The psychology of atheists and theists

[Write4U]

But this is what worries me about "True Believers".

True-believer syndrome

True-believer syndrome is an informal or rhetorical term used by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia.

Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.

Keene considered it to be a cognitive disorder, and regarded it as being a key factor in the success of many psychic mediums.

The term "true believer" was used earlier by Eric Hoffer in his 1951 book The True Believer to describe the psychological roots of fanatical groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome

 

[Michael 345]

Perhaps he is using a very clever approach, dealing with the "faith" issue.
His responses to Jan sounded reasonable to me.......

I not read Jan post for some time as he is on my Iggy list. But from memory before I put him on Iggy I thought that faith angle had been covered

It is more the lengthy replies from Jan which seem a mis-match from previous post along with (my imagination) style change

Will sit back and observe

 

[iceaura]

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

That's not true.
And you know that, because you make a practice of rhetorically steering discussions into that box - regardless of where your target "atheists" started. It's a proven, effective, tactical maneuver of yours. Your goal is slander and personal disparagement of anyone espousing reason and scientific inquiry into matters you regard as religious.

I accept evolution ( not Darwinian) because it occurs.

You do not. You deny that it occurs - you have done so explicitly.

"But we know all that and it would not surprise me to find humans creating life in the near future."
Now here's a good example of blind faith, ladies and gentleman.

It's not an expression of faith, and it's specifically not blind.
And you know that - you are focused on such distinctions, exactly those distinctions, in yourself, in your posting throughout.

Fundamentally dishonest. Jan et al cannot post honestly here - they are literally incapable of it, even if they were to try. And they have no interest in trying - they aren't here for discussion.

 

[Dinosaur]

To me, belief in god is due to the brainwashing of young children.

I wonder how many believers there would be if the concept was not introduced until adulthood.

It is a very comforting belief since is usually comes with a notion that death is not oblivion.

At death, the brain ceases to function. How are the memories & thought processes of the brain preserved after death?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I guess this is the first question I must asl of myself and answer honestly.
Being honest I dont like the choices offerred..one or the other is so unnecessarily limiting.. my prefernce leans to not being bound to select one or the other and eat what pleases me.

What if, what pleases you, is harmful to you?

I guess you suggest not to be a believer means you in effect cant be human and my answer honestly is ...I cant imagine the condition you seek to describe because I dont think humanity is only available to believers.

No. That is not what I suggest
It is more a of not being human if one does not have the capacity to believe, or lack belief in anything at all.

I don't see faith as nutrition to humanity..I see faith as the junk food that is not good for us...just as sweets rot your teeth faith rots your brain...

That’s because you don’t have a clear comprehension of what faith is.

I know you think that hidden at the back of my brain is this little thing that really thinks there is some creator and I supress it...but what you cant understand there is not ...

That’s not what I think at all. I believe you mean what you say, when you say there is no God.
But you also display an attitude of not wanting to believe in God. It is evident in how you defend your atheism.

You have to borrow from my worldview to make sense of anything. There is no need of right or wrong in your worldview. In your worldview any that can be conceived of, can be permitted, as long as it is in accordance with nature.

Earlier I laid out a hypothetical scenario, where it was actually beneficial to society to rape and abuse non selected females. How is that wrong from a purely atheist perspective?

But I don’t believe, or at least have no reason to believe any atheist here would accept that as permissible, because I don’t believe there are any true atheists. It’s one thing to assert atheism, and another thing to actively be one.

I really believe the universe us eternal and there us no creator.

.

Why?

I am content to think all life came from simple cells that became more complex over time through a selection process that over time gave rise to all the speicies and that their design merely based on what works such that the species evolved over time.
The evidence supports the theory so it sounds reasonable.

Where did all the extra information, that is needed to construct new parts, and systems come from?

In contrast the idea for a believer is a infinite eternal creator came out briefly from forever and created a finite universe planning and designing its form and forming a plan as to how it will all work.

Came out?
From where?
It is little wonder you have trouble comprehend God, even as a concept. You feed, into your analysis, assumptions that form justifiable reason to not accept, or believe in God.
You nurture, and maintain your lack of belief.

And the design featured the design of humans, although god was able to rely heavily on his own design as he made humans in his own image we are told.
I dont believe there is a designer or creator...but evolution does not deal with creation only evolement...same with big bang as it says nothing of creation and deals only with the evolvement of the universe based on our observations.
There are no observations to suggest there is a god that fit the same class as observations in support of both big bang and evolution theories.

How do you know there are no observations to suggest God? Think about that.
Unless you have a preconceived idea of what God is, I don’t see how you can justify this claim.

