wow you do love to mentally jerk jerk yourself around don't you. you think your juvenile arguments amount to something. 1. science has zero proof the universe was not created. 2. For the purposes of this argument I have no desire to give any attributes to the Creator other than stating that Creator created the universe in which we live. 3. PBS did a special on this. Every scientist with a job knows that they can not rule out the existence of a Creator given current science 4. Some scientists even argue the world looks finely tuned... implying that we either have an infinite amount of universes or a Creator. As I said atheists are nuts.
.....if that were the case, just what do you imagine you are doing? Repeating the same fallacy of arguing from ignorance does not improve your non-argument any. There is zero proof the universe was created. For the purposes of this argument then and for the second time of asking , give some rational overriding reason why arguing against the attributes of Creator Zeus may be reasonable, which you say it is , but arguing against "the Creator" would not be . You can't - can you? Thatâll be what's making you sound so angry and abusive â and juvenile. You are repeating the same fallacy of reasoning again and as predicted, it's not making your non-argument any better. The PBS could equally do a special titled .. ' Every scientist with a job knows that they cannot rule in the existence of a Creator given current science'. You do understand the difference between world and universeâ¦. do you? "The world looks finely tuned" implies the world as observed and demonstrated looks like a natural world, naturally "finely tuned" without any necessary implications of infinite universes or any so called Creator. That is, for anyone who can be bothered to actually look at it. You think people should worship an invisible imaginary friend in the guise of a Giant Sky Daddy, and you're calling those who don't - nuts !! What sort of mental illness would you have there? Well letâs see, generally speaking it's known as religion.
Psychology Another traditional bastion of atheism has been the belief that religion is a form of psychological pathology. This view was promoted by Freud, and more recently by R. Stark & W. S. Bainbridge in their work, Theory of Religion. The traditional argument was that religion was both the result of neurosis, and the cause of further deterioration into neurosis. Recently, however, these ideas have come under fire by medical and psychological research. The Mayo Clinic did an analysis of 850 mental health studies involving religious belief and involvement and found that mental health was positively affected by faith. [2] Subsequently, 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar conclusions. For example, Psychologie Heute, a German journal, cites the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany's Ruhr District because of "spiritual resources." [3] Professor Vitz did a study of the most prominent professed atheists in the last 400 years; it appears that those individuals neither were nor are paragons of mental health, and that a disproportionate number had strained relationships with their fathers. [4] [5] Some challenge Prof. Vitz's argument that the temperament of an atheist arises from a strained relationship with his father, without addressing the possibility that both the atheism and the strained paternal relationship may have stemmed from the child's native cantankerous and rebellious temperament. As a result of these facts, many have become convinced that religion is psychologically beneficial, and that it is atheism which is both a cause and a result of mental illness. http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism
The Psychology of Atheism Dr. Paul Vitz September 24, 1997 These are notes of the lecture taken by an audience member. The talk was meant as an encapsulation of a book on which Dr. Vitz has been working and that he intends to publish in a year. The talk takes the opposite apprach to that usually taken in psychology and much linked to its origin: explaining religious belief. The concepts of psychology are two-edge swords that can explain not only religious belief, but also the lack of belief. He makes two assumptions about atheism: 1. major barriers to belief are non-rational, that is, psychological 2. all of us have a free choice to reject or accept God The point is to identify factors that predispose one to atheism. First, Dr. Vitz elaborated on the simpler, more shallow reasons for atheism. He reviewed his own personal story as an example. He was raised with a somewhat Christian upbringing in Ohio, but became an atheist in college at age 18 , and remained so until the age of 38, when he converted, or re-converted to Christianity. Reflection on his own life showed him that his reasons for being an atheist were superficial. Superficial reasons for atheism: 1. General Socialization-- social unease e.g. Vitz is from the Mid-west, which is boring and he wanted to be comfortable in the glamorous secular world. Voltaire