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

[pinqy]

Claiming God does not exist as fact is logically indefensible.

It depends. I think it is defensible to say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ghu- god of the ceiling, Chthulu etc do not exist as we can trace their origins, and the purpose of their invention.

Also, while not mentioning any particular gods, if there are any testable claims about its existence (not just claimed qualities or attributes), and those tests are failed, then it can logically be asserted that that god (or at least that version of the god) does not exist.

But in general, you are correct and it is without question indefensible to claim no gods at all exist.

The same applies to affirmative claims that god does exist. Atheists are simply not convinced a god exists, as there is no objective, empirical evidence of one. But most Atheists would likely be willing to consider the evidence for one, should such evidence be forthcoming. As it is, there is no evidence for any god/s.

Of course, the problem here is that many of us couldn't tell you what, if any, evidence could convince us of the existence of a god. I have given this much thought and I have no idea what evidence could be convincing.

 

[pinqy]

Can one be a witness or have a testimonial of something that wasn't real?

Yes, of course.

 

[JH Oldoc]

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. “A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas”.

https://www.science20.com/writer_on...s_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

I find that quite compelling, Elora. As humans evolve (I don't mean in the Darwinian sense) even those who today scoff at all but the most mundane/materialist perceptions/understanding of the world will look back upon an ancient study such as this and wonder at the primitiveness of their ancestors, or not
. since they will understand the path of involution and evolution that humankind had by design followed as well as what its future trajectory will be.

 

[LittleNipper]

Yes, of course.

Possibly, but would you want to befriend or listen to a total liar? Such would hardly provide a worthy testimony or be a reliable witness to anything... Yet isn't it possible to tell the difference between one presenting the truth and one telling lies?

 

[pinqy]

Possibly, but would you want to befriend or listen to a total liar? Such would hardly provide a worthy testimony or be a reliable witness to anything... Yet isn't it possible to tell the difference between one presenting the truth and one telling lies?

Those are not the only two options. People can be mistaken about what they have seen/heard, people can interpret an event incorrectly, etc. i believe that the majority of people who claim they have seen a ghost or aliens or visions of a god etc are sincere and that they did experience something which they interpreted as ghosts/aliens/gods etc. but that does not mean their belief about what they experienced is true.

Simple example: a cancer patient has several friends who pray for his recovery: one prays to Jesus, one prays to Saint Peregrine, one prays to Shiva, one to Asclepius, etc. The cancer unexpectedly goes into remission. All the friends can truthfully testify and witness that they prayed for healing, and healing occurred. Not all of them can be correct that it was their god that granted the healing (though they can all be wrong), but that doesn’t mean any of them are lying. All of them can sincerely believe it was a miracle, but that doesn’t mean it was.

 

[Gordy327]

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say.

Speak for yourself. I never had any belief, innate or otherwise, in any god/s or the supernatural.

Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting.

Seeing or looking for patterns is one thing. Believing it's a god is totally another.

“A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas”.

In other words, people merely convince themselves of something.

I find that quite compelling, Elora. As humans evolve (I don't mean in the Darwinian sense) even those who today scoff at all but the most mundane/materialist perceptions/understanding of the world will look back upon an ancient study such as this and wonder at the primitiveness of their ancestors, or not
. since they will understand the path of involution and evolution that humankind had by design followed as well as what its future trajectory will be.

Except evolution actually has empirical evidence whild god/s do not.

 

[Gordy327]

Kinda like claiming the Bible is a myth, huh.,..

It's stories certainly are!

Can one be a witness or have a testimonial of something that wasn't real?

Sure. People make things up all the time. Or exaggerate or twist stories.

What evidence do you need?

Something empirically objective, verifiable, falsifiable, testable, and independently peer reviewed for starters. Perhaps the sudden appearance of a second sun next to the current one? THat might be strong evidence. And I'm not talking 2010: Odyssey 2 Jupiter becoming a second sun either.

There exists a Universe HE designed and created.

Prove he designed and created it!

There exist HIS STORY as HE presented through HIS WORD.

More like stories ancient men with pens wrote.

There exists HIS followers from when time began.

Humans only recently appeared on the universal time scale.

And you exist bombarded with views both pro and con that provide you with clear choices. What more do you need?

I exist because of my parents and biology. WHat more do you have? Because so far, you've offered nothing.

 

[NolanVoyd]

None were found in foxholes.

Lots of athiests were made in foxholes.

 

[JH Oldoc]

Except evolution actually has empirical evidence whild god/s do not.

Let me help you here, Gordy.
You seem to be having some difficulty with word selection, or at least with the definition of empirical.

empirical - Google Search

www.google.com

Empirical
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

One thing I've noticed in my short stay here is that many seem to be struggling with their first baby steps in logic, imagining it to be something other than the painfully limiting way of understanding the world we live in that it is, and tripping all over themselves endeavoring to be intelecshul.

