• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Psychology of Atheism

viole

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

Well, that is what I mean. You guys get emotional in no time, not rational. And you are claiming to be able to psychologically dissect us? Lol

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.

I told you. The big psychological step that makes an atheist is the same that makes people not believing in blue fairies.

You are complicating a trivial thing. Well, understandable, if you really believe that your belief is sooo worthy of consideration, despite having as much evidence as Mother Goose or Superman.

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.

Yes, but you know what I mean. Believing to have had experiences of spirits and such, is really what would require the help of professionals. That includes experiences of alien abduction, gods, demons, incubus, and stuff like that.

I gathered you are one of those professionls. Medice: cura te ipso.

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.

Everybody loves me.


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.

Sure. Psychologist right? Again, medice, cura te ipso. You are showing signs of delirium, with your experiences and such.

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?

Kali is a an Hindu goddess. You said my Hindu’s frien experience could have been Allah, or whomever you happen to believe, liking to crossdress like a goddess. So, what makes you so sure it is not the other way round? Could it, couldn’ it?

It is a simple yes/no question. One tiny bit of information.

Yes..... or no?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:
Much more important, in my estimation (see how I added this qualifier? How novel! Maybe try it some time.), are the vastly more fundamental aspects of thought. Perhaps our capability to reason in the first place? End result... I wouldn't like to be caught pretending that I know the most important aspect of human thought. Who in their right mind would?

Who in their right mind would offer an opinion on a discussion forum? Egad, the audacity!

Monkeys can reason though. They can't form large social groups, transmit complex cultures, create systems of education, transmit large bodies knowledge across multiple generations, create systems of laws and rights, engage in scientific enquiry, etc.

My statement was to point out how empty your statement was - or did you not catch that? But sure, I'll take a crack at it. Again... I wouldn't claim to know this for certain, but using my capability to reason, I would posit that we create "systems of meaning" (I only sort of grasp what this nebulous term means, so bear with me), by examining ourselves, our collective desires and "best of" arguments for the ways to most productively and happily conduct ourselves with respect to us as individuals and collectively as a group, and then among all the options we pluck out what we feel are the things that most clearly support us in our survival and garner a modicum of "happiness" along the way. We don't necessarily need a story to do this - and even less do we need to pretend such a story is reality. Sure, we may tell stories as a method of relaying information of an abstract nature... but of what use is claiming they are more than that on top of formulating and relaying the story?

You need a narrative relating to shared values to form the social grouping in the first place. These values get transmitted to new generations as culture. Cultures evolve via the introduction of new narratives. Much of what makes us happy is the result of our cultural conditioning.

All societies are grounded in metaphorical truths, things which are not objectively true, yet we act as if they were true. These exist and are transmitted via the mythos of a society.

So that they don't commit themselves to making the same mistakes of the past. I would have thought this obvious. Every person tricked by a charlatan who tells them a story that isn't backed by evidence, should use this as an opportunity to wise up, and make sure their standards are set higher - for themselves as well as their children. I highly doubt there is anyone here who would praise the idea of teaching children anything and everything, regardless how well grounded in reality it is.

We also teach people to avoid the collective mistakes of the past via narratives.

The value of a belief lies in utility, not some abstract "truth" quotient though. Sometimes utility aligns with truth, other times it doesn't.

We tell children untrue things all of the time when these things offer some form of utility, and if we told them to only believe that which they have seen evidence to support we would seriously limit our ability to educate them.

Why accept that as a general premise, and yet make an exception for religious beliefs? There are real things to be lost here. In the case of simple religious adherence, the loss is potentially time, possibly monetary, possibly loss in peace of mind, possibly a loss of family members. I've seen all of these and more that can be blamed directly on religious adherence. And yes, the same thing could be said for ardent political stances, for which there may also be less than sufficient evidence or reasoning having gone into it... but I would admonish against adopting that sort of stance as well, and for the same reasons.

There are also real things to be gained.

You could accept longevity as evidence of utility, and thus consider holding on to traditional beliefs to be more likely to be useful than your individual opinions.

