The Psychology of "End Times"

[Idris]

Atheists don't kill in the name of a God.
They don't engage in mass suicide in hope of catching a comet (heaven's gate) or drink poisoned coolaid (Jim Jones) en mass.
They don't strap bombs to their chests or fly planes into buildings because God told them to (muslim terrorists).
They don't kill their own children to send them to heaven (Yates I think that one was).
They don't deny their children life saving blood transfusions (Jehovas Witnesses).
They don't pretend everything is OK and shed their guilt because God has forgiven them for their sins.
They are far less likely to engage in bigotry against somebody because of sexual orientation.
They are far less likely to assign gender roles or engage in sexism.
They don't place their imagined interest of "God" above those of mankind.
They don't interfere in science classrooms pushing a creation myth as science.
They don't stand in the way of potentially life saving stem cell research.
They don't stand in the way of condom use, thus increasing the spread of STDs.
They don't tie "witches" to stakes and burn them to death.
They don't kill converts who turn away from their world view.
They don't engage in inquisitions for their God.

During World War II (1939-1945), 50 million people were killed I can name may wars that Athiests started but time is running out ...I think it's going to be the end of time soon.

 

[Pygoscelis]

when the revelation for alchohol ban was revealed in Madinah, streets where flowign with dumped alchohol immediately after it's illegality was announced.

This doesn't know "goodness". This shows obedience. And I actually wonder if its even the religion in play here, or instead fear of the brutal regime in power.

Athiests don't have incentive to be good when no one is watching.

ps: infact, a perfectly rational athiest would steal, cheat and all that if he knwos he can escape

i tried to be nice using 'take care all the best' at the end of my posts.

Here you've got to be joking.

You announce that athiests have no incentive to be good absent punishment/reward dynamic, that athiests lack all morality and need to be controlled to behave, that they SHOULD (so apparently you would? Seriously, would you? I've asked before and you don't seem to want to answer) cheat and steal if they think they can get away with it, and then you think you can sanitize this offensive statement by saying 'take care all the best' at the end of your post? And you think that also sanitizes all the lame attempts at insults you lace your posts with? You really that self absorbed?

My post above was to show that religion can give you added incentive to be good, yes, and also give you incentive to be BAD. It inspires and rationalizes all sorts of evil in this world. Open your eyes and look around. You say that suicide bombers and the 9/11 terrorists and those guys who saw off peoples' heads are not muslims yet they certainly believe that they are. Just ask them. You are engaging in the no true scottsman fallacy.

 

[Pygoscelis]

During World War II (1939-1945), 50 million people were killed I can name may wars that Athiests started but time is running out ...I think it's going to be the end of time soon.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Hitler wasn't an atheist. He was some really off track variation of Christian. He was Roman Catholic by birth and by self-claim, but he didn't really follow the tenets of the Catholic church. He certainly did believe in his God though. In fact he stated numerous times that his eradication of the Jews was a holy act.

If you want to bring up wars and attrocities committed by atheists your better bets are Stalin and Mao. But note that neither of them did what they did in the NAME of atheism.

 

[Pygoscelis]

ps: infact, a perfectly rational athiest would steal, cheat and all that if he knwos he can escape, since that's indeed 'making the most of your life' if there was no accountability.

I'm still amazed at this belief you hold. You really think that I should be doing all these horrible things? You would be?

There are all sorts of nasty selfish things I know for certain I could get away with. Yet I don't do them. Why?

What do you figure is stopping me?

 

[Idris]

If you want to bring up wars and attrocities committed by atheists your better bets are Stalin and Mao. But note that neither of them did what they did in the NAME of atheism.

Hitler wasn't an atheist. He was some really off track variation of Christian. He was Roman Catholic by birth and by self-claim, but he didn't really follow the tenets of the Catholic church. He certainly did believe in his God though. In fact he stated numerous times that his eradication of the Jews was a holy act.

Sorry but I really don't think you know what atheism is.... who is doing anything in the NAME of atheism now or b4? I don't think you should have atheist as your way of life but Munafiqun

 

[Malaikah]

This doesn't know "goodness". This shows obedience. And I actually wonder if its even the religion in play here, or instead fear of the brutal regime in power.

Don't even go there, it was nothing but pure love and devote to God and his messenger that made the people reply with such obedience, nothing to do with a 'brutal regime'.

 

[lolwatever]

Originally Posted by lolwatever
ps: infact, a perfectly rational athiest would steal, cheat and all that if he knwos he can escape, since that's indeed 'making the most of your life' if there was no accountability.

I'm still amazed at this belief you hold. You really think that I should be doing all these horrible things? You would be?

Will you for once refute the evidence i give for my reasons rather than make emotional yelps.

By the Economic law of opportunity cost, and the Cost-Benefit principle.

A rational athiest is likely to steal if the benefit of doing such an act is greater than the cost. A rational Muslim would never do that because the cost of doing such thing exceeds the immediate benefit.

