RE: Atheists don't exist
July 25, 2014 at 9:11 am
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2014 at 9:14 am by ManMachine.)
(July 24, 2014 at 7:32 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:(July 24, 2014 at 7:23 am)ManMachine Wrote: Having said all that the article does used some very imprecise language to represent the arguments in an effort, it would seem, to foster misinterpretation.
MM
Making it a poor article, IMHO.
I (for one) am not dismissing the studies, I'm dismissing the presumption based on faulty reasoning (as above - stating that we are born 'believers' - This is demonstrably false and I chalk it up to imprecise langauge, as you say).
Another example: when the article says that people have spirituality. Well, fine. That has nothing to do with atheism, and as the article seems to focus on this one possiblity, it makes the header of the article moot.
IT also juxtaposes well researched, valid journal articles with suspect, arguably bogus claims. It cites Theos:
"Theos, a think tank, found that very few people—only 13 per cent of adults—agreed with the statement “humans are purely material beings with no spiritual element”. For the vast majority of us, unseen realities are very present."
What it doesn't tell you is that Theos is a christian religious/theological think tank that promotes articles based on their proclivity to support religion in the public sphere in the UK (I've written about many of them in my PhD thesis so I know a couple of them and the authors). Indeed it doesn't even cite the research the author refers to in the article. I had to try and dig it up:
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/201...al-instead
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/publicat...us-britain
Again, this would be a blow to critical thinking, not 'atheism'.
You're quite right, it is a poor article, clearly written by someone with an absurd agenda.
I was just pointing out the studies are actually interesting and while this article can be largely disregarded as popularist crap, it does reference some good scientific theory worth of investigation IMO. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.
MM
(July 24, 2014 at 8:03 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Cogito atheos ergo ego sum?
I am an atheist. I exist. Debunked.
That doesn't follow.
I am an atheist, therefore I am an entity capable of convincing myself I am an atheist.
That's about as far as you can get with that.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
