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

[Write4U]

Its accurate.
Find any conspiracy theory that makes you roll your eyes and you will find they start at the point of (not-so-common) definitions to begin their stroll up the garden path

Rubbish.
The explanation and simple definition of a Divine Being named God gets curioser and curioser.

Slinging mud at the wall to see what sticks is not a objective scientific way to discuss metaphysics.
Try again....

I'll make it easier on you. Instead of defining God, just tell me why you believe in the existence of God.
How difficult can that be?

 

[iceaura]

Beginning at the point of definition is kind of "101: Denial and Rejection".

Which brings us back to the falsehood of the OP, and its various defenses - they pivot on redefinitions of every term in use, from "atheist" to "belief" to "god".

 

[Write4U]

What would be the need for an atheist mosque?

What would be the need for an atheist church?

 

[Musika]

Rubbish.
The explanation and simple definition of a Divine Being named God gets curioser and curioser.

On the contrary, the curiousity is your rejection of a metaphysical position on the strength of physics.

Slinging mud at the wall to see what sticks is not a objective scientific way to discuss metaphysics.

Q.E.D.

I'll make it easier on you. Instead of defining God, just tell me why you believe in the existence of God.
How difficult can that be?

Because it doesn't make sense to believe otherwise.
If I presented you with a model of the solar system or even a teacup and tried to convince you that it wasn't created by anyone, you would never believe me ... yet an atheist would have us believe that is the case for the universe and everything within it.

 

[Write4U]

On the contrary, the curiousity is your rejection of a metaphysical position on the strength of physics.

Q.E.D.

Because it doesn't make sense to believe otherwise.
If I presented you with a model of the solar system or even a teacup and tried to convince you that it wasn't created by anyone, you would never believe me ... yet an atheist would have us believe that is the case for the universe and everything within it.

Ever heard of "self-organization"?

Self-organization, also called (in the social sciences) spontaneous order, is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The process is spontaneous, not needing control by any external agent.

It is often triggered by random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system. As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive or self-repair substantial perturbation. Chaos theory discusses self-organization in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

 

[Musika]

Ever heard of "self-organization"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

So you can accept this self organised?

 

[iceaura]

If I presented you with a model of the solar system or even a teacup and tried to convince you that it wasn't created by anyone, you would never believe me

Of course not. Or a model of dandelion, showing the roots and everything - obviously made by somebody, unlike the weeds in my yard it is a model of.

They appear to have evolved, as a species - and I can observe their growth, as individuals.

What's your point?

 

[Musika]

Of course not. Or a model of dandelion, showing the roots and everything - obviously made by somebody, unlike the weeds in my yard it is a model of.

They appear to have evolved, as a species - and I can observe their growth, as individuals.

What's your point?

Why is the model obviously made by someone and not the incredibly more complex basis of the model?

 

[Write4U]

Of course not. Or a model of dandelion, showing the roots and everything - obviously made by somebody, unlike the weeds in my yard it is a model of.
They appear to have evolved, as a species - and I can observe their growth, as individuals.
What's your point?

Why is the model obviously made by someone and not the incredibly more complex basis of the model?

Because self-organization into complex patterns can be found in abundance in nature.
A perfect example of self-organization is found in the Fibonacci sequence, also know as the golden ratio or phi, which appears in complex systems such as spirals of flower petals to spiral galaxies.

We've talked about the Fibonacci series and the Golden ratio before, but it's worth a quick review. The Fibonacci sequence starts like this: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 and so on forever. Each number is the sum of the two numbers that precede it. It's a simple pattern, but it appears to be a kind of built-in numbering system to the cosmos. Here are 15 astounding examples of phi in nature.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5985588/15-uncanny-examples-of-the-golden-ratio-in-nature

And I have linked these several times before in the hope that people like Musika and Jan Ardena will actually deign to watch it and learn something useful about the universe and how it seems to function and probabilistically self-organizes from chaos into complex patterns:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html

and for the origins of living systems (start viewing at 25:15)

Do yourself a favor and watch these excellent presentations. If it is a waste of time, you can get on my case later.

 

[Write4U]

So you can accept this self organised?

