
Originally Posted by
captaincaveman

Originally Posted by
scientist-to-be
Captaincaveman, if you think religion is so stupid, then why do you insist on posting in the religion forum? Don't you have anything better to do?
actually i find religion interesting from a social, political and psychology point of view, but i find some of these posts a bit fanatical and bordering on madness
Im not doing this out spite, or to wind anyone up, its just my opinion as an athiest and based on my strong dis-belief in the mystical and magical
I'm just interested in the psycological side of it, i dont post on all threads in the religious section unless i feel its way, way out there and needs commenting on
Well, if you're interested in hearing my opinion on the psychological effects of belief in God, I think that those who don't have faith in God i.e athiests, are more prone to various psychological illnesses like depression, anxiety, OCD and stress. Athiests are denying themselves any type of spiritual fulfilment, which I believe, is vital for general health and well-being.
I think atheism is just a reaction to the presence of religion. Athiests chose to leave religion, just because they perceived a threat to their freedom of action, which makes them motivated to re-establish that freedom, without actually looking at whether what religion asks them to do is fair. ( I have a feeling that captaincaveman is now going to post a list of all the aggressive things that religion tells us to do). Or at least ponder the teachings of religion from a neutral perspective. It's like the teenage girl whose parents' disapproval of her boyfriend only drives her into his arms, even if he really wasn't a good guy, or the child who would wear anything except what her mother suggests, even if she was going to wear it before her mother suggested it. It's a recognised psychological state known as reactance ( for those of you who read NewScientist, there's an article about reactance in the may12 07 issue, p 56). The biggest proof for athiesm being a result of reactance is that before people had religion, they spent years seeking it. When they got religion, and didn't like the rules, they decided to rebel against them. It is obvious that they would dislike the rules after having the western ideology of freedom fed into their minds since childhood. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that freedom is bad, I'm actually a profound supporter of freedom, but this is just an attempt to explain athiesm, which I consider to be a wierd phenomenon, seeing as it's a natural tendency for human beings to seek spiritual fulfilment.
Athiests say that it is science and logic that brings them to their conclusions about the absence of God, but I believe that this is just a cover for the true reason of athiesm which is blind rebellion. The first athiests were nothing more than rebels, and athiest popularisers associated athiesm with science to make it seem more modern and logical, and to portray religious people as backward irrational people. Unfortunately, many people adopted these ideas without really giving much thought to the other possibilities. I think that the notion of there being a relationship between science and athiesm is absurd. It is obvious that science doesn't prove anything about the absence of God, and scientific logical thinking and research only proves otherwise, by proving the psychological need for spiritual fulfilment.
Finally, I appologise to any athiest who I might have accidentally offended. This is just my opinion about the ideology of athiesm.
P.S before you eat me, please think about what I said.