Is atheism 'unnatural'

[BurnedOut]

I have repeatedly mentioned my theory that God's yearning is akin to the yearning a man has for (human) teats. It is an infantile pleasure that is obtained by suckling them whenever distress sends chills down the spines. Another reason is that everybody would like to have a lifetime mommy who would hear you out whenever and always praise your good behaviour but simply warn you for your bad ones. So infantile, so cozy, so simple.

Therefore, why has been atheism seen as being so evil or so outrageous that atheists were condemned to death. Even in this era, surveys given to theists reveal that they prefer rapists to atheists when it comes to trustworthiness of the two.

Are infantile instincts deep rooted in us, so much so that we absolutely need a god or a similar rigid anchor that does not change throughout the life? Seems unlikely so. This is because a man's life's stability is ultimately rooted in his social and material transactions no matter what. Therefore, logically, wanting god to exist is the same as wishing for omnipresent human teats. It seems more like a luxury to me.

Therefore, has our society coddled us into believing that 'the spirit of your mommy will always live on' ? It also seems like an object of obsessions for psychologists who put extreme amounts of emphasis on it without adequately representing other environmental factors and sometimes even ignoring the biological predilections of one's persona.

If this is the case then perhaps the theists have a legitimate reason to hate atheists because they are 'disrespecting mommy' and 'running away from home'.


If this is the case then another deductions can be made:

- believing in god is a choice and a belief and that can be discarded later

- mother is salient, perhaps because she influences the child's choices by controlling the environment more than actually putting deep impressions on the child's psyche that program his behaviour for life. It is also observed that when people/children are moved to a healthier environment, they improve rapidly than stay depressed or disturbed forever.


State your views on this peculiar behaviour towards atheists

 

[ZenRaiden]

You pretty much said it as it is.

I mean let me rephrase what you are saying.....

Imagine you are a child. Lets say you have a traditional family where you have a father and mother.

Is it really humanly possible to outgrow your early years of childhood?

I mean it does not matter how alike or unlike you are like your parents, but if they are the people who introduce you to this world and they are the ones who tell you about the world and basically in the earliest years of life you are pretty much absorbing the environment around you can you really think of a way that someone grows up and completely negates say the first 15 years of childhood?

Just from the conditioning point of view and just from point of view being and depending on family how can you actually pretend it did not happen.
I mean you cannot.
The only healthy thing you can do is grow up despite this as functioning adult and learn to integrate your childhood into your adult persona in a functional way.

However you cannot negate your childhood experience and only retain your adult persona. If you negate your childhood experience you are negating the bad and the good.

Since lot of adults are not able to integrate their persona from childhood in functional way when they grow up they either deny their own source or just pretend they are not like that even though they are.

I do not think atheist can just act like its not so. I think the religious people are truly closer to the psychological truth when they project a perfect image of father or mother or both on to the world perhaps in a way they can learn to integrate their own childhood persona in a more real way instead of relying on their early childhood experiences.

Atheist do the same thing, but instead they internalized the image of early childhood authority. They do not externalize it. Or it they do externalize it they do so in a unconscious way. So you might be projecting your mother or father figures on celebrities, or people you like or just anyone you meet in life, like your boss, or even a friend etc.

 

[Hadoblado]

Where are atheists less trusted than rapists? How was that question phrased? That sounds like a very localised polling.

I don't like your framing of this at all. TBH it makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Black Rose]

The objection to atheism comes from an experiential morality which says that if in the theist's eyes an atheist is in contact with God like they are then it is not a belief that is different but a relationship. Atheists reject God that is ever-present and because God is pure moral good rejecting god means rejecting good and accepting evil. An atheist is capable of anything because the relationship is not based on belief but rebellion.

Looking at it as relationship vs belief makes it obvious people are not seeing from the same perspective. If the relationship is with a mommy or daddy figure then they universalize that experience so that everyone has it. They think everyone experiences God as they do. God is personal so everyone knows God. Knowing God but deciding to be an atheist is not an objective rational choice but a personal one against God.

