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

I was under the assumption that atheists didn't believe in anything.

If you believed in an other-worldness aspect, wouldn't that make you agnostic?

a reply to: whatsecret

What does an ingrained psychological belief of metaphysics have to do with the belief in an anthropomorphic deity?

Why are those two things being grouped together as mutually inclusive?

originally posted by: beezzer
lolz

People saying, I'm an atheist!"

I always want to add an "Amen" to that.

"There are no atheists in foxholes."
-Reverend William T. Cummings

I'm going to say a prayer to all the atheists out there.

You probably need it more than I do.

"If a person wants to be atheistic it's his God-given right to be an atheist." —Michael Patton.

originally posted by: skyblueworld
a reply to: whatsecret

God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

I like how the presumption is, that God, is a 'he'.

A bias agenda for the gender

I will always be an atheist until someone proves the existence of this deity as solid fact. Which will never happen.
Therefor I lose nor gain anything

Then you admit you are open to a God if He exposes himself to you.
You better hope to not be alive on the day he comes as a thief in the night. That will prove your atheism to be non existent.
On the flip side what does it hurt to acknowledge God in case there is an afterlife? By not acknowledging God you throw away a possibility, even science postulates there are infinite universes with infinite possibilities, one of which has to be a universe with a God.

Sorry - double post

a reply to: whatsecret

I used to regard myself as an 'atheist' for about 90% of my life, where as now if I had to label myself I would say I'm an agnostic.

In fact, I've come to realise that being an 'atheist' is actually quite an illogical (keyword) position to take, in the same manner as accepting any singular holy book to be the entire truth.

Both of these stances - atheist and traditional creationist - depend on the principle of claiming 'I Believe'.

The only logical stance (in my humble opinion) is to accept that you cannot possibly verify or disprove such a concept through empirical science and therefore one should simply keep their mind open to the possibility of a creator/group of creators and some form of afterlife.

That's just my opinion - I mean no disrespect. I'm sure there are some atheists who will read what I just said and in result it will trigger some form of automatic self-defence system which will revolve around justifying the 'logic' behind atheism. Please no Occam's Razor (for various reasons).

This is something I think 'sitting the fence' on with might just be a good idea.

All that being said - during my time as an atheist and speaking to many others, I have found the claims in the OP to be pretty accurate to an extent. This is regarding the 'hardwired' aspect of human spirituality.

What I mean by that is, many atheists will UNCONSCIOUSLY talk about Mother Nature as if it was an intelligent, independent and aware entity that expresses desires based on the world.

Atheists seem to be 'spiritual' people - but because many base their whole conceptualisation of a 'God' solely on the holy books, and because the holy books are literally fragments of stories 1000s of years older - it is easy to 'debunk' aspects of them, and hence the atheist is not only put off from the holy books but also from the concept of a creator or creators.

This to me is the biggest non-physical negative effect of destabilising religion (which was bound to happen). We did a complete u-turn from Creation to Darwinism.

We made it seem so black and white for the last century that most kids will now struggle to imagine God as anything other than a silly bearded white man who was created to explain everything lol. Is that entirely a good thing? Why?

Holy books aside - the notion of creation and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. The way we teach kids is that they are, because creation is automatically grouped with the main religions and nothing else. Sigh.

There's also this strange notion we've accepted that if we can pinpoint a process to a formula and give it a name, it becomes fine to be explained as self-arising. We frown upon questioning further.

Though I'm sure this may appear to be justified as logical based on God Occam, by blinding one's self to a certain colour of each and every jigsaw piece individually, you automatically deny the possibility of seeing anything larger as a result of that.

Ask someone why something falls and they will tell you gravity. Are they really answering your question?

What do I care anyway, the universe is almost evidently designed by the virtue of the complexity of the interaction of the laws and the meaningful outcome of such a platform. But the word 'almost' is what will keep me humble until the day I pass away from this existence.

Yes, I understand science. I am a design engineer by career and have to rigorously apply mathematics and physics most days. I am degree level educated in the physical sciences (electro-mechanical) as well as having spent silly amounts of time reading on all the main fields and sub-branches of modern science.

There was a point in my quest for scientific understanding where everything changed.

Spirituality and the accompanying concepts discussed are not the product of misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge.

Peace.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: whatsecret

What does an ingrained psychological belief of metaphysics have to do with the belief in an anthropomorphic deity?

Why are those two things being grouped together as mutually inclusive?

I guess because both beliefs are based on faith. No?

