RE: No first generation true atheist is possible!
February 18, 2011 at 11:23 pm
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2011 at 11:24 pm by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 24, 2024, 5:14 pm
Thread Rating:
|
No first generation true atheist is possible!
|
 (February 18, 2011 at 8:34 pm)sun Wrote:(February 18, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You need to brush up on the adage that says: "All generalizations are wrong....even this one." Then don't make blanket assertions that you can't sustain. That's for the preachers. My coping mechanism usually entails a glass or two of red wine. Never do I think that any problems I may have will be solved by talking to myself and pretending that there is someone else listening.  RE: No first generation true atheist is possible!
February 19, 2011 at 2:27 am
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2011 at 2:29 am by ozgoat.)
My parents had me Christened into Church of England when I was a few months old, probably due to pressure from their parents.
I never heard my parents, either one of them mention god or religion. religion was just never mentioned in our household, 6 kids and our parents. I joined the Boy Scouts and was required to attend church one per month. I never believed any of the nonsense. This was for about 3 years. I had a dog that died and when talking to the vicar about him the vicar said that of course dogs don't go to heaven, god didn't give animals souls. I thought that was total rubbish! It cemented my thoughts that god and religion were nonsense after hearing that! I've always been an atheist. Never thought about god ever. Been to church for weddings, funerals, christenings, never sang the silly songs or gave praise or prayed. My 4 sisters and brother are all atheists. There are many intelligent Christians, no doubt, but an "intellectual Christian", is surely an oxymoron. 
Murphy's law went wrong because it could be wrong. ok so the original post is a bit like saying religion is natural? I think I can see why someone might think that. Religion uses a lot of psychological defenses, like denial and tunnel vision, etc. However so do people. This is a bit hypothetical, but perhaps it would be easy to conclude that people resort to religion when actually they are resorting to psychological defenses. They could be identified as the same because we associate the defenses with religion. that however doesn't mean that because defenses are there, that they have a root in religious value.
And on Freud: It might not be the most popular belief but I do like Freud. That doesn't mean I agree with him on a lot of things. I think he may have been right or at least on the right track on some things though. For example, I think on the pleasure principle he had some good insight. However to say that people are selfish by nature is a bit tricky because there is a general stigma that says that selfishness is generally bad. I don't think this is particularly the kind of selfish definition that fits this. To explain I'll evaluate what I mean by selfish as applied to the pleasure principle: generally we wish for people to succeed and fulfill their role in society as best as they can. Humanistically we would like them to have a happy and prosperous like. Or to rethink this in other words, we'd like then to be selfish like the rest of us while conforming happily to social norms. on the contrary imagine a selfless world. No one wold ever take a job promotion because we would want the other person to have it. money and goods would have little to no value because we would only want to use them to help others. Ironically in being selfless and trying to give we expect the other person to take what is given. we expect selfishness. If we didn't have it society would come to a halt. If we never had it nothing would be the way it is now. Selfishness can be bad but only if it is more that social norms will allow. otherwise it is expected of others. Something we can respect about Freud as well is that he had the nerve to talk about sexuality in the Victorian area. when we look at ITR (Instant Trauma Reduction) which is commonly used in humanism to relieve post-traumatic stress, one of the things we use to get to the next point is slips of the tongue, which is initially a Freudian idea. On that same note the idea in ITR of lowering the persons resistance level to bring out latent content is also used and its also a Freudian idea. Yes hydrodynamics has branched and changed in many ways and you could argue that id doesn't sand on its own very much. However that's not a reason to under-credit the value that we obtained and still use from it.
Jesus said he would come back soon. So over 2000 years isn’t long enough to call his bluff? Of course that’s assuming he existed.
 (February 18, 2011 at 3:14 pm)sun Wrote: All of the first generation atheists without an exception have residual nagging believes – Freudian remnants of the psychological rapes their poor minds suffered when they were, as infants & teenagers, at the mercy of their brain-washed parents, society and the church! When in doubt, when in fear, and when in need of self preservation - they resort back to religious believes, incantations, and to mother church, synagogue, mosque or temple. What if only one of your parents is a believer? You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis. 
My coping mechanism is fiction
 
Believes is not the plural form of belief. That is all.
  (February 18, 2011 at 8:34 pm)sun Wrote:(February 18, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You need to brush up on the adage that says: "All generalizations are wrong....even this one." All generalizations are wrong including yours or this one!
You're right when you talk about yourself, and you're wrong when you talk about others.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