I think you know how to define God, and I don’t mean some hypothetical notion of God.
But you will not use that definition, because you will have to accept, and believe. So you deny God, as a main course, but you will mock God, as a side dish. It all helps with the maintenance of your delusion.

Anyways Jan I have been up all night two nights doing astrophotography and not sure if I have answered your questions that you would like me to honestly answer so if there is something please ask and I will answer hinestly for myself and share it with you.
You have a nice day and thank you for your posts.

We’ve barely scratched the surface Alex.
You get some rest from observing minute aspects of this intelligible universe, born out of the mind of the most intelligent Being. Commonly known as ...

...God.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

How is that wrong from a purely atheist perspective?

It's against their morality.

Where did all the extra information, that is needed to construct new parts, and systems come from?

Darwinian evolution.

How do you know there are no observations to suggest God? Think about that.
Unless you have a preconceived idea of what God is, I don’t see how you can justify this claim.

We just use your idea of God - the Abrahamic one - in such matters. It's always handy, we are long familiar with it, and it's almost always the one presented by the theist involved.
- - -

In your worldview any that can be conceived of, can be permitted, as long as it is in accordance with nature.

That's not true. Clearly you have no comprehension of the worldview you slander.

Or - and this is more likely - any pretext for slander is ok by you, just as it is for the other overt Abrahamic theists who post on science forums.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I see. So you think all people regardless of denomination are qualified for salvation regardless of which "god based ideal" they adhere to?

I think all people are spiritually connected to God, and as such have a right to realise that.
If a specific religion helps prepare them for that, that’s good.

Which denominations or religions do not teach the love of God?

Denomination don't teach anything.
If a person or organisation of peoples, teach love of God, then they will promote love of God. Because love of God is, or, should be the goal of practice.
So you would have to go to each individual teacher, and ask if they teach one how to love God, if you want to know the answer to your question.

Well from my studies I think every idea ever uttered about God is the work of humans. The scriptures included. What makes Christian scripture more right/correct than say Muslim scripture?

I don't recall expressing a preference for one, over the other.

You'll find that presets won't work on me. You're going to have to unpack stuff.

So what studies did you perform?What do you mean by 'ideas of God'?
Do you think that God is nothing but ideas from humans, and scriptures are purely the works of humans?
Do you believe there is no actual God?

Which religions would that be exactly?

The major institutions.

That seems to be conjecture and assumption from my point of view. What you say here is the main obstacle I have when talking theology with theists. They assume I have faith in believing that some people do not possess the ability to have faith. That is circular logic IMHO.

How else can they assume there is no evidence of God, and even go as far as stating something is NOT evidence of God?

That's not how one would use faith.
You can't decide to have faith. You find yourself in a position, where you have no choice but to have faith.

A theist does not display faith in God's existence.
They may display faith in God, for whatever reason. But it will not be about believing something with no evidence.
That is a misunderstanding.

I am interested in the concept of Faith because I have a hard time accepting something without proof.

So you think that to believe in God, God must first be proven to exist?

From my point if view, there is exactly the same amount as proof for a God as there is for there being no God. Exactly Zero. Lack of proof has never been counted as proof in science. 100yr search for Gravity waves is a good example.

What proof is there of no God?

That's good for science, but how does science tie into what we're talking about?

As an agnostic I can not say with conviction one way or the other.

You already have done. You assume that proof is needed to believe God exists? That mean you don't accept that theism is correct.
You assume that all notions of God, are man-made, including scriptures.
You assume that the standard of proof required has to be scientific (in the popular modern sense).
You assume that theists don't have proof of God's existence, or that there isn't any empirical data, where God is the best explanation.
You assume that as an agnostic, you are on neither side of the equation, because you have not yet, made up you mind.
You assume that God is separate to yourself, and if God existed there would external, physical evidence.

All this, is non different to atheism.
''Agnostic'' is merely a designation you give yourself, because you think you comprehension of God, is the God that theists believe in.
Essentially, you are an atheist.

Well, in my many years talking theology with people it has always been helpful to know which faith, if any, the other holds. Based on your discription here can I assume you are "non denominational" or maybe even "new age"?

Do you think that the institutes of education, is the knowledge they teach, or do you think they are the conveyors of the knowledge they teach?
I believe they are the conveyors of the knowledge they teach, and it is the same with religious institutes.
Because one does not go to university, doesn't mean one does have, can't attain knowledge.

jan.

 

[Write4U]

Because love of God is, or, should be the goal of practice

Yes, it should be, but it isn't....

Because one does not go to university, doesn't mean one does have, can't attain knowledge.

