Do you know that religious people can be atheists?
Do you know that a theist is a person who believes in God, not necessarily a person who says they believe in God.
jan.
The psychology of atheists and theists
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Do you know that religious people can be atheists?
Do you know that a theist is a person who believes in God, not necessarily a person who says they believe in God.
jan.
No. But I wouldn't be having a discussion about things that do not exist for me.
Yet here you are.
jan.
It's not so much that you are wrong. It's more that you can only see it from an atheist perspective.
The question isn't how I know, it's how is it you don't know.
No thanks. The statement stands as was written.
Again no. Theists accept, then believe.
No.
More like sense gratification desire, taints intelligence.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Can you give some examples?
Again, can you give some examples?
Again, I have no clue what you're talking about.
Do you read the posts you respond to, or do you just write?
That's not a reason, it's a defence strategy.
For you to seriously want evidence of God, you have to know what that evidence should entail.
Whenever evidence is put to you, you deny and reject it. You do this because you're atheist, a person for whom there is no God.
If there is no God, there can't possible be evidence. The basis of your psychology.
That is your perspective, an atheist one.
My perspective is a theist one.
You need to take a long honest look at your own beliefs, as you are the one in denial, and rejection.
You only prove that atheists can be religious.
But you were never a theist.
jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
What an odd thing to say. Are you implying that the scientific method interferes with theism?lol!!!
Yeah! Because atheists invented science, and came up with the scientific method.
jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
As opposed to applying the scientific method of accepting "proof" before believing?
Actually, you are right in your statement. The problem is that you fail to acknowledge that accepting something to believe in without proof of its reliability is unscientific altogether.
And wrong.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Are you talking about duplicity?
?? Uh, OK. Whatever you say.
Circular arguing at its best.
And all of science and reason - intelligence itself - is thereby tainted.
All practitioners of intelligent reasoning, especially any in conflict with belief, are tainted thereby and to that extent.
But belief is not. Belief is pure.
Which is perhaps how their otherwise indefensible and ugly efforts to disparage science and reasoning and everyone engaged in them are justified - including the bad faith, dishonesty, and unethical rhetorical tactics, displayed by the overt Abrahamic theists posting on science forums.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Did he use the scientific method?
It led to better results than "guess, pray, and then believe whatever you want."
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Yet the atheist is happy with the more reasonable notion that man created god.
Certainly given the vast number of gods could you not believe that man created all the ones you dont believe in...
And so it is a small step to realise that all gods, including yours, was just made up by humans.
I know that is just my view because I am an atheist but seems the most probable explaination.
Man has made up countless gods and many fictional stories so that seems normal activity for humans so one must wonder if the god story is unique in that it is not just another made up story to keep the mob in line.
The god story comes from times where superstition was used to explain facts that today we can explain using science, which is fitting facts to observation, and moving humans away from the need to use superstition to explain things they could not explain.
Anyways it is interesting how superstition has such a vice grip on folk in the modern era such that they prefer superstition to the knowledge that science delivers and indeed the benefits science gives us in our lives.
Again Jan I thank you for posting here such that you demonstrate routinely the fact that religion is nothing more than superstition and fable.
Alex
You're equating believing in something with believing that something exist.
I believe that leaves exist, but I don't believe in leaves. Does that make sense
Given that you are an atheist, a person that does not believe in God, because you believe God does not exist, it is hardly surprising that you believe, God, and gods, are made up by humans.
There's not much more to discuss at this point.
I'm glad you got it right, stating that you're view comes about because you're an atheist, as opposed to the idea of becoming an atheist because of the view.
You are bound to come up with the conclusion that God is a made up character, because in your mind God does not exist.
Until you give up, or at the very least, properly suspend, the notion of atheism, the discussion can end up trying to explain God from the perspective of God does not exist.
Obviously this is illogical. So all we can really do, is agree to disagree.
As a theist, I don't see it like that. I don't even know what is meant by ''The god story''.
I don't see why you believe that there were times when man only lived by superstition, and used it to explain things that science now explains. What does this have to do with God?
Again, you are arguing purely from and atheist perspective, leaving no room to develop your understanding.
At least don't infer your own interpretation of history, as there is a lot of information about ancient times. Try and at least understand what is meant by ''God'', and ''gods'', that way we can have an actual discussion, rather than just talking at each other.
You are the one who is apparently lacking, yet you don't take on board what people are saying.
If you are asking me about God, then you should listen to what I have to say, and learn about what I have to say. It doesn't mean you have to accept what I say. It means you have a basis on which to present your objections, or arguments, based upon what I'm saying.
I'm sorry you are forced to see it that way, due to being atheist.
It would be nice if you could lift that veil, as it really only serves as self-justification of your world view.
jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I think I understand Jan.
I could entertain a proposition that God does not exist but serves as a focus point to determine what may be the decent thing to do...I dont believe that JC was the son of God or that things he is supposed to have done actually happened but I can use the ideals and ideas attributed to his teachings as guidlines.