I'm inclined to believe that anyone, when faced with their mortality, will seek out something spiritual that brings them peace in those last few moments. Whether they admit it or not.

originally posted by: whatsecret
I think that makes you an agnostic.

originally posted by: beezzer
If you believed in an other-worldness aspect, wouldn't that make you agnostic?

Theism relates to belief.
Gnosticism relates to knowledge.

An atheist doesn't BELIEVE there's a God.
A theist BELIEVES there is a God
An agnostic says we cannot KNOW.
A gnostic says we do KNOW.

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't KNOW, but I BELIEVE there is not a God.

This is a very informative video:

originally posted by: whatsecret

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: whatsecret

What does an ingrained psychological belief of metaphysics have to do with the belief in an anthropomorphic deity?

Why are those two things being grouped together as mutually inclusive?

I guess because both beliefs are based on faith. No?

Hm, yes, I didn't think of that.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
The frequently stated 'lack of belief' can only be quantified by the individual through contrarian language. In other words, there would be nothing said if opposing beliefs aren't present to deny.

If the self-identified atheist would instead talk about what is actually going through their minds, rather than what isn't, there might be a lot more interesting conversations.

Interesting thoughts. My position is that I do not KNOW (agnostic) if there is one supreme creator to all that exists, but based on what I have learned in my life, I don't BELIEVE (atheist) there is, because it simply doesn't make logical sense to me. I can't discuss "what's actually going through my mind" because I haven't formed a strong belief about how we began or how we will end. It is unknown and unknowable, but latching onto the story of a religious God just because I don't have the answers, seems disingenuous to me. I don't hold beliefs about a creator because I simply don't know.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
On the flip side what does it hurt to acknowledge God in case there is an afterlife?

Could you do that about Santa? I mean... it doesn't hurt to acknowledge him on the chance that you'll get better Christmas presents... Could you make yourself believe something you don't believe?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Let's not start in on Santa.

Please?

(I'm asking for a bike and a train set this year)

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: whatsecret
I think that makes you an agnostic.

originally posted by: beezzer
If you believed in an other-worldness aspect, wouldn't that make you agnostic?

Theism relates to belief.
Gnosticism relates to knowledge.

An atheist doesn't BELIEVE there's a God.
A theist BELIEVES there is a God
An agnostic says we cannot KNOW.
A gnostic says we do KNOW.

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't KNOW, but I BELIEVE there is not a God.

Thanks for the video, I'll watch it later.

You believe something that you think cannot be known? Cool!

a reply to: whatsecret

Reread his post again

If atheists did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
On the flip side what does it hurt to acknowledge God in case there is an afterlife?

Could you do that about Santa? I mean... it doesn't hurt to acknowledge him on the chance that you'll get better Christmas presents... Could you make yourself believe something you don't believe?

No, Santa is proven to not be real, God has never been proven to not be real.
We have been to the north pole, no Santa. We have never been to heaven, outside of the universe, outside of the Big Bang.

Science has put forth the infinite number of universes theory. This theory allows for God because every possible possibility exists somewhere in the infinite universes, and God is by definition infinite. If God can exist according to science then God is there in the infinite universes. God is also all powerful, which would not limit God to one universe. God would then have to be the all powerful ruler of all the infinite universes.

There are agnostics who don't believe there is or isn't a god, or gods, because the evidence is lacking to form such a conclusion.

There are also deists, who believe in god, but don't believe he has revealed himself through organised religions.

I suppose, depending on the criteria used, both of these sub categories might be viewed as 'atheists'.

And can I propose a third category to which I myself belong, that of 'agnostic deists'.

They don't believe either way but suspect there might be a god (creator) of sorts.

I don't think it's a recognised term, but I bet a lot of atheists can be more accurately described as agnostic deists.

I also think that reincarnation is a distinct possibility for at least some of us...though reject the idea of Karma, or the notion that we can recall our past lives.

I don't think that this concession makes me 'religious' in any way - it just illustrates that there is a certain amount of crossover of philosophical ideas between religions and atheism.

a reply to: DazDaKing
For me at least(I can't speak for other atheists), when you say creator and god, you are talking about two entirely different concepts. Entertaining the idea of there being an entity(s) that had a hand in creating us is one thing. The concept of god is something totally different. God/deity/divinity are human concepts based on the idea that this entity(s) need to be revered, feared, worshipped, and groveled in front of. No thank you. Just because an entity or entities might have created my species does not automatically qualify said entities for godhood.

Note that I am not saying I believe we were created, or re-engineered. I'm saying it/they would not be gods. It/they would just be far more advanced than we are. I see nothing illogical about my stance. There is no God(s). However, the possibility of a creator(s) is always there.

Bob is everywhere.
He sold this planet to all the other religions.