No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

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.)

The high profile theists do not have DSM type psychological problems but they do have a reasonably active psychological desperation of the existential kind which they are not conscious of.
Note “desperation” in this case comes in degrees in terms of activeness. While a jihadist terrorist may be 99% desperate psychologically, a high profile theists like the Pope may have say 20%.

I believe the above can be objective in terms of fMRI imaging of brain activities.

It seems odd that you can know this about them.

I’m going by the content of their writings and their biographies and I have to admit that I’m making a guess about their mental states since I don’t have personal access to these people.

Please don’t use numbers when you don’t have any data to support those numbers.

Those people didn’t get scanned. Maybe some test subjects have been scanned. How many of them were jihadi terrorists? None?

Scanning people in particular actions doesn’t really say anything about the “psychological desperation” of a belief in God. It just says that there is a pattern of activity at those times.

What’s the baseline definition for “psychologically desperate”?

Obviously, there would have to be a distinct difference between “desperate” and “not desperate”. Which is what?

And then what’s the difference between “a little desperate” (say 10%) and “half desperate” (say 50%) and “really desperate” (say 99%)?

I do not know them.
I am going by your claim,
I happen to disagree because there have been many high profile theists throughout history who did not have psychological problems.”
I agree as I have not read of reports of high profile theists, e.g. Popes, Scientists and others, as having DSM symptons by any qualified psychiatrist and considered as mentally ill.

As for their,
“reasonably active psychological desperation of the existential kind which they are not conscious of” this is based on an inference, i.e.

  1. All theists has some degree of psychological desperation re the existential crisis.
  2. Your mentioned these high profile people as theists.
  3. Therefore these these high profile people as theists has some degrees of of psychological desperation re the existential crisis.

As for P1, the proof is a long and complex one. However I have pointed to the example of Abraham’s desperation to the extent of willing to kill his own son for God and other examples.

Please don’t use numbers when you don’t have any data to support those numbers.
Yes, I don’t have precise numbers. The above numbers are merely to represent the relative comparison of high to lower degrees of activeness. Note my use of ‘maybe’.

In the above I stated it is possible. I did not claim it has been done.
Various research has been done in the related areas and my hypothesis can be tested using such research facilities to prove my thesis. This is very possible.

Again, based on existing research, it can be extended to test my hypothesis re “psychological desperation”. First we need to identify the mechanics related to “psychological desperation” then work on it.
At present the processes are very crude.

The field of neuroscientific knowledge is expanding at an exponential rate and there is the Human Connectome Project to map the neural connection of the whole human brain. When humanity has reached a certain critical milestone on this project, humanity will be able to identify the neural activities related to this ‘psychological desperation’ and test to verify its existence, then proposed the necessary improvements.

You have a lot to cover in this area of knowledge.

To differentiate the “desperate” and “not desperate”, it will be the following;

  1. Desperate = all theists
  2. Not desperate = the more advance non-theistic Buddhist practitioners and the likes.

Therefore ALL theists-proper* by default has various degrees of desperation within their subconscious mind that compelled them to believe in a God of various forms.

  • not fake ones, e.g. pretend to be theist to marry their theistic girlfriend and other reasons.

Let take the example of the sexual drive which is the same but not as deeply fundamental as the existential drive and its complex existential crisis.

  1. The really desperate [99%] who are controlled by their sexual drive are those rapists, sex perverts, sex addicts, and the likes.
  2. The half desperate [50/50] are the average person who has sex say 3 times a week during their active and peak sexual phase.
  3. Those who are “a little desperate” are those who has low active sexual drive, maybe having sex once a month.

Obviously for those in 2 and 3 there is no noticeable desperation, but the term degree of desperation is valid when we put them on a continuum of desperation.
If our continuum is based on ‘not desperate’ then the % would be reversed.

The principles and use of desperation within a continuum as in sex can be used for the psychological desperation re existential crisis.

I have used the above relative principles within a continuum in relation to ‘evilness’.
If genocide is 99% evilness then relatively petty crimes could be 1% evilness along the same continuum of evilness.