• 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!

What Irks You Most About Atheists, Agnostics, And Non-Believers?

ecco

Veteran Member
It is a well known human practice that even atheists are not magically immune from. Hero worship. There is a strong psychological need to have role models, heroes and idols to look up to. Where you get the idea that atheists young and old have somehow been vaccinated from this need is beyond me.

To each his own. I realized the silly nature of God and the Bible around age ten. I never sought out, or felt a need to seek out, anyone who believed as I did.

I've never been into hero worship of any sort. The closest I ever came to being awestruck when I was seated a couple of seats away from Y. A. Title.

Not trying to imply right or wrong - just differences.

That's you. Other people have a deep seated need for role models and heroes, including atheists.

I was just posting that that didn't apply to me. However, since you want to pursue it... You made the comment:

There is a strong psychological need to have role models, heroes and idols to look up to. Where you get the idea that atheists young and old have somehow been vaccinated from this need is beyond me.​

So, I can write:

Where you get the idea that atheists young and old have a strong psychological need to have role models, heroes and idols to look up to is questionable. You certainly haven't posted any sources.​
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Where you get the idea that atheists young and old have a strong psychological need to have role models, heroes and idols to look up to is questionable. You certainly haven't posted any sources.
Some dude named Abraham Maslow whispered the idea to me
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Well you could always look up the paper in question. You'll find it quite equal
I quoted from the paper. It was an article about a study about atheists. It did not specify that any atheists were interviewed for the study. Usually, in "studies" like this, they specify not only the beliefs of the people interviewed, but also the numbers for each group. Without this information any study is worthless.



If you are referring to another paper, how can I look it up if you don't state what paper you are referring to?
 

ecco

Veteran Member

Some dude named Abraham Maslow whispered the idea to me

Ah, whispers.

I suppose you expect me to buy his books and search for "atheists young and old have a strong psychological need to have role models, heroes and idols to look up to".

I don't think so. That would be me doing the work you are supposed to do.
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
Well...then it seems to me that the problem is?

The christian god has failed pretty thoroughly to prevent schism and the breaking apart. What was the last count? More than 45,000 separate and distinct brands of 'christian' in the world?

That tells me that someone has dropped the ball...

But it's a Fair Complaint that not all christians are catholic, and vice-versa. How dare we expect these groups, who claim to use the same book, cannot, even a little, agree with what this book is supposed to be saying.

So do atheists all have exactly the same view, didn't think so. Why would you expect all theists to have identical views
 
Last edited:

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster



Ah, whispers.

I suppose you expect me to buy his books and search for "atheists young and old have a strong psychological need to have role models, heroes and idols to look up to".

I don't think so. That would be me doing the work you are supposed to do.
You don't have to buy any books you don't want to. If you want to remain in ignorance of the psychology of human development then that is your choice. Have fun in the darkness.
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
I quoted from the paper. It was an article about a study about atheists. It did not specify that any atheists were interviewed for the study. Usually, in "studies" like this, they specify not only the beliefs of the people interviewed, but also the numbers for each group. Without this information any study is worthless.



If you are referring to another paper, how can I look it up if you don't state what paper you are referring to?


Like I said, read the reasurch paper where the exact make up of the groups involved are listed. You quoted from the news report
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Your comments in blue, my responses in red.

That their idealogue is foolproof and that the only reasonable people must take their position. No one has to take my position. It would be silly to expect that.

The flying spaghetti monster argument.
The FSM or Last Thursdayism is every bit as good as Genesis or any other Creation story.

The assumption that all God believers are religious or adhere to a particular religion.
I think that most atheists have heard of Deism. There are other reasons people believe in a god, God, gods but do not follow a religion.

Everything is a logical fallacy from those they oppose.
"Everything" is too strong of a word. More accurate would be "many religious beliefs are illogical".

If it does not logically follow for them, then it should not logically follow for anyone else. IOW, their intuition is superior to all other intuitions.
Not sure why you would put intuition and logic into the same bucket. I rarely if ever rely on my intuition.

