The psychology of atheists and theists

[Musika]

If you get right down to it, you're really not sure of anything, including religion and society and your defense is almost wholly incoherent.

Whatever the case, I am sure there are distinctions between God, religion, religious institutions and people who identify as religious. I don't have to descend into incoherence when discussing these subjects.

 

[iceaura]

Human beings haven't always been here, according to both scripture, and scientifically. So you came to being some how.

Darwinian evolution.

Did the universe create human beings, and give them the means to build civilisations?

Nope. They evolved.

Part of the psychology of overt Abrahamic theists is that something created whatever there is. That's necessary for a worldview in which someone must be blamed for everything bad.

 

[Write4U]

Whatever the case, I am sure there are distinctions between God, religion, religious institutions and people who identify as religious. I don't have to descend into incoherence when discussing these subjects.

The problem, Musika, is that you are not discussing them.

Tegmark makes a case for an abstract mathematical universe. Penrose suggests that quantum carries an abstact internal universal conversation. Bohm spoke of an abstract "insight intelligence", which borders on spirituality.
All are founded on logical theoretical science.

But what is the difference between this;

PHANES was the primordial god (protogenos) of creation in the Orphic cosmogony. He was the generator of life--the driving force behind reproduction in the early cosmos. Phanes was hatched from the world-egg, a primordial mix of elements split into its constituent parts by Khronos (Chronos) (Time) and Ananke (Inevitability).

http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Phanes.html

and this;

God in Christianity is the eternal being who created and preserves all things. Christians believe God to be both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world).[2][3]Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe[4] but accept that God's divine Nature was hypostatically united to human nature in the person of Jesus Christ, in an event known as the Incarnation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Christianity

and

Greco-Roman tradition
Hesiod and the Pre-Socratics use the Greek term in the context of cosmogony. Hesiod's chaos has been interpreted as either "the gaping void above the Earth created when Earth and Sky are separated from their primordial unity" or "the gaping space below the Earth on which Earth rests".

In Hesiod, Chaos was the first thing to exist: "at first Chaos came to be" (or was)[12] "but next" (possibly out of Chaos) came Gaia, Tartarus, and Eros (elsewhere the son of Aphrodite).

Unambiguously born "from Chaos" were Erebus (Darkness) and Nyx (Night).[14] For Hesiod, Chaos, like Tartarus, though personified enough to have borne children, was also a place, far away, underground and "gloomy", beyond which lived the Titans.

And, like the earth, the ocean, and the upper air, it was also capable of being affected by Zeus' thunderbolts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)#Greco-Roman_tradition

and finally;
On matters of such human importance, the assumption of one GOD or RELIGION is contrary to the natural tendency for diversity in evolutionary processes in understanding a concept of reality.

The very concept of one GOD argues against the various other justifiable standard and moral concepts of GOD. By definition all gods should be representative of GOD.
The only difference is in the degree of involvements this GOD has in people's lives.

And there is not just ONE HUMAN either.....

 

[Musika]

The problem, Musika, is that you are not discussing them.

Tegmark makes a case for an abstract mathematical universe. Penrose suggests that quantum carries an abstact internal universal conversation. Bohm spoke of an abstract "insight intelligence", which borders on spirituality.
All are founded on logical theoretical science.

But what is the difference between this; http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Phanes.html

and this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Christianity

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)#Greco-Roman_tradition

and finally;
On matters of such human importance, the assumption of one GOD or RELIGION is contrary to the natural tendency for diversity in evolutionary processes in understanding a concept of reality.

The very concept of one GOD argues against the various other justifiable standard and moral concepts of GOD. By definition all gods should be representative of GOD.
The only difference is in the degree of involvements this GOD has in people's lives.

And there is not just ONE HUMAN either.....

The problem is that you discuss something about religion and society. When the obvious problems with your ideas are pointed out (mostly due to a sort of unawareness about history) you then revert to some sort of philosophical discussion. When the obvious problems with your ideas are pointed out (mostly due to a sort of unawareness about philosophy) you then revert back to the same sort of silliness about religion and society ... and on it goes. The amazing thing about all of this, is that you rely on your opponent to reiterate your discussion points because you cannot keep track of what you are talking about.

 

[Musika]

But I'm not a "card carrying atheist" --I'm one of the people that has given you (and Jan) some of the least responses.

