Psychology of Atheism part 1 of 2 apologetics

[hens0w]

so what your saying is since I think my father is a grate man I'm a theist. wrong

this means you loss

[gotrootdude]

Describing the unknown using the known is a sequential logical process. Describing the known using the unknown is a form of theological insanity. I don't believe that discussion of the psychological reasons people have illogical thought processes should be taken off the table, even if the illogical side may attempt to use it as a means to remain illogical.

[stevek037]

LOL Really? Did you not listen to the argument? It's an attack on the view that presupposes God doesn't exists and gives a psychological explanation for why we have that false belief. He's essentially saying, "two can play that game!" Thus comes up with a psychological explanation for the belief in atheism discounting the veracity of the belief. These are both bad approaches and he's giving this example to show that it's not a very effective or tenable position to hold.

[gotrootdude]

@stevek037 It still doesn't make any sense. Atheism isn't believing the reverse. Atheism is not holding a belief. I consider myself a ignostic atheist. Whether or not a god is plausible depends on the definition of god used. Most religious definitions of god are blatantly self-contradicting, ie. impossible. However, if a god is proposed that is consistent with observable evidence and non-self-contradicting, I have no problem with accepting the possibility that god might exist.

[TheEarthAbides]

ah, good work. yea as soon as i heard the Oedipus complex to explain the rejection of god i rolled my eyes and knew this guy was compromised.

[Chuichupachichi]

Freud was nothing more than a walking, talking, sloppy vagina. His downward gaze towards his father was for the sake of anti semitism against 1 Jew. But "Jewish" is a race, religion, culture & existence that is entirely derived from God. Before God's interaction with Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, Hebrew/Jewish didn't exist

Thus, Freud's atheism was anti semitic against the entirety of "Jewish". That much anti semitism is equally as obvious & only his extremely lacking fortitude could have blinded

[Chuichupachichi]

him to his being willfully oblivious to it. One may think that such a thing would require one whom is quite a ways off center. If so, then one should stop believing that anyone desiring to be his own sibling's father can possibly be anywhere near to the center

From this sort of a drastically warped, walking, vaginal, air corrupting exhaler did the world receive the ruler by which to measure normalcy? It's no wonder that the highly abnormal & unnatural homosexuality gets the empirical vote

[Chuichupachichi]

& 2 thumbs up. While there are millions whom never committed a crime, yet their now destroyed lives are determined by the judicially imposed, "opinion" of one whom was dumb enough & had the desire for power & control over humans, enough to dedicate his life to that invented in the mind of a motherfucker. Thus, Freud's & the animal trainer's legacy's live on. The now widespread vaginal acts are from when after they have witnessed that their couch squandering industry actually damages far more

[Chuichupachichi]

individuals than they help & can be seen to be a superficial success. Basically, the governments control tool of Motherfuckinology is only suited for the role of "Subjective Weapon". Precisely how gov. agencies use it each time they greatly desire to do what is disallowed by the law which they enforce on everyone but themselves. 1 opinion later & whoalla, what was yesterday a terrible crime, is today a pious virtue. The law is highly objective. Overcoming it requires something highly subjective

[Chuichupachichi]

The results is a real motherfucker! Most psycho couch therapists are materialist humanists. Inevitably so, for such is the mother of motherfuckinology. The true insanity lies in that after these atheists speak of how God (due to being immaterial) cannot be proved by science (for they require a evidential smoking gun) Still, they'll have you believe that "science" says that the immaterial mind can be made ill by something else, also immaterial

[Chuichupachichi]

It gets crazier yet, They, as materialist monists, are the dumbest & most insane wingnuts for believing that merely speaking to minds will have any effect. If their materialism & monism were valid, then all corrective applications to human minds should be limited to real neurological & brain scientists conducting procedures that are significantly more than merely speaking to patients. However, being that these overgrown, spoiled children have been & are still having their cake & eating it too

[Chuichupachichi]

Is why it's obvious that all their views are those of merely stupid, spoiled, overgrown children. The fact is that "dualism" is valid & helping corrupted minds is correctly the place of spiritual matters. The kids can grow up & a sack too & stop manufacturing defective persons. Or superficially corrected ones. Sorry, you''l have to face the scary you've been running from & start all over to get a real job... bitches!

[vanight]

Infinite number of presents would be cool!

[corvus6corax]

Man creates God so therefore god exist,, That's psychology

[grandconjunct]

Mans mind wants food , sex, truth,  God etc. etc. and these things actually exist in the real world as no suprise to the believer in God, but you need to first show God is Irrational before you can explain away mans inborn need for God , thats Logic and philosophy but once you enter this field you will soon learn there is no evidence "that there is no evidnece for God." thats Logic.