Now to the theist, their relationship to God is completely real. When they pray (talk in their head) it feels like a real person is listening. GOD IS THERE. God is not an abstraction. This is where the difference lies. I only experience 5% of his effect. When I talk to God I feel God very little. I need complete silence to feel God.

I have had supernatural encounters before involving God. Mostly involving females. I found that these encounters were with real people that do not necessarily exist in this reality. I view them as my relationship to the unconscious. God is in there. I saw her once. She is made of golden sunlight.

The main opposition to atheism comes from those with a strong relationship to God. That means people who view God as a real person. And personally experience God. But everyone who is aware of God still has personality and this shows in how they apply God's will to things. They think God controls reality and everything that happens is God's will. But for people like me, I said this is a 5% effect. I apply God's will very loose. That means not at all sometimes.

If God's will is in everything then Atheists actively go against this. Being actively against God's will, especially against the theist's personal God's will, it is Satanic. From the atheist perspective, no god exists so they are not rebelling but the theist views everything as under God so there are no greys, atheists put their will above God's will. Black and white.

In order to understand theist's view of atheists, we must first understand that God is a real person to theists. Not an abstraction as atheists views it. God does things in the world. God has an active will. God has moral values as per God's will. What a person's life is for comes from what God wants them to do. God wants the atheists to follow God but the atheist refuses so is immoral. God does not disappear just because the atheists say they have stopped believing. God still exists so the theists believe the atheist is rebelling.

I personally believe in a higher order superorganism as God. @BurnedOut said that you cannot test for this organism so it is irrelevant. But this is viewing it the wrong way. I have the stance that a relationship with it is necessary to detect it. I have made the effort to communicate with is and I have had results. I remain silently aware and observe.

 

[Hadoblado]

Nice post AK.

Can I get some further clarity on how a theist can oppose an atheist exercising the free will that God gave them? It seems like if they truly believe in God's power and wisdom, then everything that occurs is according to God's plan which is above question.

 

[Black Rose]

Can I get some further clarity on how a theist can oppose an atheist exercising the free will that God gave them? It seems like if they truly believe in God's power and wisdom, then everything that occurs is according to God's plan which is above question.

This goes back to @The Grey Man problem of evil thread. God can turn evil into good but we are not certain of what the plan is. We still must act and Do The Right Thing. We ask God what the right thing is and then do it. We are only passive when we need to and active when we need to. Passivity can go against God's will. When it comes to theists the way they react to atheists mostly comes from personal passions. The killing of atheists comes from a blind hatred of evil. But a thoughtfully evolved person knows when it is only a dislike, not really evil. People can be stupid.

Passivity is not always God's will for people. If that were the case everyone would just stop breathing and die. God's plan involves the individual acting in the world for Good. So in what the theist should do about atheist comes down to what God wants and using one's personal judgment. The Christian thing to do is be humble and try to lead people to Christ. That means there should be no ill will at all. It is not about winning points or feeling judged by your still insecurities. People are people. Treat them that way.

 

[The Grey Man]

@BurnedOut Any theory can be dismissed as the product of hidden motives if one's aim is rather to denigrate than to understand, which is why psychoanalysis has become a favourite tool of people who want to discredit other people's thoughts, but are unwilling or unable to advance substantive criticisms. Modern materialism is even more vulnerable to dismissal as maternal nostalgia than religion, since matter is traditionally regarded as feminine. Earth, not heaven, is our 'mother', nor is it a coincidence that the Latin word for mother is mater. Could modern atheism not simply be a childish flight from the adult responsibilities represented by the commandments of God? This is a mean and unedifying line of inquiry, but this is where your vicious reasoning and ad hominem attacks take us.

@Animekitty I agree that much opposition to atheism comes from people who intuitively experience God's presence, but "In my Father's house are many mansions": there are paths to theism besides the empirical. I don't vividly experience such a presence most of the time, but regard nature itself as a theophany; you might say that my faith is chronic rather than acute. The light by which we see is a surer 'proof' of God than any theological argument, but then, I think that to be proved is beneath his dignity, since every proof presupposes principles, from which it borrows its credibility. God is a postulate, not a theorem. I believe so that I may understand.

