The Psychology of Christianity and Atheism

Actually, war usually comes from geostrategic or economic conflicts that the parties are unable or unwilling to resolve peacefully. Religion is often involved, but not always. Non- religious ideology is also often, but not always involved.This doesn't really address my question to the board. Let's concede there are many nice atheists and not so nice theists, because that's certainly true. But it's also largely irrelevant.What specific things do you think theists (in general) are missing out on that you consider part of the full human experience ?

Anal sex? (depending on your brand).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-11-2004 08:02 PM

I suppose it was too much to expect serious intellectual discourse...

Webster defines bias as prejudice. We can all probably agree that wars are caused by prejudice, politics, and greed. Some would say that many, if not most wars are directly or indirectly caused by religion, but notice how Jesus Christ never told his disciples to protest or attempt in any way to overthrow the oppressive government of Rome. So the question to a Christian is this:What belongs to God and what belongs to the society and the "good" of the many? I say that my heart,soul, and mind belong to God. Notice how I do not say that they belong to a church or a human leader! The contrasting point of view is eloquently expressed by a guy who was debating me in another chatroom. I said: My debator replied: In other words, my opponent values his right to think unhindered and freely as more dear to him than my God is to me. So..we disagree.
By the way, Wiz...do you still feel that everyone is ganging up on you? Here is a scripture for you: I can imagine it now: OK, lets turn to the book of Wiz 23:3 where the Lord spoke to His prophet Mike saying to go and convince Yaro of His great love for her. Seriously, though, here is another scrip for Wiz: The Bible is our Psychology book! Would you rather that we used Wilhelm Reich??

I have the desire to return in kind when somebody is attempting to destroy someone's dearly held beliefs with science, whether it's me or someone else's. Especially from people who seem to propose that complete lack of emotion about beliefs is a good idea, because attaching emotion might prejudice the belief, or lead to dogmatism. Atheists do have such dearly held beliefs also which are not in line with science, everyone has, and when I stamp on them in a tit-for-tat exercise, they sometimes go ballistic. So there is basicly a psychological pressure to defend dearly held beliefs in general, evenso it leads to the desire to stamp on someone's dearly held beliefs sometimes, of people who don't seem to support religion in general as a basic part of humanity.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

A clearly unbiased expression (;. But seriously, the claim that something is truth means little to anyone else without some evidence to back it up. You might be convinced that it is the truth, but many of us are not. We say we are not biased because we base our entire belief system on observable facts, which have no bias of their own. If you were to show us some observable evidence that there is a god and lord or what-have-you, we would believe in that, as well. On the contrary, many Christians (and those of other religions) will often ignore such observable facts for the simple reason that it conflicts with their beliefs. In such a case, nothing can be done to change their mind. One group is open to change based on evidence, while one group is not. You tell me where the bias lies. Perhaps to you, but to me they seem like comments based purely on observation which are unbiased in nature. I will not claim that to be the absolute truth though, as it's impossible to see exactly what was going through their minds at the time. Webster defines it as a bit more than prejudice, but that's not the issue here. What Jesus Christ told his disciples (though I would claim it's impossible to know everything he has ever told his disciples, even if you are a believer) is not the issue. The issue is the fact that many, many people kill/start wars in the name of a religion. Yes, it's true that religion is not the only reason for war, but I would claim that it is a rather common one. At any rate, I don't think this pertains all too much to the original topic of the thread. In my opinion, if something conflicts with a scientifically proven or supported fact/theory, it seriously needs to be reconsidered. This goes for anything, not just religion. I don't think anyone is out to "destroy" beliefs necessarily, but destroying any and all influence of these beliefs on others is something that I think should be worked towards. Imagine, if you will, that you have emotions attached to something that is untrue. Perhaps you believe this thing is true, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not. Now, since you have vested emotions in this thing, there is a rather large chance that you will attempt to influence others to believe in it or whatnot, as well. In addition, you may choose to abandon logic for this thing, or behave differently when this thing is in question. I don't see any of these things as good, especially when there is no evidence to support the thing you have emotions vested in. The only belief I have that is not in-line with science is that all of the major religions are wrong. The distinction that needs to be made, however, is that the only reason it is not in-line with science is because science doesn't really deal with the supernatural (with a few odd exceptions). The important thing to note is that I am perfectly open to correction. If you came to me today with proof of God's existence, I would accept it. I will admit that I would have to check, double check, triple check, and re-check many more times the proof to the best of my ability, but I would eventually accept it. Another important distinction that need be made is that atheist/agnostic beliefs (at least in general) are formed from what science indicates and supports, while religious beliefs are formed out of the authority from which the religion is derived (holy books, priests, etc.). Let me try to explain it. When people try to use beliefs that are in no way supportable by observable evidence to prejudice and impose on others, I most certainly feel a pressure to defend those people. When people try to use these beliefs to disrupt science, I most certainly feel the need to defend it. There are many religiously-driven campaigns (creationism in schools, evolutionism out of schools, pro-life, anti-gay, etc.) taking place right now that are causing me to seriously dislike religion in general. Keeping your beliefs to yourself is fine, but imposing them upon others is not.

