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

[tabibito]

Then you must be talking to yourself.

　

Does "no you don't" in reply to "I think I exist" address "I exist" or "I think"?

[Teallaura]

First you gotta convince me that this mythical land known as "Australia" really exists in order for me to accept that someone might be living there.

It's where they bake all the upside down pineapple cakes...

[Teallaura]

　

Does "no you don't" in reply to "I think I exist" address "I exist" or "I think"?

Yes.

[Jesse]

Jesse please excuse my bad manners,

welcome to NS301!

Lol. You have not shown any bad manners at all HMS_Beagle and thank you for the welcome :). First, I would like to say that I didn't post this piece to try to poke at or tweak Atheists. That wasn't my intention nor do I think it was the authors (I am not sure he himself is a believer). Though I can't really speak for the author's intent.

The science however isn't being spun. They came to their "opinion" from where the science is leading them. You can say the science is wrong, but their conclusions are from the science itself and not them just pulling it out of thin air.

Again, this is not trying to prove that Atheists don't exist physically. Obviously Atheists like you and rwatts exists. The point of what the science is saying is that neurologically and genetically you are not. An example would be if a man became a women (humor me here). A man yes can become a woman through modification, but it is superficial. Your bone structure, your DNA, your chromosomes will always point to the fact that you were born a male. The same applies here. The science is saying you were created to believe in a deity. Of course you can always reject or change that belief. But that wouldn't change the fact that it is inborn.

Now yes the science could be wrong. But from what genetics and neurology is telling us right now, you are not a Atheist by naturalistic standards. I hope I am making some sense :).

didn't No True Atheist^tm open for Mötley Crüe in 1986? :P

[Jesse]

I agree with you on that.

But I am an atheist.


Mind you, perhaps there are some who have brains "hard wired" for atheism. They are kind of mutants?

If in fact there are those hardwired for Atheism, they haven't found it yet. But they have found the opposite as you can see :).

[Jesse]

As I understood it, the idea proposed was that humans are hard wired to believe in something greater than themselves, and that this hard wiring wouldn't necessarily tend to a belief in the supernatural. Hero worship and science worship are enough to keep the predisposition mollified.

Also, the "god gene" is associated with "mystic experience" - something that I haven't experienced, and encounters with people who do have the experience lead to me to be skeptical that it has anything to do with Christianity in particular, and possibly with other religions.

Admittedly though, I haven't kept myself abreast of developments since this first made a splash.

Dean Hamer's hypothesis was that the gene VMAT2 (one of many) predisposes us to belief in a deity. He didn't say there was a God, just that our genetics point to there needing to be a strong belief in one.

[HMS_Beagle]

The science however isn't being spun. They came to their "opinion" from where the science is leading them. You can say the science is wrong, but their conclusions are from the science itself and not them just pulling it out of thin air.

Sadly it is being spun. The science doesn't say people are predisposed to not be atheists. It say people are predisposed to believe in the metaphysical. The two aren't the same thing. Atheist doesn't mean someone who rejects the supernatural. It means someone who rejects the idea of a God - a Supreme Omnipotent Being- a specific instance of a metaphysical manifestation.

Again, this is not trying to prove that Atheists don't exist physically. Obviously Atheists like you and rwatts exists. The point of what the science is saying is that neurologically and genetically you are not.

Again, that is not what the science is saying. That is the personal interpretation of the author of the article. Just because a few scientists may share his personal opinion that doesn't make it a scientifically established fact.

An example would be if a man became a women (humor me here). A man yes can become a woman through modification, but it is superficial. Your bone structure, your DNA, your chromosomes will always point to the fact that you were born a male. The same applies here. The science is saying you were created to believe in a deity. Of course you can always reject or change that belief. But that wouldn't change the fact that it is inborn.

I know it sounds like I'm arguing semantics here but in science definitions are important. All Gods belong to the metaphysical realm but not all hypothesized metaphysical beings are Gods.

Now yes the science could be wrong. But from what genetics and neurology is telling us right now, you are not a Atheist by naturalistic standards. I hope I am making some sense :).

As much as anyone here ever does.

didn't No True Atheist^tm open for Mötley Crüe in 1986? :P

Could be.

[Jesse]

Sadly it is being spun. The science doesn't say people are predisposed to not be atheists. It say people are predisposed to believe in the metaphysical. The two aren't the same thing. Atheist doesn't mean someone who rejects the supernatural. It means someone who rejects the idea of a God - a Supreme Omnipotent Being- a specific instance of a metaphysical manifestation.



Again, that is not what the science is saying. That is the personal interpretation of the author of the article. Just because a few scientists may share his personal opinion that doesn't make it a scientifically established fact.



I know it sounds like I'm arguing semantics here but in science definitions are important. All Gods belong to the metaphysical realm but not all hypothesized metaphysical beings are Gods.



As much as anyone here ever does.



Could be.

Ok I will go with you on that. It is true that Atheism is a rejection of the belief in any Gods. But do not Atheists (most?) deny any metaphysical realities because they can not be proven scientifically? Most seem to reject any and all "supernatural" explanations.

I do understand what you are saying though. If you don't think the science is saying "Atheists don't exist", what do you think it is saying in totality? Now to be fair, if this was the other way around, I would still believe it because of what is being said in total of what we know how the brain works and how human history has panned out. But that is my personal opinion.

[klaus54]

Come to think of it I've never seen HMS_B and rwatts sez he's from "Australia", a mythical land that only the most credulous believes exists. I mean how could people live their whole lives upside down. Pfff...

So, Jesse may be onto something.

K54

P.S. Seriously though, being pre-wired to believe in a higher power is not the same as being pre-wired to be a theist.

[Jesse]

Come to think of it I've never seen HMS_B and rwatts sez he's from "Australia", a mythical land that only the most credulous believes exists. I mean how could people live their whole lives upside down. Pfff...

So, Jesse may be onto something.

K54

P.S. Being pre-wired to believe in a higher power is not the same as being pre-wired to be a theist.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

[Teallaura]

Pantheism?

[klaus54]

Not sure what you are getting at here.

Simple, why does being pre-wired to believe in a higher power imply that this higher power is personal and transcendent? Couldn't it just be a leader or some authority to which one is accountable? A gubmint for example?

K54

[Jesse]

Pantheism?

Panthiesm is still Theism :).

[Jesse]

Simple, why does being pre-wired to believe in a higher power imply that this higher power is personal and transcendent? Couldn't it just be a leader or some authority to which one is accountable? A gubmint for example?

K54

We are specifically talking metaphysical. So yes the debate is in the realm of Theism. Not something non Theist.

[klaus54]

Panthiesm is still Theism :).

No it snot. Unless you use a non-standard definition.

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] In a more specific sense, theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe.[2][3][4][5] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism