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

a reply to: whatsecret

The entire thing is stupid really as it is based off an erroneous definition of what atheism is. Atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities. That says nothing on the subject of spirituality but only that spirituality that involves a deity as a basis. The word itself can be broken down to its latin roots to also make this quite simple. "A"--without. "Theo"--god. The suffix "ism" basically denotes a practice. A-the-ism.

Buddhism is a form of spirituality and yet, Buddha, himself, was a man--not a deity. Many Native American tribes lack deities but instead, similar to Buddhism, have people that have almost become deified. Kokopelli was a wandering salesman who became associated births to soon follow after his visit (hee hee). Spider Woman was a Pueblo woman who was very skilled at weaving. You have beliefs that are god-centered and beliefs that are people-centered. An atheist is not going to believe in a god or that Spider Woman might actually still exist. Instead, they'll see an individual who left their mark on time through their actions and deeds. Atheism does not necessarily equate to being devoid of any form of spirituality. It's about gods and I have no gods. That doesn't mean that I am without any form of spirituality.

Btw, another criticism in regards to that article is that they are quoting a science journalist and not any academic whatsoever. Lawton is a writer who happens to write about science. That is something that he himself has stated on science blogs. The article makes no other quote to a scientist or any sort of reference to any scholarly paper on the subject at all. In other words, Lawton's statement is merely his opinion as a science writer for a magazine that has been gaining an increasingly bad rep with academia for turning to hype and being provocative in the pursuit of readership.

If one is discuss a concept, it helps to understand the concept itself and warrants a quick check for what it means. The number of threads here purporting some knowledge of what atheism is or what atheists believe (or don't) and being wrong in their core assumptions is just staggering. You have the entire internet at your disposal. How hard is it to look up the definition of a word?

I long ago come to the conclusion that human behavior in general supports the idea that humans have a deep-seated need to believe in something. It appears science is coming to realize that.

And as for atheists not existing ... well for a group of people who don't believe in God, there are an awful lot of them who seem to give God plenty of rent free time in their head.

originally posted by: ketsuko
And as for atheists not existing ... well for a group of people who don't believe in God, there are an awful lot of them who seem to give God plenty of rent free time in their head.

Uhh, really? Should I start measuring the time of how often I think about any purported "god"? I thought about the possibility of a god existing when I was a teenager. I even investigated multiple religions including attendance. I actually took the time to go through Catechism. By the time I was 20, I was wholly unconvinced in any God existing. That makes me an atheist (without god). The amount of time that I consider the subject of a purported God these days? None. I've come to my own conclusions already.

I really love how people who are not atheists presume to be mind readers. If you want understand atheism or how an atheist thinks, then ask. Don't presume.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I am an agnostic. Anyone who believes that a human can understand the Universe is automatically wrong. Information theory states otherwise. Essentially no vessel can know itself, let alone that which is outside it.
By wishing for an explanation we invent towers of BS.

The only thing this Universe dictates as a policy is that it WILL evolve. That's it. Prove that wrong. All we know is this for certain. The devices that it uses are multitudinous. They are consistent in conforming to the premier desire.

As an agnostic, I believe all of those who are certain about the Universe's motivations are insane. I believe that all of those who think there can not BE motivations are equally goofy.

It has been my direct experiences that press me into knowing that the superficial reality is not all there is. I hope someone (thing) eventually can make a determination on this issue.

Feeling awe is not proof of anything other than a reaction within the mind/body. Knee reflexes do not indicate that you are a meat robot.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I didn't say all, just a group. The angry ones who purposefully drop into a thread and snark about having religion shoved down their throats when they had to actively click to get there.

If I had said all atheists, you might have a point.

a reply to: ketsuko

And as for atheists not existing ... well for a group of people who don't believe in God, there are an awful lot of them who seem to give God plenty of rent free time in their head.

That's because we don't have a choice. We are an extreme minority in the world at this point. Therefore, we are consistently bombarded with those who either assume(expect) we believe just as they do, or we are being touted as the root of all evil. Let alone those who knock on our doors, send us religious junk mail, and expend lots of energy trying to convert the godless heathens.

a reply to: largo

Honestly, I think that's the wisest outlook for anyone who cannot find faith in something, to just admit how much we don't actually know.

a reply to: Klassified

As if those things don't happen to the rest of us, do you honestly think we Christians enjoy being proselytized to by other Christians? I find JWs just as irksome as you do, and I have faith.

Or to give another example, I was raised in a more reserved family to a more reserved faith where your relationship with God was a more private thing between you and Him. I attended a Baptist church with my boyfriend in high school for some months, and they were very much more into giving public testimony, and he was forever trying to push me out into the aisle trying to get me to go get saved and witness as if I wasn't already a saved Christian.

Do you seriously think I liked that and didn't find it annoying?

So it isn't just atheists who can find Christians annoying. We can bother each other, too. So you're not special snowflake.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Klassified

As if those things don't happen to the rest of us, do you honestly think we Christians enjoy being proselytized to by other Christians? I find JWs just as irksome as you do, and I have faith.

LOL!!! Touche.

originally posted by: largo
Anyone who believes that a human can understand the Universe is automatically wrong.
...
I believe all of those who are certain about the Universe's motivations are insane. I believe that all of those who think there can not BE motivations are equally goofy.

