A-Atheists: psychology of atheism...

  • Wow, what a bunch of nonsense. Either someone does not know the meaning of the word "atheist", or is content at trying to use deceit to prove theistic bullshit. Incidentally, humans are born without religion, until it is indoctrinated into them.

  • @Jason...

    The point of the article is to show normally we argue to why should some one believe (via two competing hypothesis) a claim and not it's opposite, we do not argue that some one already believes a claim which they suppress.

    So (via the two competing hypothesis basis) based on the logical law of excluded middle there are only two options as to what the metaphysical ontology of reality could be; that being the ontology of the metaphysics of reality is either:

    (1) Personal (theism), or

    (2) Impersonal (atheism).

    Now if a person says either position is more likely than the other to be true, they have a burden of proof (until then they have no rational justification to be anything but agnostic, holding it as 50/50).

    Now I have many arguments of this type to show why Theism is far more likely.

    But the article is an argument exposing that people already do believe in God (position (1) above) no matter what they profess, they show belief via two ways (and the 5 witness support these two categories):

    (A) As a properly basic belief

    (B) As a needed existential functionality

    It is just that you suppress this belief...

  • And I say you really believe in Dracula, you just suppress this belief. This is nonsense in the highest order.

  • @Jason...

    Yes it would be nonsense because a belief in Dracula can not be:

    (A) a properly basic belief

    (B) a needed existential functionality

    But belief in God (a Personal metaphysics to reality instead of an impersonal) can be, and by the five witnesses is demonstrated to be.

    At least for me (A) and (B) is true, so based on that criteria I am perfectly rationally justified to be a Theist; but the studies show you have (A) and (B) also, so it is irrational to claim you are an atheist (all you are doing is suppressing a belief in God which you actually have).

    God bless

  • Since you cannot prove God is either of those things, then your entity is just as real as mine. Your "evidence" is just opinion backed up with no real, provable evidence.

  • @Jason...

    I have lots of probable evidence, but that case is you know God exists based on (A) and (B) (the arguments are in there own sense arguments for the necessity of God not just that you know God exists, unless you have a defeater).

    God bless

  • You really do like to flip the burden of proof around. Your assertions are not evidence. I do not need to disprove your assertions, you need to prove them.

  • @Jason...

    I have 5 witnesses as the evidence for (A) and (B) being true. You have to first discredit that (which only gets you to agnosticism on them) and then give arguments why they are more likely false.

    God bless

  • Yochanan does you god interject upon the world? By this I mean preform miracles, answer prayers, heal the sick etc.

    Can you prove it? If you can not prove it then why should anyone believe a religious claim?

  • @Alex...

    First we must ask is it possible that God could do that, and that all hinges on the debate between are the metaphysics of reality more likely Personal or Impersonal.

    So lets assume its possible He exists, the second question is does He do these things.

    I do not want to get into this to much but the information in the Meme and the video will show history best explains this at least in one event:

    https://www.facebook.com/1400753406812671/photos/a.1400888423465836.1073741828.1400753406812671/1407524699468875/?type=1&theater

    Also I find these two links below interesting too:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNJPJ4JwHeE

    God bless

  • More quote-mined nonsense.

    You apparently believe that invoking the notion of "ontology" somehow absolves you from doing

    a) real research

    b) substantiating your claims

    At least for me (A) and (B) is true, so based on that criteria I am perfectly rationally justified to be a Theist; but the studies show you have (A) and (B) also, so it is irrational to claim you are an atheist (all you are doing is suppressing a belief in God which you actually have).

    Wow ... next you're going to be trying to tell us that atheism is because of an unresolved Oedipal complex, I suppose. /sarcasm

    Seriously, the whole business about the "psychology of atheism" is, to put it mildly, nonsensical. There is no serious psychology research that makes such claims - much less a cheesy pseudo-freudian claim like it's just suppression of an existing "belief".

