What will it take for theists to stop believing?
- Thread starter Dr Lou Natic
- Start date
Re: You surrender too easily Tiassa...
Originally posted by Prisme
I politetly oppose Skinwalkers replies accross the board.
I never made that assumption. .....
Theists are not quitters for they are still attempting to have a spiritual life........
I wasn't attempting to imply these were your assumptions. I merely stated that one could easily argue the "quitter" analogy either way. It is but a matter of perspective. From a theist's point of view, an atheist "revoked his personal search for spiritual life."
However, from the point of view of an atheist, he/she is merely without a god. Certainly there are some that create a belief system that surrounds this notion, as I see humans as creatures that have a cognitive awareness that makes the establishment of belief systems necessary.
But to say that an atheist cannot be spiritual... well, unless you become an atheist, you may never know. But the question is: does spiritualism necessitate a god?
I suppose I can go along with this. I personally do not discount the possibility of a deity or deities, but I go through life with a reasonable confidence that there is no underlying "meaning" to it. We are accidental. The human race and life on Earth is an unplanned child. The meaning(s) that exists are constructs of man. The remainder of Earth's life has not the cognitive awareness that we do (so far as we know), and therefore don't trouble themselves with meanings.
There are many atheists that I know who see this life as ALL WE GET. There is no afterlife, heaven, valhala, etc., so it is vital that we make the most and the best of what we have. Consequently, these people are very stable and focused in their lives. They are considerate beyond that of the theists I know. This, by no means is conclusive data, but it is certainly telling to me.
Well... there's that. But there's also the idea that this is all we get. This life, this planet, this existance. If I get hit by a car tomorrow or live longer than Bob Hope, I'll make the most of it every day. Beyond that, there's the idea that there is no "meaning to life." No plan. No destiny.
Which is all very characteristic of human behavior. We are not only self-aware, but we are aware that we are self-aware. This is significant and creates these paradoxes about "meaning of life," beginnings of the universe, end of the universe, who planned it, who made it, who made the entity that made the universe.... etc.
You make a subtle mistake when saying: "Theists are quitters, since they've quit looking for the truth (they think they've found it, remember) and put all their faith in superstition.... Atheists are seekers "
But what is sought isn't a god. It is knowledge. It is understanding... gods frequently get in the way of this throughout history (flat world, geocentrism, evolution, genetics, cloning, etc.).
Not god. Knowledge/understanding. And faith is the "assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity." Atheists tend to rely more on evidence, sources, hypotheses, and theories. These are all bounded concepts that can be tested or updated as new information and data is obtained or discovered. Theists detest this kind of reasoning when it encroaches upon faith.
Just a sec.... we are discussing "theism" vs. "atheism," correct? By introducing "God" in capital "G," you eliminate other world religions from the discussion. This is fine by me, but I think even you will agree that if the big G is the "correct" religion then it would follow that many if not all of the others involve superstition. The idea that we are reincarnated, that our ancestors revisit us each year, that witches fly around on bannana leaves and steal souls, or that a shaman can become a shapeshifter by eating the flesh of a relative each come to mind as superstition. Unless you belong to their religions or subscribe to their belief systems.
Partially correct (but, perhaps, only in my 'belief system'). I see your point about theists and agnostics. I see your perspective on atheists being quitters, but from my perspective, this is false. I don't believe that I'm in contradiction with my position, and I certainly do not claim knowledge superiority. I merely state that I see no reason to bother with a god or gods when it is clear (to me) that there is no evidence that is compelling enough to do so. I've examined many of the world's religions (and continue to do so with enthusiasm) and see some commonalities as well as differences. The frequency and nature of these are enough to convince me that 'belief' is a cognitive process that is related to our awareness of being self-aware.
Originally posted by Prisme
This is as scientifically proven as Freudian babbling concerning the innate desire of boy children to sleep with their mother... cognitivetly.
I challenge you to cite references to this 'scientifically proven' 'Freudian' babble.