If someone judges that their religion is useful to them, why does it matter if it is "true" or not?

Being conditionally influenced by, and being "a derivative of" are 2 separate things. If "Y" is deemed better now than "X" for verifiable, rational reasons, then it should hold that "Y" was always better than "X", even if "X" was first and helped shape our ideas of "Y".

For the myth in question they simply removed god yet kept the rest of the religious components. It's still a myth.

And I guarantee you that I did. Even anecdotes and analogies are forms of evidence. Granted, not nearly the best ones in my estimation, and those that involve abstracts like feeling and desire that do not have a direct correlation to my own experiences with the same, and have no physical presence to speak of are easily discarded - or should be. Set aside with a note to check up on whether or not there is something better to gauge the claim with at a later date. And until then, ignore it or seek the answers out yourself - but until you know, you don't know.


Unfortunately, our brains don't work that way, at least that's what the scientific evidence seems to strongly suggest. Our views are a raft of heuristics, biases, prejudices, assumptions, imitations, misconceptions, self-deceptions and sometimes reasoned judgements.

Usually for ideological reasons, some people really like to think they arrived at all their beliefs rationally. I've never heard anyone say this who doesn't display values and beliefs which are completely typical of a cultural environment they were exposed to though.

Funny that.

I agree with this. However, those axioms of a non-supernatural nature, while abstract to the extreme, are still a shared attribute of our experienced reality between those who accept them in a way that religions simply cannot claim to wield.

They're generally just useful narrative conventions (Humanity, Progress, rights, etc.), a bit like gods are. They only 'exist' because we invented them.

What axioms do you consider fundamental to your belief system?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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.



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.

What do you not understand about there being no evidence for god, the tooth fairy, leprechauns and the soul cake duck? Yes, i am "for certain"

If evidence were found, that is a biggie, real big, world leaders clamouring to take the finder out to dinner, tv interviews, even perhaps a Nobel prize. So far thats not happened. If it does and the proof if found to be valid i would change my stance. But, no proof so end of story.

I dont really care how you dress or not, whether i can prove how you are dressed is irrelevant, there is proof in your own home so it is something of a straw man.


Well i am using the bible because you attempted to mock my knowledge of the bible, sorry if you dont like the results.
 
Now you've backed away into "mythos" and the bizarre "myths/illusions/narratives/ideologies" - which are not interchangeable terms; an ideology is not an illusion.

It's something that isn't real yet we act as if it were true.

Call it what you like. Can't be bothered with semantic quibbling over whether things that aren't real could be called illusions.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It's something that isn't real yet we act as if it were true.

Call it what you like. Can't be bothered with semantic quibbling over whether things that aren't real could be called illusions.

What do you mean by true or real? If I, or some group collectively, have an ideology or set of values or priorities, then it's true that I/they have them and try to live by them, but if everybody accepts that they are simply constructs of the human minds involved (including the history of the ideas), I can't see a way in which it's an illusion or anything like many theists' beliefs in the objective reality of their gods.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
What axioms do you consider fundamental to your belief system?
You seem to want to equate all axioms though. For instance, earlier you mentioned valuing truth. You neglect to note the primacy of such a value. For without the valuation of truth we could not value much else.

Certainly all thought can be traced back to axioms. Some of those axioms are more fundamental more necessary than others. Any reliance on mythos is not equivalent to all other reliances.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Not to be confused in its entirety with professor Paul C. Vitz's paper:The Psychology of Atheism but I found his paper quite interesting on the psychological aspect of atheism and the development of atheistic beliefs. Of course we in the psychology community believe there are a wide spectrum of beliefs concerning religion and metaphysics. Yes we indeed see the development of religious and irreligious beliefs as a development through personal experience. Nobody believes or disbelieves just because. There are developmental stages a person goes through before they solidify a particular life altering belief. I call it life altering, because for the atheist, they are not bound by any customary religious obligations nor observe any religious dietary customs.
Boy, I went from being a Christian to an atheist in a matter of months and don't recall it altering my life in any way. Just sayin'.

