Do atheists have a God complex?

Squirrel...you can only say that if you have knowledge of god, of which you & everyone else has none. Knowledge of god requires proof he exists first. How many times does this have to be repeated before it is understood? To say you know what it takes to have a god complex means you are religious to some extent. Religion has no problem telling everybody what they know of god so you automatically disqualify yourself from making any comment re god complex due to your non-religious stance.

I'd say we have attitude.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How many times does it has to be repeated that any claim to evidence, from goldfish to god, rests upon meeting certain prerequisites or qualification?

IOW the moment someone makes the claim "No one knows anything about x" there are one of three options

1. are simply extrapolating their experience onto the wider canvas of humanity ("I'm no brain surgeon, but yada yada yada ...."
   
2. The person is making the claim of omniscience (and drawing a conclusion based on their thorough knowledge of all things known to all people from all times)
   
3. they are making a claim about some indubitable essence of humanity or the issue in question to be known that prohibits or prevents knowledge taking place - for instance one could say that no one has ever had the exact experience of begetting their own selves since conception occurs before birth and time is only experienced as a linear progression.

As it pertains to the topic of knowing god, the first one is simply foolishness, the second one requires that the person be accepted in the same practical category of god and the third one requires some more philosophical unpacking than what you have currently offered.

SO as it stands, I guess that leaves us with number one.

Then its probably better to lay your claim in the language of attitude/perspective.

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why is proof needed?

my point also..(god and religion are not the same thing)(and above comment)

belief in god has nothing to do with ability to analyze

a person can believe in god and never ever attend church or join some other religious organization..i know of quite a few of these types, they are not religious but still they believe in god...

if by we you mean me..
yes i do..
i hate what religion has done to god's rep
i hate how ppl tend to focus too much on their own emotional state of being so much that any perception of unworthyness on their part results in corrupted beliefs and attitudes.
(these are the ones i believe that is giving god the bad rap, theist and atheist alike..)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can consider myself a theist and an atheist. After all both ways of thinking are just a kind of affirmation, though one denies the other.

I'm atheistic about any belief in "a deity" as such, or a universal persona ["Look, it's that one, not that other one..."]; I'm theistic when it's about denial of the existence of God.

So I tend to disagree that there is "a" God sitting in/on a [select place or status of choice here...], but I certainly believe there is such a thing as God, you see.

I believe the latter because the first can only be wishful thinking, and there must be a reason that I consider God is real, which could be that I'm deluded.
If there is "a" God, he/she/they must have multiple personalities to cater to all the wishful ideas people have.
What happened to 'God which is neither good nor bad, does not know what evil is and has the same "care" for human existence as for anything else that exists'?

God is special to humans, because we have brains that contemplate "existence" whereas other animals use their brains to just exist (we think).

That is to say, human brains are capable of introspection and this is part of why we believe God must exist, or we choose to believe God "must not exist".

There is no such thing as "a" God, since, we cannot really place God anywhere; God is not a pronoun.

 

To seek to 'kill' God I'd have to accept that some entity with deific attributes existed, ... clearly I don't, so your claim is rather fatuous.

Claiming God is not logic is just a cop out.

Face it, all you have is some superstition that makes you feel better. If you sought psychiactric help you might be able to get over that.

 

The same reason evidence is required for anything, it demonstrates you're not insane.

They are religious be definition, despite the fact they don't go to churches. They clearly got their indoctrination from some cult in order to have their beliefs in god. Where else would they get it from?

Gods have no other "rep" than that from organized religions scriptures.

 

Does wishing others believe as you do mean one has a God complex?

I mean who doesn't wish others believed at least a good deal of the same things.

I certainly wish everyone was against rape. Is this part of a God complex?

 

You have used this term incorrectly before. No psychiatrist will consider even a significant minority of those who believe in things without evidence insane. They would end up having to weigh in on all sorts of beliefs. In fact it is very hard to become considered insane by psychiatrists or psychologists, simply based on beliefs.

 

2. Personal comments

Posts which attack a person rather than his or her views will be edited to remove the unnecessary personal remarks.

Examples of acceptable posts include:
• You are wrong to say that Islam is a violent religion, because ...
• You obviously don't understand Christian beliefs, because ...
• Saying what you said clearly displays your ignorance of ...

Examples of unacceptable posts include:
• You are a stupid hater of Muslims, because you say Islam is violent.
• You're just another idiot who doesn't know anything about Christianity.
• Anybody who'd write what you wrote must have severe psychological problems.

3. Stereotyping and name-calling

Be careful of assigning character features to another poster because of his or her membership of a group (such as a particular religious belief system). It is acceptable to point out similarities between members of groups, but only as long as this is backed up by some kind of argument or evidence. Posts which resort to name-calling will be edited or deleted. Unacceptable posts include:
• Religious people like you are nothing more than blind followers of authority.
• All Jews want to rid the world of the Palestinian people.
• Muslims (like you) are mindless fools who don't believe in the real God.

