No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:42 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Note even the once world's most notable headstrong atheist i.e. Anthony Flow turned to theism [deism] in the later part of his life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
I estimate Antony_Flew had his theistic 'psychological desperation' activated from 0% in his early days to 20% the finally up to 50%, thus he adopted deism.

Age [as with Anthony Flew] is a factor in increasing the theistic 'psychological desperation' as the inhibitors atrophized with age.

https://www.livescience.com/19971-belief-god-atheism-age.html
Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.


:lol: You're getting funnier and funnier, Prismatic. You must be getting desperate. I post a link, you apparently look up the author's name, saw the word "atheist" and said to yourself, "Aha! Gotcha you stupid SOB." Maybe you should have at least read a little bit. :lol:

In Chapter 11 on self-actualization I have removed one source of confusion by confining the concept very definitely to older people. By the criteria I used, self-actualization does not occur in young people. In our culture at least, youngsters have not yet achieved identity, or autonomy, nor have they had time enough to experience an enduring, loyal, postromantic love relationship, nor have they generally found their calling, the altar upon which to offer themselves. Nor have they worked out their own system of values; nor have they had experience enough (responsibility for others, tragedy, failure, achievement, success) to shed perfectionistic illusions and become realistic; nor have they generally made their peace with death; nor have they learned how to be patient; nor have they learned enough about evil in themselves and others to be compassionate; nor have they had time to become post-ambivalent about parents and elders, power and authority; nor have they generally become knowledgeable and educated enough to open the possibility of becoming wise; nor have they generally acquired enough courage to be unpopular, to be unashamed about being openly virtuous, etc. -- Abraham Maslow


I'd guess you're about fourteen on psychological years, Prismatic. I'd also suggest you discard the pseudo-psychology. I know you think it really makes you sound smart, but it doesn't. It makes you look arrogant, condescending and really, really ignorant when it comes to psychology.

BTW, if you're going to attack someone because he "turned" when he got old, you might as well attack Jean-Paul Sartra while you're at it. But again, it makes you desperate and unsure of yourself.
Snark
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby MagsJ » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:15 am

Snark wrote:I'd guess you're about fourteen on psychological years, Prismatic. I'd also suggest you discard the pseudo-psychology. I know you think it really makes you sound smart, but it doesn't. It makes you look arrogant, condescending and really, really ignorant when it comes to psychology.

So Psychology is about not being arrogant, condescending, or really really ignorant? I think you're on about yourself there, mate.. especially when all you can offer up in reply are ad Homs and baiting. Go you!

BTW, if you're going to attack someone because he "turned" when he got old, you might as well attack Jean-Paul Sartra while you're at it. But again, it makes you desperate and unsure of yourself.

Did you not come into this thread to debate, or just to attack the person's character?

Keep this up sunshine, and you'll be getting attacked with warnings.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17027
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Ierrellus » Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:00 pm

Sartre?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12368
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:22 pm

To make anything objective we need measurements.
For measurements to be effective we need a common denominator, e.g. 100% desperate to 1% desperate, 100% good to 1% good or 100% evilness to 1% evilness.
Measurement is not the point. Not that it's even possible to measure these things beyond some sort of ranking.
To use "good" - "bad" - "evil" for the purpose of objectivity and efficient in a philosophical issue is not efficient since we have to define what is "good" - "bad" "evil" and results in greater disagreements and needing to reconvert them for comparison.
I used "good" - "bad" - "evil" to show that "evil" is on one end of a larger scale of evaluation. Efficiency has nothing to do with my point.

We don't call petty crimes, illegal parking and spitting in the street "evil" because they don't warrant the "evil" label.

If somebody tried to change the definition of the word "hungry" to span the range "not hungry" to "very hungry" , it would not make any sense because "hungry" never means "not hungry". "Desperate" never means "not desperate". If someone shows no signs of being desperate then he/she is not desperate.
Note one of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques and one of its good feature is to make it as simple as much as possible. If you are good in this you will note the use of "good" - "bad" "evil" to discuss the problem of evil will be very clumsy.
You're not making it simple. You're making it confusing. I'm responding to your posts with a certain understanding of the word "desperate". If you tell me that a theist can be desperate without any signs of desperation, then as far as I'm concerned it's nonsense. And as I said, just believing in a god is not a sign of desperation.

Petty crimes are not evil in any sense. The word "evil" carries a stigma and people do not want to be called evil. If you are going to use the word for practically every mildly negative act, then you will get resistance along with confusion.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10225
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:43 pm

Why not?