Atheism at least philosophically, is synonymous with freedom of expression, no constraints, autonomous thinking etcetera.
Bull twinkle. To put it politely.

"Finally, in this list of superficial, but nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list simple personal convenience.
"Irrational" you say, and just after having offered up rational motivating forces for becoming an atheist no less. :rolleyes:

But what is remarkable for me as an observer is that the issue I have with atheists is the same issues I have with theists concerning their belief. One side says "show me proof!" the other side says "the proof is here in this 2,000 year-old book The Future of an Illusion as his position seems to the most solid:
So what is your "issue"?
One makes an assertion, usually of fact, and the other simply says, "prove it."

[R]eligious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of nature. (p. 21)
I see a very distinct difference. While there may be this "crushing superior force of nature," whatever that is, religious need comes from ones fear of death, and the comfort religion and the religious community bring.


Just as a matter of interest, exactly what position do you hold in the psychology community? For all we know, you may be one of the thousands of college students majoring in psychology.

.
,
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Who in their right mind would offer an opinion on a discussion forum? Egad, the audacity!
Qualifying an opinion as such is simply a nice touch.

Monkeys can reason though. They can't form large social groups, transmit complex cultures, create systems of education, transmit large bodies knowledge across multiple generations, create systems of laws and rights, engage in scientific enquiry, etc.
And this negates the importance of human ability to reason because... ?

If someone judges that their religion is useful to them, why does it matter if it is "true" or not?
It matters for a few reasons:
  1. If they are willing to suspend disbelief for one aspect of their life/livelihood, then I argue it makes them more likely (or predisposed) to do so in other aspects. This invites fraud and cons.
  2. They are more likely to want to foist this religious belief off on others, or get others to buy into it - at which point, see # 1 again.
  3. It necessarily informs their behavior, and if their doctrine contains elements that have been demonstrated to be harmful to themselves or others, then there is real harm being done.
Unfortunately, our brains don't work that way, at least that's what the scientific evidence seems to strongly suggest. Our views are a raft of heuristics, biases, prejudices, assumptions, imitations, misconceptions, self-deceptions and sometimes reasoned judgements.
And it seems to me that your argument is in support of us actually being proud of this fact. Think about it.

What axioms do you consider fundamental to your belief system?
From logic: law of non-contradiction, excluded middle and law of identity.

Borrowing from psychology: "Nothing is in the intellect which is not first in the senses." - meaning that, without the senses, your intellect and base of knowledge would contain nothing. If, from "conception", you were a "brain in a vat" with no connection to anything external, what could your thoughts consist of?

And that reality is consistently present and its fundamentals presented regardless who is doing the perceiving. And related to that - that differences in our personal, perceptive qualia should not be counted as differences in reality itself.

Beyond this, I am not sure.
 
You seem to want to equate all axioms though. For instance, earlier you mentioned valuing truth. You neglect to note the primacy of such a value. For without the valuation of truth we could not value much else.

In this context, I meant the ideological tenet that the search for "truth" holds value beyond mere utility.

The search for objective truth beyond that which has direct practical benefit was not really that important in the majority of human societies.

Within modern rationalistic ideologies, some people even say that given the choice between believing something false but beneficial or true but harmful they would prefer the latter. This really is quite odd, yet the same person would also likely be contemptuous of 'silly' religious beliefs.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
What do you not understand about there being no evidence for god, the tooth fairy, leprechauns and the soul cake duck? Yes, i am "for certain."

On matters of scientific evidence there is neither proof nor disproof of God.

If evidence were found, that is a biggie, real big, world leaders clamouring to take the finder out to dinner, tv interviews, even perhaps a Nobel prize. So far thats not happened. If it does and the proof if found to be valid i would change my stance. But, no proof so end of story.

