The Psychology of Atheism

[Epic Beard Man]

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 where you actually have a better command of the Arabic language in conjunction to Quranic knowledge

 

[Epic Beard Man]

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.

Are you quoting the link? If so please cite the entire thing because I’m confused

 

[LuisDantas]

I look forward to the day where you actually have a better command of the Arabic language in conjunction to Quranic knowledge

That would be welcome.

I have no doubt that I could then demolish qur'anic claims that much faster and with greater authority.

But would it be worth the effort? Arabic is a difficult language to master, and truth be told, it is not a big priority.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Yep. That is part of its failure to grasp into the reality of facts regarding atheism and theism.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Are you quoting the link? If so please cite the entire thing because I’m confused

I'm quoting from your OP.

 

[Skwim]

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.

Knowing enough about those who have challenged you here, I can tell you with good certainty that few if any are offended by your remark---exactly what remarks left you with the impression atheists are offended? My guess is that this "offended" conclusion you've come to is projection on your part, exemplified by your mini-tirade,

". . . 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."​

The fact is, these challengers are simply not that thin skinned, if thin skinned at all. Rather they, like myself, recognize your poorly conceived and expressed analysis, and have challenge you on it. Simple as that; no more no less.


.

 

[Augustus]

Qualifying an opinion as such is simply a nice touch.

Was it really that difficult for you to identify that as an opinion given the context of an internet discussion forum?

And this negates the importance of human ability to reason because... ?

It doesn't 'negate the importance', it is a key point of differentiation between human cognition and that of other animals that allows us to develop the complex societies we have today.

Would you agree that it is one of the most important parts of human thought?

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.

This is all highly speculative and based on assumptions that whatever replaces traditional religious beliefs would, on average, be better for society. I see no reason to assume that this is necessarily true as it assumes a progressive teleology to history.

The West doesn't have a great record on this overall though, and 'more rational' doesn't necessarily mean 'more humanistic'. This has been evident from the Enlightenment onwards where the more humanistic ideologies are basically forms of secularised Christianity where people kept the values and ditched the God (i.e they kept much of the mythos). The more illiberal ones are those that, arguably more 'rationally', said 'if the God is a lie, then so is the rest of it'.

And it seems to me that your argument is in support of us actually being proud of this fact. Think about it.

Who said anything about being 'proud' of it? I just don't buy into the myth of human rationality.

As such I see ideologies premised around human rationality to be based on a delusion.

Summed up best by JM Keynes:

“Bertie [Bertrand Russell] held two ludicrously incompatible beliefs: on the one hand he believed that all the problems of the world stemmed from conducting human affairs in a most irrational way; on the other hand that the solution was simple, since all we had to do was to behave rationally.”

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.

None of these relate to your value system though.

 

[Augustus]

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.

The idea that 'all men are created equal' and belong to a common Humanity is an offshoot of monotheism.

Whether you believe this today because 'God' or because it is 'self-evident' (which it obviously isn't) makes little actual difference imo. You still believe in an illusion. Use the term 'metaphorical truth' if you prefer (something not factually true yet we act as if it were true as it provides some form or benefit).

If you want to see your metaphorical truth as being more 'rational', then that is your prerogative

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is all highly speculative and based on assumptions that whatever replaces traditional religious beliefs would, on average, be better for society. I see no reason to assume that this is necessarily true as it assumes a progressive teleology to history.

Plenty of real-world examples back up everything I mentioned... no speculation necessary. I mean, do I really need to trod out the "drinking of Kool Aid", cases of medical neglect in favor of prayer, or the ideas that have been held throughout history (and to this day) that a religious group's views should necessarily affect public policy? Give me a break.

And, at the very least, not having these systems in place would insure that fewer fools would end up claiming that they had divine support for their ideas. And those who still did make the claim would not find a willing or automatic audience.

None of these relate to your value system though.