was embarrassed of his provincial origin cf. flight from Jewish ghetto or fundamentalist Southern background 2. Desire to be accepted by powerful and influential professors. He noted that his professors at Stanford animadverted on every psychological topic, but were united in two things: professional ambition and disbelief in God. 3. Personal convenience. Belief in God means having to give up pleasures and free time. Mortimer Adler, in his How to Think about God, leaves the impression the the main obstacle to belief for him lies in his own will. Next, Dr. Vitz moved on to the deeper psychological reasons some people do not believe in God. He reviewed Freud's critique of belief, his projection theory: human beings are weak and need protection so they project their need by concocting an all-powerful father figure, God. The problem with ad hominem arguments is that they also work on any other belief people might hold, such as belief in scientific theories, and can also be used to reject psychoanalysis as well. Furthermore, the projection theory is refuted by the fact hat pre-Christian religions didn't emphasize God as benevolent father. Essentially, he summarized, the projection theory is really an autonomous argument and is not dependent on psychology. Bolstering this assertion is the fact that Freurbach had previously formulated the same argument in a book that Freud had read. So psycholoanalysis is neutral to the projection argument. Dr. Vitz described an explanation of atheism using Freud's psychology of the Oedipus Complex. Freud posited that this is a psychological disorder that all males suffer from and consists of the desire to kill one's father and sleep with one's mother. Now, psychologically God and one's father are the same. Thus, the desire to kill one's father means one also desired to eliminate God. Atheism is Oedipal wish fulfillment. E.g. Voltaire wasn't an atheist, but a deist: he rejected a personal God. He strongly rejected his own father. In his twenties (1718) he published a play called Oedipus that included heavy allusions to religious and political rebellion Diderot was an avowed atheist and he claimed that if man were left to himself, he would strangle his father and lie with his mother. Freud noted a link between diminishing of a father's authority and belief in God. Dr. Vitz outlines his "Theory of the Defective Father," which attemptes to explain atheism: 1. father present but weak 2. father present but abusive 3. father absent Freud's father, Yakov was weak and had trouble supporting his family and was a sexual pervert. Also he was a liberal Jew, so Freud linked his weakness to his religion. Hobbes-- his father was an Anglican clergyman who abandoned his family. Freurbach-- his father was a famous legal theoriest. at 13, his father abandoned the family to live with another woman, though he later returned when that woman died. Schopenhauer-- couldn't stand his mother and intially (ages 8-12) was relatively close to his father. At age 16, his father committed suicide. Other staunch atheists show the remarkably common pattern of having a father who died while they were young. For example, Nietzche, Bertrand Russel, Sartre and Camus. More recent examples: Madeline Murray O'hare hated her father and tried to kill him with a butcher knife, according to her son's book. Albert Ellis is a psychologist hostile to religion. Dr. Vitz was on a panel with him and outlined his theory of the defective father to him. Ellis said the theory didn't fit him because he got along with his father. In casual conversation, a friend told Vitz that the theory "fits Ellis perfectly." According to a biography of Ellis, his father abandoned the family and his weak mother was unable to support, so Ellis and his brother ended up providing everyhting for themselves. In his twenties, Ellis was polite to his father, though. Anthony Flew (sp?) is a philosopher who's an atheist and the son of a well-known English divine. At a party Flew beat on the floor exclaiming "I hate my father!" David Hume's father died when he was two. As a control group, Dr. Vitz took well-known theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture: Barkeley, Burke, Wilbeforce, G.K. Chesterton, de Tocqueville, Buber, Pascal, and others. In every instance each had a good relationship with his father. J.S. Mill, an atheist, also had a good relationship with his father and so inherited his father's atheism. To conclude, Dr. Vitz read a selection from Russel Baker, the New York Times columnist, describing his sadness and anger at age five when his father died, and how he then became a skeptic. Question period [Sorry, I didn't get the questions down.] Dr. Vitz noted other common factors he noted in the famous atheists he'd profiled: they were all smart and arrogant. The point of the profiling of atheists is to remove psychological motives from explaining religious belief. The ad hominem attack on theism posits an immature need for support, but there are psychological causes for atheism as well as theism. So when the atheist attacks