Love your fellow man I interprete to mean one is better off respecting others and seeing how things are for them ... forgiveness also is a practical approach.
...much better to realise folk make mistakes and not let it upset you than remaining bitter and preoccupied with seeking payback.
So I can take something that is useful.
But there are many folk around who can give you guidance on how to be decent ... maybe it helps folk to think there is someone in control that ensures decency will triumph...I dont think there is anyone but I do hope decency can prevail.
I do think its all made up and I dont think that is unreasonable and God may well exist outside the stories humans have made up to define him.
I do think the made up stories bring us no closer to determining if there is a creator and in my case the made up stories tell me that if there is a creator that humans have no understanding of that creator.
However I believe the universe is eternal with no begining or end and so no room for a creator.
I certainly find, if we entertain the concept of a creator that to believe we are important to him rather inconsistent with observation.
I have no difficulty in accepting my insignificance or lack of purpose and feel to believe otherwise is again inconsistent with observation.
I think observation tells us that superstituon ruled knowledge.
Take the earliest civilizations we know of ... superstition was used to explain most events.
I study all history and think my observation is not unreasonable.
You need to think just a little and you will have your answer.
Irrespective of God existing or not humans employed superstition to arrive at how they could relate to that God.
Sacrifice to a god is clearly superstitious and was part of most religions one can study.
I know it would be difficult for you to see it but the evidence of superstition and its importance for early humans is rather easy to observe.
Even today many churches still are involved with superstitious customs which again is observable.
You may not like it but god and superstition are bound together.
I see various interpretations.
The only way I can see it work is not to reference any holy book and consider god as an ideal as opposed to a reality.
I must go I have visitors..a full blown atheist and a full blown catholic☺
Alex
Let's say that for some reason more females were born in region, than males. Let's say for every male that was born, a thousand females were born at the same time.
From an evolutionary standpoint, most of those females were not going to be able to have off-spring, so that they could pass on their genes.
Which would mean those excess females would not be selected.
Do you think it would be okay for some of the few remaining males to rape and/or murder a very small amount of these females?
Could that ever become a good thing?
Don't worry, I don't think you ever would, but I ask because you seem to think that moral decency comes from humans, or that morals are subjective as opposed to objective.
A little off topic, but I believe we can tailor it to fit, as it does have something to do with atheist and theist psychology.
You already accept that God is made up.
Obviously it is not unreasonable to you, because to you, God does not exist.
If God does not exist, then that's the end of the discussion.
Your reason for God not existing, is not a reason.
Even you think nobody was there in the beginning (so how could they have written it in the), bible, it does not mean God does not exist.
You have yet to show how God does not exist. But you can't. Nobody can.
There is no logic that can reasonably show that God doesn't exist.
Science obviously cannot show that God doesn't exist.
There is nothing to show that God doesn't exist.
Because God cannot not exist.
All you are doing is denying, and rejecting God.
There is need of a creator, otherwise how are you here.
But at least you believe in something, even though you are simply denying God, by replacing God with the universe.
It doesn't matter whether we believe we are important to God or not, as to whether there is a God or not.
That's what I mean by God Is.
Our belief in God, only serve to better ourselves spiritually, so we can develop our knowledge, and come to the platform of God consciousness.
Then as we advance in our understanding, we understand the importance of our relationship.
Belief in God is natural, a lack of belief in God only acts as an opposing counterpart.
To start out thinking I am important to God, or to anyone for that matter, is not a good way to form a good relationship. In fact it is a bad way, and we know this, or at least most of do. And if we don't, we don't, we soon find out.
Fortunately God can see our imperfections, and will meet us, to extent to which we truly desire to relate to God.
So at what point in time did man stop being guided by superstition, and who were the people that pioneered this development?
Compare that to nowadays where people sacrifice people for virtually no good reason at all.
I understand that in ancient times men would go out to a particular territory to fight their wars, and the women, children, and elderly didn't end up as collateral damage.
Nowadays wars kill anything that moves.
Maybe ancient sacrifices weren't based on superstition, but maintained a certain kind of moral order (obviously it would depend on the nature and intent of the sacrifice).
What is the evidence of superstition and it's importance for early humans?
I ask because this seems to be a key issue to you?
Based on what I've gathered so far about your atheist psychology, I can see why you would do that.
Have a pleasant evening with your guests.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall.
Scratch that, Aussie spiders are beasts. So I hear.
jan.
Last edited:
Nope. Murder and rape are bad. You wouldn't want to be murdered or raped, would you? Seems pretty straightforward.
Who would ever condone murder and rape like that?
From Numbers 31:
=============
Then they brought the captives, the booty, and the spoil to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the children of Israel, to the camp in the plains of Moab by the Jordan, across from Jericho. And Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle.
And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
==============
So there you have your answer. Most people would not rape and murder. But if you were a true believer in the Bible, you might just kill all those women except the virgins so you could rape them. Moses said so.