Posts Tagged ‘psychological’

Are Atheists writing only to keep those in doubt in their folds?

January 29, 2014

To understand the discussion the viewers are requested to access the following and the comments of other friends in humanity in the context:

http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/answering-atheism-not-really/comment-page-1/#comment-11021

makagutu says:
January 29, 2014 at 09:05

I don’t think they address atheists but are trying to keep those in the faith right where they are but convincing them that the arguments for the atheists have been refuted.
I am with you on no unchanging, eternal morality. Morality makes no sense in the absence of sentient beings living in a social group.

Mordanicus says:
January 29, 2014 at 10:22

It’s a kind of psychological ritual, repeating that atheism has been refuted, and if done long enough they will believe it themselves, and hence there would be no further reason to question their own believes.

makagutu says:
January 29, 2014 at 17:19

Ah, reminds me of the saying that some people think by telling themselves the same thing repeatedly it becomes true

paarsurrey says:
January 29, 2014 at 19:14
@ makagutu

“I don’t think they address atheists but are trying to keep those in the faith right where they are but convincing them that the arguments for the atheists have been refuted.”
I think it is the same with the Atheists; they don’t give any arguments that the “One-True-God” doesn’t exist; they want to keep the doubters in their folds.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Note:The Theists as well as Atheists are requested instead of belittling one another they should be serious in their arguments.

Religion brought civilization

November 25, 2011

There took place an interesting discussion on the above topic, initiated by me, on my favorite discussion forum, the hubpages.

I have omitted some of the posts which were not directly related to the issue of the topic and which don’t add any meaning to the discussion at hand; the conversation is given hereunder for the viewers of this blog with courtesy of hubpages.

I, however, respect and love all the posters on the hubpages.

One may access the following link to see the whole of it.

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/86167

OP from Paarsurrey

Religion brought civilization

Gobekli Tepe proves it.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text

1. A Troubled Man

And once again, we see that you have failed at one or both of these:

1. Read the article
2. Comprehended the article

“What it suggests, at least to the archaeologists working there, is that the human sense of the sacred—and the human love of a good spectacle—may have given rise to civilization itself.”

2. autumn18

The article doesn’t prove anything. It shows that some of the worlds archaeologists are still researching the beginning of civilization.

3. Paarsurrey

“The Birth of Religion
We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization.”

The article does hint clearly that farming and civilization started 12000 years ago with religion; it did not start with atheism.

4. A Troubled Man posted

Funny guy, you’ll say anything to prop up your beliefs. You post links that actually DO NOT support what you claim and what you believe.

5. Psycheskinner

The same argument could probably be made for the fermenting of alcohol.

6. A Troubled Man

+1

7. SimeyC

No argument there: alcohol = civilization.

Even God knew this – there was a Eleventh Commandment that was accidently broken:
Though shalt all consume alcohol

Why do you think Jesus turned water into wine?

OK so there goes my chance of getting into heaven!!!!

8. Disappearinghead

God gave us beer because He wanted us to be happy.

9. Emile R

Fascinating article paar. Thanks for sharing the link.

10. Paarsurrey

Yet the atheists won’t accept it; once they have decided psychologically to doubt everything, they cannot come out of this wrong state. Their thinking is neither natural nor reasonable.

Thanks for your appreciation.

11. Wilderness

“Wrong state”. Yet it behooves us to doubt everything we hear – the vast majority of “information” we receive is not factual.

Far better to doubt and look for truth than to simply believe everything we hear because it fits with what we want to be true. It is a concept you would be well advised to understand better.

12. Paarsurrey

One should doubt only where it is reasonable to doubt; not otherwise; then it will become a psychological disease.

Science does not support your viewpoint; it supports only where it is reasonable to doubt.

13. Wilderness

Wrong again, Paar. You have immersed yourself so thoroughly in the world of theology that you haven’t the faintest idea of how science works or what it does.

Science always doubts; only after thousands or tens of thousands of tests is something beyond doubt, and even then only in those particular circumstances of the tests.