[agnostaxian]

Great vid, thanks for posting. psychological factors are on both sides of the atheist/theist divide but many atheists only want the curtain pulled back on the theists

[jesuskopp]

This explains alot of things for me.

It makes me understand why they are the way they are, and it gives me compassion for them!

[agnostaxian]

The deconstructors do not want to be deconstructed. To say that Richard Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and most atheists deny God simply because of the evidence is like a river in Egypt- De Nile.

[JezuzDiedLOL]

Scare tactics.

[MetaphysicsAddict]

Hi.. at 43 seconds into the video, there is a picture of an owl and lake with the moon reflecting in the water. It's a beautiful picture. Will you please tell me how to find it and/or what it is called?

[grandconjunct]

If I knew the answer to either I would tell you, back in 2007 I copy and pasted thousands of pictures off of dozens of web pages that contained millions of pics, and those JPG's are on my old computer so I can't even send it to you. sorry I can't help those memories are all long gone now.

[SerbAtheist]

Strawman. Atheists believe MOST i.e. 99% of all religion comes from childhood indoctrination, NOT psychological need. In other words, the hardware is fine... it's the software that's the problem.

[elroy2112]

Elroy >> Non sequitur , whether psychological need , or psychological indoctrination, its still psychological cause and all assigning of psycho causes to your opponent is Ad hominem by definition. The point of video is atheists need to deal with logical reasons for and against God instead of avoiding logic and simply calling psychological names and committing genetic fallacy, but then atheists have no reasons for atheism, so name calling is there only option.

[godsentyes]

I love how Theists say Atheists "reject god". So is it right for Atheists to say Theists "reject reality"?

[grandconjunct]

God makes reality and minds that can know, comprehend, and analyze reality (makes science possible) and makes minds with Math,Logic and Reason that actually correspond to reality (makes reasoning possible) which Gives Humans confidence there Minds are trustworthy and designed, as opposed to atheism which must question if the brain models reality accurately, but then if you don't believe the brain represents reality accurately why believe it represents it at all?

atheism destroys all Reality

[mindprism]

"atheismwhich must question if the brain modelsreality accurately"

Minds model reality very poorly, it is only through centuries of Science and transmission of knowledge does the individual mind come to grasp the meager sliver of reality we've come to understand.

While things can be true without proof, atheism is simple the vacuum which science fills.Religionclaims a super-natural entity, and is BY DEFINITION outside of science.Religion claims a 'reality', which is a no-no.

Prove love 'exists'.

[elroy2112]

mindprism>>Minds model reality very poorly, we grasp the meager sliver of reality we've come to understand.

elroy>> Atheists minds model reality poorly for sure, I agree, but atheists contradict themselves and think their brains evolved through mindless processes to weigh evidence for and against God "accurately" so they pull the rug out from under themselves. the scientific method would no more help an undesigned brain anymore than it would help a man on Acid find truth. get it now?

[jerryaltman]

Ohhhh... and what is the psychology reason to don't believe in Santa claus or Easter Bunny??????

[elroy2112]

jerry>>Ohhhh... and what is the psychology reason to don't believe in Santa claus or easter Bunny?

Elroy > Since many atheists try and hypothesize an infinite number of universes to escape the Design and beginning of this Universe, since every conceivable thing must necessarily exist including a highly designed universe by chance,but a nasty side effect is every type of being must also exist somewhere in the multiverse including easter bunnies, so a lack of fathers also causes belief in Santa.

[jerryaltman]

No atheist believe in Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

[elroy2112]

Jerryaltman > No atheist believe in Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

Elroy > Any atheist who believes in an infinite number of multiverse, must believe every conceivable being actually exists in some universe including Santa clause .

Youtube Atheists get angry and upset when I point this out but its a package deal one necessarily goes with the other, so some athiests DO believe in Santa because they have no other choice, but Christians do not believe in either one, God saves us from that nonsense

[elroy2112]

ozzy, I am well aware that Infinity is a Quality and not a Number, but something you are not aware of Is not all proponents of Multiverse believe in an Infinite number of Universes, some are finite, Also you are simply crying because of the necessity of Santa Clause in your multiverse, you need to explain what is impossible about Santa Given an Infinite Number of universes of coarse you cant provide any evidence for this absurd claim so you just stomp your foot & cry.

Merry christmas!

[originalcraig]

lets get past that. i have a god relationship with my father. But I believe in evolution. I was raised in the church. I do not believe in religion or a relationship with God. I do however believe in a God (creator), not because of my father, but because science can not explain how a finate universe can come from nothing. My common sence only comes to the conclusion of a creator. anything else, seems to be unlogical.

