making you not your body, but an entity that owns, and controls (to a point) his vehicle (physical body).

If by default you mean make up more stuff on a whim sure...but your default position has no substance ..it is wishful thinking and nothing more..there is no logic to your default position..and more importantly no tangible evidence whatsoever...why drown yourself in bronze age ignorance simply to satisfy a whim.

Does your body belong to you?

I am not a slave if that is what you are driving at...
I is me my body my mind my brain we are one ... there is no little bit that gets to jump ship when we all die.

But how do you know that the "I" dies, along with its brain? Or is it an uneducated guess?

I dont know really but neither do you know really.

Your world view has it that there is a soul and I dont believe that at all...
If you want to make it an acceptable fact you need acceptable evidence...I dont need evidence to refute you ...you do however need to establish your claims with more current authorities than bronze age make believe artists.

The very act of publishing, even if it atheist delusions, is evidence that you are essentially a spiritual-soul.

Jan honestly that is not evidence...it is your religious logic working overtime...if you think you are making a reasonable point I say you are not...you think what you like but your biased observation is not logic.

How do humans go from goo,

Its your mob who has us coming from goo or mud or clay.
And certainly life, its appearance and evolution is a most comex subject certainly a subject far beyond the bronze age goat herders version of life coming for a clay model...really a clay model?
Thats what you should expect from a bronze age camp fire builder but honestly if you want to believe they knew what they were talking about that is up to you...but really do you think they have a clue or were doing the only thing they could do and that was to simply make stuff up.
I am surprised that you can look at our era with such contempt and yet place value upon unknown authors from the bronze age who did not even know where the Sun went at night.

It is up to you but our modern era has the runs on the board..we know stuff..we can fly...we deserve to be given more credibility than folk who were uneducated and superstitious...and really look at their misunderstandings...they thought the world was flat, they thought stars could fall on the ground ...they thought the stars were Gods and sort to personify the Sun and claim a relationship to a star...they had no idea the stars were Suns...and yet you are happy to rely upon their ignorant attempts to make sence of their world and all the time ignore the superior knowledge of modern humans...

That's atheism!

I understand you have nothing and now use the word as if it were something bad but really Jan atheism is enlightenment and a state of mind that allows humans to escape the bronze age superstitions that have cruely governed humans and prevented and held back truth if it threatened to expose the various myths and made up stories from the bronze age.

Heck even in the stone age they were closer to the truth by worshiping something real and that actually existed..the Sun...but superstition dragged us down into a bog that most humans still struggle in today.

However if you are confident your bronze age scriptures describe the world truthfully that is your perogative.

For me I see the bronze age as primative superstitious and uninformed and thanks to our modern science I at least know where the Sun goes at night.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

By its absence

Let's put it another way.
If there were to be evidence, what would the evidence entail?
If you cannot answer, then how do you know it is absent.

Further I tend to think if you or any soul supporter had any evidence it would been have been tabled even before this thread

By definition, every living being, is evidence of a soul. So obviously, evidence isn't the issue with you.
So what is it?

You have nothing to present other than bronze age camp fire stories.

I assume you don't have evidence that there were bronze age camp fire stories.
But then again, you don't need real evidence to accept something. If it's theist-y you reject it, and if it's atheist-y you accept it, as long as you think it is atheist-y enough.

Their main problem may be they are theists first and scientists second...that causes

That's not their problem at all.
How arrogant are you?

No Jan.

I didn't think you could.

by default you mean make up more stuff on a whim sure...but your default position has no substance ..it is wishful thinking and nothing more..there is no logic to your default position..and more importantly no tangible evidence whatsoever...why drown yourself in bronze age ignorance simply to satisfy a whim.

LOL!
You're funny (when you don't want to be).

I am not a slave if that is what you are driving at...
I is me my body my mind my brain we are one ... there is no little bit that gets to jump ship when we all die.

Do you not refer to your body as "mine", "my". Yes or No.
If you do, then how can you be the same as your body?
If no, then how do you refer to your body?

I dont know really

Then stop acting like you do.
I have a plausible reason for thinking it doesn't.
You have no reason whatsoever.

Your world view has it that there is a soul and I dont believe that at all...

Of course you don't
Because you're an atheist.
Duh!

If you want to make it an acceptable fact you need acceptable evidence...I dont need evidence to refute you ...you do however need to establish your claims with more current authorities than bronze age make believe artists.

I don't give a toss whether or not it is an acceptable fact.
You think you're some kind of automaton, who sprouted from goo.
Do you see me asking you for evidence?