What is called God is by some referred to as the Ineffable. Laboratory instruments are too crude to detect even the world of emotion or thought, or physical sensation, and their principles, and yet who denies they exist.
If a person says they feel sad do you ask them for proof emotions exist? If they say they thought of something do you ask for proof that thought exists? In your experience you know of them, and yet others can actually see the vehicles and know them by other senses. They're just perhaps older and higher on the evolutionary scale that those who can't. If your experience of these things is scant or non existent then you say prove it, but proof comes only with personal experience which as I suggested is in all people's future. There is no proof now for you, but there is indeed for others.
.You'll catch up, or one day know it to be true empirically as some do today.

 

[RAMOSS]

Kinda like claiming the Bible is a myth, huh.,..

Not quite. In fact, quite a bit different. It can be shown that many of the stories in the bible are myths, Genesis, the global flood, walking on water, turning water into wine, coming back from the dead, the concept of salvation, all myths

 

[Gordy327]

Let me help you here, Gordy.
You seem to be having some difficulty with word selection, or at least with the definition of empirical.

Oh good grief! It should go without saying at this point that evidence is objective empirical as it pertains to a scientific context and method.

One thing I've noticed in my short stay here is that many seem to be struggling with their first baby steps in logic, imagining it to be something other than the painfully limiting way of understanding the world we live in that it is, and tripping all over themselves endeavoring to be intelecshul.

Resorting to ad hom attacks does not help your argument.

What is called God is by some referred to as the Ineffable. Laboratory instruments are too crude to detect even the world of emotion or thought, or physical sensation, and their principles, and yet who denies they exist.

Emotional response and perception is subjective. But emotions are just biological functions of the brain.

If a person says they feel sad do you ask them for proof emotions exist? If they say they thought of something do you ask for proof that thought exists? In your experience you know of them, and yet others can actually see the vehicles and know them by other senses. They're just perhaps older and higher on the evolutionary scale that those who can't. If your experience of these things is scant or non existent then you say prove it, but proof comes only with personal experience which as I suggested is in all people's future. There is no proof now for you, but there is indeed for others.
.You'll catch up, or one day know it to be true empirically as some do today.

What kind of nonsense is that? If someone makes an affirmative claim for something, they bear the burden of proving it! That's simple logic. Or do you simply accept whatever someone says if it conforms to your own narrative or bias?

 

[Daisy]

Empirical
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Interesting definition...seems many here have been using the word wrong, as well as denying true empirical evidence when faced with it...hmmmmmm...

 

[Gordy327]

Interesting definition...seems many here have been using the word wrong, as well as denying true empirical evidence when faced with it...hmmmmmm...

If it makes things easier, instead of "objective empirical evidence," I'll simply say "scientific evidence." That should clear up any confusion. As it stands, there is no scientific evidence for any god/s.

 

[JH Oldoc]

Or do you simply accept whatever someone says if it conforms to your own narrative or bias?

.I could walk you through an experiment conducted. Read to you the procedure for producing a blob of goo. Show it to you, allow you to touch it, smell it, taste it (though use caution there), maybe it makes a sound when subjected to a interaction with some outside force, and then you may agree that it exists just as I say it does. You are able to so long as you have working physical sense organs (a congenitally blind person might be incredulous regarding your visual description - or if they are well adjusted they'll understand and acknowledge that they can't perceive it but there is truth in it nonetheless)
. Of course you'd be wrong to accept such a proof w/o having intimate knowledge of the materials used, and the transformative forces applied to them - in other words, you would want to directly observed the procedure, or reproduced it yourself before believing that it is what you were told. That's the way things work in the scientific community. No one is asked to simply accept as fact what they have not themselves verified.
That is true also of the spiritual sciences. No one is asked to blindly accept anything w/o verification, however, unlike in the mundane sciences, the instruments of perception aren't metal and electronic measuring devices that humm and flash when you throw a switch - it's you yourself, organs so to speak, in you which you have to gain through effort and training, mastery of. The proofs as suggested, can't be placed on a table, or held in hand like the blob of goo. They are a matter of direct experience which can't be shown to anyone who hasn't also those same working sensory organs.
...and like the incredulous bling person, no one's lack of belief, or inability to perceive, will make the realities they know less real.
.gods are always right before us as principles in man and nature. The Ineffable is that because we haven't, as individuals, developed the technology to perceive it. Some have reached further, and if you verify some of what they say then, just as in a school teacher, faith/trust, is engendered and you may believe them when they tell you there is even more.

 

[Gordy327]

.I could walk you through an experiment conducted. Read to you the procedure for producing a blob of goo. Show it to you, allow you to touch it, smell it, taste it (though use caution there), maybe it makes a sound when subjected to a interaction with some outside force, and then you may agree that it exists just as I say it does. You are able to so long as you have working physical sense organs (a congenitally blind person might be incredulous regarding your visual description - or if they are well adjusted they'll understand and acknowledge that they can't perceive it but there is truth in it nonetheless)
. Of course you'd be wrong to accept such a proof w/o having intimate knowledge of the materials used, and the transformative forces applied to them - in other words, you would want to directly observed the procedure, or reproduced it yourself before believing that it is what you were told. That's the way things work in the scientific community. No one is asked to simply accept as fact what they have not themselves verified.
That is true also of the spiritual sciences. No one is asked to blindly accept anything w/o verification, however, unlike in the mundane sciences, the instruments of perception aren't metal and electronic measuring devices that humm and flash when you throw a switch - it's you yourself, organs so to speak, in you which you have to gain through effort and training, mastery of. The proofs as suggested, can't be placed on a table, or held in hand like the blob of goo. They are a matter of direct experience which can't be shown to anyone who hasn't also those same working sensory organs.
...and like the incredulous bling person, no one's lack of belief, or inability to perceive, will make the realities they know less real.
.gods are always right before us as principles in man and nature. The Ineffable is that because we haven't, as individuals, developed the technology to perceive it. Some have reached further, and if you verify some of what they say then, just as in a school teacher, faith/trust, is engendered and you may believe them when they tell you there is even more.

