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

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Apr 8, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    ///
    It is accurate & if you cannot see it, that is your problem.
    You should ease up on yourself.

    <>
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    No, I don't agree. I think the common denominator is not "God" but "belief in God".
    Well, strictly "God Is" according to your interpretation of reality. Fortunately your interpretation is not the arbiter of everyone else's.
    Something we agree on.
    I certainly get the question begging that you undertake. I certainly get the insistence on your view of reality as being everyone's reality. I get your insistence that God Is. But your insistence isn't all that important to an argument. It is not what you say but in your justification for it. Simply asserting repeatedly your view that "God Is" is not an argument but mere opinion, and we all have those.

    To wit: let's take your argument and, ooh, I don't know, let's be crazy and switch it around...
    "But if God Isn't, as according to reality. Theism is only a temporary manifestation, to the choice of the adherent.
    It cannot exist, in reality. Because God Isn't."
    Do you get it yet?


    So really the argument relies on the initial premise, which seems to be mere opinion: in this instance, to utilise this argument, either one thinks God Is, or thinks God Isn't, and depending on which they opt for they can show, through question begging, whatever they want.
    Similarly all you have done is provide reasons why you are a theist. You mainly start with "God Is" and really don't add much beyond that, and simply expect people to accept the veracity of it.
    As for atheism existing only in the mind... the same is true of theism. So once again your argument really only begs the question.

    No, without theism, atheism doesn't exist. Without the idea of the reality of God, theism doesn't exist. ​
    And metaphysical beliefs are not necessarily reality. They are merely ones interpretations of reality. Beliefs of any description can influence and inform ones practical reality, with religion being the most obvious means of doing so for theism. But the influence it can have is not an indicator of veracity of that belief.
    You believe God Is. That's great. It informs your practical reality, I have no doubt. But until you can learn when you are not simply begging the question in debate, your arguments are as pale as the strawman you so often employ.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Why?

    Can you explain the question begging?

    Fair enough.

    Let's see how that looks..

    Theist - believe in God
    Atheist - doesn't believe in God.
    Common denominator - God

    It doesn't seem to work.

    There is no argument. The reality is how we found it. There are atheists, and there are theists. Both position are in relation to God.

    We haven't reached the point of argument as yet. More importantly arguments only emphasises theistic, or atheistic belief. Which of no real consequence because reality will simply continue.

    Exactly. But, God is the common denominator. Despite our leanings.

    Fortunately there is the idea of God.
    In fact, it's all about God.

    God Is, regardless of debate.

    If I become an atheist tomorrow, nothing changes.

    Theist - believe in God
    Atheist - doesn't believe in God.
    Common denominator - God

    Jan.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. akoreamerican Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    605
    Perhaps it's up to us to parse out the truth from adulterations
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Because the positions themselves are not arbiters of God's existence or not, but are rather just labels for our ontological position, I.e. our positions with regard belief in God (or not).
    Thus, quite clearly, the denominator is belief in God, and not God.
    Sure. As soon as you start with the premise "God Is" and conclude "God Is" or anything that can otherwise be reframed as "God Is" you are begging the question.
    I fail to see what you are attempting with this. Are you seriously suggesting that because you think the common denominator of theism and atheism is God that this somehow proves that "God Is"? Otherwise all you have done is restate your initial comment without actually addressing the point I made.
    Reality is neutral to everything until we place upon it our interpretation. Your interpretation is that God Is. It forms the a priori assumption of all your arguments. You can not seem to comprehend, even intellectually unfortunately, any argument that does not hold God Is as a premise.
    No, they are in relation to belief in God. But, even if one accepts that they are in relation to God, are you somehow asserting that this is proof of the existence of God???
    So if one person is a Zarxist (they believe Zarx to exist) and the other person is an Azarxist (they do not have that belief) then since the common denominator is Zarx, this would, to you, indicate that Zarx is a reality???
    It will indeed continue, whether that is with or without God.
    And similarly any idea is a common denominator of two opposing positions with regard that idea. So what? What importance are you pinning to God being what you see as the denominator? That the idea exists? If so all you are doing is arguing that the idea, the notion, of God exists. Well we all know that. Anyone who has a notion of God can tell you that the notion exists.
    Sure, and there is, as a result, theism. Based on the idea of God.
    So on what basis are you asserting that God, not just the idea of God, is a reality? Because people have an idea of God?
    So you believe, at least. Your belief is not the arbiter of reality.
    It really is telling how you don't bold "believe in God" as the common denominator.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Some believe in Santa, others don't, and therefore the common denominator is Santa. The same for the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, elves, monsters under the bed, aliens having visited earth etc. So do you think all these exist?
    All you are actually demonstrating is that the idea of God exists, and belief in God exists, which no one disputes. None of it supports your notion that "God Is", or that atheists don't exist, or that theists exist differently to atheists.
     