[elroy2112]

Ok your half way home! keep on thinking

[ase010]

The question is who is god? to believe in a old man with a beard and a church with lot of money and pay no taxes & own laws. In other words nature is god cause we came as appels from this planet. We are the evolution. The DNA spiral is the creation of life even our galaxy is a spiral. We have the same DNA as nature. We are dust and exist in our own mini micro-universe, our little planet the egg shell ;)

[elroy2112]

ase10 >>We are dust

elroy>>If everything is just dust and dust is all that exists then this leads to some odd conclusions

like the "Laws of logic are just made of matter " so if everything is changing matter in motion then everything changes, but don't atheists want atheism to be an eternal truth? not just true for now ? How do atheists think they can get eternal truths out of changing matter in motion ? Maybe the dust will rearange and God will be Logical next Year ?

[Clutchology]

See, I've always thought the psychological reasons for why one believes has nothing to do with the validity of what they believe. As an atheist, I can tell you that from a psychological angle no perspective/group is better than the other.

When he said we should put it aside because it is irrelevant, I completely agree.

[grandconjunct]

Yes Vitz admits all assigning psychological causes to your opponets are Ad Hominem by definition and admits this is what he is doing, but all he is trying to show is that christians can play the pschological ad hominem game to, so lets dump the name calling, and stick to logical argumentation,

By the way the only reason I posted this video was because of the RSS and there "theism is a mind disorder" outdated shtick they were trying peddle on Youtube.

[Clutchology]

Indeed, that was a stupid thing for them to say.

I fully agree. The psychological thing is petty and it can easily be applied to the one making the initial accusation. I understand Vitz's reasons for this lecture.

[Jitpring]

"I can tell you that from a psychological angle no perspective/group is better than the other."

Spoken like a truly faithful and obedient subject of the dictatorship of relativism. Good work.

[anarchonism]

Until these social conditions are overthrown, it is inevitable that some people will need not only purely logical grounds to refuse religion.

[grandconjunct]

so your saying atheism cant win with logic so they need to resort to adhominem and ridicule, Ok thats honest.

[jazzmom66]

I read the original articles by Vitz about a month ago; and wondered why nobody here on YT dared to post these ideas yet? I wonder all the time about the psychology of 'extremism' (as seen with many YT atheists -- and theists, too, as a matter of fact) I was going to go make a video about this myself...but I'm glad to see it here. This is extremely signifigant, in my humble opinion. More stuff should be written about the 'psychology of extremism', in general...

[grandconjunct]

I dont know if lack of fathers creates extremism but it seems to be strongly correlated with Atheism.

I dont buy the "Both sides" spiel that is so often used, It seems to me this line is usually used by oppresors to excuse there ridicule tactics, Though neither side is free from jerks, it seems it is clear which side predominately traffics in ridicule, intimidation, 1 star campaigns, etc.. Do I need to tell people which group plays by this rule book on youtube ? and no its not both sides.

[jazzmom66]

I completely agree with you...but I guess I was just trying to be 'fair'? 'polite'? It's funny, whenever I post a thought that is in any way critical of the atheistic community...I get this frightened intimidation feeling. Isn't that sad? Why do they try to intimidate me? BTW- I'm looking forward to viewing your other vids!

:-)

[grandconjunct]

Agnostic David Berlinski calls it fundamentalist atheists "Morbid aniexity of religion " and thinks there may be an evolutionary explanation. maybe the atheists carnivore ancestors who hated to hear another carnivore roaring in the jungle now hate to hear other opinions and try and squash them?

Vox day seems to imply there is inverse ratio of fear of being criticized to the weakness of ones position. ?

I dont know Im trying to figure it all out myself ? ;-)

[Partisan5417]

what study says that a lack of fathers is correlated with atheism?

[darkforce333]

Subscribed

[grandconjunct]

thanks darkforce

[grandconjunct]

When God talked back to me it was in a physical body complete with miracles and the whole 9 yards, I am not offering this as an evidence for you, actually I dont view you as worthy of even hearing this story, not that it had any deep meaning that would apply to you at all, but I did not need this experience to prove anything to me, I believe God made himself known to me, Ironically in stronger terms through the inner testimony of Holy spirit ( as he does all christians) many years before this

[grandconjunct]

All Humans Hold to any belief for a variety of logical, psychological, sociological, moral, selfish reasons. Im sure you think atheists alone only hold to to there view for purely rational and never psychological reasons but most know your Naive, I have had personal contact with many atheists who debate at college forums who admitted in private highly emotional reasons for actually rejecting God. I dont know about toast but I believe i personally talked to God one time and he talked back to me.