Jan honestly that is not evidence

Let's see how much you've thought this through.

Why isn't it?

Its your mob who has us coming from goo or mud or clay.

Huh?
Am I being a little too hard on you. You seem to be babbling.

I am surprised that you can look at our era with such contempt

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth, or I will put you on ignore.

It is up to you but our modern era has the runs on the board..we know stuff..we can fly..

So, you think that before the modern era, people knew nothing about science.
Is that your notion?

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to, as you simply repeat yourself, over and over.

Yo should seriously attempt answering, or discussing some of my points.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

By definition, every living being, is evidence of a soul. So obviously, evidence isn't the issue with you.

The issue is evidence that rationally supports the existence of a soul. If you can't see why your circular reasoning doesn't provide that, well, that says more about your thought processes than anything else.

Do you not refer to your body as "mine", "my". Yes or No.
If you do, then how can you be the same as your body?
If no, then how do you refer to your body?

Could you not refer to "your" consciousness, "your" soul, or even your "I"?
If you do, then how can you be the same as your consciousness, your soul, or your "I"?

Or perhaps you now see the issue with trying to make an argument simply from playing with words?

I don't give a toss whether or not it is an acceptable fact.
You think you're some kind of automaton, who sprouted from goo.
Do you see me asking you for evidence?

So now your defensive posture is to st that because you don't ask for evidence of someone else's claims, they shouldn't ask it of you and yours?

 

[billvon]

By definition, every living being, is evidence of a soul.

So yeast cells have a soul?

Think of the genocide in every slice of bread!

 

[Jan Ardena]

The issue is evidence that rationally supports the existence of a soul. If you can't see why your circular reasoning doesn't provide that, well, that says more about your thought processes than

Define the soul, in the context I put it.

Could you not refer to "your" consciousness, "your" soul, or even your "I"?

I can refer to "my consciousness". Yes.
To refer to the soul as "my soul", can be a misunderstanding.

If you notice, when I remember, I identify it as "spirit", or "spiritual-soul". The reason being, the term refers to the living body, as well (life-force) .
But in the context that I am using it, it makes no sense to say "my soul" .

As it is the "I" that speaks, and wills, and makes reference it makes no sense to refer to the "I" as "mine" Which is why nobody does.

Or perhaps you now see the issue with trying to make an argument simply from playing with words?

I'm not playing with words. When we say "things are mine" , we know we are separate from them.

So now your defensive posture is to st that because you don't ask for evidence of someone else's claims, they shouldn't ask it of you and yours?

Asking for evidence in this case, is stall tactic. Do you have any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known?

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If there were to be evidence, what would the evidence entail?

If you had evidence what would it entail?

By definition, every living being, is evidence of a soul.

By definition??? That is an interesting preamble to cite camp fire stories from the bronze age and before.

Here is a novel idea show some real evidence preferably something more current than camp fire stories from the bronze age.

So obviously, evidence isn't the issue with you.

Let me clear up a small misunderstanding Jan ...evidence is needed to support a claim that made up stories from the bronze age are anything more than speculative camp fire stories shared by goat herders during the night when they puzzelled over where the Sun had gone...if any of your made up stories are real then real evidence should not be a problem to provide but if all you can offer is "by definition" you got nothing...apart from made up stories of which you are so fond.

I assume you don't have evidence that there were bronze age camp fire stories.

In those times they did not write so much but reliably passed information by telling stories ( we know this from the story of Jesus being passed on over half a century by story telling well before any written record could be made) and as these stories are known to be detailed one can assume they would only be told at night because in those times folk were no stop busy all day...and lighting was a luxury and sure they had oil lamps but oil was precious and if a story was to be told it was told in the dark by a campfire.
And remains of camp fires have been discovered so what more evidence would you like before you accept the notion that stories were told by camp fires?

LOL!
You're funny (when you don't want to be).

Thank you but it is easy given our subject matter.

Do you not refer to your body as "mine", "my". Yes or No.
If you do, then how can you be the same as your body?
If no, then how do you refer to your body?

That is rather powerful evidence Jan.
You would have been the center of attention around one of those camp fires.

You think you're some kind of automaton, who sprouted from goo.

No Jan that is not what I think anyways it does not matter what I think all that matters is that you be given room to establish why in this modern era we should place any credibility upon camp fire stories from the bronze age and why you are content to rely on their made up stories.

Why isn't it?

