The Psychology of Atheism

[Epic Beard Man]

Atheism is not a belief, much less a belief that is in need of proof or evidence.

No. A belief means that a statement means that something is true, or that faith, trust, or to have confidence in something or someone. An atheist can have a belief in the Patriots winning the Super Bowl without invoking a spiritual deity.

Theism is the belief.
Atheist is what you default to if you are not a theist.

Not entirely incorrect. As I said before the term belief does not necessarily have a religious designation. If you’re confident in something to be true it’s a belief. In this respect you are by default assuming my usage of the term belief relates to a religious/spiritual designation and it doesn’t.

What he is saying is that the process to arrive at the atheist position, isn't complicated.
It's just looking at the theistic claims, looking at the evidence (which doesn't exist) and then concluding that the claims aren't supported - or even supportable.

Wrong and actually your post leads me to believe you didn’t read the link. In his writings he specifically mentioned his atheism helped him fit in with his academic superiors in graduate school. I will even go further by saying sometimes atheism, like theism is the byproduct of our experiences with the world.

I once dated a girl who stopped believing in God because her ear was terribly damaged in a car accident. She questioned that if a benevolent God existed, this being would have prevented that accident. In other words all atheists do not take the same way path to come to the same conclusion.

Some atheists mentally simply cannot, will not, conceive spirituality mentally as do theists. Many are empiricist and so they base their reality on the five senses. Atheism by no means denotes such is objectively true and that theism is objectively false.

The evidence of God in this case is inconclusive regardless whether you take Occam’s razor approach.

How many seconds of thought will you need to reject the claim that an undetectable interdimensional 7-headed dragon is standing behind you RIGHT NOW, read to eat you up any second?

I bet you rejected that claim even before you got to "...is standing being you".

No. There are some astrophysicists who believe in parallel universes. For example and this is the best way I can explain it. I could be here typing and there could be a seven headed dragon or a seven headed dinosaur behind me. However they do not see me the person in their universe they see another object that is alignment in that universe, so your thought is not far fetched.

Point is ultimately you don’t know.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I could research a topic like "ghosts" all I wanted, but at the end of the day, an inability (of myself and everyone else) to demonstrate ANY of the so-called "facts" I/we have learned about ghosts definitively kills the endeavor. It's over. Done. Finito. I may as well be spouting fiction.

You do realize this is research of psychological behavior not philosophical investigation. Big difference. You’re so argumentative from what I see from your responses you fail to realize he is discussing the processes of atheist behavior from a psychological point of view. Now whether you agree with him on the psychological aspect of atheism is up to you and I’d love to see you bar for bar with research prove his views contradictory

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You do realize this is research of psychological behavior not philosophical investigation. Big difference. You’re so argumentative from what I see from your responses you realize he is discussing the processes of atheist behavior from a psychological point of view.

Fine - let's get to the end game then here - what do you think this assessment of atheist behavior proves? Where is the discussion going? Atheists are still human beings - still prone to holding irrational beliefs. They make mistakes in judgment just like anyone else. So what? What does this say to you? What do you want it to say to me?

From your posts, I get the sense that you feel that atheists hold an incorrect or untenable position, and that you believe yours is superior and argue for that quite often. This latest seems like an attempt to undermine atheists by "leveling the playing field" with respect to claims atheists make about theist claims to knowledge and how this psychological assessment shows correlation to the same types of thought being used by atheists. Am I incorrect in this assessment? Are you truly just trying the "spread the wealth" with respect to this knowledge? Is this not at all about discrediting atheists?

 

[viole]

Yes religion is partially taken from culture but of course there are outliers. Sometimes religion comes to the irreligious from a positive experience. A lot of times atheism comes from negative experiences. Beliefs and philosophies are not always cut and dry

Well, you can count me out. I would actually say that most Christians I know are the ones coming from bad experiences. I was lost, alcoholic, addict, poor, in jail, whatever, and then Jesus saved me and stuff.

I was a devout Christian of the fundamentalistic type. I am also a very lucky girl: never had a real problem in whole of my life.

The trigger was to apply the same logic I was using for my job. But for that, I needed to detach, to see myself from the third person perspective. And see what that would lead me. Very simple.

And then the rest just followed by logical necessity.

But I am still unsure about my question. Maybe I missed your answer: do you think it was possible that the visions you had were in fact Kali in disguise?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Atheism is not a belief. In fact it is precisely the opposite.

An atheist believes there is an absence of proof that a God or gods exist is a belief. Any person who holds a statement or something to be true is by definition a belief.