[darkforce333]

That is why it has faith involved. If it was overwhelming evidence people would have to believe whether they wanted to or not. Also worldview's and presuppositions do form how you look at evidence.

[BuffyDaLipglossEater]

What was the song that was used at the beginning of this clip?

[grandconjunct]

Moments in love, by Art of noise, from the

early 1980's

[darkforce333]

Good stuff. Its funny how many of the atheists attacks on Christians apply to themselves. For example: they wishfully think they can have the ability to determine right or wrong, playing God. They have faith in naturalistic hypothesis to solve all problems in the world even though there is no good reason to believe nature was the cause of making itself have fine tuned rules for the universe to obey. The Greatest commandment is to have no god before You.

[grandconjunct]

Yes they "cant believe in God" because all the rape murder in the world, then they cant believe Bible corresponds with reality since it contains rape murder etc ? The 1930s german bible critics saw jesus as a 1930s german, the Radical political Jesus seminar sees Jesus a "political revolutionary" many atheists say God cant be defined just many contradictory definitions of God, then get lost trying to define atheism that all atheists can agree on ? These people dont need an argument but Help !

[darkforce333]

When atheists say the cosmological and teleological arguments have been refuted many times, it's like Christians who say Atheists are wrong because the Bible said so.

[grandconjunct]

Yes both are just the "Deny everything" wing of there respective belief systems. uninteresting background Noise, uninteresting to talk to because of there fundamentalistic predictability, and they will never have an original thought for themselves.

[zakiechan]

I think its quite different when someone says "I dont believe____, because of reason x, y and z" as opposed to someone saying "I do believe this, because the bible says so."

Also, notice that basically NO ONE ever converts because of the so called reasons and evidence. Its always that they were raised in that religion, or they had some sort of emotional experience. Only after that do people say "oh, you are right, there is all this evidence." Believing is seeing.

[darkforce333]

I know there's numerous people who have believed in God based on the evidence. Anthony Flew is a good example. As far as people converting to a perticular relgion based on the facts there are some. Josh Mcdowell is an example. But the thing is almost nobody converts to atheism based on the facts. There is definitely emotion involved in both cases.

[zakiechan]

Here is an experiment you can do. Go to a website with stories about people accepting Christianity, and see how many people accepted it because of evidence. Then do the same for atheists. There are a few people who have changed their mind because of evidence (Bertrand Russell did too, until he changed his mind again). I have talked to hundreds of people about why they believe what they do, and Christians (almost 100%) all have stories to do with emotion. Atheists almost never do.

[darkforce333]

No actually atheists always propogate reason for rejecting Christianity, but always have emotional objections such as the problem of evil.

[grandconjunct]

Zackiechan >>experiment Go to a website with stories about people accepting Christianity, see how many accepted because of evidence.

grand >> this is a typical atheist oversimplification of things, there are diffrent personality types both within christianity and atheism, some emotional type christians will congregate at emotional churches and web pages nothing wrong with that, just like some who are unsophisticated secularists may go bowling on sunday mornings and also be equally emotional

[grandconjunct]

The Bowling secularists may be just as irrational or place emphasis on emotion, I have met many of these who start crying about how mean there religious grandfather was or how they were terrified by a Hellfire preacher, (As was my secular mothers expeirience) these are real stories told to me and none of them could give me a logical reason for rejecting God, it was all emotion , they will not hang out at your favorite atheist web page, they may even view zackie as a ridiculous fundy atheist etc

[grandconjunct]

According to recent pue poll only 1.6% of Americans self identify as atheists, Ironically Barna national group polling, in Oct 2003 polled those who self identify as atheists and "HALF " said they believed in after life as well as heaven Hell !

are these the emotional non rational atheists that Zackie claims to have never met ?

Zackie " Christians (almost 100%) all have stories to do with emotion. Atheists never do."

grand >> I suspect most athiest live in there parents basement. LOL

[grandconjunct]

Good points Darkforce. you should change your

name to Lightforce ! LOL

[grandconjunct]

Yes I am a Modfied Evidentialist So I always agree with Evidential rule, always believe something only in proportion to the evidence, but I have one exception "in cases of personal relationships" God reveals truth of God through personal inner testimony (Rom 8:16)So even though I believe I talked to God personally, As incredible as this was it was weak compared to my conversion years earlier that i belive was just a standard conversion all christians experience.

