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

[Musika]

Is smugness all you offer?

I could ask you the same thing.

You cant elevate discussion of religion to where you seem to think it could be...nonsence is nonsence irrespective of the literature or the manner used to call it nonsence.
Alex

If you are critical of elevation that merely requires a colloquy of magical words with dubious connection to the world, it doesn't serve your interests to launch into a colloquy of magical words with dubious connection to the world.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

My Little Pony meets Atheism.

Granted that some people take religion as a fanciful indulgence, but I think you have just clearly illustrated they don't have a monopoly on the tendency.

I replied before you made your edit.
And what please tell me is the tendency you would have for me ...
What fanciful tendency do I indulge? Not believing in a character made up thousands of years ago? Is that my fanciful indulgence?
If not please explain to me what you consider to be my fanciful indulgence...And I am sincerely interested in how you see things and most curious as to why you have said such a thing.
Alex

 

[iceaura]

Er no.
Alex

Er, no, what?
The sentence is an accurate claim - are you objecting to the shaman being labeled atheist?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I could ask you the same thing.

Or you could give an honest and well considered reply.
I reject smugness on my part but suggest your reference to the little pony shows where you are coming from and your inability to comment on content.
And I know you could say the same but why not offer an original comment?

, it doesn't serve your interests to launch into a colloquy of magical words with dubious connection to the world.

My words are magical by your definition? Thank you that is a higher regard than I have for them.
So tell me what exactly have I said that you find unuseful. Although my magical words are simple have I not laid out reasonable observation.
Is there something that I have written that is unreasonable.
Apart from offerring a critique of my style what meat of my approach do you find too tuff for you to chew?
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Er, no, what?
The sentence is an accurate claim - are you objecting to the shaman being labeled atheist?

I find it difficult to relate the two perhaps I am too quick to judge methods than to consider the general proposition you present.
Alex

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I dont know about that as I can think how many things would change for the better.

Resources would not be wasted on building churches etc.
Huge revenue streams would not escape taxation and application for the community at large.

Folk would have to take responsibility for their actions and not have the cop out that "its gods will".

Claims on land priveledge and possessions would need more than a claim that god gives me priority over others.

Children could be raised without brain washing and terrorised with fear of hell because they notice they have genitals.

Without god there would be less lies about history and cosmology.

Without god there would be no delussions that there is another life after death...what nonsence...life after death.

Unsupported nonsence.

Folk would be forced to recognise the planet was not made for humans nor do humans have a god given right to abuse the planet nor are animals etc placed on Earth for the sole use of humans.

In short the place would be better and any rational and thinking human will understand why and how it would be better.

Females world wide could actually be treated as humans...suicide bombings would be no more.

Sexuality would not be the focus to cause guilt and anguish over what is completely normal behaviour.

Lives would not be snuffed out because of religious wars.

Oh you could make a list but theists dont have the brain power to work out the benefits and cling to made up nonsence written thousands of years ago when superstition and ignorance ruled humanity.

Thankfully the ignorant are becoming informed and the superstitious are revealing their stupidity.

Alex

UNIVERSE.

 

[Musika]

I replied before you made your edit.
And what please tell me is the tendency you would have for me ...
What fanciful tendency do I indulge? Not believing in a character made up thousands of years ago? Is that my fanciful indulgence?
If not please explain to me what you consider to be my fanciful indulgence...And I am sincerely interested in how you see things and most curious as to why you have said such a thing.
Alex

Your ideas are indulgent fantasies because you think a society scrubbed clean of religiosity automatically defaults to utopia.

Magic is definitely afoot.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Your ideas are indulgent fantasies because you think a society scrubbed clean of religiosity automatically defaults to utopia.

Magic is definitely afoot.

I said no such thing nor do I believe such and I suggest that you have failed at guessing my thoughts.