The interesting thing about the above, and I am in agreement with you @ChristineM is that in this old book which is supposedly the speech of the moon god written down by an illiterate yet capable of writing an entire book so-called "profit" named Barack Obama (I'm being facetious here cue the Christian stereotype sarcasm) it says in the following:

"And even if We had sent down to them the angels [with the message] and the dead spoke to them [of it] and We gathered together every [created] thing in front of them, they would not believe unless Allah should will. But most of them, [of that], are ignorant." -Surah 6:111

"All the proofs and all the warnings can never help people who decided to disbelieve." -Surah 10:101

I believe in another thread I mentioned Sir Anthony Hopkins in the movie "The Rite" when he has a philosophical discussion on the existence of the Devil and belief. In this scene Anthony Hopkins says:

"The interesting thing about skeptics, atheists, is that we're always looking for proof, certainty. The question is, "what on earth would we do if we found it?" There are times when I experience a total loss of faith. Days, months, when I don't know what I believe in: God, or the devil, Santa Claus, or Tinker Bell."

The one thing I find relevant here and the reason I posted the Quranic verse is this particular verse address doubt in the face of proof. As Mr. Hopkins stated in the above even if we had proof what on earth would we do with it? Many would still be skeptical. I'm sure some hardcore atheist scientist would say the above Quranic illustration would be some sort of mass delusion prompted by an advance technology that could massively affect people or some sort of scientific jargon that would explain why such and such is not real. The point is even in the fact of truth people will still have doubt. Heck, even me. I think this is why faith in the spiritual and religious sense of the word, is important.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
In this context, I meant the ideological tenet that the search for "truth" holds value beyond mere utility.

The search for objective truth beyond that which has direct practical benefit was not really that important in the majority of human societies.

Within modern rationalistic ideologies, some people even say that given the choice between believing something false but beneficial or true but harmful they would prefer the latter. This really is quite odd, yet the same person would also likely be contemptuous of 'silly' religious beliefs.
I do not think it is odd in the least. But of course we would have to define beneficial, have a way to quantify it, and a way to know we didn't miss anything along the way.

We don't have such things. We cannot in reality possess such things. Consequently, we are left with abstractions and hypotheticals.

Truth is necessary for any knowledge. For this reason truth is favored where falsity is disfavored. Shall we value knowledge though?

I suppose one need not. But you are describing a very fundamental difference. One I can hardly take serious. Especially when coupled with the notion that the person favors truth most of the time and then contradicts their self by favoring falsity at other times.

It is easy to escape to solipsism. But that offers one who favors truth nothing. There can be no meeting of the minds when you do such.

The people who favored "silly" religious beliefs did so in their pursuit of truth. That is they too valued truth. With them I would happily count myself against others who might avoid truth.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
On matters of scientific evidence there is neither proof nor disproof of God.



The interesting thing about the above, and I am in agreement with you @ChristineM is that in this old book which is supposedly the speech of the moon god written down by an illiterate yet capable of writing an entire book so-called "profit" named Barack Obama (I'm being facetious here cue the Christian stereotype sarcasm) it says in the following:

"And even if We had sent down to them the angels [with the message] and the dead spoke to them [of it] and We gathered together every [created] thing in front of them, they would not believe unless Allah should will. But most of them, [of that], are ignorant." -Surah 6:111

"All the proofs and all the warnings can never help people who decided to disbelieve." -Surah 10:101

I believe in another thread I mentioned Sir Anthony Hopkins in the movie "The Rite" when he has a philosophical discussion on the existence of the Devil and belief. In this scene Anthony Hopkins says:

"The interesting thing about skeptics, atheists, is that we're always looking for proof, certainty. The question is, "what on earth would we do if we found it?" There are times when I experience a total loss of faith. Days, months, when I don't know what I believe in: God, or the devil, Santa Claus, or Tinker Bell."

