PDA

View Full Version : For when some Christians invariably begin to abuse this research...



Jichard
03-31-2016, 02:19 PM
It's become fashionable in some Christian circles to claim that there are no atheists, since supposed "atheists" really believe in God. Some apologists, such as Sye Ten Bruggencate, justify this claim by appeal to Romans 1:18-20. Conversely, some theists abuse scientific research to support this conclusion (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7363-Atheists-Really-Secret-Believers). This has occurred again with a recent scientific paper (ex: here (https://seeingthesword.wordpress.com/tag/marjaana-lindeman/) and here (http://theaquilareport.com/do-atheists-really-believe-in-god/)). But, as usual, the research paper does not show that atheists secretly belief in God.

The research paper in question distinguishes between beliefs and emotional attitudes. For example, I may not believe that Sauron exists, even if I have a negative emotional response to idea of Sauron. In this case, my lack of belief is in tension with what I desire. That's the point of the research paper: atheists have emotional responses to statements about God, where those emotions conflict with the atheist's lack of belief in God. But that doesn't tell mean that atheists secretly believe in God, anymore than the fact that my brother has a different emotional response to Sauron statements than I do implies that I believe that Sauron exists.

Anyway, here's the research paper in question, for when more people invariably start to misrepresent it:



"Atheists Become Emotionally Aroused When Daring God to Do Terrible Things (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10508619.2013.771991)"


"We hypothesized that the physiological reactions of individuals who reject belief in God (labeled here atheists) toward the statements should contradict their explicit attitudes towards the statements (H1), that saying aloud the statements should stress the atheists at least as much as saying aloud other kinds of offensive statements (H2), and that saying aloud the statements should stress atheists as much as it would stress religious people (H3).
[...]
In conclusion, the results indicate that even atheists have difficulty daring God to harm themselves and their loved ones. The results do not necessarily mean that atheists do not mean it when they say they do not believe in God or that daring God is emotionally arousing for atheists and religious individuals for similar reasons. Rather, the results suggest that atheists' explicitly stated beliefs and affective reactions regarding God are of opposite valence."

Roy
03-31-2016, 04:54 PM
As usual the writers just assume monotheism and that "God" is not only coherent but also somehow special when compared to other deities. Where are the control statements about Zeus doing harm? The authors even admit they can't tell whether the atheists response was due to concern over "God" or concern over the rest of the statement - which they could easily have overcome by substituting e.g. "Azathoth" sometimes.

This study doesn't support the idea that atheists secretly believe in "God", but it suggests that the authors do.

37818
03-31-2016, 05:59 PM
Here is a 1 hour video claiming atheists do not really exist: "Documentary: Atheists don't exist:"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

metacrock
03-31-2016, 09:58 PM
It's become fashionable in some Christian circles to claim that there are no atheists, since supposed "atheists" really believe in God. Some apologists, such as Sye Ten Bruggencate, justify this claim by appeal to Romans 1:18-20. Conversely, some theists abuse scientific research to support this conclusion (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7363-Atheists-Really-Secret-Believers). This has occurred again with a recent scientific paper (ex: here (https://seeingthesword.wordpress.com/tag/marjaana-lindeman/) and here (http://theaquilareport.com/do-atheists-really-believe-in-god/)). But, as usual, the research paper does not show that atheists secretly belief in God.

The research paper in question distinguishes between beliefs and emotional attitudes. For example, I may not believe that Sauron exists, even if I have a negative emotional response to idea of Sauron. In this case, my lack of belief is in tension with what I desire. That's the point of the research paper: atheists have emotional responses to statements about God, where those emotions conflict with the atheist's lack of belief in God. But that doesn't tell mean that atheists secretly believe in God, anymore than the fact that my brother has a different emotional response to Sauron statements than I do implies that I believe that Sauron exists.