The route i took was extremely easy, i read a book, the bible. Read it as written, not as cherry picked and interpreted. And despite what you "think" i believe, reading a book is really quite easy

So you read the Bible and perhaps to give you the benefit of doubt did a novice’s effort of investigation therefore you came up with the conclusion that God does not exist (or for some does).

 

[Quintessence]

@A Vestigial Mote

So by "true" you only mean "factually correct as proven by science" or something? You don't use that term to describe things that simply "are" or things that are "meaningful" or anything else like that? Mainly trying to clarify your usage here.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Well, you can count me out. I would actually say that most Christians I know

Pause.

I would actually say that most Christians I know are the ones coming from bad experiences. I was lost, alcoholic, addict, poor, in jail, whatever, and then Jesus saved me and stuff.

I see no problem with this.

I was a devout Christian of the fundamentalistic type. I am also a very lucky girl: never had a real problem in whole of my life.

How ironic. There are testimonies of “hard atheists” who eventually turn to religion and God. Are you now going to say they are deluded and their experiences are less valuable because they turned to God? My F** of S*** meter is warming up.

The trigger was to apply the same logic I was using for my job. But for that, I needed to detach, to see myself from the third person perspective. And see what that would lead me. Very simple.

No. In fact made no sense. I mean we can detach ourselves to evaluate ourselves but not in the sense to lead ourselves. If you are going to believe or disbelieve in something the foundation of such a thought stems from the line of questioning of “will this ultimately benefit me?”

do you think it was possible that the visions you had were in fact Kali in disguise?

Ciao

- viole

Who said I had visions?

 

[Woberts]

So you read the Bible and perhaps to give you the benefit of doubt did a novice’s effort of investigation therefore you came up with the conclusion that God does not exist (or for some does).

Considering everything people think is true about god comes from the bible, if the bible is flawed then the idea of god is flawed. And with even a miniscule amount of effort someone could logically come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist given the inaccuracies in the bible.

 

[Revoltingest]

Considering everything people think is true about god comes from the bible, if the bible is flawed then the idea of god is flawed. And with even a miniscule amount of effort someone could logically come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist given the inaccuracies in the bible.

I grok your meaning.
But I'd put your "that" in italics to emphasize identification of the particular god.

 

[viole]

How ironic. There are testimonies of “hard atheists” who eventually turn to religion and God. Are you now going to say they are deluded and their experiences are less valuable because they turned to God? My F** of S*** meter is warming up.

I am not sure what that meter is, you are becoming unintellegible.

Well, if you believe in X, you must necessarily think that all theists believing in Y, with Y not equal X, must be deluded.

And yes, experiences have zero evidence value. I have them all the time, when i sleep for instance. Yesterday I had an experience of me being able to fly.

The brain works in mysterious ways.

No. In fact made no sense. I mean we can detach ourselves to evaluate ourselves but not in the sense to lead ourselves. If you are going to believe or disbelieve in something the foundation of such a thought stems from the line of questioning of “will this ultimately benefit me?”

I told you. It is just simple application of logic. No need to complicate things beyond necessity.

Who said I had visions?

Ok, experiences. Or whatever spiritual. You seem to not be able to answer that.

Could it be that it was Kali in disguise?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Woberts]

I grok your meaning.
But I'd put your "that" in italics to emphasize identification of the particular god.

If you insist, my dear Revoltingest.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you insist, my dear Revoltingest.

I only advise.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

@A Vestigial Mote

So by "true" you only mean "factually correct as proven by science" or something? You don't use that term to describe things that simply "are" or things that are "meaningful" or anything else like that? Mainly trying to clarify your usage here.

Things that simply are, or manifest in reality are not necessarily "true," and I would struggle to come up with an example where anyone actually even uses the word "true" to discuss such things. For instance, who has ever said:

• "My sense of smell is true."
• "The house I live in is true."
• "See that grass there... that's true."

? You might ask someone "Is it true that this grass is green?" and there, you wouldn't be saying that the aspect "green" itself (independent the grass) is "true", but that it is true that the grass has the aspect "green". The abstract application of the aspect to the grass is what has a claim to truth (or falsity) and can be verified. Green by itself does not. "Green" is not "true". That makes no sense. "Green", the color itself, cannot be verified or validated. Green simply "is." That something is green may be true or false - there is an actual proposition there. But "green" by itself is not a proposition of that sort.

 

[ChristineM]

An atheist believes there is an absence of proof that a God or gods exist is a belief. Any person who holds a statement or something to be true is by definition a belief.