The one thing I find relevant here and the reason I posted the Quranic verse is this particular verse address doubt in the face of proof. As Mr. Hopkins stated in the above even if we had proof what on earth would we do with it? Many would still be skeptical. I'm sure some hardcore atheist scientist would say the above Quranic illustration would be some sort of mass delusion prompted by an advance technology that could massively affect people or some sort of scientific jargon that would explain why such and such is not real. The point is even in the fact of truth people will still have doubt. Heck, even me. I think this is why faith in the spiritual and religious sense of the word, is important.
You're arguing that atheists would reject proof of God by hypothesizing such proof.
And Hopkins's character gets it wrong.
I don't know any atheists looking for proof regarding gods.
It's all a rather hollow construct.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Boy, I went from being a Christian to an atheist in a matter of months and don't recall it altering my life in any way. Just sayin'.,


There was something mentally that influenced you. Again it was not something "simple" perhaps there was something that propelled you to lose faith whether it was a disinterest in the faith, absence of proof, negative encounter, extremism to the point of exhaustion or whatever.

Bull twinkle. To put it politely.,



If we look at the history of secularism philosophically atheism is largely tied to the secular, the free from the constraints of religion or so to speak. the atheist is not bound to any religious custom that they must observe this is what I was referring to on matters of "freedom."

"Irrational" you say, and just after having offered up rational motivating forces for becoming an atheist no less. :rolleyes:,


You do realize I was quoting the link? It would behoove you to read the information instead of skimming it. Perhaps you missed the quotations or I failed to place them? In any event clearly I'm not an atheist nor would I postulate my position in that syntax.

So what is your "issue"?
One makes an assertion, usually of fact, and the other simply says, "prove it."
.
,

The issue I have is that many atheists who want to argue their position wants proof. I'm in no position to influence someone to believe or not to believe I don't care. I hold beliefs personal. I recall discussing God and without even talking about proof of God's existence an atheist would chime in to disrespect my beliefs about the "sky daddy" then would ask for proof. I find atheists majority of the time as much of a cry baby as theists when it comes to people's personal beliefs. There are times where atheist believers as well as theist believers need to shut up and let people live their best life. If someone talks about God let them, you don't need to input your disbelief. If they believe in the lucky charms cereal leprechaun let them. I don't believe its always appropriate to input your disbelief in spirituality simply because someone is talking about it. That is my point and that is my issue with atheist believers.

Just as a matter of interest, exactly what position do you hold in the psychology community? For all we know, you may be one of the thousands of college students majoring in psychology.

.
,

Why does this matter? But if my academic background is to be questioned I hold a B.A. in Psychology and a B.A. in Philosophy from a California State school. Took a couple years off after my father passed. Went back to school to receive my masters degree in clinical psychology from a UC school during which became a member of the American Psychological Association. Became a full-time researcher studying behavior, molecular, and psychiatric genetics. Continued school to get my doctorate in Brain and Cognitive Science. Left to become a clinician manager at my local hospital in 2011. Every year I go to symposiums regarding new psychiatric medications, discussions on behavioral modification that would aid me in my profession. Very recently in the last three years I did go back to school to receive my Masters Degree at the same UC school in Social Work.

All in all I am your stereotypical career college student. You ought to see my student loan, but more important in the world of psychology I'm heavily involved.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Well, that is what I mean. You guys get emotional in no time, not rational. And you are claiming to be able to psychologically dissect us? Lol

I didn't realize computers could show inflection. Apparently you're not familiar with common California lingo! We call people who make these ridiculous claims "full of it" all the time with a smile on our face, no negative emotions involved. When I said I could dissect you I'm referring to meeting face to face and having a simple conversation with you. Of course hiding from you that I am EBM (to prevent you from intentionally not being yourself), I'm sure I could get to foundation why you disbelieve and I bet my yearly paycheck plus my reputation on that.

I told you. The big psychological step that makes an atheist is the same that makes people not believing in blue fairies.

No as per the link I provided. You have yet to argue against that. I haven't even presented anything of my own opinion with the exception of my disdain for the atheist attitude likened by the theist attitude. I suggest you read the whole thing instead of dismissing it. Even if you don't want to read the author's account on his atheism you could read the sub-sections regarding other elements to atheism which I'm sure you'd find relevant in the psychology of others who became disbelievers.

You are complicating a trivial thing. Well, understandable, if you really believe that your belief is sooo worthy of consideration, despite having as much evidence as Mother Goose or Superman.

For one, I never postulated any claim. Two, I'm referring to someone else's position.