Anyway, here's the research paper in question, for when more people invariably start to misrepresent it:



"Atheists Become Emotionally Aroused When Daring God to Do Terrible Things (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10508619.2013.771991)"


"We hypothesized that the physiological reactions of individuals who reject belief in God (labeled here atheists) toward the statements should contradict their explicit attitudes towards the statements (H1), that saying aloud the statements should stress the atheists at least as much as saying aloud other kinds of offensive statements (H2), and that saying aloud the statements should stress atheists as much as it would stress religious people (H3).
[...]
In conclusion, the results indicate that even atheists have difficulty daring God to harm themselves and their loved ones. The results do not necessarily mean that atheists do not mean it when they say they do not believe in God or that daring God is emotionally arousing for atheists and religious individuals for similar reasons. Rather, the results suggest that atheists' explicitly stated beliefs and affective reactions regarding God are of opposite valence."

hi Royce. you don't need a bunch of studies to prove this. I was an atheist and even though I experienced cognitive dissonance about it either way I really did not believe at that time. it's a silly argument.

the papers you use are BS. There is a hate God industry in academic circles that churns out nonsense publication to meet publish or perish and supply their God hating propaganda .those studies are always nonsense'

that one with Willard and Nywhatsit use five bait and switches to link religious thought to magical thi9nkimng.

Van Elk admits they have empirical data he failed to find any.

metacrock
03-31-2016, 10:03 PM
Here is a 1 hour video claiming atheists do not really exist: "Documentary: Atheists don't exist:"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

all those criticisms like atheism destroys meaning and so on may have merit but the basic argument that there are no atheists is silly. I was one so I know it's silly.

37818
04-01-2016, 05:40 AM
all those criticisms like atheism destroys meaning and so on may have merit but the basic argument that there are no atheists is silly. I was one so I know it's silly.

Well, let us then refute each point of argument. Merely making the assertion it is silly because you know you were an atheist once may work for you and other former atheists.

I do not doubt your view. But what is not true needs to be refuted.

A number of things to note:
1. An uncaused existence needs no God.
2. Can any theist explain why any simple truths need a God to be true. 1 + 1 = 2.
3. On the primise that that there be no God. Why would that be absurd?

Yes, I am a theist.

metacrock
04-01-2016, 06:06 AM
Well, let us then refute each point of argument. Merely making the assertion it is silly because you know you were an atheist once may work for you and other former atheists.

I do not doubt your view. But what is not true needs to be refuted.

A number of things to note:
1. An uncaused existence needs no God.
2. Can any theist explain why any simple truths need a God to be true. 1 + 1 = 2.
3. On the primise that that there be no God. Why would that be absurd?

Yes, I am a theist.


1. An uncaused existence needs no God.Right except there can be no naturalistic uncaused events.

2. Can any theist explain why any simple truths need a God to be true. 1 + 1 = 2.

Well I don't about simple truths but I think all hierarchical organizing requires a transcendental signified to organize it hierarchically. that is by definition God.

3. On the premise that that there be no God. Why would that be absurd?


It may not be but it also contradicts the most basic assumptions of science: that our observations can correspond to reality. they can't hang on to science and discord hierarchical organizing.

37818
04-02-2016, 09:15 AM
1. An uncaused existence needs no God.Right . . . One implication being that there is no God or gods.


. . . except there can be no naturalistic uncaused events. Here you introduce a concept of "naturalistic uncaused events." The terms "natural" and "events" are normally understood to be finite and temporal. In contrast what would be "uncaused" would be eternal and a different nature than being temporal. There are two types of finite and temporal events, causes and effects. All causes being limiting in being finite and temporal. All effects being defined as caused.




2. Can any theist explain why any simple truths need a God to be true. 1 + 1 = 2.

Well I don't about simple truths but I think all hierarchical organizing requires a transcendental signified to organize it hierarchically. that is by definition God.Either all simple truths are contingent on God or no God is needed. And there being no God would render any definition of God false. No matter how compelling the definition may be.



3. On the premise that that there be no God. Why would that be absurd?


It may not be but it also contradicts the most basic assumptions of science: that our observations can correspond to reality. they can't hang on to science and discord hierarchical organizing.There being no God, the universe, everything that exists would be just as it is. All our theistic arguments would still exist too.

metacrock
04-02-2016, 11:57 AM
One implication being that there is no God or gods.

