From elsewhere:
Do theists have an exaggerated sense of self-worth?
If yes, why?
If no, why?
Do theists have an exaggerated sense of self-worth?
If yes, why?
If no, why?
Do theists have an exaggerated sense of self-worth?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Kellisness
Registered Senior Member
Do atheists have an exaggerated sense of self righteousness? For many, yes. They're oblivious to how similar they are to religious fundamentalists. Then again, religious fundamentalists are oblivious to their own self rightousness too. To me they're both one and the same.
SciWriter aimed his post at theists/theism as such. It is a common argument against theism to say that theism is born out of people's inflated self-worth, and that in reality, we are nothing but "bio-electro-chemical organisms", that there are no souls and that there is no transcendental existence - when the body dies, we die, and this is all there is to our existence. That to think that "God created the world for us" and that "God loves us" and is "interested in having a relationship with us" are simply our delusions of grandeur, a denial of "the bitter truth that there is nothing more to us than the dust of our bodies".
Uh. You know what it is like to get any kind of decent epistemological input from atheists.
Anyway, this is not about SW. His statement is merely an example of a fairly common argument against theism.
You didn't want to read the posts, remember? So, there is no need to repeat in full.
For example, Newton demolished the notion that God's hand guides the planets safely around the sun. It went on from there, even before, really, from Galileo, and onto evolution, general science, and more, toward the vanishing of 'God'. Science didn't set out to reclaim God's realm as its own; science was just going about its business of finding things out.
Introspection is only a "second story" by itself. One needs to be informed of the neurological first floor beneath, the science of it, and of general science.
There is also the disproof of God, which you couldn't read or refute, plus the analysis of why anything exists at all, which you also couldn't deal with.
It is also that belief is not informed or assisted by anything, which is why it is called 'faith', which is only a word, one that is often glombed onto, as are other words, without realizing the implications of the word, leading to such ridiculous statement such as "I believe and I know, by faith".
Yet, you will probably not get into this, either, for there is a natural 'neglect' and blindness in going against one's strong emotions, they often nearly having a direct and separate pathway into consciousness. This is how emotion can get in the way.
SciWriter,
I doubt anyone has time to read those long-arse posts.
Science deals with physical reality, a mechanic deals with engines.
Science can only demolish what it is concerned with.
People set out to claim God's realm, using pop science as a tool.
You are a prime example of that.
And how do we relate to that (not that i agree with you) if not by
introspection?
Are you suggesting that the human being has a natural propensity, ability to instantaneosly understand this?
Disproving God in your own head, doesn't count.
Bring it out into the open, and let's see it.
Stop hiding behind these long-arse poems, and say what you're saying.
Be direct.
That may be true of your belief.
But you don't know my belief, other than ''theist''.
And if you were honest, you'd accept that theism, is not necessarily
contingent upon faith in the religious sense of the word.
This is what I mean about ''anti-Godists; you just don't get it.
I bet you don't even know why you are against God.
Say something of worth, relevance, and I'll get into it.
So far all you have done is give your own opinion, how can we sustain
a debate, or discussion on that?
jan.
I doubt anyone has time to read those long-arse posts.
Science deals with physical reality, a mechanic deals with engines.
Science can only demolish what it is concerned with.
People set out to claim God's realm, using pop science as a tool.
You are a prime example of that.
And how do we relate to that (not that i agree with you) if not by
introspection?
Are you suggesting that the human being has a natural propensity, ability to instantaneosly understand this?
Disproving God in your own head, doesn't count.
Bring it out into the open, and let's see it.
Stop hiding behind these long-arse poems, and say what you're saying.
Be direct.
That may be true of your belief.
But you don't know my belief, other than ''theist''.
And if you were honest, you'd accept that theism, is not necessarily
contingent upon faith in the religious sense of the word.
This is what I mean about ''anti-Godists; you just don't get it.
I bet you don't even know why you are against God.
Say something of worth, relevance, and I'll get into it.
So far all you have done is give your own opinion, how can we sustain
a debate, or discussion on that?
jan.
