The Psychology of Atheism

[Altfish]

Atheism is the last refuge of superstition.

 

[Desert Snake]

You were wrong about the music, and now you are making the same mistakes, concerning your religion.

Just more mistakes....

I would note a non mistake...!

 

[ratiocinator]

Atheism is the last refuge of superstition.

This is a joke, yes?

 

[Altfish]

You were wrong about the music, and now you are making the same mistakes, concerning your religion.

Just more mistakes....

I would note a non mistake...!

What music, what mistake, my religion?

 

[Desert Snake]

This is a joke, yes?

Not really. Its what you notice, so, what is incorrect about that?

 

[ratiocinator]

Its what you notice, so, what is incorrect about that?

It's nonsense. Superstition is an "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural" - which has nothing to do with atheism.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's nonsense. Superstition is an "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural" - which has nothing to do with atheism.

Ah, you are separating the theory from the practice. Not the same thing.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ah, you are separating the theory from the practice. Not the same thing.

What theory and what practice? You seem to be struggling with the English language. Atheism is just "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".

You may argue that some atheists are also superstitious but to say that atheism is the "last refuge of superstition" is patently absurd.

 

[Desert Snake]

What theory and what practice? You seem to be struggling with the English language. Atheism is just "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".

You may argue that some atheists are also superstitious but to say that atheism is the "last refuge of superstition" is patently absurd.

Theory of atheism as opposed to practice of atheism. You clearly are still under the illusion that they are the same thing.

They are not.

 

[LuisDantas]

Apparently iit is not just the Qur'an that creates a fantasy world with its very own, reality-divorced understanding of "atheism".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Theory of atheism as opposed to practice of atheism. You clearly are still under the illusion that they are the same thing.

They are not.

So how would you define the "theory of atheism" and how would you define the "practice of atheism"?

 

[Augustus]

Why call it a "truth" (metaphorical or otherwise)? It isn't true.

Because people behave as if such things are true. There is little practical difference between someone thinking X is objectively true and simply acting as if X were 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.

Ultimately the mythos of any social grouping is simply an explanation of how things ought to be and it is based on cultural preferences rather than facts or the objective use of reason.

Whether your mythos is a theistic religion, or a collection of values that grew out of specific culture (usually via a theistic religion) it isn't important that these things actually are true, just that you behave as if they were true.

Whatever fictitious narrative you have to convey these values is ultimately a question of utility, whether you tell yourself these are right because "God" or because "rational ethics".

 

[ratiocinator]

Theory of atheism as opposed to practice of atheism. You clearly are still under the illusion that they are the same thing.

They are not.

And you seem to be totally unable to express your position. Do you have anything at all substantive to say or not?

 

[Desert Snake]

And you seem to be totally unable to express your position. Do you have anything at all substantive to say or not?

Substantive to something true? Why would I need to, its not me with the 'problem'. Your equation is wrong, and you cant even figure out how to get a better equation. Not my problem.

 

[ratiocinator]

Whether your mythos is a theistic religion, or a collection of values that grew out of specific culture (usually via a theistic religion) it isn't important that these things actually are true, just that you behave as if they were true.

Except that theistic religion does (in many cases) purport to say something about how the world is. Why do you think that is not important? If you are going to bandy about terms like "illusion", it is very important.

 

[ratiocinator]

Substantive to something true? Why would I need to, its not me with the 'problem'. Your equation is wrong, and you cant even figure out how to get a better equation. Not my problem.

If you can't or won't back up your absurd statement, that is actually your problem. Why should I care?

 

[viole]

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.



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.



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



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.



Sure.



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?



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?

Well, lets focus on the last point,msince it is important.

I dont know if you believe in Allah or Whomever. But I make the aasumption you believe in a well specified X and follow the tenets of X, whatever they are. If not, forget the rest.

Now, you also use your experiences of X as “evidence” of X.

When I told you that a friend of mine had similar experiences involving a different Y, with likely completely different tenets from X, you told me it could very weil be that X likes to appear as Y.

So, my question was “how do you then know that it is not the other way round? That it is not Y that likes to appear as X every now and then, without begging the question or showing Evidence that goes beyond subjective experiences?

And if you do not know, why do you follow X and not Y? If X says no pork, and Y no beef, what would you choose and why? You also write you are monotheist, but Y happens to be part of a congregation of gods.

So, either your claim about X (for instance that is only one), cannot be uniquely justified by your experiences. Or my friend was deluded.

Your call.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Augustus]

Except that theistic religion does (in many cases) purport to say something about how the world is. Why do you think that is not important? If you are going to bandy about terms like "illusion", it is very important.

So do non-religious ideologies. Ideologies based around human rationality generally treat human rationality as an actual truth, not something that is obviously false but we just accept it as true because it's what we thing ought to be the case.

Ultimately though, whether someone thinks X is objectively true or simply acts as if X were true makes little actual difference.

Humans are only sporadically and inconsistently rational so better to focus on values and their consequences than the reasons people give for holding such values.

If you give $100 to charity because 'God wants you to', or because 'empathy' it's still the same $100.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Here:

Notice the quotation? That was me quoting the link. Now that we’ve established that, apparently you’re making a comment on what he said?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Notice the quotation? That was me quoting the link. Now that we’ve established that, apparently you’re making a comment on what he said?

Obviously.