It depends where else you go to seek knowledge. Church (religion) is indeed suspect as a scientific teaching institution, to say the least.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

What if, what pleases you, is harmful to you?

Chips are harmful so they say but I take the risk...you only live once.

It is more a of not being human if one does not have the capacity to believe, or lack belief in anything at all.

Interesting.
So you see atheists as non human?
Do really believe that is a reasonable view?

That’s because you don’t have a clear comprehension of what faith is.

Faith is what is offerred when you ask for fact or reason and none is available and the theist wishes to appear that their faith is on their side...they think it is special but its a cop out saying ...well I dont have facts but I dont need them cause I really really believe as I have my opinion.. faith sounds mysterious but its just a way to say I will believe what I want and dont try and ask for fact.

It justifies the unjustifiable and has folk believing superstitious nonsence.

If one had evidence one would not need faith...you could the rely on evidence..no evidence..lets use faith..lets play make believe...

If you claim to opperate using faith you could use it to support whatever notion you make up.

A tiresome word rolled out by tiresome people to justify their tiresome unsupported superstitions.

Earlier I laid out a hypothetical scenario, where it was actually beneficial to society to rape and abuse non selected females.

I never understood why there should be a problem.

Morality seems too complex for you so having a good book to cherry pick ideas must be handy but as I have said you construct your morality from it and dont follow the specifics laid out in the good book.


You think humans cant work out decency with out God?

They can and do.

I think your example is simply odd and I dont get what you are trying to explain. One man thousand wives all good...who needs to suffer?

I don’t believe there are any true atheists. It’s one thing to assert atheism, and another thing to actively be one.

Belief that ignore facts is unuseful Jan.
There are atheists and you believing the opposite wont change that fact.

How is it helpful to believe things that simply are not true.
Yet you do.
I could not do that..you tell yourself a lie and go on to accept it as being true...that is so wrong Jan ... it seems you will go to whatever length to protect your world view from being exposed to truth and fact...

Why?

Because the observations suggest it and using the eternal universe model we do away with all superstition requiring a creator.
Given the observations for a creator are based on ancient superstition embracing a concept more reasonable in the eternal universe reality and with great opportunity to be more correct than the superstitious notions of there actually being a nonrequired creation by a mythical yet to be shown creator ...then the eternal universe must be considered the best model available that does not require faith or superstition as its base support.

Where did all the extra information, that is needed to construct new parts, and systems come from?

Seriously Jan...at least study the science so you can avoid presenting in such a poor light.

I should not have to explain something so available if you cared to look.

Your self imposed ignorance is embarrassing ...learn about it and then critize what you will but at least you may then talk with some knowledge.

Seriously take the time and find out what the theory really says and then see if you have even one problem with what it lays out.

Came out?
From where?

Where does God exist according to theists?
He being eternal by even your measure says he must have experienced eternity for well eternity before he created the current universe...I bet you cant get that...if you did you would not ask the questions.

An eternal god must have existed forever ..a period of time beyond measure..that is where your superstition places him not me...and it is from forever he must opperate..can you not understand that is your view just put clearly to fit a reasonable expectation of reality, to show its inconvenient ramification.

An eternal universe is reasonable but an eternal god creating a finite universe is just beyond reasonable expectation...which sounds the most likely...yes of course the eternal universe can be the only answer...requires no made up stuff, requires no faith based on absence of fact and gives answers to any question that can be asked without a demand to accept an unevidenced made up creator.

It is little wonder you have trouble comprehend God, even as a concept.

We deal with a made up concept and it is difficult to find agreement between theists as to what they each believe...one can only address the notion of a made up undefined god in a rather casual manner given tangible specifics are unavaiable.

One does not have to determine the view of each theist to write off the notion of a god as being made up fantacy...there is plenty of evidence to support the notion that god is no more than made up and more telling few accounts of contact.

Theists never consider it odd that this made up god appeared to so few folk and was confined in geography to a very small part and back then insignificant part of the world...really is there nothing in the god story that does not have you doubting that is likely to be true.

How do you know there are no observations to suggest God?

Er because there are none...name one or many..list it out so we can marvel at the lack of fact and detail.
Lets start with making a list..
First human to see god, first human to hear god, first words of god made to a human, number of humans claiming contact with god and where they lived.
Will we find god confined to such a small part of the world that one may wonder if the notion was not world wide.

So you deny God, as a main course, but you will mock God, as a side dish. It all helps with the maintenance of your delusion.