... yet here you are.

I did, however, give you a straight forward answer and you did not return the favor.

Does problems with the adam and eve narrative establish critical issues with theism?
No.
Does problems with the adam and eve narrative establish critical issues with abrahamic religion?
No.
Does problems with the adam and eve narrative provide a crutch for abrahamic atheists?
It seems so.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why?
If the universe is eternal as seems almost certain that means it has no creator as it always has been.
Introducing a creator has no value other than pushing your desire that there be one.

Then the universe is the “something”.

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

Well in an eternal universe there is no creator to deny or reject...there is no creator.

This statement wreaks of denial.
You’ve convinced yourself that the eternal universe is so certain, you may as well accept it.
Unfortunately for you, that is not the case.

Busted!!!

And you dont know that it is created for humans.
It seems improbable not probable...and "dont know" is all you have really.

I’ve no real interest in whether or not it was created for humans. But if God wanted to create a universe for humans, God can. That’s all we need to understand.

Of course it does.
The eternal universe has no point of creation ... so no creator...there is no alternative...no start means there is no starter.

So does this “eternal universe” just keep on expanding? Or is going to just stop one day.
What role does the expansion of the universe play, in an “eternal universe?

To suggest there is an eternal god who comes out of infinity to create a finite universe needs evidence.

How do you know it does?

We have two propositions one requires an eternal god the other does not...I dont think you can entertain that an eternal universe is most likely ... but it really makes the most sense...

Let’s see how you handle the expansion scenario.

Your view is based on unsupported wishful thinking... If God is an ideal thats ok...it is useful..like relying on a fictional character..say Billbo..now if Billbo was faced with this situation what would he do.

Again, how do you know?
You as an atheist accept and believe there is no God. How can you even know one needs evidence for God’s existence?

requires no one sitting around forever to pop out at some point to create something...its always been around in some form and cycles thru universe after universe ...

Let’s see how you handle the problem of the expansion of an eternal universe.

Short answer...evolution and chemistry.
I certainly dont buy the idea that god modelled the first human from clay which is clearly a made up attempt of no credibility.

You’re not wrong when you say it’s a short answer. So short it doesn’t answer anything.
How did evolution form mankind, and endow them with the ability to build civilisations, unlike any other creature the universe created?

Well may I suggest you consider that it is probably you who has been hypnotised ... brain washed to believe so many things that you can only believe using faith that the story is true.
Your thing is very short on evidence...you fail to acknowledge faults which is a clear sign you are somewhat hypnotised to "see" something that does not exist in an eternal universe.

Yes you may suggest it.

But you cannot know that there is no evidence of God, because for you there is no God. To claim that theists have probably been brainwashed into believing there is a God, explains nothing.

Your attempt to replace God, with an eternal universe has not gone un-noticed.

There are two solid positions that relate to God.
Theist, and, atheist. One believes in God, and the other doesn’t.

I don’t have to create any additional characterisations in a bid to justify my position.
I simply refer to the designation, and job done.

You have to add that all theists, throughout the entire history of mankind have been brainwashed into thinking they believe in God.
Or that the universe is expanding eternally.
Or that the universe, through an idea, namely, darwinian evolution, created not only the form of man, but endowed man with the ability to build empires and civilisations.

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.

Can you see how absurd your ideology is?

Because they were highly superstitious and it is from their times that we are infected today.

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

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-science-of-superstition/384962/

Why? Why does a creator need killing?

Did you not read what I wrote.
Killing is an aspect of the universe.
Things are destroyed in any of a number of ways. Don’t you think it strange that annihilation takes place in an ever -expanding universe? Think about it.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Alex

Just program the model so as to have no killing...is that beyond the capability of an intelligent designer or is he not in control of the program such that he could make whatever he planned.

Because we wouldn’t be human beings anymore. Don’t you want to be a human?

Is there a reason to include killing and suffering

It’s not an inclusion. It’s part and parcel of your eternally expanding universe.
God gives every human the chance to not have to endure the suffering. To come to our senses, and come to the realisation that we falsely attach ourselves to the material world. It’s difficult for those who believe, let alone for those who actively, explicitly, go around denying and rejecting God.

Your view is based on unsupported wishful thinking...