My statements are avaiable for individual comment so one by one point out which "idea" specifically suggests fantacy.
And what is this preoccupation of yours with magic...you seem to be stuck in some sort of loop...
Nevertheless the best magic you could employ is to be specific and try and convey the meaning of your words such that generalisation is eliminated...if you find something I have said incorrect please identify it so I can review in the context of your targeted input.
Utopia will not appear with the populace realising religion is a con or that god is a myth however we should see a decency evolve where the morality established thousands of years ago is let go and replaced with something appropriate to our exceptionally higher level of knowledge and understanding.
Think how the role of and treatement of women could improve if the ancient concept of them being mere possessions had no place to hide.
I mean things could only get better which is not saying or suggesting utopia has openned its doors to humanity and again such thinking is your injection presumably part of a knee jerk reaction to somehow plead the teachings of two thousand years ago somehow have some relevance in our modern era...they dont.
Morality does not need a footing in the past and indeed a careful read of the bible will show just how irrelevent it is in todays world...Unless of course you still own slaves or concerned if your bride to be is a virgin and you seek authority to stone her.
Alex

 

[RainbowSingularity]

more or less set in stone.

?

please explain further this "critical" point.

set in stone "more"
opposed to
set in stone "less"

is there not an option to have something "not" be set in stone ?

please elaborate the psychology of this as you have come to understand it ?

if you can't thats ok.

 

[Capracus]

But atheistic spiritual authority seems to fill exactly that same role, in those cultures: for example, the shaman who reads entrails or fire-cracked turtle shells to guide hunting and raiding expeditions is doing exactly what an ecologist well versed in game theory would recommend from patterns whose scientific establishment required a modern industrial economy unavailable to the nomads of the steppes - only from deeply inspired and profound recognition of metaphysical patterns in the world, as available to the most profound intellects among those nomads.

Atheistic spiritual authority? A shaman seeking knowledge through divination of animal parts is a prime example of theistic behavior, and hardly comparable to a mathematical analysis of strategic behavior by a modern ecologist. Now if the ecologist was also a practicing numerologist you might have a point.

 

[Write4U]

Jan Ardena said:
more or less set in stone.

Just like the 10 Commandments?

 

[Jan Ardena]

?

please explain further this "critical" point.

set in stone "more"
opposed to
set in stone "less"

is there not an option to have something "not" be set in stone ?

please elaborate the psychology of this as you have come to understand it ?

if you can't thats ok.

The quote came from the article, for which I have provided a link.
I understand it in the context that it is written, but I think 'theism' is natural to humans,
whereas 'atheism' is an ideal, ever seeking to improve itself.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

I understand it in the context that it is written, but I think 'theism' is natural to humans,
whereas 'atheism' is an ideal, ever seeking to improve itself.

And that's why you misrepresented the findings of scientific research on a science forum - it was an attempt to present them as supporting your Abrahamic monotheistic beliefs, and disparage those who do not share them.

Atheistic spiritual authority?

Yep.
The oldest and most sophisticated form of spiritual authority - producing, for example, the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching and the life's work of this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozi, a thousand years old when the finest minds of Abrahamic theology were burning people alive in the public square for witchcraft.

A shaman seeking knowledge through divination of animal parts is a prime example of theistic behavior,

Except no deity is involved, either in the early days or in the body of metaphysical reasoning and apperception that emerged from it millenia later. So it's kind of odd to describe it as "theistic", don't you think?

and hardly comparable to a mathematical analysis of strategic behavior by a modern ecologist.

The hunting and foraging strategies established are essentially identical, and counterintuitive for most people. Do you think that is a coincidence?

I think it's too bad the ecological folks (by the nature of their means) lack the respect and influence granted the shamans; that spiritual authority is unavailable via their approach, but instead must be cadged and badgered from others in their culture - in this case, unfortunately, authoritative representatives of a comparatively simplistic and immature "theistic" spirituality.