 

[Cognisant]

I don't associate god with my father because he is endlessly patient and supportive whereas my opinion of Abrahamic god is pretty much the exact opposite of that. I'd even go so far as to suggest some people identify with the Abrahamic god as a father figure because they've had terrible fathers.

My mother, ergh, I've got that thing where I have a deep unmet need for her approval while at the same time because I've not had it for so long I don't want it either (sour grapes) which I think messes up my relationships with women. Being desperate for approval (on an emotional level, I'm not so foolish as to act desperate) makes me hypersensitive and that hypersensitivity makes me reluctant to form emotional attachments.

Textbook didn't get hugged enough as a child and is now low key angry all the time coupled with the classic INTP emotionally repressed so it tends to come out in bursts. I'm self aware so it's mostly under control, mostly, I'm not the sort to act out violently rather when I lose my temper I become bitter, spiteful and vindictive.

Yeah I can see how that's feeding into my atheism or rather maltheism, I don't see god as a mother figure but rather the personification of the universe's indifference which is what my mother was to me. Which is unfair to say about her, she was never cruel to me indeed she tried to do the whole mothering thing but she had her own baggage, her own problems and her own ambitions. I don't blame her.

God however wow fuck that guy.

Before anyone starts, don't tell me to let it go, believe me I did not get to this level of self awareness without trying several times in several different ways, I can't think my way out of it and emotional repression just makes things worse, hating god is the healthiest I've figured out how to be.

 

[Black Rose]

My mother was not indifferent but she has problems. She is developmentally delayed. Trauma made it so she was not completely all there. I felt this growing up. I had no one to turn to. Because she had no answers to help me. She would not talk to me like an adult. She couldn't, she has the introvertedness of a 4year old. So I just felt all alone. I do not repress my emotion as much as there is a blockage stopping me from feeling them, I can't cry. I have no one to care so I hold it inside. I am deeply sad.

What makes it worse is my autistic traits where I feel stuck. Because I felt stuck I didn't know how to make friends. I'd rather play with things and keep them ordered.

I was never angry about things. I was just in the fetal position alot. That time I saw God I was crying alot. I got alot out that time. Getting it out is hard for me to do being stuck.

I won't truly feel better until I feel loved and understood. God is that. Love and understanding. Someone to help me with my insecurities. God held me once in a dream so I know a person exists that loves me. They are inside me. I love them too. But I can't see them until I deal with my emotional problems.

 

[BurnedOut]

There were surveys performed wherein a checklist was given and the participants were asked to tick the trustworthy persons in that list. At the end, it was found that people ticked rapists more than atheists

Where are atheists less trusted than rapists? How was that question phrased? That sounds like a very localised polling.

 

[Hadoblado]

There were surveys performed wherein a checklist was given and the participants were asked to tick the trustworthy persons in that list. At the end, it was found that people ticked rapists more than atheists

Where are atheists less trusted than rapists? How was that question phrased? That sounds like a very localised polling.

Can you link the study? Why would anyone tick rapist?

 

[BurnedOut]

Is it really humanly possible to outgrow your early years of childhood?

I mean it does not matter how alike or unlike you are like your parents, but if they are the people who introduce you to this world and they are the ones who tell you about the world and basically in the earliest years of life you are pretty much absorbing the environment around you can you really think of a way that someone grows up and completely negates say the first 15 years of childhood?

The answer, in my opinion, is behaviourism. I believe that it is usually difficult to get rid of thought and belief systems imparted to us by our parents. But, again, manners, behaviours and modes of thinking are reinforced and usually a positive feedback loop is established automatically where we keep reiterating those beliefs until they penetrate our thinking habits via heuristics.

Now, thinking and feeling uniquely is a function of biology and environment. Some patterns are impossible to change but science has not figured to what extent this is possible. There are biological roots found for traits defined in FFM but then environmental influence has an upper hand by a large margin. Therefore, it can be concluded that environmental influence is very dominant in the development of one's uniqueness. Again, the combinations of heritable traits can yield extremely unique set of behaviours that may not resemble the behaviour of the parents. Therefore, the only way left to mold a child into following similar behaviours are by neural training until they result into truncated efficient neural pathways that aid in stylistic heuristic thinking.