I'm not suggesting that Religion is a reaction to infantile helplessness as Freud did. I'm merely suggesting that the human cognitive processes are conducive to creating belief systems. Humans go about their day-to-day existances in living out catagorizations of experiences. Our language is both an example and a method of this. Goodenough (Sept 1990) suggested that linguistic ability is one of the keys to this. Boyer (2001) pointed out that while there are many theories about why there is religion: it provides explanations; it offers comfort; it gives hope; it sets rules/boundaries for societies; etc., there is also the method by which humans learn that is conducive to creating belief systems such as religion.
He offers a whole chapter to this process, so I'll leave it to you and others to check into it if interested. Suffice it to say, it has to do with intuition and counter-intuitive ideas that don't break expected "templates" in ways that are complex or too contrary. Belief in ghosts is a good example, since it is a cross-religious belief. It full-fills the "person" template, but goes counter in that it adds non-corporeal properties. I'm honestly not doing his theory a service here by trying to explain it....
I think we are largely in agreeance here... although I would say that once the knowledge of, say physics, is thoroughly studied, many things about it become intuitive. Feynman was very famous for his unique outlook on life that was grounded in his physics background. An example would be his "safecracking" exploits while at Los Alamos (Feynman, 1997).
I'm assuming this is your subtle way of telling me that you read Boyer's work. If so, I'm interested in what you thought of his thesis from a theist point of view, considering that he was explaining his theory on all religion. Even if you only subscribe to one religion, there is still hundreds of others, some very colorful, that must have some explanation for their genesis. But then you pretty much state what you think later in your post....
Actually, all practical physics of modern times shows the world to be spherical. Nothing abstract about it.
But the interesting thing is, that once one is educated on each of these disciplines, they tend to become very intuitive. So I have to agree, man does have the ability to think outside of his practical thought patterns. Still, even scientists will cling to ideas and beliefs and are often very reluctant to give up on a theory until they can prove conclusively that it is wrong.
But one of the themes that I took from Boyer's book was that "counter-intuition" was what lured people to believe, so it stands to reason that it can lure the disciplined mind to analyze, question and scrutinize.
Again... we are not in disagreement here. I do, however, see mainstream religion as being very ingrained in our societies. As I was growing up, I remember hearing of "atheists" and also remember thinking they were very strange and obviously wrong in not believing in god. I, like most kids, was raised by parents who took the easy road in explaining things when I asked "why?" "Because god made it that way."
Because religion is so much a part of our culture(s), it is very easy to accept without thought by merely growing up. It was always true, therefore it must still be true. Serious human thought will always surround this topic, both pro and con.
I failed to see how this could be considered 'begging the question,' otherwise known as petitio principii. Regardless, Boyer made it clear on the outset that in order to explain the ultimate question and title of the last chapter, "Why Belief," he needed to discuss the processes by which we learn, why gods and spirits are important, etc.
I do, however, have at least one disagreement with Boyer and I'm still mulling over some of his other assertions. I, unlike Boyer, think that death is one of the essential issues as to why people choose religion. We, being aware, have difficulty accepting that our time is temporary.
I was disturbed not to see reference to other cult beliefs, such as ufos, astrology, etc. Though it is easy to see how these are similar and many even include rituals such as tarot card readings, meditations, etc. Still, I don't see how 'faith' and 'believing' are, or should be, separate.
But these 'beliefs' are grounded in testable hypotheses.
I can agree with that. For those who function out of 'faith' that their lives serve a higher purpose, I have respect. I don't agree, but I respect them. Perhaps with the exception of forums of discussion such as this one, though I still hope to come off as 'respecting.'
But it seems that faith is a form of belief, practical or otherwise.
Feynman, Richard, (1997). "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!": Adventures of a Curious Character. W.W. Norton & Company.
Goodenough, Ward H., (Sept. 1990). Evolution of the Human Capacity for Beliefs. American Anthropologist New Series Vol 92, Issue 3 597-612.
Absolutely nothing
Once a person has an experience with God, there is nothing that can unconvince him.
Similar to a person, who is run over by a car, who is later visited by the FBI, and told that there are no cars within ten thousand miles of here.
God must seek the person, before the person will ever seek God with sincerity. The nature of humanity is inate rebellion. It is a virus in the human operating system installed by a trojan horse, called the temptation of the apple, that infected all descendant operating systems, and only the original programmer (Jesus), can remove the virus, and restore the O.S. back to normal.
