Is Being Theistic a Strength or Weakness?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Personally I regard theistic tendencies as a weakness. That's just me, not meant to offend, just an opinion. In my mind it takes strength to counter conventional thinking, public opinion, and faith based on illogic and non-reasoning.

Can I equate being a theist with being gullible, easily manipulated, requiring guidance, blindly following, not requiring proof and living life in fear of what you have faith in? Is a theist less capable of handling a personal crisis than an atheist?

 

[spiritual_spy]

Theists use god as a cruch when times get tough becuase they dont have enough emotional strength to handle it on there own. My opinion.

 

[charles cure]

sometimes its neither, sometimes its both probably. i don't think you can lump all theists in as "weak" because they are religious, some of them just grew up that way and it was never important for them to question or challenge it and so they don't. i wouldn't say that that is a weakness, just a circumstance of birth really.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

sometimes its neither, sometimes its both probably. i don't think you can lump all theists in as "weak" because they are religious, some of them just grew up that way and it was never important for them to question or challenge it and so they don't. i wouldn't say that that is a weakness, just a circumstance of birth really.

We are all born the same. In life some become stronger and some never get past a certain point. The transition from child to understanding adult is the critical time. Doesn't matter how you become a theist, once you start believing it is the moment you begin to stagnate and the mind is fixated on a controlling influence. If it stops your progress by closing your mind then its a weakness.

 

[superluminal]

We are all born the same.

Pardon me, but that's, well, a load of donkey dung.

We are all born with a set of predispositions in temperment that dispose us to a number of behaviors that largely determine our general path through life (which has been shown in numerous studies of infants and toddlers). Environment can redirect these behaviors - sometimes drastically - but generally you are born aggressive, passive, liberal, conservative, intellectual, emotional, hot-tempered, cool and rational, etc.

I agree that theism would seem to be a crutch for the weak minded, which I believe most common theists to be. But there are undeniably intelligent theists who practice extreme compartmentalizing of their thought processes called "dichotomous thinking". They will use logic and very good critical thinking in their everyday affairs, but when it comes to religion, they switch modes to one in which emotion takes over and critical thinking goes out the proverbial window.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

What I meant was .... we are all born with a clean slate... a blank tape.... an empty hard drive. Yes, personality traits differ, no question. I would consider dichotomous thinking to be a definite weakness in the context of your example.

I would hate to think some, or most, are born with a religious gene. No matter how you embrace religion, once you accept it, once you become conditioned, you have weakened yourself. I wonder how many religious people can actually separate fact and fiction but out of fear or peer pressure (going with the majority) allow themselves to become addicted to their beliefs? Personally denouncing religious belief may be harder than quitting any physical addiction such as drugs. How many have tried and failed would be an intersting statistic.

 

[superluminal]

I pretty much agree with you Psych. A religious belief is probably way more complex than a single gene coding for it though. I have a strong idea that the traits that make us human, also predispose most of us to a mystical way of thinking, unfortunately. Think about it. For most of our evolutionary history, the humans and proto-humans who could make reasonably accurate judgements about the way the world works (without the benefit of scientific reflection of course) were more likely to fare better. This is where intuition, stereotyping, and mystical explaining originated. It worked very well for dealing with potential tigers lurknig in th forest, foreign tribes with unknown intentions, and the vagaries of natural phenomena.

Today (and for a ling time) we have scientific ways of dealing with these questions and situations, but it is apparently very, very hard for most people to willfully abandon their built-in and formerly highly successful ways of dealing with the world. Understandable, not excusable. Male humans still have a built-in penchant for wanting to grab the nearest female and mate with her. Perfectly understandable in an evolutionary context, but rape is still not excusable. It's just that theism in all it's forms seems far less heinous than rape, so we tolerate it. But in reality, theistic thought has caused incredible suffering in the form of mass murder, quashing of free expression, building walls of self-righteous seperation between groups (that people are willing to kill and die for), and the retardation of scientific advance for two thousand years.

 

[Provita]

I pretty much agree with you Psych. A religious belief is probably way more complex than a single gene coding for it though. I have a strong idea that the traits that make us human, also predispose most of us to a mystical way of thinking, unfortunately. Think about it. For most of our evolutionary history, the humans and proto-humans who could make reasonably accurate judgements about the way the world works (without the benefit of scientific reflection of course) were more likely to fare better. This is where intuition, stereotyping, and mystical explaining originated. It worked very well for dealing with potential tigers lurknig in th forest, foreign tribes with unknown intentions, and the vagaries of natural phenomena.