You have no idea whether it is supported, or not.
All you can assert, whether directly, or indirectly , is, there is no God. But we both know that is the reason you give for not believing in God.

If God is an ideal thats ok...it is useful..like relying on a fictional character..say Billbo..now if Billbo was faced with this situation what would he do.

I forgot. Mockery helps with you delusion as well. Add that to the list in my previous response.

Hopefully one day you will argue about God from the discomfort of your actual position.

Christians use JC as his teachings are handy but he is a mythical character as far as we know.

Not according to at least some historians.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

Just program the model so as to have no killing...

Because we wouldn’t be human beings anymore. Don’t you want to be a human?

Because people who don't kill aren't human?

Thank God most people don't think like you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because people who don't kill aren't human?

Thank God most people don't think like you.

Are there people that don’t kill?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

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

What happened to God creating the Universe?

 

[Write4U]

Did you not read what I wrote.
Killing is an aspect of the universe.
Things are destroyed in any of a number of ways. Don’t you think it strange that annihilation takes place in an ever -expanding universe? Think about it.

Let’s see how you handle the problem of the expansion of an eternal universe.
Jan.

What exactly do you mean by annihilation? You mean change or disappearance?

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time.[1] This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another. For instance, chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy when a stick of dynamite explodes. If one adds up all the forms of energy that were released in the explosion, such as the kinetic energy of the pieces, as well as heat and sound, one will get the exact decrease of chemical energy in the combustion of the dynamite.

Classically, conservation of energy was distinct from conservation of mass; however, special relativity showed that mass is related to energy and vice versa by E = mc2, and science now takes the view that mass-energy is conserved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

and

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

. I don't think you meant to propose that, did you?

 

[Write4U]

The problem is that you discuss something about religion and society. When the obvious problems with your ideas are pointed out (mostly due to a sort of unawareness about history) you then revert to some sort of philosophical discussion. When the obvious problems with your ideas are pointed out (mostly due to a sort of unawareness about philosophy) you then revert back to the same sort of silliness about religion and society ... and on it goes. The amazing thing about all of this, is that you rely on your opponent to reiterate your discussion points because you cannot keep track of what you are talking about.

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.......

 

[billvon]

Are there people that don’t kill?

The fact that you have to ask that says volumes about your view of the world.

 

[Write4U]

This may be of interest in the discussion;

The Demiurge of Neoplatonism is the Nous (mind of God), and is one of the three ordering principles:

• Arche (Gr. "beginning") – the source of all things,
• Logos (Gr. "reason/cause") – the underlying order that is hidden beneath appearances,
• Harmonia (Gr. "harmony") – numerical ratios in mathematics.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

Jan or Musika, does that make sense to you? It does to me, but not in any religious sense...

Note that Neoplatonism posits a mind (demiurge), not a physical thing.
Maybe I am a Neoplatonist. Wow, I'll have to think about that......

 

[Jan Ardena]

The fact that you have to ask that says volumes about your view of the world.

Can you answer it?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What exactly do you mean by annihilation? You mean change or disappearance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

and . I don't think you meant to propose that, did you?

to cause to cease to exist : to do away with entirely so that nothing remains

The annihilation of a form.
When the body dies, it ceases to exist, it is done away with, and nothing resembling the form remains. Next!

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

to cause to cease to exist : to do away with entirely so that nothing remains

The annihilation of a form.
When the body dies, it ceases to exist, it is done away with, and nothing resembling the form remains. Next!
Jan.

Right, it does not disappear, it merely changes pattern (form) Does water cease to exist when it becomes ice, or a gas? The component parts are the same, the form changes.

I would suggest you read up on some science and especially on potential (that which may become reality)......next!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Right, it does not disappear, it merely changes pattern (form) Does water cease to exist when it becomes ice, or a gas? The component parts are the same, the form changes.

I would suggest you read up on some science and especially on potential (that which may become reality)......next!

Dude! Did I use the word “disappear”?

Does a cupful of water remain when thrown on a blazing fire?

I would suggest you learn to read what I post, then respond to what I write.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

Can you answer it?

Yes. There are many people who do not kill.

I eagerly await a pathetic attempt on your part to redefine that question so that your inability to answer it is somehow excusable. "I mean, you've killed flies, right?"

 

[Write4U]

Does a cupful of water remain when thrown on a blazing fire?

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