Agreed. Even if it's "life" or the "universe" that is the motivation for us to evolve and progress, it's something. But I will not *pick* something as the motivation (God), just because I don't know and need to know. I let go of the need to know a long time ago.

By wishing for an explanation we invent towers of BS.

Enter religions of the world.

It has been my direct experiences that press me into knowing that the superficial reality is not all there is. I hope someone (thing) eventually can make a determination on this issue.

I have also had experiences that make me believe in something more, but I don't know what that is and I won't just latch onto the popular belief.

Feeling awe is not proof of anything other than a reaction within the mind/body.

True. I feel that all the time, but it's not necessary to attribute it to anything outside myself. Maybe I'm a lot more than I can sense. I think of myself as a spirit, in possession of a mind and body. This body is not who I am, it's my vehicle.

originally posted by: ketsuko
aHonestly, I think that's the wisest outlook for anyone who cannot find faith in something, to just admit how much we don't actually know.

While I do have faith in many things, I also "admit" that we don't know. Belief is different from knowledge.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I didn't say all, just a group. The angry ones who purposefully drop into a thread and snark about having religion shoved down their throats when they had to actively click to get there.

If I had said all atheists, you might have a point.

That wasn't your specification in what I originally quoted, which was:

And as for atheists not existing ... well for a group of people who don't believe in God, there are an awful lot of them who seem to give God plenty of rent free time in their head.

How is thread not having religion shoved down our throats? The core of it is a denial of our existence based on some unverified (based on the OP article) claim that it is physiologically impossible and a erroneous definition of atheism. How is that not forcing religion down an atheist's throat?

In all seriousness, I do appreciate that you give me credit as being an atheist that you'd have in your house; however, this board's tagline is about denying ignorance and perhaps we should each consider our own ignorance on the subject of others' beliefs? Every single one of us came to our own personal beliefs based on our personal experiences and ruminations. Why does it have to be open season on each other because one person may believe that a god (or gods) exists and another doesn't? To me that's daft because what one is regarding when it comes to personal belief is the most rigid and potentially unchanging aspect of a person. It's a lifelong introspection there.

If this thread were instead titled "Scientists discover that Christians might not exist, and that’s not a joke" and instead targeted Christians as opposed to atheists using the same purported study to say relegate belief as merely a primitive cognitive processing, would you not be offended? Coming to defend oneself against erroneous assumptions, presumptions and more is a person's right. You stated this:

I long ago come to the conclusion that human behavior in general supports the idea that humans have a deep-seated need to believe in something. It appears science is coming to realize that.

Where is it flawed? You assume that an atheist believes in nothing. That's erroneous. I believe in the potential good of humanity and its ability to both reason and overcome ideological disagreements for the sake of humanity. Your presumption of total non-belief was wrong. Atheism just says "I don't believe in God or gods". It doesn't say that I don't believe in anything.

Deny ignorance, ketsuko. What we really should be squabbling about are those beliefs that do direct and immediate harm--radicalized groups of any religious persuasion from the Army of God to Islamic extremists or even weirdo cults that harm its own members. Those should be our united cause. Not each other.

originally posted by: whatsecret
Bad news for atheists... For such a long time atheists relied on science to prove that God doesn't exist, and this is how science repays them...

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

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

Interesting how they don't delineate between spiritualism and religion.

Everybody believes in something.

a reply to: whatsecret

Sounds like this person (Nury Vittachi) thinks that science thinks we may be wired for belief

We're also wired for rational thinking, so...I'm thinking we're also wired for un-believeing

This sounds a little bit like someone wants to define atheism - for atheists and everyone else. To what end I wonder?

An opinion piece - but it's chock full of stuff we've all kinda sorta noticed before

There's nothing wrong with that - of course

:-)

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
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.

Which do you think your God would prefer? An honest disbeliever or a hypocrite?

originally posted by: whatsecret

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
The writer seems to think that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in ANYTHING supernatural... In reality, the only thing an atheist doesn't believe in is a deity. A figurehead.

I have noticed that a lot of atheists cannot agree on the definition of atheism. Reminds me of religions. All religions agree that God is real but disagree on what God is.

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings.

I'm not sure what an immortal soul is, but I do believe there's more to this existence than our 5 senses tell us. That doesn't mean I'm not an atheist. I hold a lot of beliefs. I just don't believe in a single deity (that most people call "God").

I think that makes you an agnostic.

No, all religions do not agree that God, the Abrahamic deity, is real.

a reply to: whatsecret

The story does not make any sense based on what scientists use as rule:

Science is defined as - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientists do not believe in deities, spirits, gods or that mankind has a spirit inside them. So based upon their own logical pattern of thinking there can and are atheist which they can not prove one way or the other.

originally posted by: Pauligirl

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
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.

Which do you think your God would prefer? An honest disbeliever or a hypocrite?

The true definition of an atheist is one who hates God so utterly that they hate any notion of a God. An honest disbeliever would see that there is no harm in leaving the possibility open. Only a fool rushes in to discard all other options.
Anything an atheist proposes to counter God, God trumps.
Evolution? Naw, just observing God's way.
Big Bang? Naw, it is finite so what came before it?
Multiverse? Naw, just a series of big bangs
Infinite Universes? Naw, it allows for all possibilities, one being a God which by definition is infinite and all powerful so would therefore be all powerful over all infinite universes.

But then all is possible with God, so God made the impossible....the atheist. The best proof of God is the existence of the atheist.