    In fact, about the only thing I can find after a bit of time in a research library is a handful of articles that talk about a correlation between high intelligence and atheist / agnostic belief, and another paper pointing out how psychology is still failing to adequately understand and support atheist and agnostic belief systems.

    Attwood, R. (2008). High IQ turns academics into atheists. The Times Higher Education Supplement : THE, (1849), 7. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/761046850?accountid=142373

    Brewster, M. E., Robinson, M. A., Sandil, R., Esposito, J., & Geiger, E. (2014). Arrantly Absent: Atheism in Psychological Science From 2001 to 2012 Ψ. Counseling Psychologist, 42(5), 628-663. doi:10.1177/0011000014528051

  • @Michelle.

    Firstly I do not believe high I.Q. means one will be a Christian, as this is a spiritual issue not so much a mental issue (it would be like saying people with the highest I.Q. are the most moral where as people with the lower I.Q. are the least moral).

    Secondly it just so happens that people with high I.Q's are Christian (so if intelligence ruled our Christianity, it would show that Christianity is not irrational):

    http://www.examiner.com/article/of-10-highest-iq-s-on-earth-at-least-8-are-theists-at-least-6-are-christians

    God bless

  • Yochanan let us assume a deity that is omnipotent exists. What properties does a god have?

    Looking at the shroud of Turin will not give us evidence. The the University of Padua is biased "The first subjects to be taught were law and theology".

    "In 1978, a detailed examination carried out by a team of American scientists, called the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), found no reliable evidence of how the image was produced. In 1988 a radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concurred that the samples they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390. The validity and the interpretation of the 1988 tests are still contested by some statisticians, chemists and historians "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

    So let us start from a blank slate instead.

  • @Yochanan:

    Your OP and title specifically mention "the psychology of atheism".

    My point was there is very little, if any research that even talks about that subject. What little psychology research there is discusses the implications of atheism for psychology.

    as this is a spiritual issue not so much a mental issue

    ... and the difference is?

  • I will have to get back to you guys at a later date God willing, my wife is calling me lol

    God bless

    P.S. I think maybe my wasted days on FB may be over, she is not happy with my recent neglect of hours spent on here lol...

  • I found the article quite hilarious. Especially these so-called "Five Witnesses" which seem to be the support for the claims made.

    Witness 1: a shared experience not actually shared by all humans. What about the entire human race previous to around 2500 years ago, when monotheism didn't even exist and no one believed in the One God of developed Judaism or Christianity?

    And isn't this simply saying, "Its true because a bunch of people were indoctrinated into the same belief"?

    Witness 2: really? The opinions of Apostle Paul? Why is this some sort of acceptable standard. In fact, its circular. "This guy has this belief. So I think we should accept his belief because I believe it and he says its true."

    It presupposes Paul as any sort of reasonable authority to begin with, which requires an acceptance of the belief to begin with. Therefore, its completely biased.

    Witness 3: Oh, look! Citing more personal opinions.

    Witness 4: Ooooo...YouTube videos.

    Witness 5: Blogs.

    In short, a series of self-serving, unsupported opinions.

    Supposedly, belief in God is:

    (A) As a properly basic belief

    (B) As a needed existential functionality

    Except that no one believed in this "God" at some point in history, so its not so very basic. Its an evolved theology passed on via indoctrination. Its also clearly not "needed" since things got done and the universe existed before folks came along and eventually adopted this particular belief.

    Finally, this gem: "so it is irrational to claim you are an atheist (all you are doing is suppressing a belief in God which you actually have)." is hilarious. It arrogantly presumes that everyone magically believes in a theological construct even though there is absolutely no evidence to support the assertion.

    In fact, I submit its irrational to believe in God and entirely rational to say one does not accept the proposed belief (one belief in a world of many) due to an overwhelming lack of evidence to support it. The former is an act of unsupported faith. The latter an act of reason.

  • @Kevin...

    OK as usual I have a have a person mocking in their ignorance. You have said a lot and I can not address it all, I also am very limited on time which I am willing to spend on FB (with people who I honestly think would not change position if if they knew they were wrong).