Do you disagree? Then disprove that theory. That's what this thread is about.

There are all sorts of nasty selfish things I know for certain I could get away with. Yet I don't do them. Why? What do you figure is stopping me?

Because the cost > benefit. And that's becasue when it takes more effort to steal than it does to not steal, that behaviour is explained by maslow's hierarchy of need.

If you did need something, and if you where rational, you would steal if the benefit > cost.

Disagree? then disprove the theory, stop trying to say 'oh but im an angel i'd never do such thing'. As far as reality is concerned, you could be a theif, it's easy to deny, but we're talking psychology and economics, use facts and theories and laws to prove that a rational atheist or disbeleiver in Day of judgemetn wouldn't do such a thing.

This doesn't know "goodness". This shows obedience. And I actually wonder if its even the religion in play here, or instead fear of the brutal regime in power.

Cheese made a good reply.

Secondly, there wasn't even a polcie force in madinah! And the narration is by servants describing what their employers would do in the privacy of the home (e.g. spitting the alchohol that was already in their mouths).



Here you've got to be joking.

You announce that athiests have no incentive to be good absent punishment/reward dynamic, that athiests lack all morality and need to be controlled to behave, that they SHOULD (so apparently you would?

Quit Lying Where did i say athiests don't have any moral code?

All i said is that its likley for a rational athiest to be a theif if the benefit exceeds the cost as far as materialism is concerned.

I have proof for what i said, The economic law of opportunity cost and the Cost-Benefit principle.

Do you have even a single psychological theory to back your claism of innocence?

Seriously, would you? I've asked before and you don't seem to want to answer) cheat and steal if they think they can get away with it, and then you think you can sanitize this offensive statement by saying 'take care all the best' at the end of your post? And you think that also sanitizes all the lame attempts at insults you lace your posts with? You really that self absorbed?

It's unfortunate that truth hurts. I gave you economic explanation and psychological analysis of my examples. It's sad that you want to have a psychology discussion without reference to a single psychological fact!

pfft.

My post above was to show that religion can give you added incentive to be good, yes, and also give you incentive to be BAD. It inspires and rationalizes all sorts of evil in this world. Open your eyes and look around. You say that suicide bombers and the 9/11 terrorists and those guys who saw off peoples' heads are not muslims yet they certainly believe that they are. Just ask them. You are engaging in the no true scottsman fallacy.

I made a thorough reply to every single one of gthose accusations.
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/34041-psychology-end-times-3.html#post614628

It's soooooo typical of you to run away from facts and stick to baseless imaginitive explanations.

How about we take it step by step. Seeing your question is "wat are teh psychological effects of believing in the end fo time"

I'll start with:

"Are you happy with me using The economic Law of opportunity cost and the Cost-benefit principle to answr your question?"

 

[Pygoscelis]

Don't even go there, it was nothing but pure love and devote to God and his messenger that made the people reply with such obedience, nothing to do with a 'brutal regime'.

As was said earlier, if this was so, no legal system would be required. It clearly is.

 

[Pygoscelis]

lolwhatever, you make it more and more difficult to have a discussion with you.

You throw out bold antagonistic claims and follow it with a bunch of empty rhetoric claiming to have presented "evidence" and then demand that it be refuted. Well you haven't presented anything to refute, so there really isn't anything to be said beyond what has already been mentioned....

The theories you are trying to borrow from completely unrelated fields simply do not apply here. They only would in a psychopathic mindset, which you seem to demand to be the rational atheistic view. I'm sorry, but it simply isn't. It is unfortunate that you can not see that.

 

[lolwatever]

lolwhatever, you make it more and more difficult to have a discussion with you.

Becasue you want to have a discussion about psychology without using anything to do with psychology :rollseyes

You throw out bold antagonistic claims and follow it with a bunch of empty rhetoric claiming to have presented "evidence" and then demand that it be refuted. Well you haven't presented anything to refute, so there really isn't anything to be said beyond what has already been mentioned....

lie, here's what i said in response to:

This dovetails nicely with the frequent theist claim against atheists that atheists have "nothing to live for" because they believe in no afterlife. But the reverse is actually true. To us atheists this life is all you get, so you'd better make the most of it.

Muslims believe that if you don't make the most of this life, you're facing some serious danger in the afterlife.

Also... the phrase "you'd better make teh most of it" can be looked at dfiferently by different athiests, an athiest who doesn't believe in accountability may very well interpret it to mean that it's a good idea to steal, cheat, make as much money (thru whatever means), as long as you enjoy life. (and who cares about the environment).

Whereas with Muslims, that sort of interpretation is 100% out of the equation. Because it means you're destined for trouble in the hereafter :uuh:

tc all the best

ps: infact, a perfectly rational athiest would steal, cheat and all that if he knwos he can escape, since that's indeed 'making the most of your life' if there was no accountability.

refute it. nothing to do with morality, it's to do with whether you'll follow what you claim to think is right when it conflicts with self interest.