Is the concept of evidence so strange you are unable to work that out...I see the problem Jan you need to learn about evidence..it just hit me in your world you would not get to see the use of evidence. It works this way ... say you claim you can bake bread ...you could support that claim with "evidence" by showing the bread and the over that you made it in...that sort of thing that provides something other than a mere story.

You seem to be babbling.

Yes when relating those camp fire stories one does
seem to be babbling.

Yo should seriously attempt answering, or discussing some of my points.

Ok there is no soul just because you say so.

Hope all is good in your world Jan and the next one as well☺

Alex

 

[Sarkus]

Define the soul, in the context I put it.

That is for you to do, Jan.

I can refer to "my consciousness". Yes.
To refer to the soul as "my soul", can be a misunderstanding.

If you notice, when I remember, I identify it as "spirit", or "spiritual-soul". The reason being, the term refers to the living body, as well (life-force) .
But in the context that I am using it, it makes no sense to say "my soul" .

As it is the "I" that speaks, and wills, and makes reference it makes no sense to refer to the "I" as "mine" Which is why nobody does.

My "I", as opposed to your "I". There, I have done it. It makes sense.
Simply put, you're playing with words to try to establish an argument. One which fails.

I'm not playing with words. When we say "things are mine" , we know we are separate from them.

Yes, you are playing with words, Jan. Not only are you equivocating meanings of "mine" or "my" - between ownership and relationship, but you are also arguing for the truth of a proposition through language alone.

Define soul for me, please, Jan. In the context you are using it.

Asking for evidence in this case, is stall tactic. Do you have any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known?

It's not a stall tactic for those that ask, Jan. But whether it is or not, that doesn't address your defensive posture being that because you don't ask them for evidence others shouldn't ask you. That is a flawed posture, Jan: you can not assert your rationale for not asking upon those that wish to ask it of you.

As for your question: No, I have no evidence that God exists, nor that God needs evidence to be known. I have never claimed to have such evidence. However, can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular reasoning?

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Based on scientific claims.
Can you make a case against it

I don't need to. He already did it when he cited the statistic that most atheists do not believe in the supernatural (including God). As I have pointed out repeatedly, the premise of the article is laughable. I'd wonder if the headline wasn't written by an editor who hadn't read the article, if more or less the same claim wasn't actually made in the article itself.

It does follow, however, that consciousness brings forth consciousness.

What does that follow from? Explain.

Why would you entertain the idea that consciousness comes from your brain?

I already told you. Damage the brain and the consciousness goes away. No brain = no consciousness. Obvious conclusion follows.

It appears that way from the outside, especially if you identify the physical body as the self. But you do not know what goes on internally.

Seeing as we're talking about the science and all, it's worth pointing out that, actually, we do know quite a bit about what goes on internally in brains.

The "I" most likely enters into different dimensions, just like when we are asleep.

Most likely, eh? And you deduce this from what, exactly?

The "I" identifies with it's body, and expresses itself according to it's conscious state. For example the "I" acts accordingly, if it's body loses a leg, or arm. You cannot act like you have two legs, if you only have one

We could have a discussion about phantom limbs and the like at this point, but it would take us too far from the main topic.

Your "I" is an emergent property of the workings of your brain. I know that it feels to you as if there's a "separate" consciousness looking out from behind your eyes, but that's an illusion. You're not even consciously aware of a lot of what your brain is doing from moment to moment.

I'm not sure how far beyond your own peculiar religious construction you have explored, but possibly you're aware of meditation. Meditation tends to make you realise that there is no "I". Search for it, and it slips away.

Firstly, God Is. But you deny, and or reject it.

Do you really want to play another round of "Who's in denial?" Aren't you getting tired of that old line by now? It works both ways, you know.

Secondly, trying to prove God to an atheist, is a futile task.

Fine, but that's not your aim in this thread. Here, you're trying to tell atheists that they don't exist at all. You're making yourself look a bit silly, aren't you, arguing with all us non-existent atheists?

The atheist is so, because there is no God, as far as the atheist is aware.

Yes, and theists are so because there is a God, as far as theists are aware. To put it in simpler terms, atheists don't believe in God, and theists do. So. We are agreed on our definitions, at least.

The atheists position is to rely on his senses, to understand God.

Depends on the particular atheist. Mileage may vary.

Accepting that the senses came about through natural forces, there is no way he can comprehend God, other than some material creature, that can be sensually observed.

Until he can let go of the idea that everything came about via natural forces, he is lost, as far as understanding what is God, self, and how they are related.

Now I'm confused. What is this thread about, again?

I thought your premise was that science has established that atheists don't exist. But science is all about "natural forces". So, you appear to be saying that when people are doing science they are lost, as far as understanding God, self etc.