Once a person has an experience with God, there is nothing that can unconvince him.
Similar to a person, who is run over by a car, who is later visited by the FBI, and told that there are no cars within ten thousand miles of here.
God must seek the person, before the person will ever seek God with sincerity. The nature of humanity is inate rebellion. It is a virus in the human operating system installed by a trojan horse, called the temptation of the apple, that infected all descendant operating systems, and only the original programmer (Jesus), can remove the virus, and restore the O.S. back to normal.
Re: Absolutely nothing
Oh,really?From my own experience,I know it's posssible to cure people from "God" experiences.Let's just I had experience in that.
If I was able to strand myself(and I was faar more than just a believer),than anyone else,but ,of course,if YOU want to.People don't want to strand themselves from faith...
Oh,really?From my own experience,I know it's posssible to cure people from "God" experiences.Let's just I had experience in that.
If I was able to strand myself(and I was faar more than just a believer),than anyone else,but ,of course,if YOU want to.People don't want to strand themselves from faith...
Christian Sodomy
Registered Senior Member
Religion is a sentimental response, not a logical one. Thus the answer to your question is "death."
[link deleted]
Last edited by a moderator:
Divine intervention.
kerux
Registered Senior Member
theists to stop believing in what? theism?
theism? Perhaps you are trying to call the attention of mono- and polytheists.
I believe there is one God who created the worlds. But I do believe there exist gods. And I hope you have seen them.
theism? Perhaps you are trying to call the attention of mono- and polytheists.
I believe there is one God who created the worlds. But I do believe there exist gods.
And I hope you have seen them.absolute, definable proof that my system of beliefs is harmful to my mental or physical health.
thats all it would take.
thats all it would take.
*************
M*W: False.
Similar to a person, who is run over by a car, who is later visited by the FBI, and told that there are no cars within ten thousand miles of here. God must seek the person, before the person will ever seek God with sincerity.
[/QUOTE]
*************
M*W: Again, false.
*************
M*W: And, again, false.
The very nature of mankind is atheism. But for some creative reason, ancient man needed guidance. He got that guidance from the stars. He created a guider later he called 'god,' because 'god' was 'good.' Later he created 'religion.' It worked for a time, but then it failed. Then later man argued over 'god,' but they realized no 'god' could exist. They were then called 'atheists.' And, they prevailed in the end. People wizened up. They realized they didn't need a 'god' after all. The End.
nothing quite so dramatic required - the path of falling away from spiritual life is quite clear and easy - associating to intimately with gross materialists and developing an offensive attitude to saintly persons and scripture in general
So, theists are NOT gross materialists? And theists do NOT develop offensive attitudes towards other theists saintly persons and scriptures?
Yeah, right.
http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/mental.htm
http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic16385.html
http://archives.betterhumans.com/Columns/Column/tabid/79/Column/313/Default.aspx
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6931/740
The more one believes in fairy tale, the further your mind deteriorates!
The very nature of mankind is atheism. But for some creative reason, ancient man needed guidance. He got that guidance from the stars. He created a guider later he called 'god,' because 'god' was 'good.' Later he created 'religion.' It worked for a time, but then it failed. Then later man argued over 'god,' but they realized no 'god' could exist. They were then called 'atheists.' And, they prevailed in the end. People wizened up. They realized they didn't need a 'god' after all. The End.
Kendall-I would think we needed a god because we did not know enough about our world, that the only thing worse then a bad king is no king.
Kendall-I would think we needed a god because we did not know enough about our world, that the only thing worse then a bad king is no king.
So, theists are NOT gross materialists? And theists do NOT develop offensive attitudes towards other theists saintly persons and scriptures?
Yeah, right.
which explains why its not uncommon to meet theists practicing on an uncommon level of performance
CC Antya 3.213: A characteristic of a pure devotee is that he excuses any offense by an ignorant rascal. A characteristic of Kṛṣṇa, however, is that He cannot tolerate blasphemy of His devotees.
ok so you have an opinion - all you need now are premises for your opinion and then we have the necessary ingredients for a discussion