Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.

[RJT]

This subject arose in another thread. It was claimed that psychological (I’ll call P for brevity) problems is one cause for many (most, all?) believers to take the path they do. This sounds good, but I see no proof for such a statement. In fact, I can certainly state the same for the atheists. Of course, one can talk about P problems for just about anything (and Freud pretty much does, yes?) But, that wasn’t the context. The point was made that folk come to believe, because they have P issues.

I can very easily see that Religion can cause P problems and perhaps often does. Guilt is an obvious, albeit relatively minor, example and suicide-bombers are an extreme case. But, I think people believing or arriving at their belief because they have P issues, as a blanket statement, is a leap. (Any more than marrying a red head versus a brunette is caused by P issues.) Indeed, I see evidence here on the forum that suggests that atheists often come to their decisions because of P issues:

Has anyone else noticed some of the bitterness some Atheists have with Religion? This seems to be the case with many former Christians. It seems something happened to them; whether it was their mother force-feeding Religion to them or perhaps some nun in kindergarten cracked their hands with a ruler. Anyway, it seems someone did some damage along the way. The cause is by someone, not Religion, per se.

So, the bottom line question is this: Do folk generally come to their beliefs out of some P need (to feel all warm and fuzzy, as Dr. kidluckee likes to say) any more than atheists arrive at their “conclusions” because of P reasons (e.g. Ego.)?

I sincerely think you are misinterpreting they tyupical skeptic's bitterness toward believers. Yes, there are some of us who were slapped too hard with a ruler in Catholic school (my stepfather for instance) however I am not one of those.

I think the majority of us (picking up the skeptic mantle) are upset that religions and their followers believe they know what is just, moral, and claim to know how others should live their lives using the Ultimate Authority as their shield. Not only do us skeptics see these believers as self-deluding, we also feel they meddle too much in our lives. If i want to screw someone of the same sex, swear, use contraception, or whatever, I dont want some nitwit who reads at the level of a 10 year old preaching to me about hell.
there's the bitterness.
If it makes you feel better, fine. Obviously not all believers are meddlers. Just a lot of them.

-g

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont want some nitwit who reads at the level of a 10 year old preaching to me about hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing your part to squash those stereotypes? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] kidding

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone else noticed some of the bitterness some Atheists have with Religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Noooooooo. (can you type sarcasticaly?) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I would like to know how many non-believers have father issues as well, but that's another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
So, the bottom line question is this: Do folk generally come to their beliefs out of some P need (to feel all warm and fuzzy, as Dr. kidluckee likes to say) any more than atheists arrive at their “conclusions” because of P reasons (e.g. Ego.)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have to sat no. No doubt that some do, but I don't think it's any more than others come to different views.

Also I really think that a P need can't/won't sustain faith. It may get you there, but sooner or later that need will arise again.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So, the bottom line question is this: Do folk generally come to their beliefs out of some P need (to feel all warm and fuzzy, as Dr. kidluckee likes to say) any more than atheists arrive at their “conclusions” because of P reasons (e.g. Ego.)?


[/ QUOTE ]

Our real motives are not always obvious even to ourselves. When I was a teen and many years before I became a Christian someone asked me if I hated everyone. I had no clue what she meant and didn't think about it further, though I never forgot the question. It was only after becoming a Christian, and then gradually over the course of decades, that I began to fully understand what prompted her question and how right she had been.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">Has anyone else noticed some of the bitterness some Atheists have with Religion? </font>

Actually I think the opposite is true. I am amazed at the patience many atheists show for believers. I wonder how much patience you would exhibit with someone who insisted to you that pixies are real? And not just any pixie, but their exact version of one!

What if I told you that the best way to lead your life was according to the zodiac? There are all kinds of reasons to believe in astrology! Let's see how much patience you'll have with me while I insist to you that it is all very sensible. I know you won't dismiss my beliefs as being unintelligent. So start proving to me why astrology and pixies have no merit.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Has anyone else noticed some of the bitterness some Atheists have with Religion? </font>

Actually I think the opposite is true. I am amazed at the patience many atheists show for believers. I wonder how much patience you would exhibit with someone who insisted to you that pixies are real? And not just any pixie, but their exact version of one!

What if I told you that the best way to lead your life was according to the zodiac? There are all kinds of reasons to believe in astrology! Let's see how much patience you'll have with me while I insist to you that it is all very sensible. I know you won't dismiss my beliefs as being unintelligent. So start proving to me why astrology and pixies have no merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don’t see much proselytizing here on the board. (I see a lot of trying to explain certain aspects of certain Religions.) Maybe I miss it or am reading from a different point of view. If there is a lot of evangelizing, can you point out a few examples? This is why I find curious the “bitterness” brought to some of the discussions

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Has anyone else noticed some of the bitterness some Atheists have with Religion? </font>

Actually I think the opposite is true. I am amazed at the patience many atheists show for believers. I wonder how much patience you would exhibit with someone who insisted to you that pixies are real? And not just any pixie, but their exact version of one!

What if I told you that the best way to lead your life was according to the zodiac? There are all kinds of reasons to believe in astrology! Let's see how much patience you'll have with me while I insist to you that it is all very sensible. I know you won't dismiss my beliefs as being unintelligent. So start proving to me why astrology and pixies have no merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don’t see much proselytizing here on the board. (I see a lot of trying to explain certain aspects of certain Religions.) Maybe I miss it or am reading from a different point of view. If there is a lot of evangelizing, can you point out a few examples? This is why I find curious the “bitterness” brought to some of the discussions

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that proselytizing is notably (and thankfully), absent for the most part on this forum. Still, there is a welling up of frustration when one espouses a belief that another finds no merital basis for.

If you go on the internet forum and claim online poker is rigged you will no doubt be flamed. Why? Because you would be espousing a belief for which you have no proof of.

This is why I used my pixie example. Not to be condescending, but to show that if I propose a belief, which you were to find ludicrous, would you not become utterly frustrated with my insistence? Especially if I am unable to provide any evidence to substantiate what I say?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that proselytizing is notably (and thankfully), absent for the most part on this forum. Still, there is a welling up of frustration when one espouses a belief that another finds no merital basis for.

If you go on the internet forum and claim online poker is rigged you will no doubt be flamed. Why? Because you would be espousing a belief for which you have no proof of.

This is why I used my pixie example. Not to be condescending, but to show that if I propose a belief, which you were to find ludicrous, would you not become utterly frustrated with my insistence? Especially if I am unable to provide any evidence to substantiate what I say?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don’t see many posts originating from the point of view of an argument for any religion. Most of the posts are answers to David’s questions or quizzes. Sure there are some Ops that might begin with a religious topic. But, you already agree that proselytizing is notably absent.

So , when you say this:

[ QUOTE ]
Still, there is a welling up of frustration when one espouses a belief that another finds no merital basis for.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean? How can one discuss topics such as religion (that again were mostly not originated by believers) without explaining ones religion?

If we agree there is not proselytizing, yet you say discussing religion with believers is frustrating - how do we fix this? We can stop talking religion or “discuss among ourselves”. Rather, if you show me some examples to support what you say we can see if we can resolve it. If there are none or few, then admit that the bitterness is brought to the table.

[Lestat]

Well first, any time you're discussing philosophy you're bound to get into it's biggest issues such as; the existence of God, free will, morality, meaning of life?, and so on.

But I must be missing your point somehow. Just scrolling through the last 25 posts, I see many original posts with religion or belief in the subject line. I don't see why you find it's mostly Sklansky bringing it up.