Today (and for a ling time) we have scientific ways of dealing with these questions and situations, but it is apparently very, very hard for most people to willfully abandon their built-in and formerly highly successful ways of dealing with the world. Understandable, not excusable. Male humans still have a built-in penchant for wanting to grab the nearest female and mate with her. Perfectly understandable in an evolutionary context, but rape is still not excusable. It's just that theism in all it's forms seems far less heinous than rape, so we tolerate it. But in reality, theistic thought has caused incredible suffering in the form of mass murder, quashing of free expression, building walls of self-righteous seperation between groups (that people are willing to kill and die for), and the retardation of scientific advance for two thousand years.

Theism in all it's forms has not done shit against scientific advance, it is certain denominations and idiots that have done so. Simpley believing in a higher being is completely separate with Science, it is when you go into organized religions and denominations where you get problems.

 

[superluminal]

Theism in all it's forms has not done shit against scientific advance, it is certain denominations and idiots that have done so. Simpley believing in a higher being is completely separate with Science, it is when you go into organized religions and denominations where you get problems.

Ok. Let's say you believe in a "higher being" and it is a core belief of your life. Will you investigate the origins of the universe objectively? Will you accept scientific evidence that denies the existence of this "higher being"? Will you accept that theistic thinking has an extremely high correlation with anti-science attitudes in the general population? Thus retarding the progress of science by negatively influencing education and public policy?

 

[scorpius]

... Is a theist less capable of handling a personal crisis than an atheist?

heres a one example of aheist vs theists behavior in a foxhole no less
www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=106

 

[Ophiolite]

Psychotic Epidsode, your opening and subsequent posts all imply that theist and unthinking follower of a mainstream religion are equivalent conditions. They are not. It is this important distinction, which you seem to have missed, that renders your question and your own position on it somewhat irrelevant.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Psychotic Epidsode, your opening and subsequent posts all imply that theist and unthinking follower of a mainstream religion are equivalent conditions. They are not. It is this important distinction, which you seem to have missed, that renders your question and your own position on it somewhat irrelevant.

Implying dialogue can also be used to invoke response. Thanks for your's. I merely asked the questions in the original post. I believe it is only proper protocol for the author of a thread to give their opinion because without it you could not stimulate the reader. I cannot write it without taking a viewpoint, its not like I'm trying to change the world.

There does appear to be an association between Theistic thinking and religion. A great number of world religions in fact seem to have a deity to worship.I understand that there are those who believe in a god but do not openly practice religion.

If you want participation in an open forum then I think it best to rattle the majority if possible. That's all this is....an attempt to bring about a debate, nothing more. Its getting to the point where every post has to be politically correct with disclaimers.

I welcome your comments. You have a reputation for being the internet sage. I like your style. Your like a sniper that prefers to inflict a wound over going for the kill.

 

[Athelwulf]

Some people believe because they don't like the nihilistic view of the world. They don't like the idea that we're just here, that there's no supernatural thing taking care of us, that we just rot after we die. Those some people have the instinctual urge to feel important, and an infantile need to be watched over, cared for, and loved by someone or something greater than they. They believe simply because it's more appealing than the alternative, and convince themselves that anything is true if they just believe it or wish hard enough. These people are weak.

Some people believe because they grew up believing. They were told by their family, as a naïve child, that some supernatural thing exists, and took it as a truism. Their beliefs were an important part of their lives while growing up. When they are eventually faced with the idea that this fundamental truism is not true, they refuse to give it any consideration on the basis that it contradicts what they were told, contradicts the way they were raised, contradicts their very identity. They latch on to their beliefs because they are comfortable, like a gentle rocking which reminds them of when their mother's pelvis gently rocked them whenever she walked. These people are weak.

As for other people, I'm undecided about their strength – that, or I'm just too tired right now to think of them.

 

[wootboot]

i regard the mental capacity of those of higher than average intellect to be somewhat diminished if they are theistic - if they were trully intelligent, they would analyze the facts and realize the absurdity that is christianity, judaism, islam, and other major religions

 

[pavlosmarcos]

if I was a high powered businessman, such as donald trump or alan sugar, one of the assessments I'd make is whether they were religious or not before they became my apprentice, they could be absolutely equal in ever other aspect, and guess who I'd choose.
yes the non-believer.
I would'nt want anybody making decisions with an irrational head.

however if I wanted a army general. Not because they were tactically or mental better, just because they would have no quarms, sending people to there deaths, for god and country.

 

[Gordon]

Sadly the reply from atheists about whether theists are weak is a bit like asking someone from a remote primitive tribe who have never seen a plane to describe one.

I was not brought up in a 'religious family'. I chose to become a Christian for myself as an adult and whatever it's like in the US, believe me in the UK that has for some time and remains today swimming against the tide' rather than 'going with the flow' of the majority.

Do you honestly believe that it's easier doing what you believe is right and pursuing the path that God wants rather than simply pursuing whatever you may wish with almost no constraint whatever?