Here you introduce a concept of "naturalistic uncaused events." The terms "natural" and "events" are normally understood to be finite and temporal. In contrast what would be "uncaused" would be eternal and a different nature than being temporal. There are two types of finite and temporal events, causes and effects. All causes being limiting in being finite and temporal. All effects being defined as caused.


it's null set I said there can't be any. It's a category atheists use.




Either all simple truths are contingent on God or no God is needed. And there being no God would render any definition of God false. No matter how compelling the definition may be.

right. I didn't say there's no God


There being no God, the universe, everything that exists would be just as it is. All our theistic arguments would still exist too.


they would be wrong. If no God no argument for God would be right. But I have no reason to assume that there is no God because the arguments work.

metacrock
04-02-2016, 12:01 PM
try this again


A number of things to note:
1. An uncaused existence needs no God.


right, but that doesn't mean there are any



2. Can any theist explain why any simple truths need a God to be true. 1 + 1 = 2.

there can be truths that are neutral with respect to God that is not evidence of no God.



3. On the promise that that there be no God. Why would that be absurd?

why would what be absurd? that there arte neutral facts? it wouldn't be it has nothing to do with it.

37818
04-03-2016, 07:41 PM
A number of things to note:
1. An uncaused existence needs no God.

right, but that doesn't mean there are anyWhy not?




2. Can any theist explain why any simple truths need a God to be true. 1 + 1 = 2.
there can be truths that are neutral with respect to God that is not evidence of no God.OK. How is 1 + 1 = 2 neutral to God? If it can be true without any God, no God is needed. The laws of logic. Are they neutral to God too?




3. On the promise that that there be no God. Why would that be absurd?

why would what be absurd? that there arte neutral facts? it wouldn't be it has nothing to do with it.

The point of argument being unless an absurdity can be shown. It would be just as valid that there is no God as to us theists that there is One.

For example, it can be explicitly understood that to say, "Existence does not exist" is absurd.

metacrock
04-04-2016, 04:27 AM
Why not?

OK. How is 1 + 1 = 2 neutral to God? If it can be true without any God, no God is needed. The laws of logic. Are they neutral to God too

that requires a complex answer. Just suffice to say there's more going on there than just 2+2. atheists can count and do logic. But there's more to the universe than that. The basis of logic and counting is the issue. those come under hierarchical organizing and God is the best explanation for it.

Truthseeker
04-04-2016, 02:17 PM
that requires a complex answer. Just suffice to say there's more going on there than just 2+2. atheists can count and do logic. But there's more to the universe than that. The basis of logic and counting is the issue. those come under hierarchical organizing and God is the best explanation for it.I think I don't understand what you mean by "hierarchical organizing." Perhaps a simple example may help.

"God is the best explanation for . . ." what? If you mean hierarchical organizing, I suspect I have no idea what the hierarchy is or looks like.

37818
04-05-2016, 01:10 AM
that requires a complex answer. Just suffice to say there's more going on there than just 2+2. atheists can count and do logic. But there's more to the universe than that. The basis of logic and counting is the issue. those come under hierarchical organizing and God is the best explanation for it.

A complex answer has simple parts. If none of the simple parts can be explained, how can the complex be comprehended?

A hierarchical organization and God is being presumed. That is fine by me. But that does not reveal the absurdity of the denial of God.

Typically the god as the atheist defines god never existed in the first place. :shrug:

And what about refuting claims made in the video?

metacrock
04-05-2016, 02:11 AM
A complex answer has simple parts. If none of the simple parts can be explained, how can the complex be comprehended?

A hierarchical organization and God is being presumed. That is fine by me. But that does not reveal the absurdity of the denial of God.

Typically the god as the atheist defines god never existed in the first place. :shrug:

And what about refuting claims made in the video?

all I said was we don't have to deny atheists simple mathematics to believe in God. But yes you are rioght about the rest.