Jan, the disproofs were both in short and longer versions, repeated all over the place, and now yet again in Enmos’ new thread.
“Jan cannot answer”, as I posted many times, so you’d not be able to claim ignorance.
Science is not pop science. Fail.
You will have to study neurology on your own to learn the first floor.
I am not against God, but for science. Religious threads tend to bring out a lot of science.
Told you that you wouldn’t get into the last point of my post.
Look at Kellishness. Kind of another version of you in the inability to counter.
A Being cannot be fundamental, plus eternity can’t have a Creator.
Short enough? The ‘why’ was in the posts with more words, that you, um, were going to get back to, but I think you’d rather just stop at one word, like ‘God’ or ‘faith’.
What kind of researcher can’t read words? A neglectful one.
“Jan cannot answer”, as I posted many times, so you’d not be able to claim ignorance.
Science is not pop science. Fail.
You will have to study neurology on your own to learn the first floor.
I am not against God, but for science. Religious threads tend to bring out a lot of science.
Told you that you wouldn’t get into the last point of my post.
Look at Kellishness. Kind of another version of you in the inability to counter.
A Being cannot be fundamental, plus eternity can’t have a Creator.
Short enough? The ‘why’ was in the posts with more words, that you, um, were going to get back to, but I think you’d rather just stop at one word, like ‘God’ or ‘faith’.
What kind of researcher can’t read words? A neglectful one.
And such did we all observe that the creature out thinks the Creator, even with inferior tools, to imagine a much more peaceful and enjoyful world, and that it is emotion that creates delusions of Heavenly scenarios of creation, and an existence beyond death.
These are lessons in humility to all recent mammals grown so high and haughty…
So… enjoy it all as though you will never know it again; for who is to say that you shall?
Only one spiritual was left at the base of the rock, but she had Graybeard surrounded… with her words on non evolution as now only symbolized by the Bible into something else instead of being literal.
“That’s it,” said Graybeard, “I’m gone”, and so he fired up his jet pack and launched himself into the sky toward the white patches of vapor and fluff. Some of the aboriginals now thought him a God—and so he became the legend—that God was an old white-haired [Gray bearded] guy sitting on a cloud.
And here is the 2nd disproof, yet again, in longer form, which we don't even need:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2707237&postcount=95
So, the count is 2:0, Jan, as you have no proof of your own, but, alas, you can't read, spending much more time saying so than that it would take to read. You are on the verge of being ignored, and should have been, but at least an audience promotes some more discussion than talking to a brick wall, but that is similar.
And don't forget that Beings cannot be fundamental. I know, you don't have time to say how they can be, blah, blah, blah.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Signal said:
Some do and some don't. I'm not convinced that psychological difficulties, weaknesses and defects are more prevalent among theists than among atheists.
Many people probably do prefer certain kinds of philosophical and religious views because those views make them feel more comfortable. The idea of life-after-death is an obvious example. I'm not sure if I'd call that "an exaggerated sense of self worth" though.
Just by its nature, a great deal of religion seems to be fundamentally anthropocentric. It places human beings at the center of attention and imagines that they are somehow the focus of all of creation, of the whole universe, and of its imagined supernatural principles and/or creators.
But it isn't just theism that does that. We often see philosophers, even non-theist ones, proposing philosophical views that once again imagine human beings and their experiences to be the focus of reality. The various forms of subjectivist philosophical idealism are textbook examples of that.
Last edited:
But an outlook such as SciWriter's is also focused on comfort - there is some comfort to be found in thinking we're nothing but dust.
Many people who have been through personal trauma resort to such thinking as it seems to minimize the pain and suffering they are feeling (e.g. "I wasn't raped. I am not hurting. There is nothing to it. There are just some bio-mechanical happenings. There is nothing to it.")
Another perk of such thinking is that it absolves people from taking responsibility for their lives, for their actions, thoughts and feelings.
Why shouldn't human beings and their experiences be the focus of their reality?
Why should humans focus on things that they distinctly perceive as not having much to do with their selves?