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902

    Try it this way:

    Theist - believes that the word 'God' possesses a referent that exists in reality.
    Atheist - believes that the word 'God' fails to refer to anything that exists in reality.
    Common denominator - the word 'God'


     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2018
  10. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Anything that is subservient to the foundations of empiricism, so it seems .... hence the analogy of locating complex or conceptual number on a tape measure .. of course if one began at the point of learning about the position of God at the onset, it would be apparent.

    Well, on that authority, I guess we can safely dismiss W4U's rambling about uncontrolled hallucinations.

    I agree. Calling upon the belief that Cthulu will stop the Earth's rotation is remarkably similar to citing empirical authority to discredit the position of God.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Or calling on God to ease your suffering.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Child - believes in the Easter Bunny.
    Jan - does not believe in the Easter Bunny.

    Common denominator - the Easter Bunny.
    Therefore the Easter Bunny is real and he exists.
     
  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    If that was the case, why include God?
    Why not just say belief, period.

    God is the subject of belief. God stands outside of belief.

    As far as we know, God, or the notion of God, was not invented.

    As far as we know, there are countless scriptures, edifices, and testament to God, throughout history.

    As far as we know, there has always been an understanding that God is the one Supreme Being, that is the origin of, not only the material world, but all of its biological structures, and abilities.

    God isn't just an idea, and is beyond belief, or lack of belief.

    IOW if there was a world Cup of debates, including all the leading scientists, philosophers, and theologians, andthe outcome was God does not exist. It would have no effect on whether or not God exists. All anyone can do, is deny, and/or reject God.

    So I have to disagree that "belief" is what drives the reality of God. It is God that drives the reality of belief.

    Jan.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Of course it was. Every depiction of God we have was written by men - and most of them conflict.
    Nope. Plenty of those countless scriptures and testaments talk about many Gods, each with his/her/its own powers and realms.
    That is correct! And even if every single theologian, philosopher and reality TV star in the world agreed that the Easter Bunny was real, it would not make it so.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You attempted to deflect from the title to the OP, to pretend that instead of a falsehood you had posted an invitation to honest discussion. That has proven typical of your explicitly theistic posting here.

    The title misrepresents the findings of the scientists. No scientific findings either referred to in the article, or outside of that reference in the larger world, suggest that atheists might not exist. That has been explained to you in detail, more than once, in this thread, on the presumption that you were posting honestly.

    Furthermore, the article - and you, in your subsequent defense of your misrepresentation in the title and defense of its other content - slanders the scientists involved.
    My posting directly states that the theists who post like that are either dishonest or uncomprehending or both, and queries their motives in repeatedly posting what is either offensively rank dishonesty or puzzlingly stubborn incomprehension on a science forum.

    It does not indicate why they do that, does not speculate regarding those motives - that is in fact the explicitly invited topic of discussion, the only substantial matter of interest introduced by the OP, to which you are invited to contribute.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2018
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    I could have done that, Jan, you are right. But I have chosen to be a tad more specific and identify the exact belief.
    Indeed.
    So you believe.
    As far as we know we can't say whether it was invented or not.
    You, because you believe in God, because you believe God Is, will no doubt look to cherry pick one side, assert that we don't know it wasn't invented, and look to use that to support your notion.
    The strong atheist might assert that because we don't know it wasn't not invented that it then supports their belief.
    So what? Language was invented, and there are countless uses of language throughout history. Throughout the entire history of written and oral language, in fact. No, Jan, all you can illicit from the history of reference to God is that it is at least an idea that has lasted a few thousand years. It speaks in no way to the veracity or otherwise of God's reality.
    Are you really trying to claim that longevity of an idea equates to veracity of that idea?
    Are you trying to claim that longevity of an idea equates to veracity of the idea?
    So you believe. So most theists possibly believe. But belief doesn't determine reality, other than one's subjective reality. Is that all you think God is, a subjective reality?
    And once again you come up with an argument that has an exact mirror, yet you focus on one side alone.
    To wit: "IOW if there was a world Cup of debates, including all the leading scientists, philosophers, and theologians, andthe [sic] outcome was God does exist. It would have no effect on whether or not God exists."
    Huh, I guess all we can say is that debates don't determine reality. Go figure. So are you going to offer anything other than your belief to support your position?
    I have never said that belief is what drives the reality of God. Put your strawman down, Jan.
    What drives the reality of whether God exists or not is whether God exists or not.
    What drives the reality of belief is whether what people believe corresponds with reality.
    So given that you accept that your beliefs have no effect on the reality (or otherwise) of God, why do you simply keep reasserting your belief, that God Is?
    It is because all you are pushing, here, Jan, is that you believe God Is. And from that premise you basically reject anything anyone else says, simply because it doesn't fit with your premise. You're not having a discussion, are you. You are simply trying to assert your belief upon others. And when you have nowhere left to go you either just reassert "God Is" or say "well, you would say that as you are without God, as far as you're aware" (or words to that effect).
     