[grandconjunct]

Not only do I hold to this modified evidentialism, I believe if atheists were honest they would admit they to hold to this, Does an atheist only believe his wife is faithfull if he has recieved evidence of her fidelity recently ? I can easily imagine someone talking to God then going away and denying his existence like A.J. Ayer did! I disagree with zackie saying we have to believe then the evidence comes in, i disagree with this completley.

[grandconjunct]

The evidence of God is already here before our noses The heavens declare the glory of God and reveal his invisible attributes (Rom 1 & Psalm 19) the evidence is at least compelling enough that only a fool would doubt it (pslm 14:1)Yet its not so overpowering that you have to deal with it every minute of the day.

Zackie says "no one ever converts because of evidence" This is a half truth, Evidence is necessary to some degree for everyone but evidence is never sufficient, inner testimony is

[darkforce333]

What if you don't know if you get inner personal testimony? Does something really strong and undeniably unique have to happen? Something that psychology can't explain? What if your skeptical about your own experiences?

[darkforce333]

I'm just wondering how to deal with the whole psychological objection to personal knowledge of Jesus Christ.

[grandconjunct]

So if the world is an illusion and I walk into the Illusionary street and get hit by the

Illusionary Mack truck and feel the Illusionary pain and Can expect the illusion to be consitent and go to the "Illusionary" Hell and feel the illusionary pain of the Flames, for not accepting the illusionary God etc.

But of coarse the obvious question arises ? if the illusionary pain of truck and flames of Hell hurt just as bad as real ones ? than whats the diffrence ?

I reply Amen my wise grasshopper

[grandconjunct]

Like I said I had the inner testimoney of holy spirit at my conversion(Rom 8) and I also claim to have talked to God physically audibly very much like Gen 18 story, Yet I again claim the inner testimoney was stronger than this God event, So what I am saying is the inner testimoney is the strongest evidence a person can or ever will get, but it is only is visible to you, So when I hear someone say they are waiting for god to do a miracle for them, I think they are more naive then they realize

[darkforce333]

I understand. I am not questioning your experience. Only when you have an inner testimoney can you evaluate for yourself if its true or not. I'm asking from an external perspective looking for a call of God how do they know it isn't wishful thinking fulfillment? Or how would one distinquish ones experience of Christianity with false experiences that many devote muslims have had? Obviously facts can illiminate a false religion, but it isn't enough to know that the Christian experience is real.

[grandconjunct]

Yes if there is no God then all inner confirmations are probably Hallucinations, in my case the inner lined up so well with the external events, happenings, miracles that I would have to be delusional to doubt its reality, In the case of Muslims who say well my experience is equal to yours, I have a couple of possible ways to interpret this in my christian world view which says experiences will line up with what we know by reason, As a christian I rely on the entire cumulative case of reality...

[grandconjunct]

As a Christian who believes one God created all logic reason and universe, I would expect

any genuine inner testimonies to match perfectly with universe, If I had inner testimoney that book of mormon, ouja boards or little train that could, were real I would doubt these inner beliefs, but I only had one inner testimoney, for Christ which lines up with external reality and Miracles I experienced beautifully I have talked to muslims and mormons who converted who told me after converting to ..

[grandconjunct]

Mormons and Muslims who later converted to christianity told me it was very diffrent experience, Sort of like atheists who say the near death experience is just like taking Ketamine or some other drug then NDErs oblige them by taking the drug, and almost unanimously say the 2 experiences had almost nothing in common, Of coarse theres always that one exception who says No ketamine was similar or converting to Islam gave me the "real spritual thing" that christianity could not, seems anomalous

[grandconjunct]

Yes we could be skeptical even of Gods testimoney,Rom 8:16  Like we could be skeptical that there is real external world

that the past is real and not just a mind implant etc..its possible this world is an illusion , heaven /hell NDEs are illusions etc. but the Illusion is consistent so I believe its all real and my mind seems to be obviously designed to disover these truths which seem undistinguishable from consistent Illusions,

The atheist is still stuck being skeptical of everything.

[snake630]

atheism sucks big time!!!

[grandconjunct]

scrjd91 writes >> when God sits there and watches a woman get raped we love him and act as if he's never wrong.

grandconjunct >> God doesnt sit there he actively underminded this Rape millenia before it happned, He gave us millions of people to stop this rape, but instaed of stopping it and choosing good, they chose to turn from good to evil, they stand in front of prisons defending evil mass murders on death roe, but actively ridicule those who wish to save lifes of innocent (prolifers)

[grandconjunct]

scrjd91 writes >> When we watch someone suffer and we don't do something about it we're wrong.

grandconjunct >> This is why atheists instead of recognizing objective unifying good, reject it and instead accept various contradictory atheist " Ethics" that contradict one another so atheists wind up turning from good and adding more evil and conflict to the world. which is why atheist governments are at the top of the mass murdering lists beating religious folk in spades.