Understanding this, it is possible to now claim that changing the environment and performing enough reinforcements can change neural pathways significantly.

But then again, some traits remain because not all low level actions require complete rewiring and hence some traits remain. However, what you get at the end is a completely new person depending on the environment a person is placed in.

What you are saying is valid, in my opinion, for low level behaviours such as clothing, hairstyles, simple language constructs, exhibiting basic low-level emotions (anger, arrogance, sadness). If this is the measure of uniqueness then it rather poor because measuring these behaviours are unlikely to produce the required accurate account of a person. This is because humanity continuously drives itself into a new era which uproots much of the previous era's behaviours.

If indeed mothers and fathers play such a significant role, it would be impossible to have different eras in mankind.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

There were surveys performed wherein a checklist was given and the participants were asked to tick the trustworthy persons in that list. At the end, it was found that people ticked rapists more than atheists

Sounds like an incorrectly done poll. If you set up choices or questions in the wrong places, phrase questions poorly, or put the preferred results at the beginning and least preferred at the end then you're going to see weird results. Also works when manipulating elections and votes.

Very unlikely that your locality has a higher preference for the word "rapist" than "atheist", especially that rape is a widely known problem in India. Some people answering might not know what "atheism" or "atheist" means, everybody should know what "rape" means.

 

[BurnedOut]

Can you link the study? Why would anyone tick rapist?

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf

 

[BurnedOut]

What you are saying is valid in a scenario where rapists are fresh in the memories of persons. This is the availability heuristic.

What the study meant to say that people will prefer rapists (given that rapes are not mentioned extremely frequently and publicized) to atheists. This is entirely possible. For eg, you would trust a christian more than a muslim generally. However in cases where christians raping people's cases are frequently mentioned, the public opinion will be temporarily based against the christians.

Why do you think scapegoating works? It is because scapegoats are be very easily be seen as execrable if they are frequently mentioned in a negative light. If they are not, the scapegoats face no wrath from the public.

Very unlikely that your locality has a higher preference for the word "rapist" than "atheist", especially that rape is a widely known problem in India.

 

[BurnedOut]

@BurnedOut Any theory can be dismissed as the product of hidden motives if one's aim is rather to denigrate than to understand, which is why psychoanalysis has become a favourite tool of people who want to discredit other people's thoughts, but are unwilling or unable to advance substantive criticisms. Modern materialism is even more vulnerable to dismissal as maternal nostalgia than religion, since matter is traditionally regarded as feminine. Earth, not heaven, is our 'mother', nor is it a coincidence that the Latin word for mother is mater. Could modern atheism not simply be a childish flight from the adult responsibilities represented by the commandments of God? This is a mean and unedifying line of inquiry, but this is where your vicious reasoning and ad hominem attacks take us.

I did not denigrate theists or God. I framed the OP in a peculiar manner to emphasize the main point of my argument.

Personally, I have nothing against theists because they are usually better off in terms of social integration. They are scientifically more likely to be happy. I would be a theist happily if I could but I cannot because I have not found any observable evidence that can be deduced than inducted. I do not prefer inductive reasonings if not one of its pathways leads to any kind of empirical testing. This is the case of God. The inductive reasoning does not resolve at any point and ultimately claims God as a postulate. Doing this negates all possibilities of testing the existence of God

Apart from that, I did not understand how this fights any of the arguments I have made

 

[BurnedOut]

Can I get some further clarity on how a theist can oppose an atheist exercising the free will that God gave them? It seems like if they truly believe in God's power and wisdom, then everything that occurs is according to God's plan which is above question.

The choice to be an atheist out of free will - if this argument (although acceptable) is accepted, I find it hard to see the existence of theism being durable enough to not get eradicated. As long as there is something to oppose, belief has a bulwark against change. If theists genuinely accept the existence of atheists, it can cause cognitive dissonance and question the verity of known notions about god.

 

[BurnedOut]

Atheist do the same thing, but instead they internalized the image of early childhood authority. They do not externalize it. Or it they do externalize it they do so in a unconscious way. So you might be projecting your mother or father figures on celebrities, or people you like or just anyone you meet in life, like your boss, or even a friend etc.