In the natural state this is modeled after, yes. They are called orbits and follow exact mathematical self-organized trajectories.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally
curved trajectory of an object, such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet. Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it may also refer to a non-repeating trajectory. To a close approximation, planets and satellites follow elliptic orbits, with the central massbeing orbited at a focal point of the ellipse,[2] as described by Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

Current understanding of the mechanics of orbital motion is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which accounts for gravity as due to curvature of spacetime, with orbits following geodesics. For ease of calculation, in most situations, orbital motion is adequately approximated by Newtonian mechanics, which explains gravity as a force obeying an inverse square law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit#cite_note-3

Do you believe that some invisible sentient being carefully placed these planets in orbit as the plastic balls in the model shown?

 

[Musika]

In the natural state this is modeled after, yes. They are called orbits and follow exact mathematical self-organized trajectories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit#cite_note-3

Do you believe that some invisible sentient being carefully placed these planets in orbit as the plastic balls in the model shown?

You're not really answering the question so I have to try and drsw the dots between what you are saying .... so the reason that the model of the solar system is designed by sentience (and not the solar system itself) is because it doesn't have a sufficient level of discernible fine tuned physical laws governing its existence (gravity, orbit etc)?

This all seems like a very anthropomorphic or at least provincial argument on one side or just plainly begging the question on the other. "If humans didn't clearly design it, it has no designer" seems a fine way to never examine anything in a manner that can challenge one's preconceived, very provincial conclusions.

 

[Michael 345]

Do you believe that some invisible sentient being carefully placed these planets in orbit as the plastic balls in the model shown?

I'm guessing this is one of those "god made and organised everything" which theist break directly when you ask "who organised god?"

Answer "oh he has existed forever"

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Material spirituality" is a contradiction in terms.

That seems to be the plight of modern atheism. Contradictory. And that, in a sense, is the point of the article.

Jan.

 

[Musika]

I'm guessing this is one of those "god made and organised everything" which theist break directly when you ask "who organised god?"

Answer "oh he has existed forever"

If that's your "checkmate" you had better go back to playing chess with pigeons

 

[Jan Ardena]

You need to learn the definition of church but of course you will not. You prefer to pretend words mean what you want them to mean.
No 1 can possibly have any need to wipe out what they do not believe exists.

And you need to turn down the noise, listen, and observe.

A church is essentially, a building.
Yes, it is for the purpose of worship of Jesus, the son of God. But it doesn't mean it cannot be used for any other type of worship. Even of oneself, or humanity. Worship is worship, whether you worship Jesus, or your children.

Atheists really want to worship God, but for some reason they cannot. So they replace God with anything else.

Heck, not so long ago, they held a Beyonce mass, in the US. Where they worshiped the superstar, and used her lyrics as scripture. It was presided over by a real vicar/priest.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.theweek.co.uk/93733/what-are-atheist-churches?amp

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

That seems to be the plight of modern atheism. Contradictory. And that, in a sense, is the point of the article.

Jan.

I did not write that. My world view is not contradictory.....

 

[Write4U]

You're not really answering the question so I have to try and drsw the dots between what you are saying .... so the reason that the model of the solar system is designed by sentience (and not the solar system itself) is because it doesn't have a sufficient level of discernible fine tuned physical laws governing its existence (gravity, orbit etc)?

This all seems like a very anthropomorphic or at least provincial argument on one side or just plainly begging the question on the other. "If humans didn't clearly design it, it has no designer" seems a fine way to never examine anything in a manner that can challenge one's preconceived, very provincial conclusions.

Your hubris is astounding, It is truly a study in egocentrism and vanity....know what I mean?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What would be the need for an atheist church?

Maybe, they are not real atheists.
'Atheism' could just be a fantasy. That's the point of the article you reject, and deny.

You yourself, not only deny, and reject God, but you replace God with mathematics.

But in answer to your question, Atheists are human beings, and recognition of God, is natural to human beings. Atheist churches fill the void, which denial and rejection create.

Jan.

 

[Musika]

Your hubris is astounding, It is truly a study in egocentrism and vanity....know what I mean?

I asked whether you thought the solar system model was self organized. You responded by talking about how the solar system is self organized. I simply responded in turn, guessing why you chose to answer in such an obtuse manner.

 

[Capracus]

Atheists really want to worship God, but for some reason they cannot. So they replace God with anything else.

No, atheists like theists are human beings who have the desire to congregate in fellowship with the goal of trying to improve the condition of their societies. Atheists just don’t subscribe to the notion that they need to appeal to an unknown, unproven entity to accomplish their goals.