Scientists Discover That Atheists Might Not Exist

[grasscarp]

This is an interesting article which I thought may interest some of you

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

It is a long article and ends with this thought:

In the meantime, it might be wise for religious folks to refrain from teasing atheist friends who accidentally say something about their souls. And it might be equally smart for the more militant of today’s atheists to stop teasing religious people at all.

We might all be a little more spiritual than we think.

[naomi24]

Bed time now, so I’ll read it tomorrow. For now I would suggest that religion and spirituality are two entirely separate things. Something to think about. Night.

[pixie373]

That is psychology. Nothing to do with religion. A soul could be the true character of a person- it doesn't make it immortal. That interpretation says more about the listener than the speaker.

[jomifl]

Scientists discover that god might not exist. It has been discovered that god only exists as a concept in the brains of some people who have inherited a gene that cause the brain to develop with a faulty logic processing module. The fault was discovered after analysis of the sales of iphones revealed that some people thought that iphones were gifted to mankind by an omnipotent being as a means of bringing them to paradise. ...Sorry just fantasizing...:o)

[mibn2cweus]

If you're going to go to the trouble to read that one, Naomi, perhaps you might as well give this one a read as well while you're at it -

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/confused-science-writer-claims-that-atheists-might-not-exist/

[pixie373]

That's exactly what I said, mibs.

[Zacs-Master]

What a load a bunkum. We may appear to be hard wired to believe in a creator, but this is only due to the fact that early man knew nothing of science and therefore had no other explanation. There is a subtle difference between being hard wired and 'conditioned' which I think Mr Vittachi fails to distinguish. The poor bloke must be a bit confused anyway, with a Muslim father, a Buhddist mother and living in a country where Atheism is law.

[pixie373]

We are designed to look for patterns and meaning- but not everyone uses religion to answer that.

[Khandro]

Zacs; // early man knew nothing of science and therefore had no other explanation.//
The implication being that science has provided an explanation ?

[Zacs-Master]

The implication being, there was no other choice.

[jim360]

Strikes me as a bad interpretation of the evidence.

[Khandro]

^^ and now there is?

[Zacs-Master]

Of course there is. There is the science choice and the creator choice. Neither of which have been proven (which I think is what your alluding to).

[Khandro]

No, what I allude to is that you appear to make the fundamental mistake of believing that religion gives an explanation of anything at all.

[woofgang]

hahahahahaha.....looking forward to the responses on this one

[Zacs-Master]

Khans do, where precisely, did I say that? I haven't even mentioned the word religion.

[jim360]

People often say that science describes, rather than explains. This is true to an extent, but it also depends on what you mean by "explain". I think that's what khandro is thinking about: to date, and perhaps forever, science will be unable to explain the purpose behind why things are the way they are.

But this is only a problem if you think that such an explanation is necessary in the first place. Does there need to be a purpose? Given the huge success of current physics in describing the universe by using law with a high degree of randomness, among other things, I think it is fair to say that science suggests that the explanation of "purpose" is that there is none.

Its this higher level of explanation where the problem might lie. Lower down the scientific descriptions of phenomena can legitimately count as explanations. For example a rainbow appears at the end of a rainfall if the sun is shining as a direct result of the interactions of light and water, and doesn't appear if the sun isn't out. This is an explanation of sorts; one doesn't need to see it as "God's promise" as a higher reason for its appearance.

[agchristie]

I've got my reply ready but just need my 'invisible friend' to proof read it.

[Khandro]

The fact is, that we don't, nor shall ever know what (very) early man believed in, but I think it is certain that he would have had some form of religious dimension to his existence. What I'm saying is, that science and religion are talking about two entirely different things and one cannot negate the other.

[beso]

In my book, science trumps religion.

For others they will choose their faith every time and it is their right to hold that position.

The difference matters when we are talking about matters of public policy. Religious beliefs have no place that debate.

[naomi24]

Grasscarp, I’ve read it and it’s quite amusing. Perhaps he should be investigating why the ‘militant atheists’, who in reaching their conclusions employ unassailable logic, are considered by the religious to be ‘militant’. That would make a far more interesting study.

Khandro, contrary to your implication, religion purports to give an explanation for all. However, there is a choice – the one that says ‘don’t know’. In the absence of evidence, the assumption that an imaginary supernatural entity created the universe, or anything else, is simply irrational. Furthermore, to presume that the aforesaid imaginary entity takes a personal interest in human beings is even more irrational.

//science and religion are talking about two entirely different things and one cannot negate the other.//

Yes, one can negate the other. Science talks about facts whereas religion talks about nothing more than man’s overly fertile imagination.

Mibs, thank you.

Jim, //But this is only a problem if you think that such an explanation is necessary in the first place.//

Most human beings do think that explanations, even those based upon no evidence, are necessary – hence religion.