Yes, but you know what I mean. Believing to have had experiences of spirits and such, is really what would require the help of professionals. That includes experiences of alien abduction, gods, demons, incubus, and stuff like that.

No. They are not the same experiences per research each have their unique experiences so no me experiencing one phenomena does not mean it's the same as I experience another. I don't know what you mean when you said "would require the help of professionals" unless you are referring to something that is independently verified. You're unclear here but only you understand your logic on this matter break it down like I'm 8 years-old.

Everybody loves me.

Sure.

Sure. Psychologist right? Again, medice, cura te ipso. You are showing signs of delirium, with your experiences and such.

Now resorting to ad hominem attacks simply because I believe by talking to you (in person) I can find that you're not all that simple?

Kali is a an Hindu goddess. You said my Hindu’s frien experience could have been Allah, or whomever you happen to believe, liking to crossdress like a goddess.

Never mentioned the name Allah once to you, If I recall correctly you mentioned 3 gods whom your friend believes are real. I said in response to that in my personal belief God appears to anyone in any form for their comfort as opposed to a Xenomorph to incite terror. Obviously your friends experience was not malevolent so I believe whatever he or she experiences if they believe its from a positive higher power then so be it. I believe God can appear to us from what our minds can conceive.

You asked which isn't a yes or no question, what makes me so sure it isn't the other way around? Perhaps you want to elaborate what isn't the other way around?
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
There was something mentally that influenced you. Again it was not something "simple" perhaps there was something that propelled you to lose faith whether it was a disinterest in the faith, absence of proof, negative encounter, extremism to the point of exhaustion or whatever.
Not talking about the "why," but the "what after." Your so-called "life altering belief."

If we look at the history of secularism philosophically atheism is largely tied to the secular, the free from the constraints of religion or so to speak. the atheist is not bound to any religious custom that they must observe this is what I was referring to on matters of "freedom."
But you said it was "synonymous with freedom of expression, no constraints, autonomous thinking etcetera.," which, obviously, it is not.

You do realize I was quoting the link? It would behoove you to read the information instead of skimming it. Perhaps you missed the quotations or I failed to place them? In any event clearly I'm not an atheist nor would I postulate my position in that syntax.
In as much as you quote Dr. Vitz as validation of your preceding remark, why wouldn't I believe you agree with he says? You certainly give no indication you don't.

The issue I have is that many atheists who want to argue their position wants proof.
Can you blame them? If you went around claiming, "The ghost of Christmas past lives in my bedroom closet," wouldn't you expect people to ask you for "proof," or at least evidence?

I'm in no position to influence someone to believe or not to believe I don't care. I hold beliefs personal. I recall discussing God and without even talking about proof of God's existence an atheist would chime in to disrespect my beliefs about the "sky daddy" then would ask for proof. I find atheists majority of the time as much of a cry baby as theists when it comes to people's personal beliefs. There are times where atheist believers as well as theist believers need to shut up and let people live their best life. If someone talks about God let them, you don't need to input your disbelief. If they believe in the lucky charms cereal leprechaun let them. I don't believe its always appropriate to input your disbelief in spirituality simply because someone is talking about it. That is my point and that is my issue with atheist believers.
Ouch, a bit thin-skinned, are we. . . . In any case, it appears that while you like to talk about atheism and atheists, you don't appreciate your belief in god's existence being challenged. And that's fair, but keep in mind that nobody is making you discuss anything, so you should feel free to walk away from any question involving your rationale for the existence of god. However, if you do choose to stick around just remember that it's you (the theist or deist) who is making the affirmative assertion, not the atheist. So he has every right to challenge it. Can't stand being challenged, then walk away, but please don't go on about how unfair it is that atheists ask you, or Christians in general, for evidence.

Why does this matter?
It only matters as a point of interest, which is why I said, "Just as a matter of interest."