I dont know why you would think any of that.
Thank you Jan for trying to show what you believe may you have a great day.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I thought the vid herewith would be helpful for Jan but realise he will not look at it...however it hints at the JC story being stolen and represented ... in any event the fact Jan wont look at it tells us theists dont want to review any information that suggests they have been conned...similar to avoiding any reviewing what evolution puts forward...they wont look but rely on the half baked insulting claims made by other theists who are ignorant of what the theory of evolution says.

What can we draw from the inability of theists to honestly review facts that genuinely erode the credibility of their world view...it shows they can be dishonest with themselves by avoiding simply reading something that shows their refusal to be reasonable or capable of looking at mere history.

Enjoy the vid ye occupants of reality and seekers of truth.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

I thought the vid herewith would be helpful for Jan but realise he will not look at it...however it hints at the JC story being stolen and represented ... in any event the fact Jan wont look at it tells us theists dont want to review any information that suggests they have been conned...similar to avoiding any reviewing what evolution puts forward...they wont look but rely on the half baked insulting claims made by other theists who are ignorant of what the theory of evolution says.

What can we draw from the inability of theists to honestly review facts that genuinely erode the credibility of their world view...it shows they can be dishonest with themselves by avoiding simply reading something that shows their refusal to be reasonable or capable of looking at mere history.

Enjoy the vid ye occupants of reality and seekers of truth.

Alex

Alex, I thought we were getting somewhere.
But I guess, there’s no showing you anything.
Oh well!

Now here’s a good example of faith.

Based on a smattering of things Alex wrote, thought there could be a chance, that Alex could awaken from his ignorance.
IOW, based on the evidence, I thought there was hope.

In the atheist comprehension of faith, I would just believe in Alex, regardless of the evidence, and the sad fact there is no hope.
Hope you learned something here today.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, it should be, but it isn't....

You say this because despite your denial and rejection, you know there is a God.

It depends where else you go to seek knowledge. Church (religion) is indeed suspect as a scientific teaching institution, to say the least.

You don’t have to be institutionalized to gain knowledge.

Jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Nice try.
You know there is a God, but you deny and reject. You can’t help it.

You say this because despite your denial and rejection, you know there is a God.

Is there anybody on this board whom you would say doesn't "know" there is a God?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is there anybody on this board whom you would say doesn't "know" there is a God?

No.
Everybody knows there is a God.

Jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

No.
Everybody knows there is a God.

OK. Maybe there are things we deny...

:EDIT:

Wait, wait!

Didn't in one of the movies innuendo like a virgin birth regarding mitochlorians impregnating Anakin Skywalker's mom??

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Alex, I thought we were getting somewhere.
But I guess, there’s no showing you anything.
Oh well!

Now here’s a good example of faith.

Based on a smattering of things Alex wrote, thought there could be a chance, that Alex could awaken from his ignorance.
IOW, based on the evidence, I thought there was hope.

In the atheist comprehension of faith, I would just believe in Alex, regardless of the evidence, and the sad fact there is no hope.
Hope you learned something here today.

Jan.

Get it together Jan you are rambling and making no sence at all or are you trying your hand at humour...in either event you are not making sense.

Or did you look at the vid and finally realise you have been played the fool and that religion is no more than astrology causing a melt down.


If you look at the vid all will be shown and I expect you will be upset but at least you will know the truth.

Anyways it does not matter if you dont view it others will and can have a laugh at your expense unfortunately.

Anyways the good news is I have learnt so much about how religion was created etc.

It is funny how atheists end up knowing more about religion than theists ... most empowering to understand how so many folk have been conned.

Its only astrology...who would have thought☺
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

No.
Everybody knows there is a God.

You
Would never say that if you saw the vid.
Who can fit a god in the eternal universe...tbere is no job or place left for any gods.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

I think all people are spiritually connected to God, and as such have a right to realise that.
If a specific religion helps prepare them for that, that’s good.

No, because God is a false idol. It is Nature you should be respecting and celebrating, not some made up guy who will burn you in hell for eternity because you broke sabbath on sunday.

Give it a break. Santa is for kids. God is for sheeple. Nature is for all things on earth.
And Nature doesn't really care if you live or die. Nature IS

Nature, noun

1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization: In nature, wild dogs hunt in packs.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers: The abandoned power plant was reclaimed by nature, covered in overgrowth and home to feral animals.

 

[kx000]

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.

Its not the fact they are amoral, it's that they will suffer whether they're evil or not. Dis-belief is the opposite of hope, and hedonism.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Its not the fact they are amoral, it's that they will suffer whether they're evil or not.

Do all vegetables go to heaven -not having a central nervous system means their thoughts and cares are totally 0, neutral- they are neither righteous nor evil?