As with almost everyone, I agree there is more to the conscious mind, more within the subsconcious mind. But how did Dispenza get to the conclusion this difference led skeptics to be irreligious. This is a ridiculous conclusion.
Snark's point is that evidence is not necessary :
Snark wrote :
“Why believe in that for which there is no evidence?” is a very common (and presumptuous) question skeptics ask theists. It presumes God is an object of empirical knowledge like any other thing in nature, but that is not the case nor has it ever been.


The Dispenza quote says that information and technology distracts some people from looking in the right direction. The insistence on evidence for the existence of God, prevents those people from finding God.

The Maslow quote is similar in that the "downlevelling" is an obsession with the materialistic at the expense of the "higher".

Both quotes are critical of a low level materialistic focus. Both support Snark's posted idea.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10225
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:53 pm

Ierrellus wrote:Sartre?

Yes. It was a deathbed confession: "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here: and this idea of a creating hand refers to God." His Atheist mistress, Simone de Beauvior, wrote a scathing article calling him as a "senile traitor" after his death in 1980 -- kinda like what Prismatic does with Flew and every other person who becomes more religious as they age.
Snark
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:11 am

Snark wrote: :lol: You're getting funnier and funnier, Prismatic. You must be getting desperate. I post a link, you apparently look up the author's name, saw the word "atheist" and said to yourself, "Aha! Gotcha you stupid SOB." Maybe you should have at least read a little bit. :lol:
I have researched on Abraham Maslow and read some of his books with emphasis on
Toward a Psychology of Being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Note a comment on the above book:
Peak experiences produce values that people are willing to die for or to pay for with great effort, pain, and suffering. These are B-values the highest values existing within human nature waiting to be discovered.
They do not come from a supernatural God but from human nature.
(1968, p. 170)


Note again, Maslow's fundamental view!
"They do not come from a supernatural God but from human nature."

I have stated many times I always maintain my intellectual integrity and would never shoot from the hip but always ensure I have some form of justifications.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:37 am

phyllo wrote:
To make anything objective we need measurements.
For measurements to be effective we need a common denominator, e.g. 100% desperate to 1% desperate, 100% good to 1% good or 100% evilness to 1% evilness.
Measurement is not the point. Not that it's even possible to measure these things beyond some sort of ranking.
Note my essence is 'progressive' and to progress the most efficient way is to rely on some basis of measurements [the best we can obtain].

Note this as a possibility;

Wiki wrote:Most Evil is an American forensics television program on Investigation Discovery presented by forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone of Columbia University during seasons 1 and 2 and by forensic psychologist Dr. Kris Mohandie during Season 3.[1] On the show, the presenter rates murderers on a scale of evil that Stone himself has developed. The show features profiles on various murderers, serial killers, mass murderers and psychopaths.


I am not saying the above scale is the final and authoritative scale, but its existence indicate the possibility and potential for refinement and improvement.
In future it is possible we can have a very objective scale of evil that has a strong correlation to neural activities in the brain.

To use "good" - "bad" - "evil" for the purpose of objectivity and efficient in a philosophical issue is not efficient since we have to define what is "good" - "bad" "evil" and results in greater disagreements and needing to reconvert them for comparison.
I used "good" - "bad" - "evil" to show that "evil" is on one end of a larger scale of evaluation. Efficiency has nothing to do with my point.
It is not your point because you are not focus on progress and concern for humanity in the future, whereas I am.

We don't call petty crimes, illegal parking and spitting in the street "evil" because they don't warrant the "evil" label.
Normally we don't but for progress sake we need to do that. I could reverse the scale from 100% good to 50% good and 1% good because all humans has the potential to be good. From this perspective we loose the significance and impact to deal with the full range of evil.

If somebody tried to change the definition of the word "hungry" to span the range "not hungry" to "very hungry" , it would not make any sense because "hungry" never means "not hungry". "Desperate" never means "not desperate". If someone shows no signs of being desperate then he/she is not desperate.
On the critical issue of obesity and where the rate of death related to obesity, then a continuum of hunger from 100% to 1% would be appropriate. ALL humans has the hunger drive which is supported by its relevant neural circuit within the body and the brain. In order to manage obesity it is necessary to understand the full range of hunger right at the starting point from 1% so that we can better manage the hunger drive and obesity plus other associated health problems.