You can't possibly believe this. If you do then I feel you probably need to take some of your assumptions - perhaps some of your own axioms - back to formula. These things are at the very core of how I interact with others, how I address their claims, and how I respond in terms of guaging the relativity of importance between such claims. That there is an objective reality, for example, helps me with staying grounded in the idea that, no matter how wildly two different accounts differ, there is an ultimate truth to "what happened" and attempting to get there is paramount to assuaging the "feelings" of either side. That knowledge only comes through the senses informs my sense of empathy - an ability to understand the reasons that people accept imperfect information, even as I may try to help toward what I feel is a correction of that. You seem to want to say that logic has nothing to do with values, and is therefore somehow divorced from morality. You'll likely do the same little dance you've done in this conversation a few times already, deny that that's what you meant, and stick to expounding on items of particularly safe vagueness. So congratulations if that's where you're off to next.

 

[Augustus]

Plenty of real-world examples back up everything I mentioned... no speculation necessary. I mean, do I really need to trod out the "drinking of Kool Aid", cases of medical neglect in favor of prayer, or the ideas that have been held throughout history (and to this day) that a religious group's views should necessarily affect public policy? Give me a break.

And, at the very least, not having these systems in place would insure that fewer fools would end up claiming that they had divine support for their ideas. And those who still did make the claim would not find a willing or automatic audience.

And it's not exactly difficult to find real world examples of irreligious ideologies causing people to commit harmful actions. Comparing the 'harms of religion' to a baseline of zero is misleading as religion isn't replaced by 'nothing' it is replaced by another value system/ideology. There is no reason to assume that whatever this ideology is will prove to be more beneficial.

Also, it's quite clear that religion, regardless of any truth value, fulfils certain common human needs, so again simply pointing to anecdotal harms and saying these alone demonstrate that the harms of religion outweigh the benefits is specious.

You can't possibly believe this. If you do then I feel you probably need to take some of your assumptions - perhaps some of your own axioms - back to formula. These things are at the very core of how I interact with others, how I address their claims, and how I respond in terms of guaging the relativity of importance between such claims. That there is an objective reality, for example, helps me with staying grounded in the idea that, no matter how wildly two different accounts differ, there is an ultimate truth to "what happened" and attempting to get there is paramount to assuaging the "feelings" of either side. That knowledge only comes through the senses informs my sense of empathy - an ability to understand the reasons that people accept imperfect information, even as I may try to help toward what I feel is a correction of that. You seem to want to say that logic has nothing to do with values, and is therefore somehow divorced from morality. You'll likely do the same little dance you've done in this conversation a few times already, deny that that's what you meant, and stick to expounding on items of particularly safe vagueness. So congratulations if that's where you're off to next.

I'm saying that rational consideration of evidence with regard to what is desirable or preferable only works within a broader framework of values/axioms. One of the cores of how you interact with others is a code of ethical principles that govern the correct way to behave and how you should respond to specific interactions.

On their own, what you mentioned gets you nowhere much. Keep those things you said yet change your ethical framework and you will end up making remarkably different decision based on the same 'evidence'.

Do you believe in fundamental human equality? fundamental inequality? Is altruism virtue or weakness? Are other people there to be exploited as much as possible? Are they people together with whom you want to build a just and fair society? Is the fundamental unit of society the individual, or the group? What does it mean to live 'a good life'? How would you like other people to see you?

All of these and countless other values may factor into what is 'rational' or 'empathetic' in any given situation, and are largely the product of whatever cultures you happened to be exposed to rather than dispassionate application of reason to evidence.

Empathy can encourage you to donate the shirt off your back or to kill your sister for besmirching the family's honour. Who you empathise with is a product of your values.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I'm quoting from your OP.

Cite the paragraph cause those aren’t my words I could be paraphrasing the author.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

That would be welcome.

I have no doubt that I could then demolish qur'anic claims that much faster and with greater authority.

But would it be worth the effort? Arabic is a difficult language to master, and truth be told, it is not a big priority.

