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

No need to bring religion into it, as not all religions are essentially theistic. Even though they claim to be. There are such things as atheist priests, or pastors who use an idea of God, to rip people off, or other nasty activities.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People will try to wish the opposition away.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the much rarer would the priest who actually believes in God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which is why we don't need to bring religion into it.

Jan.

 

Really? Why is that particular scam off the table?

 

"many people"

 

Apparently many people across the board tend not to correctly self identify their respective belief systems.

Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 8% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit. Indeed, 2% say they are “absolutely certain” about the existence of God or a universal spirit. Alternatively, there are many people who fit the dictionary definition of “atheist” but do not call themselves atheists. About three times as many Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (9%) as say they are atheists (3%).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

 

"Atheist" is such a terribly hard word to parse out, I'm not surprised religious people get discombobulated over it.

 

Your conclusion does not follow.
One does not need to be a believer in God to "have a better insight to those things".
Afterall, the atheist may have the right insight, and theists simply have it wrong.

Do you think that those who have the better insight into unicorns are those that believe unicorns to exist?
Or perhaps it is those that have the better insight that do not believe, precisely because of that better insight?

Of course, as a theist yourself, you would want to think that the theist insight is superior, and that since you hold belief in God you would like to think it means you have a better understanding, and because you have a better understanding you believe in God etc.
All very circular of you.

And they are wrong: there are some among us who simply hold no belief in an "unmoved transcendental cause of all cause", sentient or otherwise.

 

Speaking for myself, I grew up as a theist more or less by default. The idea that my parents' beliefs might be unfounded didn't occur to me until I was a teenager.

The notion of an "unmoved transcendental cause of all cause" is something I didn't hear until much later - and it still seems to me as a made-up excuse for all of the problems with the gods that people have invented.

 

I have a friend who claims that the huge majority who believe in the existence of one or more deities is evidence for their existence.

One of my favorite fictional characters is the Master of Sinanju who said

I tell friends

 

Argument from popularity is one of the primary fallacies, Dinosaur.

 

What evidence do you have that Dawkins believes in that Tegmark/Shapiro crap?

 

He said he was "sure", what more do you need?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The article implies that if you redefine deity to include whatever is implied by any metaphysical belief, then there is no atheist position held by human beings.

The study reported in that article did not test for that particular belief, or measure it. One wonders if any such research could.
Many professed and accepted theists, even, hold no such belief as that.
Many people who do accept that as a meaningfully suggestive description by metaphor, rather than a literally oxymoronic confusion of terminology, also regard themselves as atheistic - and are regarded as atheistic by others, and have in fact no nameable God or anything deity-like that can be assigned a noun.

The "No True Scotsman" argument against the existence of atheism depends, crucially, on flexibility in one's conception of deity. Plant it firmly like that, and true atheists pop up all over the place.

 

First , to call Tegmarks work "crap" seems a little premature. There are plenty of serious scientists who are fascinated by Tegmark's proposition.

Secondly, it was in response to Jan Ardena's OP post # 1

But I must admit I was making a leap by comparing Tegmark's Mathematical Universe to a form of an abstract non-sentient mathematical Pseudo-Intelligence running the universe. Either way this would of course rule out a "sentient metaphysical Creator, which would support Dawkins' atheist viewpoint and vice versa.

IMO, there are two choices of an "a priori causality" for the emergence of our Universe.
a) a sentient motivated creator (Theism)
b) a non-sentient mathematical function (Atheism)

Being that Dawkins is a hard Atheist (99.9 % sure), it stands to reason that in principle his viewpoint is compatible with Tegmark's viewpoint.

But I will admit that I have no direct evidence that Dawkins is a supporter of Tegmark's work.

 

This sad old bullshit again? "You're really a theist because if you weren't then my own position would be on very thin ground!" Which fallacy it that, again?

 

If I understand you, IMO, the fallacy that the universe was created by a supernatural sentient being which has declared that humans shall "dominate" the Earth, which believe is pure BS.

An ironic monologue by George Carlin about "Saving the Planet" and "Sanctity of life.

 

What you said sounds true, but not remotely like what I said.