4. Goading, flaming and trolling

Posts which, in the moderator's opinion, serve no purpose other than to attempt to provoke an angry reaction from another poster, will be deleted.

Blanket statements made about the beliefs and/or characteristics of members of a particular religion, if posted without supporting evidence which is not propaganda (as defined below), may be deleted.

It is not expected that members of one religious group or belief system will be friendly and receptive to contrary beliefs. However, this is not an excuse for the general disparagement of anybody who adheres to a belief system you personally find unpalatable or offensive. Posts that have the agenda of proclaiming one religion as better than another may be deleted.

At the end of the day, this is a science forum and the scientific perspective and the reasoned perspective will generally be the status quo. This doesn’t, however, mean it is acceptable to refer to members who are religious and express their religious opinions as “nutjobs,” “nutters,” nutbars,” or more serious verbiage such as “idiot,” “moron,” etc.

Posts and threads that are purely anti-science may be moderated.

 

Ah, hiding behind the rulebook, because you have nothing to say eh?

Last bastion of the scoundrel, that.

If you make extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary proof.

Now, if you wish to be treated like a sane person, make a claim, and support it with reason, logic, and evidence.

If you can't do that, resign the debate.

 

Actually, one can hardly get around the point that in a world quickly approaching a population level of 10 Billion, that sooner or later people will have to start arriving at some consensus beliefs... common moral assumptions, basic conditions for cooperation.

Atheists are trying to work out the Common Consensus in their own terms.

The problem there is that Atheism cannot support a Civilization. The Soviet Union tried Utilitarian Materialism and all they got was the most visious and ruthless Criminal Organizations the World has ever known.

You see, what Atheists fail to appreciate is that the same Science that cannot prove there is a God cannot prove that there is a reasonable basis for any form of Morality, Social Cooperation... all the nice stuff that people do is purely against their own self interest.

The only thing that Science can show is that when a person behaves morally for the social good, that he is at the same time reducing his own chances for personal success. How do you think that goes over in the real world?

Selfishness works fine for low population densities -- Nomads and Hunter Gatherers can be Selfish. but Urban Populations need to be Moral Based Societies... people belieiving in the Spiritual Necessity of putting the welfare of the Group first, even if all empirical evidence shows that it screws them over as individuals.

For instance... people not cheating on tests because they believe that the best people really do need to rise to the top. Do you know that Cheating in schools has taken off in recent decades... along with the rise in popular Atheism... do you suppose there is a connection there?

Yes, yes, Atheists insist they know right from wrong, good from bad. However, what they always fail to mention is that they will rarely do right or good, if it will significantly inconvenience themselves. yes, they know cheating is bad, or shop-lifting is bad... but equally, if they can convince themselves that they will not be caught, then they can hardly but fail to think that it does little harm to please themselves. Without God... without Spirit... people simply take the way of least resistance... Animal Instinct takes over.... after several generations one gets Cultures like in the Former Soviet Union or the Eastern European Countries... as thieving as monkeys now but so much more clever... Smarter than most police. It took three Generations of Materialistic Atheism to wipe out their Religious Foundations of Morality and will probably take three Generations to get back to at least where they were before. Until then, the Development of Civilization in jurisdictions where these people will need to be incorporated, well, it will be bound to be slow. You see, where people have no Morality, then one requires a great deal of Police Surveillance and Active Enforcement to make people comply with the normal Civilized Behaviors.

Yes, when the Communists did away with Religion they found they could not keep up with the number of Police it would take to replace God.

 

He's now breaking the rule book by spamming the forums.

 

No, I haven't.

It's called, "Freedom of Religion" - that should give you a starting point to understand why psychiatrists and the legal system are hand-cuffed when it comes to the insanity of religious beliefs.

 

Didn't they hand out a Nobel Prize for lobotomy? Figures.

 

I'm still bewildered as to how a critical thinker such as yourself could consider such nonsense in the absence of facts. It has to be cultural. Would you be excommunicated from your family and friends if you revealed you were an atheist?

 

A critical thinker would have to be a theist or at the very least, an agnostic. Only the self deluded could be comfortable with atheism.

My family runs the whole gamut from fundies to freethinkers and none of them care what anyone else thinks. Not even the fundies.

 

Quoted for future reference.

 

This should help you understand the concept of critical thinking, Sam. Your particular case is noted within:

"Children are not born with the power to think critically, nor do they develop this ability naturally beyond survival-level thinking. Critical thinking is a learned ability that must be taught. Most individuals never learn it. Critical thinking cannot be taught reliably to students by peers or by most parents."

http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-thinking.html

 

Good thing you read that. Maybe you should send them a teddy bear, to show them your appreciation.

 

You clearly didn't read it. Again, it demonstrates your lack of integrity and intellectual dishonesty.