Yes I believe that God helps when I need help (even if I do not know it) but that does not mean that I do not have to do things myself. John Ortberg (a Christian pastor) has written a very good book called. 'If You Want to Walk on Water, You Have to Get Out of the Boat'. This is the important issue. God does help people realise their potential but they have to put in the effort themselves and take the risk. He is not just 'a crutch' to prop you up so you can just not bother. This is completely wrong.

Being a Christian is not having an intellectual or phiolsophical view of life in a vacuum. It is an ongoing experience of a full life. It is challenging and fun. The more I have trusted in God, the more 'coincidences' there have been. As someone who is qualified in statistics, I would ahve to say that the number of these 'coincidences is beyond normal 'chance'.

If any of you think it's all going to be very easy, why not give it a try and relate your story to us later?!

Kind regards to all,


Gordon.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

So, the question still begs....is being theistic a strength or weakness? I'm going to guess that you think it isn't a weakness but I'm not sure if you believe it's a strength.

An atheist is not dependent upon a god to help pull him/her thru hard times. You're talking like atheists are incapable of getting themselves out of life's stressful moments. Giving credit to a god instead of yourself sounds like a weakness to me. You may make an extreme effort to get yourself out of a jam, a strength, and then give god credit, weakness. I can understand a believer feeling inferior.

 

[Little_Birdie]

it is not a weakness. i would like to think of god not as a crutch, but more like a friend who is there to support me, hear my problems, and help me out. sure i could stumble along on my own, if i wanted to, but why stare at the ground when i walk when i can look beyond the stars. it is not a necessity (because to a theist no matter what he aids you in some way) but is is a moral boster, when all looks bleek and all have abondoned you there is still god by your side, it is a comfort, when suggling one does not need a blanket but it makes it better,

 

[Gordon]

if I was a high powered businessman, such as donald trump or alan sugar, one of the assessments I'd make is whether they were religious or not before they became my apprentice, they could be absolutely equal in ever other aspect, and guess who I'd choose.
yes the non-believer.
I would'nt want anybody making decisions with an irrational head.

however if I wanted a army general. Not because they were tactically or mental better, just because they would have no quarms, sending people to there deaths, for god and country.

You clearly are not a high powered business man and perhaps what you have said indicates why!

If you choose someone for the job, you should choose the most suitable person. If you honestly believe that Christians cannot be good business leaders and are not rational or that they cannot make good soldiers then you are sincerely wrong.

Part of my job is wriiting algorithms for computer programs - so I am professionally logical (or rational) - and I am a Christian! I can assure you that there are many more logical and rational Christians out there just as there are many totally irrational atheists.

In regard to generals, I would refer you to one of Britain's greatest and most famous Victorian Generals, Charles Gordon. He had no problem sending people into battle and died defending Khartoum. He was also a dedicated Christian who spent much of his time and money helping the poor in England. There are of course countless more examples.

Proven facts simply do not fit your hypothesis and therefore you are logically (and rationally) quite wrong!


kind regards,


Gordon.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

if I was a high powered businessman, such as donald trump or alan sugar, one of the assessments I'd make is whether they were religious or not before they became my apprentice, they could be absolutely equal in ever other aspect, and guess who I'd choose.
yes the non-believer.
I would'nt want anybody making decisions with an irrational head.

however if I wanted a army general. Not because they were tactically or mental better, just because they would have no quarms, sending people to there deaths, for god and country.

You clearly are not a high powered business man and perhaps what you have said indicates why!

If you choose someone for the job, you should choose the most suitable person. If you honestly believe that Christians cannot be good business leaders and are not rational

if you take the time to re-read it you'll note I said, "they could be absolutely equal in ever other aspect" but that one single irrationality makes them unsuitable.

or that they cannot make good soldiers then you are sincerely wrong.

I never said thay could not make good soldiers.

Part of my job is wriiting algorithms for computer programs - so I am professionally logical (or rational) - and I am a Christian! I can assure you that there are many more logical and rational Christians out there

as I said "in ever other aspect", perfectly rational.

just as there are many totally irrational atheists.

everybody can be irrational, but they dont wear it like a badge, as the religious do.
and like for like atheist businessman, or religious businessman, I'd chose the former. and discard the latter.

In regard to generals, I would refer you to one of Britain's greatest and most famous Victorian Generals, Charles Gordon. He had no problem sending people into battle and died defending Khartoum. He was also a dedicated Christian who spent much of his time and money helping the poor in England. There are of course countless more examples.

exactly my point.
if you would like to re-read yet again what I said was "if I wanted a army general. Not because they were tactically or mental better, just because they would have no quarms, sending people to there deaths, for god and country."
an atheist would find it ethically harder to send people to there deaths.

Proven facts simply do not fit your hypothesis and therefore you are logically (and rationally) quite wrong!

how so, you've made my point for me. you just dont seem to be able to comprehend it.