[Mannok]

Have you people ever heard of consensual reality? look it up, it explains everything that we're living under.

[grandconjunct]

"You People" ? Atheists and there religious cleansing movement is as biggoted as 19th century slave traders but even more blind to there biggotry. Yes religous folk have heard of consesus reality,(basically living in ones own reality) we are forced to hear Naturalist who live in there own incohrent reality everyday, I do believe Young earth creationism fits this description but If your trying to imply Vitz hypothesis fits this definition then you need to provide evidence this is not so.

[zakiechan]

I would be interested to hear a lecture on the psychology of unbelief in fairies, aliens and bigfoot sometime too. Maybe even the psychology of disbelief in astrology?

[grandconjunct]

Atheist may "lack beliefe" in fairies, leprechans, unicorns, but not deny there existence but we christians feel that is stupid, we reject beliefe in all of them, We dont just lack beliefe in imaginary things we actively deny them and Know they are NOT neccesary in any possible universe, where god is logically necessary in all of them. this is why A-unicornism cuts across all strata of psychological profiles, but atheism is in a much narrower psychological profile such as being fatherless etc..

[yuapanda]

Atheists view god in the same bracket as fairies, leprechauns and unicorns: "we don't believe, but show us proof and we will". Thus your argument is unlikely to convince any atheists as it pre-supposes god exists, which is then used to disbelieve fairies etc. The problem is the assumption of the existence of a god-being.

[grandconjunct]

Arguments are given everyday for Gods existnece, Design requires a designer, a beginning requires a beginner etc. Atheists put the head in sand to try and deny these obvious arguments, then change subject to emperical proof ? The only way to scientifically prove God is if hes a giant atom or something like that, by the atheists own ridiculous definition , just like no scientific experiment an atheist can name would ever disprove God or any other philosophical thing Hence atheists are clowns.

[Scjrd91]

Do u honestly believe when u die ur going to be whisked away to some magical place where there is no suffering? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. When are people going to realize that if God exists he's evil? When we watch someone suffer and we don't do something about it we're wrong. But when God sits there and watches a woman get raped we love him and act as if he's never wrong. Plain and simple he's a coward and a dissapointment to the universe if he in fact exists which is highly unlikely.

[zakiechan]

cosmological and teleological arguments have been refuted so many times that its insane.

Biological complexity only needs mutation and reproduction to arrise. So, as any biologist will tell you, comparing biological things to inanimate objects is absurd.

And saying that a beginning requires a beginner is nonsense, since the universe didnt begin IN space and time. And by theists own definition, since God is outside of time and space, he doesnt need a cause... so why would the universe?

[grandconjunct]

Atheists believe there magical "Big nothing in the sky" waved its magic wand and made a universe pop into existence out of nothing for no reason, then the atheists Big nothing waved its magic wand over the atheists brain and designed it to be a reliable truth finding machine ? even though no one deisgned it to find truth ? why would an atheist trust his brain if no one designed it ? He has zero reason to trust it to find truth only survive and escape predators , Atheism is wishfull thinking.

[zakiechan]

straw man arguments... sheesh.

Brains arent designed to find truth, thats right. Hence religion.

But they can find a fair amount of truth through scientific methodologies. There is a TON of literature on that topic in the philo community. Check out "The Problem of the Soul" by Owen Flanagan for starters.

[grandconjunct]

Zackie>>Brains arent designed to find truth, Hence religion

grand>> If brains arent designed to find truth, therefore errors like religion, then this also means undesigned brains are not designed to find the "truth" of Atheism (which i suspect you think ) So that knife cuts boths ways, it makes no sense for an atheist to use that argument, Either a brain is or isnt designed to find truth, Atheists have no brain designer So you cant Go around claiming to know anything is false like relgion

[zakiechan]

Grand- Why would you assume that even if our brains were designed, that they were designed to find truth? My comment about religion being an example was a little too flippant I suspect. A better example would be with things like optical illusions, hallucinations and seeing patterns where none exist (faces on mars). Examples like those show that our brains aren't designed to find truth. So why would our brains be designed not to find truth?

[grandconjunct]

Why would I assume our brains are designed to find truth ?

Normally I would think this question is so Laim it's not worth a response, but I know its comming from an atheist with atheistic brain chemistry so I will answer. "Well If I dont than I cant be expected to be taken seriously in conversation with others who hold opposite beliefs to my own, in other words if there not designed than give a "reason" why anyone should take anything you claim to be "true" seriously ?