  17. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    If an ontological position doesn't have any discernible qualifiers at the point of behaviour, there is nothing to discuss. We are not discussing where some people like blue while others like green. We are discussing core aspects of reality that contextualize one's perception of self.

    I'm not even sure how you can discuss theism as arising separate from religion .... although I suspect you may be using these words unconventionally. Religion is the cultural baggage that surrounds theism, much like language is the baggage that surrounds thought (you can argue that they influence each other but its not practical to examine them as distinct, unless one is brought up in solitute on a deserted island or something).

    As you find exemplified through any religious tradition you care to mention.

    What would be the purpose in making such a distinction between religion and theism?
    That all religions are necessarily false and are not unified by any common themes?

    It's not clear how an atheist can hope or would even move in the direction of wanting to approach their behaviour in terms of piety/sin, the world as owned by God, their existence as being maintained by God etc. ... and all those other prescriptive behaviours that define and distinguish the a/theists from each other.

    What do you think an atheist is prone to be bound by?
    Upon being liberated by whatever binds them, what special activities/behaviours do they manifest in a liberated state?

    They lack any sense of it in relationship to God. They don't view this world in terms of proprietorship or maintenance by God, hence different prescriptive behaviours manifest on account of the different ideals.

    You cannot meaninfully discuss theism distinct from religion any more than you can discuss thought distinct from language.

    One can quite capably be a theist and refrain from identifying with a religious institution.... its just the point of arriving at the point of being theist in a manner that isn't a consequence of the cultural influence of religion(s) where things become thoroughly incapable.

    Technically not possible.
    I guess its a recurring theme of atheism to allude to a state of purity where one is not contaminated by culture.
    On the contrary, that position will require considerable support from you. Having formative experiences across several cultures, its plainly obvious to me that most people on this site provide atheist arguments from the exclusive vantage of contemporary, western christianity. IOW what to speak of arriving at the position of theism devoid of the cultural influence of religion ... it seems even to get to such a position within atheism requires a painstaking degree of philosophical fortitude that most people cannot apparently afford.

    Yes and no.
    To the degree behaviour does or doesn't culminate on some level at the point of God being the maintainer/proprietor then to that degree it does or doesnt fall in a spectrum indistinguishable from atheism.

    Why?
    Isn't a stronger belief associated with a more determined position, characterized by different behaviour?
    Can I actually say I am imbibing a position of "doubt" in regards to something if there are no identifiable added cautionary or hesitating elements to my behaviour?

    I gather that.
    That is why I am suggesting your agnosticism doesn't provide any distinguishing behaviours. You say you simply lack belief in God, but, as far as your activities and behaviour goes, they act for all intents and purposes as if God does not exist.

    Unless you can provide distinguishing activities/behaviours of a hard atheist (aside from the tendency to make absolute negative arguments that are philosophically indefensible), the distinction is purely academic. IOW the whole point of identifying as an agnostic atheist, doesn't appear to establish any distinguishing behavior.

    Yes, what may or may not influence one's values is a separate topic.
    My point is that even if you were to remove whatever "doubt" you associate with agnosticism in your atheism, your behaviour would not change any (since for all intents and purposes, you live your life as if you believe god doesn't exist).
    This is distinct from the agnostic theist. The tangible element of their doubt in God provides distinct behaviours .... as does anticipating in what ways those behaviours would change when that doubt is removed.

    That is precisely my point.
    The doubt associated with agnosticism, in the case of atheism, has no incumbent behaviours and hence no value outside of cerebral parrying. The same is not true of theism.

    If you arrive from a position of thinking something is up for grabs to a position of understanding to whom something belongs, you don't think that brings with it any new behaviours?


    It defaults to it.
    Belief without intact knowledge equals unsatisfactory performance.

    More than my fair share.

    An atheist may believe the world belongs to nobody, but if they arrive at the point of believing it belongs to God (and they display behaviours congruent to that belief), it might be time to drop the "a" ... and if a theist doesn't have the said belief and behaviours, it may be time to add it.


    Its not much whether it is core or not but whether it has any associated behaviours. If you were to drop the "agnostic" and remain unable to offer any new behaviours that would arise, it is simply window dressing.
    The same would not be true of agnostic theism, where the agnosticism is the active element that prevents properly developed knowledge.

    If it determines the length and breadth of your activities and behaviour, regardless whether you tag an "agnostic" in there or not, how is it not core?

    This doesn't make sense.
     
  18. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    We may encounter benevolent pharmacists, but the notion of being "eased from suffering" is not an experience this world affords easily.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2018
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Agreed. Yet many pray for it, confident that their prayers are being heard.
     