Note one of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques and one of its good feature is to make it as simple as much as possible. If you are good in this you will note the use of "good" - "bad" "evil" to discuss the problem of evil will be very clumsy.
You're not making it simple. You're making it confusing. I'm responding to your posts with a certain understanding of the word "desperate". If you tell me that a theist can be desperate without any signs of desperation, then as far as I'm concerned it's nonsense. And as I said, just believing in a god is not a sign of desperation.
Problem is you can only see a glass as half-empty and not the other exact truth, i.e. the glass as half-full.

My point is ALL humans has the potential for psychological desperation driven by the existential crisis. This potential is active in the majority in various degrees which compelled many to theism and other secular beliefs.
To manage this psychological desperation, we need to understand and take into account its full range and degrees within a continuum.

Petty crimes are not evil in any sense. The word "evil" carries a stigma and people do not want to be called evil. If you are going to use the word for practically every mildly negative act, then you will get resistance along with confusion.
I understand the word 'evil' carries a stigma especially within theology.
However lately this term 'evil' is getting more relevant within secular use.
Note,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

SEP wrote:During the past thirty years, moral, political, and legal philosophers have become increasingly interested in the concept of evil. This interest has been partly motivated by ascriptions of ‘evil’ by laymen, social scientists, journalists, and politicians as they try to understand and respond to various atrocities and horrors of the past eighty years, e.g., the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and killing sprees by serial killers such as Jeffery Dahmer.
It seems that we cannot capture the moral significance of these actions and their perpetrators by calling them ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or even ‘very very wrong’ or ‘very very bad.’ We need the concept of evil.


Thus to increase efficiency in resolving the problem of all evils we need a continuum of evil.

From the above, you will note you have a shortfall in the width of your knowledge which need to be filled. I hope you respect knowledge i.e. the more relevant knowledge the better.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:55 am

Snark wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:Sartre?

Yes. It was a deathbed confession:
"I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here: and this idea of a creating hand refers to God."

His Atheist mistress, Simone de Beauvior, wrote a scathing article calling him as a "senile traitor" after his death in 1980 -- kinda like what Prismatic does with Flew and every other person who becomes more religious as they age.
The point is I supported my views with at least some sort of research material. Soon there will more revealing discovery to the psychological basis of theism and why God [illusory] is an impossibility.
Why Sartre turned to theism is because his brain power to hold back theism with rationality and wisdom has failed.

https://www.livescience.com/19971-belief-god-atheism-age.html
Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.


The above is one strong indication theism is driven by psychological factors.

If God is claimed to be omnipotent, God could easily appear or influence those late-theists when they were younger, why only when they are older. This has to be due to the fact that brain neurons are dying from almost day one a child is born on a daily basis. By the time the person is older many of the relevant inhibitors that held back theism would have died, thus MANY are driven to be more inclined to theism or its forms.

It is a fact, as one grows older lots of neurons would have died in related to many neural faculties, e.g. memory, motor action, conscious awareness of surroundings, etc.

I am optimistic soon humanity will be able to map all the neural connections that are related to theism.
Note the Human Connectome Project.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
Then humanity will be able to manage theism objectively and replace theism with fool proof approaches to deal with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:56 am

:angry-banghead:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10225
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:05 am

phyllo wrote: :angry-banghead:

:lol: I know what mean.

Prismatic567 wrote:The point is I supported my views with at least some sort of research material.

The point is that by ignoring Maslow you revealed yourself to be a bigot.
Snark
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:14 am

Snark wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:The point is I supported my views with at least some sort of research material.

The point is that by ignoring Maslow you revealed yourself to be a bigot.
Did you read this post above?
viewtopic.php?p=2690566#p2690566

Prismatic wrote:I have researched on Abraham Maslow and read some of his books with emphasis on,
Toward a Psychology of Being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Note a comment on the above book:
Peak experiences produce values that people are willing to die for or to pay for with great effort, pain, and suffering. These are B-values the highest values existing within human nature waiting to be discovered.
They do not come from a supernatural God but from human nature.
(1968, p. 170)

Note again, Maslow's fundamental view!
"They do not come from a supernatural God but from human nature."


Based on the above 'it has nothing to do with God' your reference on Maslow will not lead you to a God ultimately as a conclusion. What have you got to say on this?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:18 am

phyllo wrote::angry-banghead:
I have provided justifications to every point you raised. Since I raised this OP, I know my points are in alignment with the topic.

The onus is on you to dig deeper and provide counter justifications.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:33 am

All you did was to repeat the same arrogant claims that you have been making.

You either don't understand what I'm writing or you don't care about what I'm writing.