I'm using the law of opportunity cost to make my claims. You are using nothing to do with psychology to back yours.

Economics is directly related to psychology, economics is simply the study of human behaviour as far as making decisions is concerned.

The theories you are trying to borrow from completely unrelated fields simply do not apply here.

Like what? Here's the laws i used, tell me how they're not related:

1. Law of Opportunity Cost.
2. Cost-Benefit Principle.
3. Maslow's Hierarchy of Human needs and wants.

All 3 are psychology based.

They only would in a psychopathic mindset,

So your saying all people who obey the Law of Opp Cost and the other 2 are psychopaths?!!?!?!? ffended:

which you seem to demand to be the rational atheistic view. I'm sorry, but it simply isn't. It is unfortunate that you can not see that.

Everyone else can, and you still refuse to answer my simple questions. The blue one in prev post.

Everything you said was baseless as far as economics and psychology is concerned! :uuh:

 

[- Qatada -]

Pygo, its possible lolly is wrong... why not disprove him by rebutting the laws he's basing his arguments on, or show us that he is mis-using them.. and give us correct interpretation of the laws he used in relation to your question.



Peace.

 

[Idris]

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Hitler wasn't an atheist. He was some really off track variation of Christian. He was Roman Catholic by birth and by self-claim, but he didn't really follow the tenets of the Catholic church. He certainly did believe in his God though. In fact he stated numerous times that his eradication of the Jews was a holy act.

If you want to bring up wars and attrocities committed by atheists your better bets are Stalin and Mao. But note that neither of them did what they did in the NAME of atheism.

Sorry atheism looks to me like some shadow that has no base or foundation but takes what it like from laws and throw way what it don't like.

who was doing anything b4 in the name of atheism?
Wait... who is doing anything now in the name of atheism?
Or is this sometime started up today by you?

 

[Fishman]

But note that neither of them did what they did in the NAME of atheism.

Complete rubbish. Stalin destroyed Churches, Synagogues and Mosques, and Mao stripped Imams naked, paraded them around the town, threw paint at them, made them eat pork and drink alcohol, and finally forced them to renounce their religion and become workers on collective farms! I'm pretty sure he did similar things to Christians and Bhuddists too! You cannot possibly say that Stalin and Mao did not commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

 

[Keltoi]

Complete rubbish. Stalin destroyed Churches, Synagogues and Mosques, and Mao stripped Imams naked, paraded them around the town, threw paint at them, made them eat pork and drink alcohol, and finally forced them to renounce their religion and become workers on collective farms! I'm pretty sure he did similar things to Christians and Bhuddists too! You cannot possibly say that Stalin and Mao did not commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

It wasn't in the name of athiesm, although that was an important part of the Communist ideology. Religion and religious people were and are considered a threat by Communist leaders and thinkers. It is very hard to control people who believe in a higher power and reward after death.

 

[Fishman]

It wasn't in the name of athiesm, although that was an important part of the Communist ideology. Religion and religious people were and are considered a threat by Communist leaders and thinkers. It is very hard to control people who believe in a higher power and reward after death.

Exactly, they are trying to eliminate religion in the name of atheism.

 

[Pygoscelis]

who was doing anything b4 in the name of atheism?
Wait... who is doing anything now in the name of atheism?
Or is this sometime started up today by you?

Yes you're right, I don't think anybody does anything in the name of atheism. That's because atheism isn't a belief system. It is simply the lack of a belief in Gods. Atheists do have other kinds of of belief systems though (as do theists), and of course that includes the belief systems Stalin and Mao acted under.

 

[lolwatever]

why are we discussing what people do under watever banners :? I dont think anyoen is denying that athiests have an idea of differentiating between thigns in terms of wats righ tand wrong... we're just discussing whether they'll actually obey those instincts when ti conflicts with self interest due to lack of belief in DOJ.

Wasnt the question "whats the psychological effects of believing in the end of time?"

btw Pygo... might be an idea to read bro Fi's suggestion:

Pygo, its possible lolly is wrong... why not disprove him by rebutting the laws he's basing his arguments on, or show us that he is mis-using them.. and give us correct interpretation of the laws he used in relation to your question.



Peace.

 

[E'jaazi]

The hour is known only to Allah, but we are living in the beginning of the last days. Things we were told that would happen are now happening. So when you see the signs, now is your chance to repent and do good deeds. Save yourself from the fire!

 

[Idris]

Yes you're right, I don't think anybody does anything in the name of atheism. That's because atheism isn't a belief system. It is simply the lack of a belief in Gods. Atheists do have other kinds of of belief systems though (as do theists), and of course that includes the belief systems Stalin and Mao acted under.

Some Atheists ... assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion.... But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color.... In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary. If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.
—Rev. Bill McGinnis, The Religion of Atheism

You Atheists are aways unique

 

[Pygoscelis]

And if atheism is a religion then bald is a hair colour.