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

[Michael 345]

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe...-of-face-veils-in-public-20180531-p4zirw.html

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...t/news-story/2e38b7a7d5678146044a48870f28b3ad

There is a great contrast under the religion umbrella

Woman not allowed to wear so called "religious" clothing in public (which claim - of the religious nature of the outfits - has been shown to be false)

And a hard working spreader of the word wants believers to donate money so he can buy, as reported, his 4th private jet

I think PT Barnum guesstimate of one born every minute a gross underestimate

 

[Capracus]

///
What established religious beliefs propose that everything is god?

I tried to steer you to the answer in this previous post.

And by definition everything can be a god. Therefore theism can be defined as a reverence for the perceived supernatural aspects and behavior of anything.

Here is a further step.

There are a variety of definitions of pantheism. Some consider it a theological and philosophical position concerning God.

Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God. All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it. Some hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe (in the sense of the totality of all existence) and God are identical (implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism#Definitions

Another variation to this theme would be to combine elements of pantheism and polytheism. An example would be if you took the Greek pantheon of gods, where divine authority was delegated through subordinate gods, and further delegated that authority to not just a limited set of individual deities, but to the complete elemental set of the universe. You may think this to be an absurd proposition, but that's been the rule in the evolutionary construction of religion, where traditional religious beliefs are continuously hybridized into new ones.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't give a rat's ass what you're assuming for the purposes of discussion or not.

Then discuss with yourself, as that is what it boils down to.

The OP doesn't make that assumption, and certainly the article doesn't

So what?
I have used the article, for the purpose of provoking a discussion on its theme.

To try and dismiss what is a rather central issue,

To yo maybe, but not to me.
It is simply, loosely, based on a genre, that I like to discuss at these forums.

not to mention by doing so in the way you are now claiming to you alter what the term "atheism"

So what?

What other claims have you made that you are now going to say are simply assumptions for the purpose of discussion?

If I say they are so, just like I've said in this thread. It is my prerogative. If you don't like it, then move on.

It is this sort of evasion tactic from you, Jan, that leads so many to consider you a troll

What have I evaded?

So, let me ask again: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?

You will have to enlighten me on what objective existence is, and how one can establish such an existence outside one's subjective processing.


Why do you keep bringing this up?
How does it tie into the subject matter?

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

When anything can potentially be a deity, worship of that perceived supernatural anything can become theism.

So, to be clear: you don't have a theism unless you have at least one deity - agreed?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hi James,

We're going to have cease on these novel-length posts . Apart from that, yours mainly consists of you having discussions with yourself.
Hope that's okay with you

I'm not sure. I was under the impression you thought souls were somehow relevant to the current discussion.

That's because you're an atheist.
You probably think "souls" are a separate idea. Understandable.

If you knew why you think it's nonsense, you could give us reasons.

I'll let you prove that it is nonsense.
Please explain how it occurs?
Also feel free to show the evidences that lead you Acceptance.

Look at what you quoted from me there. See how my first sentence there was "There is evidence for this"?

Your so-called evidence is based on brain size. The bigger the brain, the higher the consciousness. One only has to read up about the African Grey Parrot, an animal with a brain, the size of a walnut, to rebut that.

Okay, I concede that possibly you don't think that all science is driven by an anti-religious bias, but it is clear that you think that this particular scientific idea (emergent consciousness) is driven by an anti-religion bias.

Show evidence from these scientists, that the brain is an emergent property of the brain, rather than simply default to worldview bias. It's that simple.

But, you know, it's easy for you to clear this up if I have made some kind of mistake. You can just confirm clearly for the benefit of your readers that you agree that the idea that consciousness is an emergent feature of brains is not just a device to "keep the divine fo

I can confirm no such thing.

What is it with you? Why do I keep having to remind you that I don't believe there is no God? The fact is, I'm just not convinced there is a God. But I've told you this over and over again. Why do you insist on repeatedly misrepresenting my position on this?

Who mentioned belief?
Is there a God, as far as you're aware?

It's not just with me, either. We've had whole threads in which atheists have patiently explained to you at length the difference between believing that there is no God and lacking the belief that there is a God.

As far as any atheist is aware: Is there a God? Yes or No?

Maybe the whole thing is just too subtle a distinction for you. In light of that, maybe it's time for you to stop telling the atheists here what they ll you tjat. Agree?

I don't tell you what you believe.
I tell you that there is no God as far as any atheist, ever, past, present, and future, is aware.

Now tell me this has nothing to do with the term, atheist? Then explain how.

Of course, in the case of minds, our use of language is not very precise.

Here goes...

To use a loose computer analogy, "I", or equivalently "my mind", is one of the software programmes that runs on the hardware of "my brain". Talking about "my mind" is no different to talking about something like "the PC's operating system". (But perhaps you think that PCs also have souls?)

Utter gobeldigook!
We claim ownership of our bodies and minds. Because we temporarily own them.