a theists beliefs for being childish, the theist can counter, ``and so's your old man!" So, this argument more or less levels the playing field as far as psychological explanations of belief/disbelief are concerned. However, no one disputes that having a loving father is better than having an unloving father. A loving atheist father will likely set up his children for theism, just as an S.O.B. theist father will set up his children for atheism. Examples of figures who don't fit the theory: Dederot had a relatively positive relationship with his father, though he did have a serious dispute with his father at age twenty (too late to count). Another explanation of Diderot's atheism may be his place in the birth order of his family (cf. "Born to Rebel"). Karl Marx Don Bosco's father died when he was two. He saw priests a father figures and founded an order that helped orphan boys. Hillaire Belloc's father died when he was two, but he sought substitute fathers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Vitz is professor of psychology at New York University. He is also an adjunct professor of the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family in Washington, D.C. He formerly taught at Pomona College and Claremont Graduate School. During his early years at N.Y.U., Vitz's research interests focused on experimental psychology; since his conversion to Christianity over fifteen years ago, he has been working in the area of psychology and religion. He holds a B.A. from the University of Michigan and a Ph.D. from Stanford University. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Augustine Club at Columbia University, 1997
That's rich. Those worshipping a Giant magic sky Fairy would do better examining their own psychology before trying to criticize anyone elseâs.
Had a bad row with your daddy, did you? ROTFLMAO... Easy to imagine stu pounding the floor screaming "I hate my daddy, I hate my daddy..."
"Creationwiki?" Encyclopedia of "creation science?" Isn't that precious. http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/CreationWiki TREATMENT OF NON-CREATIONISTS Non-creationists are not allowed to edit content on CreationWiki.[9] Apparently, the same editors are subject to being grouped in to a secret classification, known as "limited."[10] The class cannot be discussed, and the user with "limited" rights may not inquire as to what the status actually is.[11] Strictly speaking, someone without rights cannot inquire as to what rights he lacks. Also, non-creationists are discouraged from editing "user_talk" pages, and debate from them is similarly out of vogue. In a private e-mail with CreationWiki creator Chris Ashcraft, he explained, â Debate is only appropriate from those holding to a Creation POV.... Limit all posts to article talk pages. (Article talk pages only).... You may engage in peer review of articles, but do not use the UserTalk pages.[12] â GOAL OF "PEER REVIEW" One of CreationWiki's goals is to facilitate "peer review" of creation science, but it is unclear what "peer review" means in the context of CreationWiki. While the site disparages traditional peer review[13] - since it, of course, always finds creationist viewpoints wanting - it has its own method of peer review for CreationWiki articles, to which (apparently) no articles have yet been subjected.[14] One must wonder of what use peer review is, where only creationists may participate in the process fully and freely. The misunderstanding of the goal of peer review runs deep: the site's founder states that the goal of peer review is to "uphold the majority consensus," and that atheists and creationists are not "peers" for the purpose of peer review. Presumably, the conclusion is that this is the only reason that creationist claims fail scientific peer review.[15]
" Giant magic sky Fairy " God is defined as: 1. Unlimited in size. So the concept of a "giant" does not apply. Giant is a term applied to indicate a proportional size relative to a standard height. God has no height, as height can be measured. God cannot be measured. Unlimited size is not "Giant." It is beyond the limited concept of "Giant" or "dwarf" or any other relativistic measurement. 2. magic Generally refers to supernatural forces. God is fully natural by definition. That God's naturalness is beyond man's natural power does not make God magical. No more than a human's power over an ant makes man magical by comparison. 3. sky God does not live in the sky by definition. sky is a material existence, a limited existence. sky is not everything, it begins and ends. God is beyond any concept of limitations, so the sky, a limited thing, could not hold God who is an unlimited thing. Pretty simple concept for reasonable people to grasp. A 5 gallon jug can't hold 500 gallons, and the limited sky can't hold an unlimited God. 4. Fairy Well, if atheists think of a fairy... Maybe that's who they are...
Attack the messenger, since you appear to be unable to refute the argument... Oh wait, wait... You can't refute the argument, but Richard Dawkins can? LOL!!!