    So with that said I will address each witness one by one (which you straw manned).

    Lets start with witness (1) which you have had clue about the actual position I was actually arguing...

    OK belief in God which these scientists are noticing is either a:

    (A) Inferred belief (this means we make a conclusion to a position from other more fundamental beliefs which we hold as axiomatic like our belief in a world of external objects).

    (B) Properly basic belief (A properly basic belief is one which is rooted in experience, it is a fundamental belief which is not inferred from any other more fundamental beliefs. Examples of properly basic beliefs are things like my belief I am self aware, my belief there is a world of external objects, my belief I have intentions, my belief there is a moral reality etc.. etc...).

    (C) An innate belief (this is just a belief we are wired to have which is neither (A) nor (B), it is like the love a mother has for her child, it just is her wiring to do so).

    Now the science leads it to be (B). Both (A) and (C) would still make witness (1) powerful yet it is (B) whichthe sciecen supports.

    Now my question to you is this: Do all humans have the same properly basic beliefs (B), and if not is very rare that they should not?

    If you answer yes then witness (1) is very powerful, because if I experience Theism as (B) (which the science confirms of me and you to have anyway) then it is very reasonable on the basis that humans tend always to have the same properly basic beliefs\experiences that you have to (this is witness (1) in action).

    So when you say you do not believe in Theism to me, I am justified in not believing you (via witness (1) ) in the same if you said you did not believe you are self aware; I would think you know you are self aware but you are just suppressing that belief (it is not that you lack that belief).

    God bless

  • Yochanon,

    Argument by bluster is extremely underwhelming. If all you have are blind assertions and personal attacks, you have zip.

    You wrote: "Now the science leads it to be (B)."

    Nope. Your version of "properly basic" beliefs is a hodgepodge of confusion. First, the belief in a monotheistic God is developed theology based on earlier (non-monotheistic) beliefs. Its only based on experience in that one assigns experience to the pre-existing belief. Its belief ----> Experience I use to support my belief.

    You have it ass backwards.

    If you think external objects are merely a belief, you have deeper issues than can be effectively addressed here.

    Your belief in a "moral reality" is a belief. However, its not fundamental. Its inherent in an acquired worldview.

    And.....what science?? Can you support that statement with something other than opinions?

    You then asked: "Now my question to you is this: Do all humans have the same properly basic beliefs (B), and if not is very rare that they should not?"

    No. Of course they don't. And its not rare at all.

    The planet is filled with people who have a wide range of basic beliefs. Different gods. No gods at all (a growing population, by the way). Different cultures. Different moral values. And, within each group, we find myriad subgroups with divergent moral values and ideologies.

    My question to you: As more and more people turn to atheism, your concept of a "shared experience" leads away from gods. Then how valuable will you find Witness 1 to be??

    You continued with: "I experience Theism as (B) (which the science confirms of me and you to have anyway)"

    Really? What science, exactly? Can you cite the relevant studies? Where was this published? And by published, I mean in an academic journal...not some rehashed or badly interpreted hogwash or whitewash someone wrote in their blog.

    You "experience" theism because you filter experiences through your prior, acquired beliefs. However, its grossly arrogant to assume that, just because that's your paradigm, that everyone else simply must have it, as well.

    Finally, you wrote this confusing gem: "I would think you know you are self aware but you are just suppressing that belief (it is not that you lack that belief)."

    Self-awareness is an innate quality of our conscious existence. Its not a belief. Theism is an acquired set of doctrines dependent on culture, geography and era. Its an unsupported belief. There is no true comparison for the two.

    P.S. I got a laugh out of this comment: "So with that said I will address each witness one by one (which you straw manned)."

    Please...feel free to show me where you think I employed a logical fallacy in my statements. Be specific, please. I'd love to see that. (HINT: sarcastic humor is not a logical fallacy)

    But without your usual, rude comments about how everyone is so ignorant. Because...let's be real here......you're not exactly a shining beacon of logical thought and supported assertions.