So you read the Bible and perhaps to give you the benefit of doubt did a novice’s effort of investigation therefore you came up with the conclusion that God does not exist (or for some does).

No belief needed for that, it is factual,

To give you your due, your ignorance of my knowledge and understanding of the bible surely puts you in line for clairvoyance award of the year. See where patronising gets you?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Considering everything people think is true about god comes from the bible, if the bible is flawed then the idea of god is flawed. And with even a miniscule amount of effort someone could logically come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist given the inaccuracies in the bible.

Well, I'm a lover of Abrahamic scriptures and their underlined meaning, but by no means do I contain my personal belief in God in some book that was developed from the human alphabet and through human experience. If there is proof of God's non-existence it is done so through dialectical discussion tantamount to arguing who has the best football team. Truth be told we barely understand much less of our own solar system much less the universe so how do we uncover God's non-existence as objectively true before we discover which galaxies are at the edge of the universe?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I am not sure what that meter is, you are becoming unintellegible.

Essentially what I'm saying is you're starting to sound full of it.

Well, if you believe in X, you must necessarily think that all theists believing in Y, with Y not equal X, must be deluded.

This is not a logic discussion this is about the psychological development of being an atheist as per the writings in the OP nothing more, nothing less.

And yes, experiences have zero evidence value. I have them all the time, when i sleep for instance. Yesterday I had an experience of me being able to fly.

Experiences have exceptional value in the development of our ideas and how we attain knowledge of the world. Our experience both positive and negative can have life altering changes in our own thoughts and how we see the world. the fact that you are a so-called atheist means you had the experience of (not experiencing) any metaphysical encounter. This is akin to someone telling me that they jumped out of a plane and parachuted to the ground with euphoric feelings. For me, the thought sounds cool but I've never experienced jumping out of a plane nor have I experienced euphoria while jumping out of a plane.

So as an atheist if someone tells you "God loves you," I would assume mentally you would have no clue on what that means let alone entertain the notion of God considering you've never experienced love from an incorporeal deity nor would you even know what that meant. So yes spirituality wouldn't hold no value because you've never experienced it and maybe perhaps have developed this notion that experiencing spirituality means one is deluded. I believe our experiences is our constitution of what we believe and disbelieve.

II told you. It is just simple application of logic. No need to complicate things beyond necessity.

To you it is that way. I'm a clinician I'm quite sure there is something in your life I could find that has influenced your beliefs. Stop acting like you took a philosophy class and all of a sudden you can deduce life by simply applying logic this is ridiculous.

Ok, experiences. Or whatever spiritual. You seem to not be able to answer that.

Could it be that it was Kali in disguise?

Ciao

- viole

Answer what? Can you coherently phrase the question regarding my experiences because I'm not following you since you added the question "Could it be that it was Kali in disguise?" Who is Kali? What does that have to do with my experiences?

 

[Woberts]

Well, I'm a lover of Abrahamic scriptures and their underlined meaning, but by no means do I contain my personal belief in God in some book that was developed from the human alphabet and through human experience. If there is proof of God's non-existence it is done so through dialectical discussion tantamount to arguing who has the best football team. Truth be told we barely understand much less of our own solar system much less the universe so how do we uncover God's non-existence as objectively true before we discover which galaxies are at the edge of the universe?

If the foundational premise is flawed, what can be said about that which is built off of it?

 

[Woberts]

you can deduce life by simply applying logic

Indeed, that is correct.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

No belief needed for that, it is factual,

So you can prove a negative? Speaking of clairvoyance I'm sure you think its factual that my response to you is typed, but is it also factual that while I typed my response to you I did so butt naked? No. You would say that it's possible considering you are not here to see what I am wearing or not wearing. The point is you cannot ultimately say God doesn't exist is a factual statement because dialectically you cannot prove a negative. You can make a dialectical argument on the ridiculous notion of God comparing it God to the tooth fairy or any cartoon or thing the human mind has conceived, but ultimately you aren't for certain which the term factual derives from, that God doesn't exist.

To give you your due, your ignorance of my knowledge and understanding of the bible surely puts you in line for clairvoyance award of the year. See where patronising gets you?

Well there are plenty other religions in the world with their own doctrine of truth so therefore the Bible is not the end all to be all. There are other faiths much older than Judaism with books much older who presuppose a kind of truth in them. Not sure why you use the Bible is some sort of litmus test against all truths.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

If the foundational premise is flawed, what can be said about that which is built off of it?

What is the foundational premise to begin with? Or are you just asking this question in general?