Mike I don't invent evil lies about people who happen to believe different things than me, That makes me morally superior to the guy who invented the attack on atheists repeated in post 1 for a start.Quite frankly Mike I hoped for better from you than to endorse the hatred and bigotry of this view. I suppose I shouldn't have set my hopes too high after you spent most of a thread misrepresenting what I said and refusing to accept correction - but I still expected better. If you really meant what you said in post 19 then I can definitely consider you my moral inferior.

quote:

---

I find this curious. You seem to think Christianity (braodly defined) entails having to forego many objectively good things. That hasn't been my experience. Of course, maybe you are specifically critiquing fundamentalism.

---

Nope. My critique applies nhearly as much to buddhism as to christinaity. You can EITHER teach yourself about the world you inhabit, OR you can teach yourself about what someone else imagines the world to be.

quote:

---

True, Christianity does require one to avoid selfish, hedonistic pursuits, but so do many respectable, secular moral codes.

---

No it does not. Big chunks of protestant ideology - which is very active in the US - claim that god helps those who are moral and just; thus, those who find themselves wealthy have gods permission to spend that as they will, including on selfish and hedonistic pursuits.

quote:

---

But not all Christians believe that the Hindus, Pagans, Wiccans and Raelians are wrong.

---

I'll bet that most Christians, including mike, think they are wrong.Mike thinks that belief that Christ is the son of God and the messiah is the Truth(tm).Those other religions and beliefs don't mention Christ, and none of them recognize the god of Abraham, either (except maybe the Hindus. The accept a lot of gods).

You forgot the most important thing. While some liberal Christians can and do disagree, the standard Christian doctrine is that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Catholicism goes further and states that there is no salvation outside the Church (which can be taken as including some other denominations, but excludes many Protestants)..

I think most people have a personal worldview where they believe they are right and anyone who disagrees with them are wrong. This is as true of Atheists as of the religious.But for those people who actually take the time to look at the other viewpoints, it is hard not to notice the remarkable similarities between most moral systems, including Atheistic ones.There will always be more who argue from ignorance than who can express an informed opinion. That is one of the reasons that I have consistantly encouraged Christians also exposing their children to other religions and moral codes. The more they learn the better IMHO.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

How come all you atheists/agnostics are exalting yourselves?

---

I would call it "defending ourselves".

quote:

---

You are all human. All humans cause war, if anything - politics and greed cause war. Humans cause war, not religion. My bible stays in a drawer and has no weapon, but that of a human. People use religion, but many are peaceful. Yet you seem to be more righteouss you unbelievers, with your self-righteous talk.

---

Look, I was just responding to Phatboy's accusation of how war is coming because of us fiercely independent, "so called" freethinkers.Can you please point out one war that was waged in the name of free thought?(Actually, one could argue that the American Revolution was, in part, fought to be free of the religious tyrrany of the British crown)

quote:

---

It's very predictable that the unbelievers in this thread have taken the position of "holier than thou". I admitt I am biased and I have sin.

---

Did you even read the message that I was reponding to, mike?The one that was blaming the coming war on free thinkers?

quote:

---

Do you expect me to buy the fact that most of the world being believers are infact war-goers and that all religious people are the cause of war? Bull!. Humans are!

---

Strawman.I never said that all religious people are the cause of war.I said that religion is a major cause of war, and that free thought is not.I agree that there are lots of causes of war, religion being a major cause.Remember the message I was responding to.If you read with a little more context, mike, it would be better.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-12-2004 08:15 AM

quote:

---

How can I be wrong about the truth?

---

[qs]The exact same way that you believe that the Hindus, Pagans, Wiccans, and Raelians can be wrong about the truth.[qs]

quote:

---

What did I say about them?

---

Nothing, yet, but you could.Do you believe that all religions are equally correct?

quote:

---

Certainly. My reply is one word.
Afghanistan.

---

Moore supported our actions in Afghanistan to get bin Laden and has criticized Bush for not finishing the job.I hope you haven't bought the lie that Saddam and bin Laden had any connection with each other.Please, let us continue this discussion in the 9/11 thread where it belongs. See you there.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-12-2004 08:27 AM

Depends on how you define the term "free thought". The French Revolution comes to mind, with attendant anti-clerical Reign of Terror.The uprisings in 1848 in Germany also come to mind. As well as the Mexican revolution of 1910, where anticlericalism was a feature of the PRI platform, and is to this day.Communist revolutions would qualify if we look for a specifically atheistic philosophy. Note that I am not asserting that atheism necessarily entails communism. I don't think that.I am sure you want to regard the Crusades, for instance, as primarily theistic wars. Geostrategic considerations, however, played as large a role in causing them. The theistic patina of justification was a feature of the era.As to Moore, I have considered and rejected him. Perhaps you could be tolerant of my beliefs in that regard.