The attitude of ridicule.
Some things deserve ridicule. Serious discussions deserve serious comments and responses. Citing Answers in Genesis as a reasonable source of scientific study deserves ridicule.

The priesthood of scientific authority over all people's lives.
That is pretty much an unfounded assertion. Perhaps you would give some examples.

The idea that philosophy is useless, and only science reigns supreme.
Again, that is an unfounded assertion. Philosophy has its place. But not in the realm of science. Injecting philosophy into science leads to woo and thence, ridicule.

Ultimate questions are all within the realm and grasp of science.
Ultimate questions like how many universes exist are indeed within the realm of science. The grasp, probably not. Ultimate questions like how many gods exist are not within the realm of science. In my opinion, those are in the realm of fiction.

Are not author's like Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, and Sam Harris doing philosophy of science when they write their books, or when they need an interpretation, or an hypothesis?

Intuition is physically deceptive. If people did not develope their intuitions there would be nothing of the mind to work with. Intuition leads to asking why, and how questions.

Naturalism is an intuition. Physicalism is an intuition. They both are philosophies underpinning all of science. I respect the method for all it gets out of nature. But i believe other methodologies can develope besides methodological naturalism.

There are Scientist's who believe that science can answer moral questions and ultimate questions of existence. They probably do not speak for the entire population. But you can see there are some people who push this agenda quite forcefully.

Science might discover a whole range of multiverses but that says nothing about the scope of the entire existence, and whether or not their is an ultimate beginning to it all.

I in no way defend Answers in Genesis.

The logical fallacy card is used obsessively on this forum. That is fine for a debate. I do not think the rules of logic alone prove or disprove anything. I usually gravitate to discussion over the sport of debate. People need to realize that discussion is to expand understanding, and debate is about winning an argument with juicy cherry picked arguments. I would love to hear all sides of a topic but the bottom line is that the spiritual intuition is vastly different than the naturalist intuition. Thus the whole argument is going in circles without much substance conveyed. Its like aliens speaking to other aliens.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member

.
large.jpg

This isn't meant to get personal, ragging on your most detested atheist, agnostic, or non-believer, but to consider the most irksome general approaches and conduct they display.

Think in terms of, "They . . . ."


.

They are, in general, too soft, and politically correct. And on the defensive, with all that "I simply lack belief in X" instead of "I believe that X does not exist".

They think that dealing with a believer in God requires more care than dealing with a believer in Xenu, leprechauns or elves. Which is not logical, considering that gods, leprechauns, elves and Xenu all enjoy the same ontological status.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
They are, in general, too soft, and politically correct. They think that dealing with a believer in God requires more care than dealing with a believer in Xenu, leprechauns or elves.

Ciao

- viole

Well they only have rhetoric hardly a strong starting position
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
[QUOTE


Could be but I can't be arsed fixing a nondescript problem.


Oh, you are the guy who does not use punctuation.I forgot. Alles klar.

If English is not your first language, tell me what you prefer. I can adapt.

Ciao

- viole
 

74x12

Well-Known Member

.
large.jpg

This isn't meant to get personal, ragging on your most detested atheist, agnostic, or non-believer, but to consider the most irksome general approaches and conduct they display.

Think in terms of, "They . . . ."


.
It is that people are deceived and dying without God.

God sees people the same way.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member

.
large.jpg

This isn't meant to get personal, ragging on your most detested atheist, agnostic, or non-believer, but to consider the most irksome general approaches and conduct they display.

Think in terms of, "They . . . .".
I record my undiluted admiration of that photo. Brilliant!
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
So do atheists all have exactly the same view, didn't think so. Why would you expect all theists to have identical views

Actually? YES I WOULD! If there were, IN FACT, but One (1) GOD?

I would absolutely expect everyone to follow the same religion -- because the source of that religion would be from a single, solitary being.

Instead of the mish-mash we have Today, with millions upon millions of different flavors of 'theist'....

... nay-- billions--

It is as if there wasn't any actual god behind any of them....
 
Top