If you need to venture into the realm of the supernatural in order to explain why atheists can't comprehend God, then you aren't offering a scientific explanation of why atheists don't exist. You're offering a religious explanation. You're saying that once people is stop using science, then they have half a chance of understanding God and becoming theists.

If your argument is that doing science makes people atheist, then that kind of torpedoes your argument that there aren't really any atheists at all, doesn't it?

No one needs faith to belive in God, unless they're atheist.

Faith is belief without evidence, which is all you have to offer. You admit it yourself.

Belief in God is natural, but there can be no belief for those who deny, or reject, God.

The science suggests that a predisposition to believe in God may be natural, no more.

But do I hear you claiming that there are people who can have no belief? Wouldn't those people be the atheists whom you say don't exist?

God allows our desire to live as though there is no God, meaning they aren't bound by their conscience, if they choose not to be.

I'm so glad that God allows this.
Does this mean that God allows atheists to exist, after all?

"Wide eyed enthusiasm"?

Personally, I think it's a poor article.

You see its flaws now. Okay. Progress.

As for the bullshit meter, I remember your defence of the whale evolution, a discussion we had years ago.

I don't.

You have some kind of problem with whale evolution, in particular? Or evolution in general? I fear we might drift off topic again, but can you tell me why whales have foot bones embedded in their bodies down towards the tail end? And why the bones in their front flippers are a lot like finger bones? Do you think whales evolved (a) at all? (b) from land animals? Or do you think they were specially created "as is" by God, complete with the foot and finger bones?

Does your embellishment of theism, give you more confidence in your delusional position? Should I act enthusiastic, so the wishful thinking aspect of your delusion, appears rational, and thought out.

Did my use of the word "enthusiastic" (twice) annoy you there, Jan? Are you not enthusiastic about your beliefs? You take quite a lot of pains to promote them on this forum. A lot of the time, it's like you're on a kind of crusade. Atheists don't exist. Really?

You didn't answer my question.

Let's assume they are pseudoscientificsessions. Why do they participate?

I did answer your question. Which part of my answer confused you?

What is "supernatural" about Reiki?

Start with the "spiritual energy" or "universal life energy" if you like. The founder, Makao Usui says, for example "The true purpose of the Reiki method is to correct the heart-mind, keep the body fit, and lead a happy life using the spiritual capabilities humans are endowed with since birth."

You don't want to try to argue that "spiritual capabilities" are natural, do you?

Are you enthusiastic about Reiki?

 

[James R]

(continued...)

I consider them rituals.
We all pray, more than we realise.
Praying is natural to humans.
But not all prayers are directly to God.
But, ultimately, the only is God, and everything else is subordinate.

I see. You're saying that we're all praying, even if we don't realise it. When we sing "Happy Birthday to you!" it's really an unconscious prayer to God. I get it. Us non-existent atheists don't realise that we're praying all the time. No doubt it's just a part of the denial.

I don't have to believe it.
The consciousness, about to leave the body, with the realisation that it has acted foolishly, out of ignorance, asking for forgiveness. Would come as no surprise to anyone. However it would be foolish, to stick to your delusional guns, when that time comes. Reality can be a bitch!

It sure sounds like you believe it.

It's just an article. Why get so het up over it?

Who's het up? You were het up enough about it to want to put it up for discussion. Are you regretting your choice now that the discussion you invited is happening? Isn't it going the way you hoped it would? Were you hoping the atheists here would concede that we don't actually exist, perhaps?

Typical atheist understanding of God.

Do you think one is theist, because one asserts theism?

Depends what you mean by "asserts", but essentially yes.

To be a theist, one must understand what theism entails. One must understand what theism is about. One must be aware of the subject matter of theism.

Can one be a polo player without "asserting" anything about polo? Suppose you accidentally ride a horse and hit a ball along the ground with a mallet. Are you a polo player then? Nobody has mentioned the word "polo" to you. Nobody has explained the rules of the game. Are you actually playing polo, or are you just bashing a ball around a field?

Babies aren't theists, for all the same reasons that they aren't polo players. You can't do theism by accident.

One is not a theist, because one says so
The same applies to atheists and atheism.

That's the converse of the same argument, right?

Going through the motions of polo doesn't make you a polo player, let alone not doing anything polo-related. Similarly, saying you play polo doesn't make it so.

It's worth pointing out, in the context of the current discussion, that there are actual polo players out there. They aren't all just pretending, or in denial.

What?

What?

What is a supernatural watcher?

