The psychology of atheists and theists

[Xelasnave.1947]

As man hasn’t always been a part of the universe, how did man get here, if the universe didn’t create man?

You need to look that up perhaps using books on the subject yhat are scientific rather than religious.

You’ve convinced yourself that the eternal universe is so certain, you may as well accept it.

You have convinced yourself there is a creator.

What role does the expansion of the universe play, in an “eternal universe?

I really cant answer that but will avoid making up an unsupported answer.
Just because I have found the best answer does not mean I have all the answers. Look at the mess religion finds itself in because it makes up answers.
All we need to know is an eternal universe is most probable and seems there is evidence in support.

How do you know it does?

That is what theists seem to say without realising it.
If god is eternal he must have existed forever and then at a point came out of eternity after how long, billions trillions zillions of or actually an infinite passing of time to create our universe.
That is what theists say although they dont realise such I expect.

Must go I will continue later if I am able.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes it does, just in a different form. Catch the steam and cool it and presto, our cup of water is back....

So if you put a grenade in a cup of just enough water to stop it spilling over, and allow the grenade to go off. You’re tells by me you will be able to recoup the water that was originally from n the cup?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes. There are many people who do not kill.

2 questions.

Do you kill?
Do you know anybody who does not kill?
Obviously excluding small babies, and people who never walked; or move around.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

So if you put a grenade in a cup of just enough water to stop it spilling over, and allow the grenade to go off. You’re tells by me you will be able to recoup the water that was originally from n the cup?

Jan.

What does my ability to reconstitute the dispersed water have to do with anything?

Dude! Did I use the word “disappear”?

No you used "annihilate".

Synonyms for annihilation, noun
Utter destruction.
decimation, demolishment, demolition, destruction, elimination, eradication, extermination,
extinction, extinguishment, liquidation, massacre, obliteration

Perhaps you meant to use another word?

 

[Musika]

No, I am consistent in my rejection of a God as defined in scripture and history. If it seems to you that I am all over the place, it's just the overwhelming amount of evidence against your arguments.
It is you who is all over the place.......

But you see, just a moment ago you were talking about religion and society. Despite anyone's take on the reality/falsity, per se, of God, that is a subject that involves tangible categories (God, institution and social identity and application), all of which have historical backgrounds and so on. Just as this was (again) being brought to your attention, you (again) switched to your ideas of "well God doesn't exist anyway", as if this somehow compensates for your lack of coherence or comprehension of history. Once again, this is not a platform for a theist to challenge an atheist, it is the platform for discussion. Even other atheists here have brought this to your attention more than once.

You may feel rhat because God is a useless idea, there is no need to look at the history and the philosophy. This tact, however, does not strengthen your position that God is a useless idea. It just makes your argument irrelevant since you don't touch on any of the historical or philosophical issues that surround the idea of God. It is like in the process of disregarding God, you also disregard history and philosophy, which simply makes your statements unphilosophical and ahistorical.

 

[billvon]

Do you kill?

No.

Do you know anybody who does not kill?

Yes, a great many people.

It is unfortunate that you do not.

I am disappointed; I expected you to come up with some pathetic weaseling out of your argument by now. I am happy to wait, though.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No.

Yes, a great many people.

It is unfortunate that you do not.

I am disappointed; I expected you to come up with some pathetic weaseling out of your argument by now. I am happy to wait, though.

Have you ever driven a car?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

Have you ever driven a car?

Yes.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Let’s see how you handle the expansion scenario.

We can only speculate how ever expansion is an atribute of this universe..it had what we perceive as a start and that means it presumably will have an end caused somewhat by the expansion if you follow the idea associated with speculation as to the end of the universe...so this universe starts and ends and restarts with a new bid bang...all we need is a cycle...certainly more reasonable than requiring a eternal creator...

How did evolution form mankind,

Evolution deals only with elvolution it does not comment on how life formed..
But we know all that and it would not surprise me to find humans creating life in the near future.

Your attempt to replace God, with an eternal universe has not gone unnoticed

By who.

Its ok to argue along there is there is not approach but now that I come forward with what must present as a dangerous idea I have been noticed... does that mean I am now a target being a thinker and maybe should be dealt with before I give the brainwasher mob an idea that could bring down the empire of lies and myth.
Thats the way the religions approach things isnt it...think what you like so long as you agree there is a god...

I know ...dont rock the boat or the god believers will get you.

Its a reality I realise is true.


My idea is indeed dangerous because it seems more likely to be true than the made up notion of an eternal creator who popped out of eternity to create a finite universe all for his little pet humans who of course he just happened to make in his image...I do think an eternal universe with out the need of a made up creator is facing the most plausible reality.

As I said...choice one is a finite universe with an eternal creator who treats humans special or choice two we merely live in an eternal universe that needs no creation.

Choice two fits observation.

