No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Right on both counts. :slight_smile:

You don’t seem to understand the concept of continuum and its use and relevance in certain specific perspective.

For example in class or grade there are a distribution of score marks among students with a percentile scoring above 80% and a percentile scoring less than 20% and the rest are in between.
One can call those above 80% smart and intelligence and one can call those <20% stupid.
This type of branding is not progressive.
Rather we should identify the range of student score in terms of a continuum of ‘learning abilities’. In the case those with >80% has higher learning abilities and those <20% has lower learning abilities relative along the same continuum.
From the same perspective and continuum we can make comparison on the same scale and take corrective actions.

It is the same with psychological desperation within theism.
Putting them in the same continuum mean we recognize a common problem.
The mechanics and process of the desperate psychology of theism the same for all but the difference is only in the degree of activation which can change anytime.
What we do is to focus on the more problematic, in this case the higher degrees >80%. However we also must take note of those not so critical at the lower potential of psychological desperation but within the same continuum they have the potential to become malignant.
Note the many reports of shock of parents, relatives and friends when they discovered their goody-two-shoe sons or daughters were caught as a jihadist terrorists.

It is like cancer cells, if there are insignificant numbers it does not mean you should ignore them. We have to consider them within the bigger picture and potential.

I understand that desperation is not a general behavior … it’s already a negative behavior. The full range goes from “Not at all desperate” to “extremely desperate”.

The same goes for “evil”. It’s one end of the range : “good” - “bad” - “evil”.

You’re redefining these very basic words.

Tell me how psychological desperation applies to the works of Tillich, Niebuhr. Schweitzer, Lewis, Buber, etc. If these twentieth century apologists were not psychological desperate how could their teachings be about despair? If the song is desperate, is the singer?

I’ve studied studiously but am unable to find evidence that Prismatic567 exists. The evidence is the same for God or Prismatic: words in a book (God) or on a computer screen (Prismatic) exhorting me to believe one set of tenets or the other. Not a hard decision; God has better, more poetic writers who make wonderful use of metaphor. Prism, you’re out. Sorry.

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 [theist] is trying to link Maslow’s views [a non-theist] to theism.
But logically it cannot follow that Maslow’s [non-theistic grounds] will ever lead to a theistic conclusion.

I say my concept of continuum is very relevant to my point.
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.

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.

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.

As I had stated there is a continuum of psychological desperation, from 100% to 1%.
People like Tillich, Niebuhr. Schweitzer, Lewis, Buber, and others who had not been known to display obvious explicit desperations may have say 1-20% desperation. Muslims jihadists who had commit terrible evils and violence would have >80% psychological desperations.

Note this ‘psychological desperation’ exists as a potential in ALL humans.
Such a potential is ‘desperate’ by default just like one cancer cell is potentially malignant by default.
Non-theists may have 0% of such theistic related ‘psychological desperation’ but circumstances can change overnight or in a short time to activate their ‘psychological desperation’ into active mode.

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.
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.

:laughing: 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. :laughing:

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.

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!

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.

Sartre?

Measurement is not the point. Not that it’s even possible to measure these things beyond some sort of ranking.

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.

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.

Snark’s point is that evidence is not necessary :

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.

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.

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:

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.

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;

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.

It is not your point because you are not focus on progress and concern for humanity in the future, whereas I am.

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.

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.

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.

I understand the word ‘evil’ carries a stigma especially within theology.
However lately this term ‘evil’ is getting more relevant within secular use.
Note,
plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-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.

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.

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.
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.

:angry-banghead:

:laughing: I know what mean.

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

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?