No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

[phyllo]

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

One can think anything about God.

The question is : how do those thoughts affect your life and the lives of others?

Does your belief improve your life? Does it improve other lives? (You need not even care about others, but that's another discussion.)

Nothing desperate about it. It's just how thinking works. Thinking is a tool for navigating through the world. Usually thinking wrong stuff will get you in trouble, but not always. Since one always has many thoughts, the right thoughts may more than compensate for the wrong thoughts.

[Prismatic567]

What makes psychology desperate?

Try to find out why Abraham was so spontaneous in agreeing to kill his own son when God 'demanded' he do so? Why?

Fear and Trembling (original Danish title: Frygt og Bæven) is a philosophical work by Søren Kierkegaard, published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de silentio (John of the Silence).
The title is a reference to a line from Philippians 2:12, "...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling." — itself a probable reference to Psalms 55:5,[1] "Fear and trembling came upon me..." (the Greek is identical).

Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety[2] that must have been present in Abraham when "God tested [him] and said to him, take Isaac, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him as a burnt offering on the mountain that I shall show you."[3] Abraham had a choice to complete the task or to refuse to comply to God's orders. He resigned himself to the three-and-a-half-day journey and to the loss of his son. -wiki

An further exploration into the above will lead to the so called 'desperate psychology' linked to a belief in God [illusory but useful psychologically].

And note the following;

What is the basis why SOME theists are so worked out that they will kill anyone who 'insult' their God or even drawing cartoons of God's chosen prophet. This is so evident.

Why do SOME theists kill non-theists merely because they do not believe in God?

Why do so many theists go on a murderous and violent rampage in the name of God as if God need protection.

Why do so many theists commit all sorts of evil on non-believers [oppression, hinder the progress of knowledge, limit freedom of speech, cultural genocide, etc.] in the name of God?

The answer is the idea of God provided desperate psychological existential security and when such security is threatened with the slightest 'perceived' threat theist [significant SOME] will try to get rid of the perceived threat by whatever means.

[Prismatic567]

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

One can think anything about God.

The question is : how do those thoughts affect your life and the lives of others?

Does your belief improve your life? Does it improve other lives? (You need not even care about others, but that's another discussion.)

Nothing desperate about it. It's just how thinking works. Thinking is a tool for navigating through the world. Usually thinking wrong stuff will get you in trouble, but not always. Since one always has many thoughts, the right thoughts may more than compensate for the wrong thoughts.

Agree with the above.
Note the whole load of cons of believing in a God and notably the following [32,344] which is directly linked to God's commands in his holy book sent to a prophet;



Besides the above which refer to only incidents with deaths, there are many other theistic based evils and violence.

I do not deny there are 'good' benefiting from a belief in God but the trend into the future is the cons of theism are outweighing its pros. As such we need to address this potential threat to humanity NOW.

[Snark]

I do not deny there are 'good' benefiting from a belief in God but the trend into the future is the cons of theism are outweighing its pros. As such we need to address this potential threat to humanity NOW.

Why? What makes you think humanity is worth saving? If your posts, filled as they are with fear and loathing of something you don't understand, are an indication of human nature, the universe would be better off without human beings.

[Ierrellus]

I read Kierkegaard's work on Abraham when I was a young man. It also troubled me. But God has never asked me to do anything horrendous; and I would not respect a god who did. Thoughts of what God is like have evolved over the centuries.

[Snark]

I read Kierkegaard's work on Abraham when I was a young man. It also troubled me. But God has never asked me to do anything horrendous; and I would not respect a god who did. Thoughts of what God is like have evolved over the centuries.

You're right, of course. The God-concept has evolved over the centuries. And like everything else that evolves, there's an overlap between the old and the new. The old doesn't just disappear overnight.

Prismatic's posts seem to be written by a psychotic.

[phyllo]

Prismatic's posts seem to be written by a psychotic.

Come on, guy. That's so inappropriate.

[Snark]

Prismatic's posts seem to be written by a psychotic.

Come on, guy. That's so inappropriate.

I disagree. "Psychosis" is defined as a mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. Prismatic fits that description very well.

[phyllo]

Prismatic's posts seem to be written by a psychotic.

Come on, guy. That's so inappropriate.

I disagree. "Psychosis" is defined as a mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. Prismatic fits that description very well.

It's inappropriate to make such comments in a philosophy forum.

[Snark]

It's inappropriate to make such comments in a philosophy forum.

Tell that to Prismatic. The word isn't used but he says the same thing about theists all the time. Or is there a double-standard I'm supposed to abide by of which I am unaware?

[phyllo]

Tell that to Prismatic.

He didn't make the post, you did.

The word isn't used but he says the same thing about theists all the time.

He didn't say it about you specifically, did he?

Atheists around here have often said that theists are delusional or mentally ill. I have called them out on it.

The forum admin does nothing. You can press the "! Report this post" button but it won't amount to much.

Or is there a double-standard I'm supposed to abide by of which I am unaware?

You can either raise the standard of discussion or lower it. It's up to you.

Raising is better.

[Prismatic567]

Tell that to Prismatic.