What a load of bs! "Spiritual science" is an oxymoron. Basically, you think feelings is somehow proof. It is not. If you can't produce the proof, then your claims are meaningless.

 

[JH Oldoc]

What a load of bs! "Spiritual science" is an oxymoron. Basically, you think feelings is somehow proof. It is not. If you can't produce the proof, then your claims are meaningless.

. I must say, that reply seemed rather desperate.
If a 1st grader told a college student that what that older student was saying they knew was untrue because that 1st grader did not know it, wouldn't you chuckle (?), and yet one day when the child had developed sufficiently he/she too might know of those very things they denied. It's just the way things work all around, Gordy.

 

[NolanVoyd]

. I must say, that reply seemed rather desperate.
If a 1st grader told a college student that what that older student was saying they knew was untrue because that 1st grader did not know it, wouldn't you chuckle (?), and yet one day when the child had developed sufficiently he/she too might know of those very things they denied. It's just the way things work all around, Gordy.

Wow. Your arrogance doesn't match the actual conversation.

You got your analogy backwards, you seem to be the 1st grader.

 

[Gordy327]

. I must say, that reply seemed rather desperate.
If a 1st grader told a college student that what that older student was saying they knew was untrue because that 1st grader did not know it, wouldn't you chuckle (?), and yet one day when the child had developed sufficiently he/she too might know of those very things they denied. It's just the way things work all around, Gordy.

Not desperate at all. Simply pointing out BS!

 

[JH Oldoc]

Wow. Your arrogance doesn't match the actual conversation.

You got your analogy backwards, you seem to be the 1st grader.

Of course there's no arrogance at all in calling what another person writes bs because YOU can't understand it.

.LoLz

 

[Gordy327]

Of course there's no arrogance at all in calling what another person writes bs because YOU can't understand it.

.LoLz

We understand BS when we see it.

 

[watsup]

. I must say, that reply seemed rather desperate.
If a 1st grader told a college student that what that older student was saying they knew was untrue because that 1st grader did not know it, wouldn't you chuckle (?), and yet one day when the child had developed sufficiently he/she too might know of those very things they denied. It's just the way things work all around, Gordy.

Why the need to negatively describe the inputs of others (rather desperate). In matter of fact, it is specifically such a tactic that smacks of “rather desperate”. It’s called “projection”.
And you really don’t say much in your responses. Do you have any actual evidence for said “God”, or just lots of words with very little meaning?

 

[JH Oldoc]

Why the need to negatively describe the inputs of others (rather desperate). In matter of fact, it is specifically such a tactic that smacks of “rather desperate”. It’s called “projection”.
And you really don’t say much in your responses. Do you have any actual evidence for said “God”, or just lots of words with very little meaning?

.Wasn't I clear enough in saying no evidence of the sort demanded was possible, but that anyone if they wished to could pursue answers/proofs which are known through direct personal experience, and by scientific investigation? These aren't tangible things that can be presented as can a physical object.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just pointing out the absurdity of thinking proof could be handed to you/anyone, and if it isn't, that serves as a negation. If you read back you will see that that is what was stated in several ways, but no more.

 

[watsup]

.Wasn't I clear enough in saying no evidence of the sort demanded was possible, but that anyone if they wished to could pursue answers/proofs which are known through direct personal experience, and by scientific investigation? These aren't tangible things that can be presented as can a physical object.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just pointing out the absurdity of thinking proof could be handed to you/anyone, and if it isn't, that serves as a negation. If you read back you will see that that is what was stated in several ways, but no more.

So you don’t have any actual evidence for your “God”. Well, okay then. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[JH Oldoc]

So you don’t have any actual evidence for your “God”. Well, okay then. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'll just suggest again that you read back and understand what was written wasn't to provide proof of my/or any "God", only to suggest that steps toward the goal of providing evidences for oneself are available. Suffice to say it's not for the lazy or those who want things handed to them for free.

 

[watsup]

I'll just suggest again that you read back and understand what was written wasn't to provide proof of my/or any "God", only to suggest that steps toward the goal of providing evidences for oneself are available. Suffice to say it's not for the lazy or those who want things handed to them for free.

And yet YOU are too lazy to actually provide any evidence whatsoever, but rather insist on obfuscation instead. Again, thanks for basically admitting that you don’t actually have any evidence. Either that, or it is so lame that you are afraid to present it for fear that it would be summarily dismissed. Either way, I’m not sure what you’re doing in a DISCUSSION forum when you refuse to actually DISCUSS.