Excellent. God is basically the most superior authority, as believed, which is inviolable just as one's mother (at least before a child is self-sustaining)

This, I feel, resolves to my point that atheists are seen as the ultimate rebellions of the world

 

[The Grey Man]

God is indeed an untestable hypothesis, but not everything worth believing is testable, nor is everything worth knowing provable. Empirical studies and mathematical deductions didn't get you out of bed this morning. "Faith is the evidence of things not seen."

 

[BurnedOut]

In order to understand theist's view of atheists, we must first understand that God is a real person to theists. Not an abstraction as atheists views it.

I don't believe that atheists believe God as an abstraction. Atheists oppose the belief that such 'real' persons cannot exist given the randomness that is immanent in the world.

I think that to be proved is beneath his dignity, since every proof presupposes principles, from which it borrows its credibility. God is a postulate, not a theorem. I believe so that I may understand.

Principles are presupposed by material and from the material's existence and properties, principles are derived. Therefore if there is a God, he is material and he is real and if that is the case, he is testable.

Ultimately, it all boils down to whether or whether not to prove his existence by transcending beyond personal experiences. That is what it seems, here at least, from AK's and The Grey Man's arguments, in my opinions.

 

[BurnedOut]

God is indeed an untestable hypothesis, but not everything worth believing is testable, nor is everything worth knowing provable. Empirical studies and mathematical deductions didn't get you out of bed this morning. "Faith is the evidence of things not seen."

I agree with you as a human being. We do not have the capacity or patience to go about testing everything. Perhaps a lot of my own rationality has been derived from facts I did not choose to verify because of time and brain constraints.

However, for the sake of logic and debating, if I were to consider this argument, then theism and atheism revolves around trust. Trust is again an infantile emotion that still exists in relation to our mothers, our environments and hence, ultimately towards the material that positively or negatively reinforces our needs.

 

[Black Rose]

Principles are presupposed by material and from the material's existence and properties, principles are derived. Therefore if there is a God, he is material and he is real and if that is the case, he is testable.

Ultimately, it all boils down to whether or whether not to prove his existence by transcending beyond personal experiences. That is what it seems, here at least, from AK's and The Grey Man's arguments, in my opinions.

God and I are in the cohabitation of the same body. She lives in me. I am not sure how you can test that given that spirits have no test yet. All tests would come up schizophrenic. I can't prove anything. I simply know Blake was kind to me several times. It was not random. It was like holding a puppy. A living thing that loves you. That is why I say God is a person. A person in cohabitation with me. As I view it she is very Ni because of her access to me. She controls my dreams when she wants to.

Many people experience living beings inside them. I am not sure if they are all the 'same' God, but they are not random. Something with personal life is not random.

 

[onesteptwostep]

In terms of the psyche, atheists and theists are just the same. Theists, Christians, just happen to believe in one more God.

The distinction between theists and atheists is silly though. There are a lot of types of theists, and there also are a lot of types of atheists. It would be backwards and unproductive to discuss them as if they were an monolithic group.

I think a better way to frame the question is "Christianity vs non-belief".

With that out of the way, let's address the opening post.

I think to a non-religious person, to rationalize the belief that is held by Christians, and or other religions, they would have to fall back on some evolutionary psychology to frame their humanism. This however, ultimately runs into some philosophical and ontological and teleological questions.

How does humanism explain good and evil? How does humanism explain the purpose of humanity, or the purpose of the particular self? Can humanism determine what the basic substance of the world is? To a humanist, is love a means or an end? For a humanist, how should one live life?

There is nothing unnatural with atheism. In fact, one of the biggest religions in the world lacks belief in God. They believe in some teachings of a monk, chanting a lot, and sitting down Indian style to think about random stuff. Confucianism, as with Buddhism, is atheistic as well.

 

[ZenRaiden]

This, I feel, resolves to my point that atheists are seen as the ultimate rebellions of the world

Yep.

One can see this play out through mythology in multitude of ways.

Zeus fighting the titans.

Jesus reuniting on the cross with God he feels like his father has forsaken him.

Buddha leaving his palace to see the world

Alice in the Wonderland

Its base archetypal thing the only difference in the myths is how the narrative is written.