People find it difficult to comprehend that the universe could be eternal yet some how think an eyernal god raises no problems..reflects the lack of thought on the matter only.

It seems you are not content with being an atheist, you must dominate the very essential qualities of what it means to be a theist.

I am just a mug Jan dominating is not my thing.

Can you see how absurd your ideology is?

I offer two choices one most reasonable and one requiring a made up creator existing forever who came out to make humans that look like him...if my choice is absurd where does that leave a selection of a choce in favour of a creator...each can make their own judgement as I think the reasonable non god making humans that look like him simply is so unreasonable it is a non contest.

“Even atheists seem to fear a higher power...”

Their problem not mine.
Superstition is so woven into our society and culture is it any wonder that even an atheist is still capable of being infected by the problem.

Did you not read what I wrote.
Killing is an aspect of the universe.

Jan I read all you write and go to great effort to make sure I understand what you say.
It is you perhaps that is not following all I propose.
So we have a creator who built everything and therefore has the ability to make things in anyway he pleases...just for a novel approach why not build the universe kinder and hard wire humans not to kill...if you actually think about what I am saying you could ask...well why not.
It is so simple ... we are creating a universe with look like god humans...lets just make their brains incapable of thinking of killing or being cruel...that must be easy for a god..well of course it is you know it I know it...but to make an excuse we need free will...sure.

Because we wouldn’t be human beings anymore.

Of course we would still be human...we are hard wired not chew off our arms or legs...still human..taking the choice away not to eat ourselves does not hint at being less human nor does being hard wired not to kill.
Free will is such bs particularly when so many believe prophesy is real...for prophesy to exist means free will can not exist.

I have to go again and follow up later however Jan may I say I really do appreciate the manner you are dealing with me...you have not been evasive or tricky and so it is a pleasure to have our discussion and I thank you.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Mockery helps with you delusion as well.

I was not trying to mock but illustrate an approach...its just that I dont read fiction and have few mythical characters that I know about...
Maybe Superman ... so I have a problem I could ask myself what would he do...but I guess that raises problwms what he could do and what I could do would be different.

Not according to at least some historians.

There is no history that points clearly to JC I am afraid...nil zip nothing.

JC follows the MO of various folk prior in history and enjoy similar myths, claiming similar with similar attributes and relationships etc...that is true...at least eight or ten that are known of...so JC would seem to be just another making similar claims in effect running the same act as others before him...and so his claim to be god seems unreasonable...and sure millions believe that he was god but their belief does not mean he was...personally I am happoer with just the old testament...it is easy to see it contains stories that although clearly made up offer some moral or dictate some law.
The NT is crazy...a man who claimed to be god promises to return but does not and some rat bag predicting world end with seven headed beasts etc...maybe I I had read fiction in my life I could be more tolerant...but the NT really is so very wrong in so many places...
Anyways if there is a god and if humans are important perhaps he could appear and explain things rather than leave it to a variety of nameless authors of dubious material offered up in a book full of errors that one has to interpret to leave out inappropriate immorality ...
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

LOL, there is even "honor amongst thieves", supposedly.......

I think there is something to that in so far as all groups I have had involvement seem to have a code which applies in group.
Anyways morality is built by the individual and although there are holy books finally it is the reader who determines which verse they will take as guidance...
Saying the bible is needed as theists do to give morality to humans is just twaddle...they pick and take what they like and fits their world.
Many christians eat pork and prawns, shrimp to you, and yet in their good book its a no no...same as they dont kill sunday workers or kill their unruley children...the good book is just a convenience and professing a belief in god often a lie.
I think atheists hold higher moral values as a generalisation...generally more honest and direct...unfortunately it has been my sad experience with christians to find they change what they say...I never forget this guy god this and that during our meeting and promised to list his house with me the next day after he had time to think and that he was not even calling in another agent and if he did decide to sell he would only use me...never take them at their word...next day at 12 noon I drive by the house to notice a sign of another agent proclaiming sole agency...why lie to folk..if he did want to list with me heshould have told the truth..
That is one of many examples of these spiritual folk having no memory and a word that is valueless...
Oh father I have sinned..I lied to a man this week...no worries all good yhrow some dollars in yhe plate and god will forgive you...easy to be slap happy with morality when you can buy forgiveness...hypocracy incorporated.
Alex

 

[Acitnoids]

I am late to this discussion but these are my thoughts:

The purpose of this thread is to try to identify particular psychological traits and attitudes, if any, that are likely to be more prevalent in atheists than theists, and vice versa.

First, I think of psychology as an art not a science. Kind of like cooking or a medical doctor. Sure they use scientific fields to help produce an end result but the diagnostic and therapeutic/culinary presentation is based on artistic experience, not scientific methodology.

Second, I am coming at these questions as an agnostic which was not included in the opening post.

What attitudes of mind, or psychological needs, if any, might push a person to adopt an atheist belief system rather than a theistic one, or vice versa?

