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

[James R]

Also, Jan, why did you not reference the following definition:

superstition (n.): A widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief.

It appears to come from the same source you used, after all.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Clearly you still don't understand what Skinner's experiment showed, and you're unable to generalise the result and work out how it applies to human superstition.

Then show how it applies to human superstition. Skinner, like you, was an atheist, who had a problem with the notion of God. He is the one that said "Give me a child, and I will shape him into anything".

It is quite easy to condition animals, and people when it comes to sense deprivation, especially food. When their only sourse of food comes from you, you will eventually get them to do anything they're capable of.
Skinner, conditions his subjects in that way.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

You can think you have him done and yet back he comes...and it would be sad to see him crushed or be anyone other than Jan

But who and what IS Jan?

 

[Sarkus]

The main problem is that Jan refuses to listen to what atheists have to say. Mostly he just repeats comfortable mantras, and ignores a lot of the substance that is put to him. His most common response of late has been "You would say that. It's because you're an atheist." No thought goes into that kind of knee-jerk response.

This has been Jan's MO (not listening to what atheists say) for far too long, imo. He has created a strawman atheist to argue against, irrespective of what is being said by the atheist he's discussing with. And yes, he's reverted (again for far too long, imo) to the dismissive line of "you would say that, because for you there is no God" or similar. There is no furthering of discussion in that response of his. And if those responding to Jan, or to any other theist, were simply to say "well, you would say that, because you believe in God" then the thread, the discussion, gets nowhere.

 

[Write4U]

Then show how it applies to human superstition. Skinner, like you, was an atheist, who had a problem with the notion of God. He is the one that said "Give me a child, and I will shape him into anything".

It is quite easy to condition animals, and people when it comes to sense deprivation, especially food. When their only sourse of food comes from you, you will eventually get them to do anything they're capable of.
Skinner, conditions his subjects in that way. Jan.

Then is it wonder that religion over centuries of indoctrination and conditioning has shaped belief in a non-existent being named God?

btw, what religion do you belong to, Jan? Or how would describe yourself?
So as to make the question fair, I'll reciprocate in advance.
I see myself as a Metaphysical Humanist. Me being an Atheist is purely incidental.

 

[James R]

Then show how it applies to human superstition.

Isn't it obvious? Do I really need to set it out for you?

Skinner, like you, was an atheist, who had a problem with the notion of God. He is the one that said "Give me a child, and I will shape him into anything".

And so... ?

It is quite easy to condition animals...

Perhaps. Skinner's work was the start of a long research programme, not the end. His theories of behaviour are useful but many others have expanded on them and added nuance. There have been lots of new findings since Skinner did his experiments with pigeons.

... and people when it comes to sense deprivation, especially food. When their only sourse of food comes from you, you will eventually get them to do anything they're capable of.

Actually, it doesn't quite work that way with humans. But it's irrelevant to what we're talking about here. Here we are talking about the case where there is no conditioning. The food the pigeons received was delivered at random intervals. There was no stimulus followed by reward. Just rewards given at random intervals. The resulting behaviour cannot therefore be put down to conditioning.

Of course, there's a caveat to that, and a lesson to be learned. If you find yourself in an uncertain environment, where rewards and/or dangers are unpredictable, then the evidence suggest that you are more likely to be superstitious. And that, of course, is true of our complex world, to a greater or lesser extent for each of us.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't think Jan does much to promote his God.

Firstly, God, is your God, as well. Just because you deny, and reject God, doesn't mean you are actually without God. Secondly, God doesn't need promotion, although, both atheist, and theist, do a good job of promotion.
Thanks.

I get the impression that Jan is more interested in talking about atheism. Which is interesting...

You're right, it is interesting.
I'm beginning to understand how foolish atheism is.

I could do a better job bringing people to God, if I was so inclined. Seriously.

By depriving them of food?

Jan.

 

[James R]

You're right, it is interesting.
I'm beginning to understand how foolish atheism is.

See? You're on the path, right there!

 

[Write4U]

See? You're on the path, right there!

I would call that a start. Now if Jan could explain why he thinks atheism is foolish, we might be able to help him along the path of serious inquiry into the Nature of Nature.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then is it wonder that religion over centuries of indoctrination and conditioning has shaped belief in a non-existent being named God?

I'm not discussing religion. If I was though, I would start of by discussing yours. As for God being non-existent? I get it, your an atheist, which means for you, there is no God.

btw, what religion do you belong to, Jan?

Not yours.

Or how would describe yourself?

A theist.

I see myself as a Metaphysical Humanist. Me being an Atheist is purely incidental.

What's the name of that religion?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Isn't it obvious? Do I really need to set it out for you?

Yes.
Here's a video to help you along.

And so... ?

He probably has psychological issues.
Why would anyone request a child, and boast he can turn he/she into anything he desires?

Perhaps. Skinner's work was the start of a long research programme, not the end. His theories of behaviour are useful but many others have expanded on them and added nuance. There have been lots of new findings since Skinner did his experiments with pigeons.

Atheist findings, no doubt.

Here we are talking about the case where there is no conditioning. The food the pigeons received was delivered at random intervals. There was no stimulus followed by reward. Just rewards given at random intervals. The resulting behaviour cannot therefore be put down to conditioning.

Watch, and listen to, the video.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

See? You're on the path, right there!

Unfortunately, you aren't.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I would call that a start. Now if Jan could explain why he thinks atheism is foolish, we might be able to help him along the path of serious inquiry into the Nature of Nature.

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A brainless slime mold can be conditioned to exhibit certain behaviors after being trained, even without the prior administered stimulus.

So you accept the pigeon was trained to act like that. Good.

That's why atheists will never go to war because God tells them it's a good idea.

But they use that idea, when they slaughter million of innocent people, just so they can create their version of paradise. In a ridiculously small amount of time.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

YOU are saying there is no evidence of god.

I'm discussing atheists.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

The wise, though, are not supposed to bear false witness.
The fool is at least not sinning. The OP author is.

And the question of how far you push that is coming up center: are you misrepresenting your ideas, as well as other people's? Are you bearing false witness against yourself as well?

One can't help but notice that - like a stereotypical swindle pusher - you avoid going into detail or rational defense of your own thinking, or bringing attention to it. You use every question, every issue, as footing for some kind of attack, to direct attention away.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I'm discussing atheists.

Jan.

///
You are not discussing anything.

<>

 

[Jan Ardena]

The fool is at least not sinning. The OP author is.

How so?

And the question of how far you push that is coming up center: are you misrepresenting your ideas, as well as other people's?

How far I push my sinning?
Isn't this religious language?
Isn't this what the article pertains to?
Find your own atheist expressions, don't borrow from the Christian world view.
If you can.

One can't help but notice that - like a stereotypical swindle pusher - you avoid going into detail of rational defense of your own thinking,

I do, but you don't listen. You are too busy defending your delusion. I use that term in the spirit of the article. But I am beginning to notice how deluded, explicit atheists (at least) are.

You use every question, every issue, as footing for some kind of attack.

Atheists don't attack theists, do they.
Nooooooooo....!
No atheist has attacked me, in this thread. Have they?
Nooooooooo...!

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

///
You are not discussing anything.

<>

There you go.
I rest my case.

Jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

Jan.

///
Again, the oldest trick of con artists. Tell fools they are fools if they do X & the fools fall into line.

<>