And, as I said previously, you could even be right about that. But if you're right, then you should really make an effort to try answering the question I have put to you many times, as to how this soul of yours pulls those strings, exactly. How does that non-physical, immaterial soul influence anything in the physical world (as it must do)? Why do you avoid this question each time it is asked? I know why, of course. It is because you have not even the faintest beginnings of an adequate answer.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I am incapable of explanation. What does that have to do with anything?

Also, I suggest if you seriously want to explore the what the soul is, and how occupies its psition. Go and find out, by reading, listening, and observing.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

I tell you that there is no God as far as any atheist, ever, past, present, and future, is aware.

And your OP is a falsehood, as you have yet to acknowledge.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you're saying that atheists take new knowledge from science on board as science advances, while theists tend to stagnate in their dogmas and their scriptures, refusing to accept science, then I agree, of course.

That's not what I'm saying, obviously.
Atheists like to give the impression that they are scientifically based. When they are not.
Why do you do that?

Perhaps you're not aware that simply defining words does not create new knowledge. If you claim that souls are pure, there ought to be more to that statement than the definition: "soul, n. pure supernatural thing that controls a human body" or whatever.

There is more, but you won't access it.
You will deny it, because that is what atheists do. The reason you will automatically deny it, is because you have no choice but to accept a materialist POV. It would be a waste of time, to go beyond these simple explanations, and invite you to educate yourself on the subject matter.

Souls are just like unicorns, and this is why you don't know anything about them.

I'm going to leave you with that belief.
It is understandable.

It seems more like an advantage to me.

This is my point.

Understand now?

Not really.
But it doesn't matter.

Probably no God.

I will accept this for the purpose of discussion.

I know lots of interesting things about God concepts. The same kinds of dismal things that you know about that, when it comes down to it. The difference between us is that you have faith that the concepts are real, whereas I say "show me!" And you're also apparently under the delusion that you know not just about the concepts but also a reality reflecting (some of) those concepts.

You refer to God as a concept. Admittedly, when discussing with atheists, I go along with it (for the purpose of discussion).

But yes, whateverone reads, or hears about God, is conceptual, if you approach the subject neutrally. And yes, you can know the same things as me.

Then again, bit is the same with any subject matter. Which kind of makes it a pointless observation.

Well, yes, as long as by "looking at things" you include all the senses. How else can one become aware of something?

"Stepping back", "looking at the big picture" , and "considering", all require awareness. Yet you say I'm concentrating on "awareness" too much.

(We can take as given our previous discussion in which you claimed to have an additional special magical God sense. No need to repeat that.)

As far as I remember, I never use the term, "magic", yet you keep saying I do.
I do however, use the term, "natural"
Why don't you use that?

If you have any unturned stones to show me, I will be most interested to examine them on their merits, I assure you.

What do they say... You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
You're the horse in this metaphor.

Nah. If it was important, and you knew what you were talking about, you would it try to explain it. Obviously, either it's not important, or you don't know what you're talking about, or both. No need to waste more of my time on it.

I understand.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And your OP is a falsehood, as you have yet to acknowledge.

I did say invite discussion.
What is false about the article?

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

I did say invite discussion.
What is false about the article?

The OP is a falsehood, posted by you.

Atheists like to give the impression that they are scientifically based. When they are not.

The OP you posted is a falsehood about scientific research.
Are you sure you are getting accurate impressions in these matters?

 

[Jan Ardena]

In the Old Testament, there's a prohibition on eating pork. At the time of writing, there might well have been some good health-related reasons for avoiding eating the local pigs. But the message "Don't eat the pig; you might get sick" is not as strong a message as "Don't eat the pig. God has said pigs are unclean animals. You will go to Hell if you disobey God by eating a pig." So, we see religious trappings put on a health message.

There is a spiritual component to this prohibition. For one, the people who God were relating to in the Bible, were vegetarian. At least before the flood.

While vegetarianism is not a common practice in current western Christian thought and culture, the concept and practice has scriptural and historical support. According to the Bible, in the beginning, before the Fall, human and nonhuman animals, who are beings who have or are an ānima, Latin for soul,[7][8] were completely vegan, and "it was very good".[Genesis 1:29-31] According to some interpretations of the Bible, raw veganism was the original diet of humankind in the form given to Adam and Eve by God in Genesis 1:29, "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food".

From wiki

The reasons for this, could be the subject of a whole thread. O I'm not going to go into it here.

Cut to the present day. Right now, in countries where the production of pigs for human consumption is a well-regulated and carefully magaged industry, and where the pork is quite safe to eat, many people still abstain from eating pork due to the same historical religious prohibition. Moreover, regardless of how the meat is prepared, they see it as "unclean". Not unclean in the literal sense of being unhealthy or disease-ridden, but unclean in the metaphysical sense of being tainted by God's prohibition.

It's not due to the presentation of the pig, that makes it unclean. It is the eating habits which are deemed unclean.

You are what you eat!