This is not a simple question. Education, upbringing, social status .... I find this question to rest in the Nurture side yet the Nature side is just as important. It comes down to this one question that none of us can answer for ourselves.

Are you an innately curious person or do you accept what others tell you as truth?

What psychological traits are apparent or reflected in the ways that atheists and theists discuss God/gods and religion?

I am an agnostic so I have a hard time with this question. I have read Homers Iliad and Odyssey and yet I have no faith in the Greek Pantheon. Why are people that read or study any particular theology automatically considered a theist by Atheists? Philosophy is Philosophy.

I start this thread at the invitation of Jan Ardena, who says he is studying the psychology of atheists and has insights to share. Jan himself is a theist.

Good luck on that private conversation heh.

I ask that all members contributing to this thread post respectfully, and provide arguments to back up any claims you might make. Empty insults like "Atheists share the trait of being stupid" will not be tolerated. If you think atheists are likely to be less intelligent than theists, for example, you probably need to make an argument as to why you think that is the case, preferably backed up by appropriate evidence.

The bold here seems to be either bias or directed at a specific person without any regard to a greater conversation. That's just my observation so that's all I have to say about that.

Another request: this thread is not intended as a discussion of the relative merits or deficiencies of the atheist or theist position. That is, I do not want a debate here about the evidences for or against the existence of God/gods. There's a separate thread where we can discuss evidence for God here:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/evidence-that-god-is-real.161157/

I had come into this tread late but from what I have read. ..... These requests have gone unnoticed.

I will leave it up to somebody else to start a thread to discuss any evidence there might be tending to refute the existence of God, if you want to do that.

For now, I'm posting this thread in the Religion subforum, but depending on how the discussion goes, it might move to Human Science at some point.

To recap my view; Psychology is not a proven science to ask such a profound question based on science.

Upbringing, education, social economic status are important factors for why people "have" or "refute" faith. IMHO innate curiosity is just as if not a more important a factor. That being said, being innately curious (or not) does not determine your level of faith or denial. Nurture determines that while Nature gives or denies innate curiosity.

I'm sorry, while reading this thread others have fallen into their tribal traps. A few of your suggested guidelines have been stepped over. Still, on the surface this is a good question. Unfortunately others have used it to build the walls of an "other".

We all have far more in common than something as silly (or as important) as "faith". Psychology is incapable of answering these questions as stated. We on the other hand can say "to each their own" or "It's my way or the highway" (overly simplistic ad hominem). All I can say is, if you have the natural gift of innate curiosity then you have the ability to understand the other side if you are so inclined.

 

[Write4U]

It's ok to argue along there is there is not approach but now that I came forward with what must present as a dangerous idea I have been noticed... does that mean I am now a target being a thinker and maybe should be dealt with before I give the brainwasher mob an idea that could bring down the empire of lies and myth.
Thats the way the religions approach things isn't it...think what you like so long as you agree there is a god...

And as long as your God is my God.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I think you deserve the opportunity to be honest with yourself, and the best way for you to do that, is to accept the most honest answers you come up with when I pose a question to you.

Well thank you Jan for not judging me too harshly.

Your advice is sound it is wise to be honest with yourself.

So what question do you wish to put to me that I should accept my honest answer?
Alex

 

[kx000]

Faith in life is hope, and magesty, and pacifism is a absolute. These are the core behaviors in "my religion." My religion is all about behaviors, and natures. Only the moral, and hedonistic go to Heaven, but haters, and the impassive families are disqualified.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well thank you Jan for not judging me too harshly.

Your advice is sound it is wise to be honest with yourself.

So what question do you wish to put to me that I should accept my honest answer?
Alex

I suppose you could start by answering questions I asked in the post you're responding to.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"What psychological traits are apparent or reflected in the ways that atheists and theists... discuss God/gods and religion?".

Atheists base their discussion on denial of God. For starters.

jan.

 

[Write4U]

Atheists base their discussion on denial of God. For starters.

jan.

Yes, and Theists base their discussion on the scientifically unsupported belief in God for their starting and only position.

So what is your point.....

 

[Write4U]

Faith in life is hope, and magesty, and pacifism is a absolute. These are the core behaviors in "my religion." My religion is all about behaviors, and natures. Only the moral, and hedonistic go to Heaven, but haters, and the impassive families are disqualified.

Morality is a secular philosophy and practice.

You are spouting exclusive and prejudicial drivel as if atheists are incapable of being moral and even if they are by nature moral, they are still disqualified. I see, atheists are doomed because they are unable to curry God's favor?

Who told you that, God? What language did he use?

Seems unlikely to me....

p.s. where is Heaven?

 

[Write4U]

You do not believe in no universe, you do not believe in no darwinism.

So by the phrasing of your sentence it seems you agree that Alex does believe in the Universe and that he does believe in Darwinism?