.
 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
today's powerful secular and neo-pagan world. I would have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time.
Um...what? Those things are mutally exclusive. Secularism is an outgrowth of Abrahamic monotheistic desacralization of the "mundane" world. I also see that he is continuing the Abrahamic slander of "pagans" being aimless hedonists, which is far from the truth. There are deities representing the totality of life and nature - from chaste, asexual deities, strict and severe deities to deities of frenzied lust, ecstasy and taboo breaking. The ancient Greeks and Romans, for example, were surprisingly prudish in various ways and the wild rites of Dionysus were banned by the Romans as being offensive.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I look forward to the day when someone writes a tale of the world that has atheists as described by the Qur'an.

It would be wildly exotic, to the point of making sci-fi look banal and unimaginative.
 
I look forward to the day when someone writes a tale of the world that has atheists as described by the Qur'an.

It would be wildly exotic, to the point of making sci-fi look banal and unimaginative.

It would actually be rather short and dull as the Quran doesn't explicitly mention atheists, just generic disbelievers.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Not talking about the "why," but the "what after." Your so-called "life altering belief."

.

By life altering I’m referring to being an observant person of religious customs to someone who does not observe religious customs.


But you said it was "synonymous with freedom of expression, no constraints.

I was taking the dialectical position that the viewpoint of religion is often looked at through the lens of one who is constrained in a position to observe laws and customs whereas an atheist is one who does not therefore is perceived to be “free” in the sense of observing customs. The idea of “sin” can create guilt of one transgress laws and religious customs, yet for the atheist who is not of that custom or chooses not to follow, they are free from religious guilt.

In as much as you quote Dr. Vitz as validation of your preceding remark, why wouldn't I believe you agree with he says? You certainly give no indication you don't.

.

This isn’t about my opinion I just gave a brief description of his position on the matter. My position here is there is a psychological process we go through when we change our minds about a thing. When I said earlier there is a mental process from going one spectrum to the other some of the atheists believe that changing one’s beliefs is a simple process. When I say there is a complex process I’m referring to how the mind processes information from once the affirmative to the negative.

I’ll use the Lakers for example. Some people claim “I dislike the Lakers because of Kobe.” I may ask well how does one determine a feeling of disdain for an entire team for one person? They may reply “because Kobe was charged for rape.” I may ask “did you like the Lakers before the rape charge?” They reply “yes.”

Similarly prior to the abandonment of faith one may be a “fan of a particular religion.” But one may lose interest in religion through a series of external processes such as the religion, it’s customs, scripture, God or gods, or some life event that happens where an individual begins or is already disinterested in theism altogether. There is a trigger that happens where the individual moves along a spectrum. People don’t go from A to Z because Z makes more sense. For the religious to the irreligious if that were true you (not you specifically) you were never religious to begin with.

There is something in your life where you’ve mentally determined this or that didn’t make sense anymore in your life and are closed to the metaphysical possibility.

Can you blame them? If you went around claiming, "The ghost of Christmas past lives in my bedroom closet," wouldn't you expect people to ask you for "proof," or at least evidence?

.

My job puts me in the position where I see this every time I work. Difference is majority of these individuals are under the influence of drugs. For those that are not under the influence, my position is not to judge their experiences. Who am I to judge someone who experiences something I don’t? I’m not in their body and quite frankly we all observe this planet in different ways. If the belief becomes maladaptive then I’d be concerned, but if it’s a positive encounter even if I think it’s bizarre I cannot say if they are right or wrong.

I can imagine how Muhammad felt by telling some desert people “Hey I am a prophet of God because I received revelation in a dim lifted cave where something began crushing me who, in turn identified themselves as Gabriel who in turn told me to read something out of thin air.”

Sounds pretty weird right? I’m sure you wouldn’t believe someone who proclaimed that right? In my belief sometimes God wants people to experience things individually which does not require the whole world’s approval.

Now with respect to the latter portion of me being “thin skinned” and me not wanting my beliefs challenged, well, this isn’t a thread about my beliefs. The post you quoted I was speaking as a matter of fact. Atheists are quite defensive even now. I mention “psychology of atheism” then all of a sudden atheists are coming out of the wood works feeling offended. If atheists are unwilling to read a psychology paper then they need to not input their views in this thread. Simple.
 
Top