No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

He didn’t make the post, you did.

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.

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

Raising is better. O:)

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.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg[/youtube]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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
theguardian.com/world/2016/ … bangladesh

Man ‘sentenced to death for atheism’ in Saudi Arabia
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].

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

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

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.

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.
[attachment=0]Scamp_Stars.jpg[/attachment]

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

You don’t need to retaliate. You are choosing to do 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.

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.

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.

No. One does not call anyone’s views shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature.

One says :

“You have this view but this one is better for these reasons …”.

“You are mistaken/incorrect for these reasons …”.

“That is the view expressed here(/by this person/ by this school of thought) and these were the counterarguments …”.

Where???

Note I have raised this thread;
Do NOT Bash Muslims - any Muslim
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=191104&p=2627059&hilit=do+not+bash+muslim#p2627059

This indicate my empathy and compassion for Muslims as human beings and that extend to all theists as human beings.

But if theists bash me, I am not going to be a sitting duck and stay still to be attacked.

There is a difference between “mentally ill” and "psychologically desperate’.
Mentally ill is as per the DSM-V.

I have stated many times ALL humans has the inherent unavoidable existential crisis, i.e. existential psychological desperation.
It is just that such inherent unavoidable existential psychological desperation are active in a range of degrees, some very active while others has less active desperations.

Those with very active psychological desperation comprised of theists and non-theists. While the psychological desperate theists turned to God, the psychological desperate non-theists turn to non-secular solutions like non-theistic spirituality, drugs, addictions, etc.

I did not say that is THE ONLY explanation. I stated ‘likely’ and such empirical likelihood is more reasonable than a God which I have demonstrated to be impossible and a non-starter.

In addition there are already non-theistic approaches that deal the above psychological causes.
Buddhists also experience the so-claimed “God experiences” but they don’t recognized it has anything to deal with a God but rather these are all effects of neural activities.

Note:
Whatever the “stars” it has to be justified empirically.
Btw, the “stars” you see in the sky are merely the effect of light waves hitting your retina. It is likely re the stars you see [light from light years away], there is no real time star at all as it could have already exploded some time ago.

I understand your points.
I don’t have the natural tendency to attack, all I am interested is to focus to express my views and with an expectation of more in depth counter views rather than agreement.

But if I am attack from people like James and Aminius I will definitely counter or avoid.

I don’t see persistent one-liners as necessary at all. Usually this is against the rules in a forum for Philosophical discussion.
In response to Snark’s one-liners I kept asking him for justified arguments.

Noted your point.

If in a normal discussion [no provocative attacks from the other side] if I see anyone’s views as shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature, I don’t even bother to mention to them in the ways you propose. I just don’t bother and continue to express my views, suggest a reading of such such a book or philosophers and offer alternative views.

Right. You’re saying that there is not a single theist who looks around and says that God is a reasonable explanation for the stuff that he/she sees. (no desperation involved.)

That’s what I said that you said.

And I happen to disagree because there have been many high profile theists throughout history who did not have psychological problems. (And then there lots of ordinary people who don’t seem very desperate.)