The psychology of atheists and theists

[billvon]

Isn't is funny that when no one accepts Darwinian ideas, they are labelled as having no understanding of Darwinian ideas.

Nope. It is possible to understand Darwinian evolution but not accept it. It is possible to not understand Darwinian evolution but accept it.

You neither accept it nor understand it.

If God exists (for the purpose of argument), how could there be anything if God did not exist?

There are plenty of versions of God where God did not create everything. Buddhism and Jainism, for example, do not posit that God created everything.

Do not fall into the common trap of ego, that your version of God is the only possible version.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You know who I'm referring to Alex.

Yes.
What did Starlin do that suggests atheism is a bad thing.

Have you?
Where?

Yes here in my lounge room many times.

A perfect example of rejection, and denial.

Great..set it aside and roll it out for your friends.

That's why I like you Alex. You make it easy.

I feel the same about you Jan.
I have been thinking about an eternal universe now long enough to know its real.
Its like I always knew but have been in denial.
It fits the observations and all the evidence.
Further the science of the big bang supports it☺
There are so many levels.
I think this is what the folk back in the bronze age were really saying.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If God exists (for the purpose of argument), how could there be anything if God did not exist?

Let me help here...the Universe is eternal and needed no creator...what other explanation makes so much sense☺
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

There are plenty of versions of God where God did not create everything. Buddhism and Jainism, for example, do not posit that God created everything.

That's interesting seeing as neither of those religious traditions are theistic.

Do not fall into the common trap of ego, that your version of God is the only possible version.

That would make sense if I had one.

jan.

 

[Write4U]

I think that is something you have to say.

Why do I need to examine my belief in God?
Because you don't accept God?

jan.

Yes, any proposition this broad in scope and consequence needs rigorous examination and from examining Scriptural autheticity at least great modification, such as Evolution and Natural selection.

Unnatural events are by definition subject to verification and explanation. Else you cannot call it verification, but mass illusion.

You belief in God is noted, I think it's unwarranted. And as you are making the claim, you know your scientific obligation before your belief can be considered as valid.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

That's interesting seeing as neither of those religious traditions are theistic.

That would make sense if I had one.

jan.

///
Try to not be afraid to admit you are not a theist.

<>

 

[Write4U]

Do not fall into the common trap of ego, that your version of God is the only possible version

That warning is wasted, IMO.
It's all about ego and prejudicial exclusivity. The "chosen ones" is a theist term, not an atheist term...

 

[billvon]

That's interesting seeing as neither of those religious traditions are theistic.

Ah yes, the arrogance of the religious believer.

If your ego will allow you, look up Brahma, one of the deities of Buddhism.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Once someone believes something without proper evidence, they are stuck in it & rarely can anyone escape. Any contradictory evidence & opinion hits a stone wall. They have put on blinders & dark glasses & ear muffs & cannot see or hear clearly. Their mind is in a sensory deprivation tank. They stumble about in the dark yet try to have others follow them while condemning those who can see the light.
They will say, do & even think any thing, regardless of logic & facts, to support or pretend to support their belief. Absolutely nothing they say can be trusted. What they think or pretend to think is sensible is nonsense but truth & logic is seen by them as nonsense.
Sometimes they can see another in this condition yet cannot recognize their own.

 

[iceaura]

Why would they say otherwise?

They know what they are talking about.

Erm, what claim?

That there is science without God.

Really?

Yes. All your claims here about anything scientific have been false or impossible to evaluate.

Isn't is funny that when no one accepts Darwinian ideas, they are labelled as having no understanding of Darwinian ideas.

That's false.

Yet people who have no understanding of Darwinian ideas, but accept them, are never labelled.

And so is that.

If God exists (for the purpose of argument), how could there be anything if God did not exist?

Same way there is - still being investigated, btw.

 

[iceaura]

"That's interesting seeing as neither of those religious traditions are theistic."
Ah yes, the arrogance of the religious believer.

Not simple arrogance - That was posted in a thread right next to the one in which Jan claims that all religious traditions and every human following them are theistic.

 

[Write4U]

Once someone believes something without proper evidence, they are stuck in it & rarely can anyone escape. Any contradictory evidence & opinion hits a stone wall. They have put on blinders & dark glasses & ear muffs & cannot see or hear clearly. Their mind is in a sensory deprivation tank. They stumble about in the dark yet try to have others follow them while condemning those who can see the light.
They will say, do & even think any thing, regardless of logic & facts, to support or pretend to support their belief. Absolutely nothing they say can be trusted. What they think or pretend to think is sensible is nonsense but truth & logic is seen by them as nonsense.
Sometimes they can see another in this condition yet cannot recognize their own.

What I find amusing is that in court we swear "on the bible" to tell the truth, but I know of no court which would allow the introduction of biblical scripture itself as factual historical evidence.
i.e. the bible cannot swear on itself that it is historical truth. Riddle me that one....

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

If an omnipotent being who created everything exists, how can anything exist without it? Obviously, IF an omnipotent being created everything, there cannot be anything without it. Which means nothing due to the assumption that an omnipotent being who created everything exists.
A brain must be twisted like a pretzel for such absurdity.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

What I find amusing is that in court we swear "on the bible" to tell the truth, but I know of no court which would allow the introduction of biblical scripture itself as factual historical evidence.
i.e. the bible cannot swear on itself that it is historical truth. Riddle me that one....

///
Anyone who swears on the bible should not be trusted to tell the truth.
"1 minute, Judge & Attorneys, I must read tea leaves before testifying."

<>

 

[Write4U]

If an omnipotent being who created everything exists, how can anything exist without it? Obviously, IF an omnipotent being created everything, there cannot be anything without it. Which means nothing due to the assumption that an omnipotent being who created everything exists.
A brain must be twisted like a pretzel for such absurdity.
<>

A circular no-no........

 

[Musika]

There are plenty of versions of God where God did not create everything. Buddhism and Jainism, for example, do not posit that God created everything.
.

Given this thread also invites discussion about the psychology of atheists, I can't resist ....

So what, pray tell, do Buddhists and Jains advocate as being behind/the cause of the creation of the universe, and how do they incorporate the existence of God into such an understanding?

/grabs popcorn.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

What I find amusing is that in court we swear "on the bible" to tell the truth, but I know of no court which would allow the introduction of biblical scripture itself as factual historical evidence.
i.e. the bible cannot swear on itself that it is historical truth. Riddle me that one....

///
Maybe this judge would allow the Holy Babble as evidence in court : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore#Ten_Commandments_monument_controversy

<>

 

[iceaura]

Obviously, IF an omnipotent being created everything, there cannot be anything without it

That is invalid.
Creating something does not make other ways of its coming into existence impossible.
In the case of the world we know, those other ways are so plausible as to make the creation not only unnecessary but unlikely.

 

[billvon]

So what, pray tell, do Buddhists and Jains advocate as being behind/the cause of the creation of the universe, and how do they incorporate the existence of God into such an understanding?

I'll start you off with a quote from a Buddhist scholar and then let you do your own research.

The third school of thought says that the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Buddhism is in accordance with this third school of thought. Bertrand Russell supports this school of thought by saying, 'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.' - K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera

 

[Musika]

I'll start you off with a quote from a Buddhist scholar and then let you do your own research.

The third school of thought says that the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Buddhism is in accordance with this third school of thought. Bertrand Russell supports this school of thought by saying, 'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.' - K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera

And the "God" bit?