He didn't make the post, you did.

The word isn't used but he says the same thing about theists all the time.

He didn't say it about you specifically, did he?

Atheists around here have often said that theists are delusional or mentally ill. I have called them out on it.

The forum admin does nothing. You can press the "! Report this post" button but it won't amount to much.

Or is there a double-standard I'm supposed to abide by of which I am unaware?

You can either raise the standard of discussion or lower it. It's up to you.

Raising is better.

You are right. I have always address that to theists-in-general and advise theists whoever it may be to take note of that point.

In addition I have always provided evidence to support my point from neuro-psychological, neuroscientific and other sources., e.g.


There are many supporting evidence from various sources that link various experiences of God to the mentally ill and other psychological reasons.

My main point is the basis of theism is most likely to have a psychological basis and I am not imply all theists are mentally ill.

[Prismatic567]

I read Kierkegaard's work on Abraham when I was a young man. It also troubled me. But God has never asked me to do anything horrendous; and I would not respect a god who did. Thoughts of what God is like have evolved over the centuries.

My point re "Kierkegaard's work on Abraham" was in response to your question 'what desperate psychology" and to highlight the link of theism to psychology, i.e. the real effects of fears, trembling and psychological angst.

Obviously the Story of Abraham and Killing of His Son was not meant to be literal but to test the faith of believers to God. But the ultimate analysis is there are real desperate psychological impulses within the believers.

What is real is the desperate existential psychology. The Eastern Spiritualities has recognized this fact thousands of years ago and addressed this psychological problem directly without any potential evil theistic baggage like those from the Abrahamic religions.

Note the "Religion of Peace" [starting with "I"] condones the killing of even one's kins [sons, daughters, parent, near-relatives] if they are a threat to the religion.

Thus my point is, humanity whilst accepting theism is inevitable and unavoidable at present should nevertheless focus [from now to the future] on the ultimate root cause of theism which is the psychological elements rather than on God which is illusory and impossible.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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

A giant tea pot orbiting a star does not exist has not been proved here beyond a reasonable doubt. So why not believe?

There are many problems with this analogy, but let me focus on one area. If you have visions of a teapot (etc.) and this experience leads to emotional states and even practical approaches to life that seem, to the best of your knowledge beneficial, then you are beginning to move into an area that parallels some theist's belief in God. Beginning to move in that direction. People have beliefs, all people, that work for them, seem like good heuristics, despite the fact that science has not confirmed it (yet, possibly). Atheists and skeptics often think they have no such beliefs, but I notice that in situ they have beliefs (which guide their actions) about the opposite sex, what having 'a good attitude is', political truths, how to succeed (name the life area), that have not been accepted within science to be accurate. They work with these heuristics until some overwhelming fault is demonstrated, though many follow these to the grave. None of this means they are true, though some of them may well be. And good for us humans for using heuristics and not always waiting around for science to give strong evidence it is the case. Hell, scientists thought it was irrational to speak about the emotional, intentions, desires [that is states of consciousness or the experiencing nature] of animals until the 70s. Laypeople of all kinds assumed that animals were experiencers and this heuristic was even useful. Nevertheless it could actually damage your career if you spoke in those terms in scientific contexts, let alone submitted a scientific article working with that set of assumptions.

[phyllo]

You are right. I have always address that to theists-in-general and advise theists whoever it may be to take note of that point.

Don't play innocent. You're the one who started the acrimony in these threads by calling posts "shallow" and "narrow". You have been feeding it continuously with words like "shallow", "narrow", "ignorant" and "immature".

You're reaping what you sowed.

[phyllo]

My main point is the basis of theism is most likely to have a psychological basis and I am not imply all theists are mentally ill.

Which theists are not mentally ill or psychologically desperate, according to you?

[Carleas]

"I'm right because X is psychotic" and "X is wrong because X is psychotic" are bad arguments, whether X is an individual or a group. They're bad because they erode discussion, and they're bad because the conclusion isn't related to the premise.

Thanks for holding people to a high standard, Phyllo.

[Ierrellus]

My main point is the basis of theism is most likely to have a psychological basis and I am not imply all theists are mentally ill.

Which theists are not mentally ill or psychologically desperate, according to you?

Yet he states, not implies, that all theism is based on psychological desperation, hence is not logically supported.

[Prismatic567]

You are right. I have always address that to theists-in-general and advise theists whoever it may be to take note of that point.

Don't play innocent. You're the one who started the acrimony in these threads by calling posts "shallow" and "narrow". You have been feeding it continuously with words like "shallow", "narrow", "ignorant" and "immature".

You're reaping what you sowed.

I don't deny I have used the above terms but that is in relation to the views presented and not specifically to the person.
In addition that is only in response to when I am attacked unnecessarily. I don't use those terms on every one even though I noted their thinking may be shallow.

When I used those terms I often support it with justifications.
I don't see anything wrong with the above in pointing out someone's view and thinking is "shallow", "narrow", "ignorant" and "immature" with justification why it is so. I believe letting them know of such a reality [in my view] could be beneficial to them.