  20. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    If the world rarely affords such experiences of ease, the successful granting of such a prayer will very likely simply establish a further chapter of suffering.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    While praying will not ease your physical pain (nor will calling on Cthulu stop the Earth's rotation) there are fortunately many options that WILL ease your pain, from chiropracty to physical therapy to surgery to drugs to implants. Unfortunately many think prayer is a valid replacement for those things.
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    No, we are discussing core aspects of belief that may or may not lead people to certain practices. Theism - belief; Atheism - lack of that belief.
    I am not using them unconventionally at all. I fully agree that most people's theism is surrounded by religion but the two are distinct and should be treated as such. If you can accept that one can be a theist without being part of any religion, then I can't see your issue. If you don't accept it then I suggest you get out more.
    That is a difference between atheism and religion. Religions can be atheistic. I'm asking you about the difference that theism itself, not the religion one cares to adopt, might give rise to. If your difference relies on a particular religion then it fails.
    To simplify it for you: what practical difference is there between the life all atheists lead and that led by all theists?
    No, simply that not all theists require religion, abide by religion, need religion, etc. Such people still believe that God exists. They are still theist, compared to the atheist that lacks that belief. So tell me, what is the difference that that belief results in?
    They wouldn't approach their behaviour in those terms, but those terms are purely labels we apply, and I am asking about practical differences.
    Many thing: guilt, responsibility, desires, the worldview that they may have.
    For many it might be nothing, for others it could be reformed behaviour so as to avoid whatever it was that bound them in the first instance.
    Such as? You speak lots but say very little of any importance with regard the question I asked. Please, again, detail some actual concrete examples?
    You mean you can't.
    Be that as it may, it still remains the case that unless you can identify a practical distinction between all theists and all atheists then you are not describing a practical difference that the belief in God actually gives someone. Whether theism is arrived at through religion or not is irrelevant.
    Sorry, you think it technically impossible to be religious without being theistic? Or do you mean that it's not technically possible for you to keep the discussion to that which was raised?
    Not really. All it takes is belief in God and to not be religious. Voila. One doesn't need to be devout, to be particularly knowledgeable, one simply needs to believe in God - one that interacts/interacted with human affairs (so as to distinguish it from deism) but not be interested in any religion whatsoever. Of course, the overwhelming majority are indeed religious, but not all. My step-sister is not. My ex-wife wasn't. Neither were brought up in the Western Christian tradition. Neither are religious, both believe in God - the "cause of all" etc.
    To me, that is sufficient support. For you, I guess it won't be. So I suggest you get out more.
    Ignored for irrelevancy.
    So you didn't provide an example, then. You just alluded to there being an example.
    It is derogatory because you are asserting a meaning of "atheism" that belittles the position of a vast number of atheists. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. One can not have a stronger or weaker absence of belief. What you are referring to is the holding of a suplementary belief or not, namely the belief that God does not exist. But I assure you that my lack of belief that God exists is exactly the same lack that every other atheist has. I just happen to not share another belief that others might hold. To refer to me as somehow being not "fully fledged" is derogatory.
    Yes. Whenever a range of intellectual positions filter into a binary practical position, you will get the same. Doubt is intellectual, activity is practical. Many intellectual positions can lead to the same practical activity.
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Cont'd...

    Yes, from a practical point of view. There is no need to suggest it - I have never denied it (with the exception of discussions on the matter) and have more than once explicitly stated as much. But according to you there is nothing to discuss between agnostic atheists and strong atheists, right? If no practical difference, what can they possibly discuss, right? They must have the same worldview, right, even though one actually believes God to not exist, and the other thinks the position unknown/unknowable.
    I've never said it does. Where do you think I have said it does? Can you point it out to me?
    What distinct behaviours? I've been asking more times than I care to for you to actually post a concrete example, and still you haven't. You've tried to link it to religion, yet you get atheistic religions. You can't accept that there are non-religious theists. But still you haven't provided an example.
    (Yet again) example, please?
    Not necessarily, no. It might just be a matter of "oh, that's nice to know" but with no other changes. That's certainly how my non-religious theistic relatives see it.
    No, it just takes stronger faith.
    What's a fair share in knowing agnostic theists?
    Why? Because they don't conform to your notions? As soon as an atheist arrives at the point of believing the world belongs to God, they should drop the "a", irrespective of any behaviours they might or might not display. Similarly, as soon as a theist doesn't have the said belief, they should add the "a", irrespective of any behaviours they might or might not display.
    Many intellectual considerations are when practice is fairly binary.
    And you are simply assuming that knowing would change behaviour. So what behaviour, exactly, would change?
    Who said it determines the length and breadth of my activities?? You once again seem to be begging the question.
    No, I guess it wouldn't make sense to you. It's really not that difficult: theism is not at the core of every theist's being. Believing in God does not define every believer.
    Do you find that thought scary? Or is it that you just can't comprehend it?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page