I have better things to do than to participate in that kind of discussion.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10225
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:54 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:The point is I supported my views with at least some sort of research material.

The point is that by ignoring Maslow you revealed yourself to be a bigot.
Did you read this post above?
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 6#p2690566

Prismatic wrote:I have researched on Abraham Maslow and read some of his books with emphasis on,
Toward a Psychology of Being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Note a comment on the above book:
Peak experiences produce values that people are willing to die for or to pay for with great effort, pain, and suffering. These are B-values the highest values existing within human nature waiting to be discovered.
They do not come from a supernatural God but from human nature.
(1968, p. 170)

Note again, Maslow's fundamental view!
"They do not come from a supernatural God but from human nature."


Based on the above 'it has nothing to do with God' your reference on Maslow will not lead you to a God ultimately as a conclusion. What have you got to say on this?


I read it. You see things through bigoted eyes so you read into it what you want to believe.

Maslow interpreted everyday psychology as laced with the trace of the supernatural, because for him “supernatural” just meant a deeper level of consciousness about ordinary things.

SELF ACTUALIZATION

"Self Actualization is the intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately, of what
the organism is."

- Abraham Maslow

Maslow studied healthy people, most psychologists study sick people.

The characteristics listed here are the results of 20 years of study of people who had the "full use and
exploitation of talents, capacities, potentialities, etc.."

Self-actualization implies the attainment of the basic needs of physiological, safety/security,
love/belongingness, and self-esteem.
Maslow's Basic Principles:

1. The normal personality is characterized by unity, integration, consistency, and coherence.
Organization is the natural state, and disorganization is pathological.

2. The organism can be analyzed by differentiating its parts, but no part can be studied in isolation.
The whole functions according to laws that cannot be found in the parts.

3. The organism has one sovereign drive, that of self-actualization. People strive continuously to
realize their inherent potential by whatever avenues are open to them.

4. The influence of the external environment on normal development is minimal. The organism's
potential, if allowed to unfold by an appropriate environment, will produce a healthy, integrated
personality.

5. The comprehensive study of one person is more useful than the extensive investigation, in many
people, of an isolated psychological function.

6. The salvation of the human being is not to be found in either behaviorism or in psychoanalysis,
(which deals with only the darker, meaner half of the individual). We must deal with the questions
of value, individuality, consciousness, purpose, ethics and the higher reaches of human nature.

7. Man is basically good not evil.

8. Psychopathology generally results from the denial, frustration or twisting of our essential nature.

9. Therapy of any sort, is a means of restoring a person to the path of self-actualization and
development along the lines dictated by their inner nature.

10. When the four basic needs have been satisfied, the growth need or self-actualization need arises: A
new discontent and restlessness will develop unless the individual is doing what he individually is
fitted for. A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write--in short, what
people can be they must.


What I don't understand is why I am apparently required by Prismatic to reject Maslow's ideas just because he was a self-professed atheist. IMV, Maslow just doesn't go far enough with his holistic ideas.
Snark
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:44 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I have provided justifications to every point you raised. Since I raised this OP, I know my points are in alignment with the topic.

Your belief does not make it so.
Snark
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:19 am

Snark wrote:What I don't understand is why I am apparently required by Prismatic to reject Maslow's ideas just because he was a self-professed atheist. IMV, Maslow just doesn't go far enough with his holistic ideas.
I did not request you to reject Maslow's ideas.

My point is, where you are relying on Maslow's ideas to justify God exists as real, that is false and not possible because Maslow's ideas are non-theistic.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:03 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:What I don't understand is why I am apparently required by Prismatic to reject Maslow's ideas just because he was a self-professed atheist. IMV, Maslow just doesn't go far enough with his holistic ideas.
I did not request you to reject Maslow's ideas.

My point is, where you are relying on Maslow's ideas to justify God exists as real, that is false and not possible because Maslow's ideas are non-theistic.
So? Why can't I appropriate his ideas into my own wherever they fit? Why must you pigeon hole everything?
Snark
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:18 pm

Ierrellus wrote:That God does not exist has not been proved here beyond a reasonable doubt. So why not believe?


It would be a lack of personal integrity to automatically believe. I am not Pascal.
Perhaps for an agnostic, a real deep proof of God is much more important than it is for a believer.

Also, we might need to ask ourselves:
Just What is this so-called God that cannot be proven to exist or not?

We sometimes argue over a god without having made a distinction of What God, a description (although a description is not the thing necessarily) but God has become like a million different species in the ocean of life for us.
Who can possibly know God based on THIS?
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14979
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]