What I don't do is posting one-liners calling someone psychotic, mad, delusional or other derogatory terms directed at the person.

[Prismatic567]

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

A giant tea pot orbiting a star does not exist has not been proved here beyond a reasonable doubt. So why not believe?

There are many problems with this analogy, but let me focus on one area. If you have visions of a teapot (etc.) and this experience leads to emotional states and even practical approaches to life that seem, to the best of your knowledge beneficial, then you are beginning to move into an area that parallels some theist's belief in God. Beginning to move in that direction.

I think you are reading too much in the above analogy.
My point is 'unproven' should not be ground for belief.

What is ground for belief then knowledge must be based on proof.

I have no issue with people keeping their unproven beliefs private and personal.

But when theists impose their beliefs on others, e.g. many Muslims and Christians, then they should be responsible to provide proofs.

[Prismatic567]

My main point is the basis of theism is most likely to have a psychological basis and I am not implying all theists are mentally ill.

Which theists are not mentally ill or psychologically desperate, according to you?

All theists are generally normal people.
Those who are mentally ill are those who are certified to be mentally ill in accordance to DSM-V by a qualified psychiatrist.

My point;
Theists claim there are many theists who have had experiences of God in many forms. This imply God exists.
My counter is, there are many people [both theists and non-theists] who have had experiences of God but they have to been proven to be mentally ill, brain damage, taken drugs & hallucinogen, stimulated by electronic waves, stressed, meditation, prayers, etc.
Therefore it is most likely the origin of theism is likely to be psychological based rather than the activity of an existing God out there.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic's posts seem to be written by a psychotic.

Come on, guy. That's so inappropriate.

I disagree. "Psychosis" is defined as a mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. Prismatic fits that description very well.

I don't think I have accused your views as shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature. Most of those terms are directed at James and Aminius because they are nasty and their philosophical views fit those terms plus I have always given the justifications why they are so.

I will have no problem if you state my views are shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature along with the justifications. If my views are really as such, then I will improve on them as I had done before.

It is not forum ethics to go on a personal attack to describe someone as psychotic. If you think my views are shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature, then give your justification and counter arguments.

In any case, I am not surprise when certain theists attack me personally merely based on my views [justified] as such things happen very often. Such attacks merely reinforce my point theism is driven by psychological impulses to seek consonance and security. When such consonance and security are threatened, some theists will feel very uncomfortable and insecure with anxieties, and this is why they will attack [driven by the unconscious] the person.
In extreme cases, some theists will even kill those who critique theism and this is so evident.

Secular activist who criticised Islamism killed in Dhaka
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... bangladesh

Man ‘sentenced to death for atheism’ in Saudi Arabia
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 03161.html

The above are the reasons why the truth must be discussed and theism to be replaced with fool proof alternatives in the future [not now].

[WendyDarling]

When prayers are answered, that is taken as evidence for God.

[phyllo]

All theists are generally normal people.

You have made some sweeping statements about theists. Now it seems that you are backtracking.

Those who are mentally ill are those who are certified to be mentally ill in accordance to DSM-V by a qualified psychiatrist.

I didn't ask who has been diagnosed by using the DSM or how they are diagnosed. I asked where you draw the line between theists who are mentally ill or "psychologically desperate" and theists who are not mentally ill or "psychologically desperate". I suspect from reading your posts that you don't think any theist falls into the latter category.

My point;
Theists claim there are many theists who have had experiences of God in many forms. This imply God exists.
My counter is, there are many people [both theists and non-theists] who have had experiences of God but they have to been proven to be mentally ill, brain damage, taken drugs & hallucinogen, stimulated by electronic waves, stressed, meditation, prayers, etc.
Therefore it is most likely the origin of theism is likely to be psychological based rather than the activity of an existing God out there.

Just because you have one explanation for it, does not mean that's the only explanation.

The fact that you see stars when hit on the head does not mean that there are no stars in the sky.

Scamp_Stars.jpg (66.9 KiB) Viewed 262 times

[phyllo]

I don't deny I have used the above terms but that is in relation to the views presented and not specifically to the person.

"Your philosophy is shallow" is a personal attack. It's not much different from saying "you're dumb". It's an insult.

In addition that is only in response to when I am attacked unnecessarily.

You don't need to retaliate. You are choosing to do so.

When I used those terms I often support it with justifications.
I don't see anything wrong with the above in pointing out someone's view and thinking is "shallow", "narrow", "ignorant" and "immature" with justification why it is so.

You rationalize it and you think that it's okay. It's not okay. It destroys rational discussion. That's what happened in the threads ... they became not much more than bitter personal attacks.

I believe letting them know of such a reality [in my view] could be beneficial to them.

You didn't help anyone ... people became defensive and retaliated. That was predictable.

Your targets are less likely to reconsider their positions as a result of the interaction.

What I don't do is posting one-liners calling someone psychotic, mad, delusional or other derogatory terms directed at the person.

Those one-liners also can be rationalized as "necessary" and as a "beneficial suggestion to get medical help".

Both your attacks and their attacks are inappropriate.