Ideas of purity and what is metaphysically clean or unclean are found in many places in religion. Some religious people, for example, are disgusted by the mere thought of homosexual sex, and by association homosexual people. They regard that kind of sex as unclean or impure, not for any health reason (although some will attempt to rationalise it that way) but for religious reasons.

So what?
What's the betting you're going to incorporate homosexuality in this thread, for no other reason than to try and illicit a provocative reaction, even though it is grossly off-topic.

Possibly this is of no interest to you, since God's scriptures are from God and all. I guess God just doesn't like people eating pork and there doesn't have to be any explanation beyond that. But an atheist like myself wants to dig deeper.

I understand your reasoning, based on your worldview. Unfortunately, because of that, we cannot take this any further.

In the context of our discussion about souls, you might like to reconsider your claim that souls are "pure" in light of the new information I have presented above.

From your perspective, I get it.

Theological question, Jan. Do you think the end times will be happening soon?

Let's look at it this way.
Do you agree that after your born, you must ultimately die?

The end times is something that is continuously in motion. Just like we are all experiencing our personal end times, as proprietor of these biological machines.

If you noticed, my response to Alex, came with an emoji. Indicating tongue-in-cheekness.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The OP you posted is a falsehood about scientific research.
Are you sure you are getting accurate impressions in these matters?

How do you know?
Admittedly, it would have been better to give more information about the science, and scientists. But he didn't. This is why I only stated that the article was "interesting" not factual.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Then discuss with yourself, as that is what it boils down to.

I would certainly get a more intelligent and honest discussion, that much is certain.

So what?
I have used the article, for the purpose of provoking a discussion on its theme.

"So what?"?? You find it normal to suddenly throw in an "oh, I'm just assuming that for purposes of discussion" on what is a fairly fundamental matter to the whole discussion, and to do so because you think it absolves you from having to deal with issues around that assumption?
I guess trolls do as trolls do, Jan.

To yo maybe, but not to me.
It is simply, loosely, based on a genre, that I like to discuss at these forums.

It's not a matter of "to you" or "to me" but what is important to the issue that has been raised. To dismiss it as you do, to simply try to sweep things under the carpet is pathetic and dishonest. What's more I have the strong feeling that you know full well that it is.

So what?

???? You don't think that altering what "atheist" means, in the middle of a discussion about whether or not atheists actually exists, is dishonest?

If I say they are so, just like I've said in this thread. It is my prerogative. If you don't like it, then move on.

You simply seem to have absolutely no sense as to how utterly dishonest that is, do you? You honestly think you can, as you are doing here, simply ignore any argument made against what you say with "well, I'm assuming it for purposes of discussion"? Seriously??
Utterly pathetic of you, Jan. At least your are being so brazen with your outright dishonesty.

What have I evaded?

You will have to enlighten me on what objective existence is, and how one can establish such an existence outside one's subjective processing.

Objective existence is that which is unchanging irrespective of perspective. It's not a matter of how one can establish such an existence, but whether you think God is wholly subjective, partially subjective/objective, or wholly objective.
If you think God has any element of objectivity then the question you are continuing to evade is: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?

Why do you keep bringing this up?
How does it tie into the subject matter?

You asked me a question, Jan. Post #428. I replied and asked a follow-up question of my own. And I'm still waiting for an answer, despite numerous posts since.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Objective existence is that which is unchanging irrespective of perspective. It's not a matter of how one can establish such an existence, but whether you think God is wholly subjective, partially subjective/objective, or wholly objective.
If you think God has any element of objectivity then the question you are continuing to evade is: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?

What does any of this have to do with the article?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Show evidence from these scientists, that the brain is an emergent property of the brain, rather than simply default to worldview bias. It's that simple.

Soz James, I meant to say...

... Show evidence from these scientists, that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, rather than simply default to worldview bias. It's that simple.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

It's not due to the presentation of the pig, that makes it unclean. It is the eating habits which are deemed unclean.

That's fine. There is no difference in the safety of the meat. But if you have a non-rational religious objection (i.e. it's "unclean" but a chicken's are "clean") then by all means eat whatever you like.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus

I take it, this is the question from post 428, that you refer to.

How is this related to your trolling behaviour?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's fine. There is no difference in the safety of the meat. But if you have a non-rational religious objection (i.e. it's "unclean" but a chicken's are "clean") then by all means eat whatever you like.

We're not aware of the spiritual implications.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

What does any of this have to do with the article?

Yay for more evasion from Jan! \o/

Jan's tactic #92: when a discussion naturally moves onto other areas, even though you yourself may have created that other path, if a question arises that you can't answer then simply claim it is nothing to do with the OP. That way you never have to answer it. Successful evasion!

Let me ask you again, Jan: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument? Or are you now refusing to answer it, even though the question is in direct response to a matter you raised some 5 pages ago, and that you have singularly failed to answer thus far?

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus

I take it, this is the question from post 428, that you refer to.

How is this related to your trolling behaviour?

Were you intending to post the question here? As for the leading question...

 

[billvon]

We're not aware of the spiritual implications.

Ah. Well, then pork is as safe as any other meat when handled properly.