[zakiechan]

Ok I feel that the limited space here has not allowed me to express my position properly. That may be partly my fault. Anyway, what I think is that our brains do have the ability to tell us what is real, most of the time. If they didnt, we wouldnt survive. However, if the specific function was to find truth, we wouldnt suffer from false beliefs of any sort, such as things relating to illusions and biases.

[grandconjunct]

Optical illusions like seeing the moon high in sky and thinking its smaller than when its near Horizon and it appears to be bigger, Only proves were not perfect or omniscient, again you seem to not understand the argument, the argument is when you think you are observing 6 apples or a moon on horizon the evolutionary reality may be you are actually an aligator sludging through a Swamp.

Naturalistic evolution does not plan for truth at all but survival your Illusion examples do not help you.

[zakiechan]

I disagree. Your (or Plantinga's) idea is extraordinarily improbable. Who do you think is more likely to survive, someone who recognizes an alligator as a threat, or as a tasty snack?

[zakiechan]

Seeing things as they are has nothing to do with being omniscient. Illusions have to do with how our brain is wired. We see faces all over the place, because evolutionarily speaking, faces are important for us as a social species.

[grandconjunct]

zackie >>and seeing patterns where none exist (faces on mars).

grand >> If atheism is true there is no reason to believe all patterns arent optical/brain Illusions, so you think you are viewing a satelite photo of Earth that shows a face in texas when the sunlight hits the mountains at just the right angle, but actually you are viewing even more illusions than you realize, you are in fact a half evolved human ancestor living 1 million years in the past. Evolution doesnt care.

[zakiechan]

Eeh, not quite. I also have never read any neurology books that would agree with you. Check out "Making Up The Mind" by Chris Firth, for a whole book of about how we know what we can tell is real or not.

[grandconjunct]

Uh yes quite.

Truth is a philosophical realm not neurological realm, Neurologists are completly impotent about truth dont you remember your "demon example" Zackie ? the "demon could be feeding you imaginary books about neurology, then feeding you imaginary events and imaginary neurological experiments to confirm the imaginary books written by the imaginary Chris Firth ?

but if Mindless evolution is true you have no reason to trust your undesigned brain, atheism has a demon of undesign

[grandconjunct]

Zackie >> But they can find a fair amount of truth through scientific methodologies.

grand>> actually you misunderstand the argument then, the argument questions if you can trust your brain at all in an atheist universe. the Scientific method has to do with observing apples and reasoning inductively about them. But the argument Im using questions How an atheist knows he's observing apples when he may actually be an aligator himself sludging through a swamp as Richard dawkins correctly notes

[zakiechan]

You are right, we can't trust the brain. We know that very well (check out "Dont Believe Everything You Think" by Thomas Kida). Ultimately, I don't think I can know that when I eat an apple, it REALLY is an apple (whatever that means). However, I don't see how invoking a deity would solve the problem. How would you know that we arent being fooled by en evil demon?

Are you referring to CS Lewis's argument against naturalism, or Plantinga's?

[grandconjunct]

Zackiechan>>How would you know that we arent being fooled by en evil demon?

grand >> that demon question and my "how do you know your not an aligator " are questions the Atheist must struggle with, since he will accept anything but a brain designing God.

As a christian I believe the world in my mind accurately represents the real world on the outside, I assume this and it works great, the atheist assumes the opposite and it conradicts his arrogant assertions or illusions God doesnt exist

[grandconjunct]

scrjd91 >> When are people going to realize that if God exists he's evil?

grandconjunct>> When are atheists going to realize when they reject God they are rejecting Go(o)d itself to turn from good is not to turn to an alternative good it is to turn to Evil , the only thing atheists do about evil is offer various contardictory atheistic defintions of good by diffrent atheists with nothing to judge between them ! which reduces to He with the biggest guns wins.

[zakiechan]

If the existence of people doubting your position is evidence FOR your position, what could possibly count as evidence against it??

Its the same as a scientologist saying that "The fact that critics of scientology exist provides evidence that supports my belief in the Dianetics and faith in my religion."

Basically, you are creating a "heads I win, tails you loose" situation.

[2ndwitness]

Actually the situation wasn't created.

It evolved.

You are living proof.

[zakiechan]

What the heck are you talking about? Arguments don't evolve.

[isaiah30v8]

You don't even have to know how to spell psychologist.

[broj8s8n79]

Even though I can't agree with him on all cases, he does seem to have some valid points. Cool video...