You barely can debate me on the subject and I don’t even speak arabic. I even called you out on a one on one debate a while back

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Knowing enough about those who have challenged you here, I can tell you with good certainty that few if any are offended by your remark---exactly what remarks left you with the impression atheists are offended? My guess is that this "offended" conclusion you've come to is projection on your part, exemplified by your mini-tirade,

". . . 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."​

The fact is, these challengers are simply not that thin skinned, if thin skinned at all. Rather they, like myself, recognize your poorly conceived and expressed analysis, and have challenge you on it. Simple as that; no more no less.


.

Ok

 

[ratiocinator]

The idea that 'all men are created equal' and belong to a common Humanity is an offshoot of monotheism.

Is it? Isn't the golden rule pretty mush saying the same?

Whether you believe this today because 'God' or because it is 'self-evident' (which it obviously isn't) makes little actual difference imo. You still believe in an illusion.

I don't believe it at all in the sense that it is objectively true (it obviously isn't). I think that following the principle probably helps to reduce suffering and that is something I want to do.

Where is there anything like an illusion?

 

[Augustus]

Is it? Isn't the golden rule pretty mush saying the same?

No. If you look at the Graeco-Roman world, for example, it was based around a view of fundamental human inequality (which is what we observe in nature).

For example, Aristotle:

that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule... The lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another’s and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life … It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right

or Seneca:

We put down mad dogs; we kill the wild, untamed ox; we use the knife on sick sheep to stop their infecting the flock; we destroy abnormal offspring at birth; children, too, if they are born weak or deformed, we drown. Yet this is not the work of anger, but of reason - to separate the sound from the worthless

I don't believe it at all in the sense that it is objectively true (it obviously isn't). I think that following the principle probably helps to reduce suffering and that is something I want to do.

Where is there anything like an illusion?

Call it a metaphorical truth if that makes you happier: something which is not true but provides benefit if people act as if it were true.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Cite the paragraph cause those aren’t my words I could be paraphrasing the author.

Here:

"Finally, in this list of superficial, but nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list simple personal convenience. The fact is that it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo-pagan world. I would have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time."

 

[ratiocinator]

Call it a metaphorical truth if that makes you happier: something which is not true but provides benefit if people act as if it were true.

Why call it a "truth" (metaphorical or otherwise)? It isn't true. There seems to be an is-ought problem here. Treating people as equals isn't saying anything at all about how the world is, it's a political ideal about how (some) people think things ought to be done. It's an entirely human-made concept about how our societies might work 'better'; a value judgement.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Which has nothing to do with their atheism.

Atheism, is not a belief.
Theism is the belief.

Not entirely incorrect. As I said before the term belief does not necessarily have a religious designation.

You're not making any sense.
Atheism, specifically, is the stance of unbelief of theistic claims. It's literally what the word means.

If you’re confident in something to be true it’s a belief

Yes, which in this case is theism. Theists have "confidence" that their theistic claims are true.
Atheist points specifically to those people who do not have this confidence pertaining to theistic claims.

No. There are some astrophysicists who believe in parallel universes

How many of them will seriously consider the claim that a 7-headed interdimensional dragon is standing behind them, ready to eat them up?

Be serious please.

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.

Yes, there "could" be, in the sense that it's impossible to prove wrong.
The question however, is how many seconds you will be spending seriously pondering that "possibility" when somebody claims this without evidence?

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.

Point is that you carefully danced around the question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

False again.
At best, you can say that an atheist hasn't been presented with any evidence he/she found convincing - or else they would believe.

I, for one, don't make the claim that no such evidence exist. Only that I have not been presented with it. It might be out there. I just haven't seen it and invite theists to present it. It's not my fault that they fail time and again.

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).

I came to the conclusion that there are no good reasons to believe this god exists. So I don't believe this god exists. Which is not the same as believing he does NOT exist.

I consider it a lot more likely that he doesn't exist. But I don't "believe" that. ie: call it "true", because that points to a level of certainty that requires proof, and it's logically impossible to prove something is not the case if that something is unfalsifiable by definition.

 

[Desert Snake]

Atheism is the last refuge of superstition.