Theology on the other hand will declare there is no reasonable doubt after deciding something is true; tests aren’t necessary, only rationalization that leads to the predetermined conclusion. There is thus always serious doubt by scientific methodology but theology doesn’t recognize that methodology so the truth stands.

You truly need to try, and try hard, to understand this concept. Science doesn’t accept theological methodology as useful any more than theology accepts science methodology as required. You continue to use religious methods of finding truth and expect science to agree, but it doesn’t work that way.

14. Paarsurrey

Science only will deal where there is a reasonable ground to doubt; if they observe some anomaly then they would doubt; otherwise they need not.

15. Emile R

Let me clarify. The article doesn’t support your OP. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t fascinating though. Did you notice they haven’t excavated anymore than a portion of one tenth of the site? And that there could be monuments even deeper, going further back in history?

Amazing discoveries could still be ahead.

16. Paarsurrey

I agree with you.

17. A Troubled Man

Really? Or, is it such that you never read the article or you didn’t comprehend it and now you’re trying to back peddle because the article does not support your silly claims?

Funny how the more you post, the more we can see what your religion has actually taught you.

18. Psycheskinner

This morning the sun rose to the sound of geese honking. So clearly geese cause the sun to rise.

19. Wilderness posted

Just so. Religion may well have risen alongside civilization; as more and more people live in close contact it is inevitable that someone will invent and use religion to control the others. Also, any new thought about understanding the world around us (there is a god throwing lightning bolts and causing thunder) spreads quickly with lots of people around.

There is, however, no indication that religion caused the rise of civilization. It is convenient to think so as it gives a usefulness to religion that isn’t there, and you will find lots of people that will believe it because, just like your geese, the time element works.

On the whole, though, religion retards the progression of civilization. Religion almost always denies new knowledge and will always try to maintain the status quo as that’s what keeps it in power – this is not bringing civilization.

20. Couturepopcafe

I believe you are right, wilderness. Ancient Greece was civilized beyond belief well before the advent of organized religion. They dressed elegantly in draped garments designating their status in the community, women wore ‘gym’ clothes to participate in spartan athletic games of skill, and men debated world views and allowed the opinions of women equal weight.

21. Paarsurrey

I don’t agree with you.

Socrates, a cream of them, himself was a messenger prophet of the Creator God.

22. A Troubled Man

“Taqiyya, meaning religious dissimulation, is a practice emphasized in Shi’a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion. This means a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are under those risks.”

Someone is certainly taking advantage of this immoral and unethical Islamic teaching.

23. Paarsurrey

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim; and the posters here know very well that I don’t conceal that.

24. A Troubled Man

And, like all other Muslims, you will use Taqiyaa when it suits your purposes, as you have done here countless times.

25. Couturepopcafe

paars – do you really think so? Socrates was an existentialist, believing we should think for ourselves, examine every bit of authority and worldview. He believed in perfecting ones soul but is never said to have been a devotee of one god. That doesn’t mean he discounted the existence of god as a collective consciousness.

You may be correct in that sense. As a messenger, or person who lived at a higher level of awareness, he was trying to tell us that we should examine our own thinking, purpose, and awareness and not be cattled by conventional thinking.

26. Paarsurrey

Please quote Socrates’ words to support your view point.

27. Paarsurrey

To return to the topic of the thread “Religion brought civilization” I quote from the article about “Göbekli Tepe”:

“ Most of the world’s great religious centers, past and present, have been destinations for pilgrimages—think of the Vatican, Mecca, Jerusalem, Bodh Gaya (where Buddha was enlightened), or Cahokia (the enormous Native American complex near St. Louis). They are monuments for spiritual travelers, who often came great distances, to gawk at and be stirred by. Göbekli Tepe may be the first of all of them, the beginning of a pattern. What it suggests, at least to the archaeologists working there, is that the human sense of the sacred—and the human love of a good spectacle—may have given rise to civilization itself.”

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text

28. A Troubled Man

That’s exactly the same quote I provided to you showing that your claim in the OP is nonsense. Now, you use the very same quote to support your claim? Just how dishonest are you going to get?

OOO
Hubpages is a good discussion site; one could comment there or here in this blog; comments are most welcome.

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/86167