But the Wendell Berry crowd provides hope, there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Berry

 

[Capracus]

Yep.
The oldest and most sophisticated form of spiritual authority - producing, for example, the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching and the life's work of this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozi, a thousand years old when the finest minds of Abrahamic theology were burning people alive in the public square for witchcraft.

Nope, Mohists weren’t atheists.

Within the core chapters, the Mohists consistently portray Heaven as if it possesses personal characteristics and exists separately from human beings, though intervening in their affairs. In particular, they present Heaven if it is an entity having will and desire, and concerned about the welfare of the people of the world, even a providential agent that rewards the just and punishes the wicked through its control of natural phenomena or by means of its superhuman intermediaries, the spirits (guishen). Finally, Heaven and the spirits are also portrayed as the objects of reverence, sacrificial offerings and supplication ("Heaven's Will" B).

http://www.iep.utm.edu/mozi/#H12

xcept no deity is involved, either in the early days or in the body of metaphysical reasoning and apperception that emerged from it millenia later. So it's kind of odd to describe it as "theistic", don't you think?

How do you think the concept of divination was perceived by these atheist shaman? Perceived access to information from spiritual entities is not a theistic concept?

The hunting and foraging strategies established are essentially identical, and counterintuitive for most people. Do you think that is a coincidence?

The success of hunting and foraging strategies developed by primitive cultures was accomplished in spite of their associations with divine insight, not because of it. Through procedural evolution those erroneous information strategies were eventually put into proper perspective and disregarded.

 

[Xelor]

I've long been of the mind that theism and atheism are merely different kinds of religion, not that one is religion and one is not-religion.

 

[Write4U]

I like this Wendell Berry's worldview.... sounds benign

I've long been of the mind that theism and atheism are merely different kinds of religion, not that one is religion and one is not-religion.

IMO, atheism, aside from the non-belief in a biblical God, has no formal structure or ritual and can therefore not be classified as a religion. It is a personal philosophy, which bestows a greater personal burden of responsible and ethical behavior on the individual.

 

[Musika]

I like this Wendell Berry's worldview.... sounds benign

IMO, atheism, aside from the non-belief in a biblical God, has no formal structure or ritual and can therefore not be classified as a religion. It is a personal philosophy, which bestows a greater personal burden of responsible and ethical behavior on the individual.

Braytheism perhaps?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I've long been of the mind that theism and atheism are merely different kinds of religion, not that one is religion and one is not-religion.

Atheism is not a religion it is not even a belief really.

A religion requires a god ...end of story.

Being an atheist is hardly even a qualification ... One doess not think about it really at least not until you hear folk rambling about some made up nonsence about their invisable friend they cant show you.

It is only then that you think "what a load of crap are these people for real, surely they dont seriously think there is a god"

If your child has an invisable friend its a worry but when an adult refers to this invisable friend its all good.
Sad that they have been brainwashed and cant think for themselves.
Alex

 

[Musika]

Atheism is not a religion it is not even a belief really.

A religion requires a god ...end of story.

Being an atheist is hardly even a qualification ... One doess not think about it really at least not until you hear folk rambling about some made up nonsence about their invisable friend they cant show you.

It is only then that you think "what a load of crap are these people for real, surely they dont seriously think there is a god"

If your child has an invisable friend its a worry but when an adult refers to this invisable friend its all good.
Sad that they have been brainwashed and cant think for themselves.
Alex

You just did a remarkable job of countering most of your first sentence.

I would ask you why the array of beliefs you employ to support your atheist worldview are not beliefs .... but I'm pretty sure you will take that as a further invitation to run down more of your beliefs.

A good definition of someone who is brainwashed is someone who can't come within 500m of philosophy when discussing their world view. I wouldn't be such a fool to suggest there are no brainwashed individuals who don't identify as theists, .... but I think it's safe to say, on the value of your input, that such brainwashed personalities don't have a monopoly on the term.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've long been of the mind that theism and atheism are merely different kinds of religion, not that one is religion and one is not-religion.

And not collecting stamps is a hobby.