[slightlyperfect]

The problem is that the professor is framing the argument that atheists "reject a god." We don't. We simply lack belief. That is not the same as rejecting something that hasn't been proven to exist.

That aside, what's the song that you use in the beginning of the video? I've been looking for it forever. Thanks!

[grandconjunct]

Atheists need to actually listen to video before posting, the proffesor said this talk is about "psychology of unbeliefe" this will easily accomadate atheists and there "lack of beliefe" strategy to try and not have to defend atheism which we all agree is impossible to defend. wether you "refect God" or "reject BELIEFE in God " doesnt matter you are not suddenly in some magical category that no one can touch you. you have still been proflied. ART OF NOISE MOMENTS IN LOVE.

[Anarkokommunist]

I think this is very intresting, and I'm an atheist!

Deeply intresting...3/5 Stars

[elroy2112]

Clearly atheists fit a common profile , when atheists just call names in the comments section , they show what a kick in the family jewels this theisis of Dr. Vitz is .

[Interestedviewah]

As a psychologist in training this presentation is hilarious. There is a very small porition of Psychologists who even follow Freud's theory these days. He only provides case histories. No valid scientific priniciples and research studies. I can't believe this guy holds a faculty position.

Agree on all parts :) also being a psychologist in training myself :)

[elroy2112]

obviously grands talking about "freuds theory" mentioned in this video you called out of date , anti-christians throw up dirt hoping something will stick , when freuds theory is countered ,(such as in this video) the atheist simply moves on to a new laim theory . acting like you dont know what the theist is talking about , and not reading the data gives atheist a very bad name, you embaress real atheists.

[Markusqwertyuiop]

I agree!

No more calling the other CRAZY!

I am an atheist.

[RationalSchema]

As a psychologist in training this presentation is hilarious. There is a very small porition of Psychologists who even follow Freud's theory these days. He only provides case histories. No valid scientific priniciples and research studies. I can't believe this guy holds a faculty position.

[grandconjunct]

the only reason atheists are back peddaling

now is because of people like Vitz putting you in check . atheists never apologize for former blunders they just move on to a new one. His case histories and research are documented in FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS . please read before opening your mouth.

[OntoLogos]

Yes, for only God furnishes the rational framework for the universals, invariants, and necessities of the Laws of Thought and Moral Absolutes- that is certain inescapable proof. Inductive/empirical proof are: The Predictive Material in the Bible and the Resurrection of Christ, for starters. Outside the C.W.V. Ind/Emp. evidence are not certain proof.

[OntoLogos]

The Non-theists have no basis within their own rational system to even account for itself. Non-theism fails to account for the Laws of Thought and this fatal inconsistency undercuts itself.

Many non-theists deny the notion of objective truth, and yet have no meta-theory that can hold that notion up or sustain it.

[grandconjunct]

yes i agree , are you a presuppositionalist ?

[RationalSchema]

Tell me how theism does??

[bluespiral58]

You can't reject something that you do not believe exists. But then again . . I reject the tooth fairy because of my domineering mother.

[grandconjunct]

I suspect disbeliefe in tooth fairy will be dominant in all categories of groups and cutt across all socio economic or anyother factor anyone can think of so domineering mothers will not be the cause of Atoothfaryism , but if your arguing absence of a father causes people to be smarter than dictionaries that easily define God i would like to see the evidence of this

[bluespiral58]

God is a difficult thing to define and differs between individuals and cultures and even within an individual over time. Vitz should be more specific. The christian god? I was raised without any supernatural belief, so for me, god and toothfairy are the same.

[grandconjunct]

Vitz makes it very clear at begining hes talking about "unbeliefe" you refuse to hear this and ignore this , you can have any definition of God you want but if you reject all of them he looks for psychological causes for this , and finds a very interesting pattern , now do you understand bluespiral ? or do you still misunderstand ?

[grandconjunct]

I was raised in a non religious environment and all my fellow syblings rejected religion , of coarse atheist first tell me im a christian because of the christian home i was brought up in , when i tell them this wasnt so , they change to "well your religious because you are rebelling against your wise parents " You atheists are clowns , im sorry i know no nicer way to put it.

[bluespiral58]

Hard to believe this is a professor at NYU. He doesn't even define "god"

[grandconjunct]

Oh , "God "is not that big a word for most people.

[bluespiral58]

Could you define what he means by "god"?

[oscillator]

"Reject god"? Nice strawman.

[grandconjunct]

his opening words are "unbeliefe" , or atheism or rejection of God . next time listen before posting ,

hes not arguing for the existence of God but the psychological causes for absence of the lack of belife in God Vs. psychological causes for Unbelife.