One can see the implicit lesson.

We see this play out in real life as well.

Especially with leaders such as Caesar making himself a god, or Napoleon crowning himself or Kings being considered Gods at various points in history.

 

[scorpiomover]

I have repeatedly mentioned my theory that God's yearning is akin to the yearning a man has for (human) teats. It is an infantile pleasure that is obtained by suckling them whenever distress sends chills down the spines. Another reason is that everybody would like to have a lifetime mommy who would hear you out whenever and always praise your good behaviour but simply warn you for your bad ones. So infantile, so cozy, so simple.

Therefore, why has been atheism seen as being so evil or so outrageous that atheists were condemned to death. Even in this era, surveys given to theists reveal that they prefer rapists to atheists when it comes to trustworthiness of the two.

Dude, you just said that billions of people that you've never met, that daily fight fires and stop rapists and murderers to protect you, that daily fight the coronavirus to protect you and atheists like you, are simplistic infantile paedos, and you are wondering why people don't trust you?

State your views on this peculiar behaviour towards atheists

Even if a theist loved atheists, if he spoke to you and you said the things you've written here, I would be very surprised if he would not be very distrustful of you.

Try an experiment.

Join another site, that is chock full of atheists. Copy your sentence. Replace the word "theists" with "atheists" and "atheists" with "Xians". Then ask the atheist posters if they think that you like them and if there was to be a war between atheists and Xians, if they would trust you that you would never harm them.

IME, I'm fairly confident that you'll find that the atheists will distrust you.

Try the same experiments with lots of different religions. I suspect that you'd find the same result.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Yeah Zen, God is a Daddy. Get your shit straight.

 

[BurnedOut]

I have repeatedly mentioned my theory that God's yearning is akin to the yearning a man has for (human) teats. It is an infantile pleasure that is obtained by suckling them whenever distress sends chills down the spines. Another reason is that everybody would like to have a lifetime mommy who would hear you out whenever and always praise your good behaviour but simply warn you for your bad ones. So infantile, so cozy, so simple.

Therefore, why has been atheism seen as being so evil or so outrageous that atheists were condemned to death. Even in this era, surveys given to theists reveal that they prefer rapists to atheists when it comes to trustworthiness of the two.

Dude, you just said that billions of people that you've never met, that daily fight fires and stop rapists and murderers to protect you, that daily fight the coronavirus to protect you and atheists like you, are simplistic infantile paedos, and you are wondering why people don't trust you?

State your views on this peculiar behaviour towards atheists

Even if a theist loved atheists, if he spoke to you and you said the things you've written here, I would be very surprised if he would not be very distrustful of you.

Try an experiment.

Join another site, that is chock full of atheists. Copy your sentence. Replace the word "theists" with "atheists" and "atheists" with "Xians". Then ask the atheist posters if they think that you like them and if there was to be a war between atheists and Xians, if they would trust you that you would never harm them.

IME, I'm fairly confident that you'll find that the atheists will distrust you.

Try the same experiments with lots of different religions. I suspect that you'd find the same result.

Thanks momma. Sorry, I forgot my manners. I was just trying to state my views via reasoning. The diction was therefore a little unholy

 

[Black Rose]

Love has been imprinted on us from birth. This is where our sense of God comes from. Some of us form an aura around us of love we feel in a person known as God. And further, some manifest this aura as a tangible figure to them. As one who feels loved the source being felt from is most likely God. Something outside that connects inside. I still have to get over abandonment issues but my aura is there though small. I do not have any control issues that produce anger or power trips. The problem is not control but withering away. I tried a long time to get what I wanted but it turned out I did not really want anything. This left me very empty inside. My efforts went into the wrong things. I wanted to be creative and happy but I was not sure how to accomplish this. I was left isolated without family or friends. I put too much stress on myself. I realize that I can be ok without doing anything, without causing anxiety. That was was when, in those moments, I understood God's importance. If God was all I needed then that was the solution to my problems. If I felt loved I would not have needed to go through all those harsh times I put myself through. People that meet God feel the Love God brings them. A strong Character has been convinced by it. But love is felt so it is strong in that way, not just words.