A person who is supernatural who can see what people do. Like God, for example.

Why would someone who believes in God, think they are going to be pinished in the afterlife?

You're the theist. You tell me.

I'd venture that if they were a Catholic or a Christian fundamentalist, for example, they might think so because of talk of Hell in the bible, and by their priests and by other similar believers. God judges the wicked, and all that. Surely you're familiar with the idea?

Why do you think people, naturally have a sense of justice?

Why is having a sense of justice, beneficial for human society?

How is it any better than a society with no justice, assuming the human has no sense of justice?

I really don't have time to take you through this in detail. So, in a nutshell, here are a few basic ideas to get you started:

Evolutionarily speaking, it tends to come down to matters of reciprocal altruism and freeloading. Evolutionarily, it doesn't make sense for an organism to allow others (e.g. other individuals of the same species) to take resources that it has put energy into obtaining in the first place. Gathering resources for survival is costly for the individual. Freeloaders get the benefit without incurring the cost, and that comes at the expense of the ones who do incur the cost - indeed it obliges extra cost. On the other hand, cooperation for mutual benefit is often valuable. End result: social behaviour is often a net evolutionary good for an organism, while it makes sense to impose consequences on freeloaders. Hence, justice, and the desire for it.

In the wider societal context, justice and the sense of it is beneficial for the society because it tends to make the society more productive, which benefits the individuals who participate in it.

Let's expose atheism for what it actually is. A mental construct.

All ideas are mental constructs. Theism included. Consider yourself equally exposed.

 

[Capracus]

Well first off, this isn't science, it's a philosophical discussion about poorly defined metaphysical beliefs. And, of course, there generally is a difference between how gods are typically defined as opposed to supernatural rocks and opossum carcasses. I'm not really sure of your point however. Perhaps you can clarify.

Of course it’s not science, which is why a god is able to be described by the subjective whims of a particular philosophy rather than a consistent process of reason. When the imagined characteristics of gods range from local custodians to the sum of all that exists, and the modes of spiritual access to these gods can involve countless ritualistic practices associated with any manner of person, place or thing, is it really a stretch to imagine that sacred rocks and opossum carcasses could have a place in those schemes?

When you state that:

Having superstitious or ritualistic beliefs or practices, or even beliefs in certain supernatural concepts is not the same as, and does not imply, belief in a god.

It really is no different than practicing belief in gods.

 

[Sarkus]

It really is no different than practicing belief in gods.

Other than one requires you to be a theist (i.e. have belief in god(s)) and the other doesn't. So while the article may argue that while not everyone might believe in God they still possibly have other metaphysical beliefs, there is still the issue of what theism and atheism is actually defined as. One might have any number of metaphysical beliefs, but if one does have the belief that God (or god(s)) exist then one is an atheist.
The headline to the article is thus flawed: metaphysical belief does not itself equate to theism.

Plus there are those who may not hold any metaphysical belief at all.

 

[Michael 345]

I have mentioned this before - not sure this thread - but are any persons in this thread aware that Catholics consider being superstitious a sin

Might ponder that curious nugget

 

[Capracus]

Other than one requires you to be a theist (i.e. have belief in god(s)) and the other doesn't. So while the article may argue that while not everyone might believe in God they still possibly have other metaphysical beliefs, there is still the issue of what theism and atheism is actually defined as. One might have any number of metaphysical beliefs, but if one does have the belief that God (or god(s)) exist then one is an atheist.
The headline to the article is thus flawed: metaphysical belief does not itself equate to theism.

Plus there are those who may not hold any metaphysical belief at all.

You seem to be splitting metaphysical hairs. Philosophically a god can exist at any level of existence. There can be god of the thimble, god of the forest, or god of all there is. Essentially a god for any occasion. If you’re assigning supernatural qualities to elements of reality, and personal connections to said elements, then you are aping the behavior of theists. “If it believes like a duck ...”

 

[Michael 345]

Haven't really kept up with this thread so forgive the dumb questions

What scientific field were those who undertook this
"Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke"
study which lead to this breakthrough?

How long did the study take?

Has anyone self identified as a atheists since the study?

If so has this anomaly been accounted for?

Has the study been peer reviewed? repeated?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Over four hundred posts for the one troll. That's epic.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So yeast cells have a soul?

Think of the genocide in every slice of bread!

If yeast is alive (eat, sleep, reproduce, defend), it is essentially a spirit soul. That is according to the definition of "soul".

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Over four hundred posts for the one troll. That's epic.

Troll?
Oh the irony!

Jan.