Why do you still believe in a god?

[El JoNNo]

Aside from the hostile tone of the entire post, you must have missed where he called me smug, pretentious, ignorant, and a blind hypocrite.

Hmm... The way it was phrased; referring to only one aspect of your stance on this matter would lead me to not consider it actually calling you said names. I will have to ponder on it further... hmmm.. hmmm... hmmm... indeed.

Nice try, but no amount of flattery will make me allow you entract through anything other than the service entrance. 

Not even the back door? 

[William Wallace]

Uh, what? 

Anyway, I'd guess I'm somewhere between bosk and WW on this.

The idea that we should draw from evidence and proof of God to justify our belief or unbelief is kind of strange to me, yet it seems to keep coming up at the crux of this discussion. I'm with what Will Wallace said a couple pages back: faith is trust in something you believe is worthwhile. All the things on Earth and in space may or may not be proof one way or the other, I don't see what they have to do with whether you should continue to believe or not. The universe is way to vast for us to be able to account for sure everything that's in it.

Why is it strange to justify belief in God? If I had to ignore lingering doubts about religion, I wouldn't be involved in it.

[Pirate]

There isn't really any solid justification for 'needing' to be religious or to have faith, that I can think of. Same goes for not being religious. The way I see it, all you really need for justification is a personal want or preference to be either.

[William Wallace]

There isn't really any solid justification for 'needing' to be religious or to have faith, that I can think of. Same goes for not being religious. The way I see it, all you really need for justification is a personal want or preference to be either.

I'm talking about defending specific, historical claims of Christianity. People can be spiritual without having any justification for being so, but I find that kind of strange. Why believe something if you have no reason to believe it's true?

[soundgarden]

Okay, so you still have not presented any evidence in your posts, you continue your attacks, and now are restorting to namecalling.  Care to reconsider your approach and try one last time or shall I just show you the door now?

1) If you had read the post you would notice I asked several times; evidence for what?
2) If you had read the post you would notice I stated I never "attacked" anyone's faith or beliefs and for you to say that I "continue" to do so is unfounded.  Negative critiques are NOT attacks.  Get this straight.
3) If you had read the post you would notice I asked you, or anyone else, to show me where I "attacked" people's faith or said anything that can't be backed up with evidence from history.

Smug: a negative criticism.  
pretentious: a negative criticism
deliberately delusional: a negative criticism
blind hypocrisy: a negative criticism
HOSTILE: a negative criticism

(Ok I admit, me saying "revel in the irony" was a tad uncalled for...)

A-hole, f**tard, d****bag,....there are your insults there buddy. And I would never say those things.

You outright calling me "hostile" is what made me furious and further dumbing me down claiming my posts are on the level of ""lol--religious people are stupid lol." without any evidence (as you so highly hold in regard, apparently) was what did it.  So please, take a look at who started with the "attacks," as you so call them.

The only threads on religion I partake in are those of debate on its validity and necessity.  You act as if I come in to your "Bible a Month" thread to lay some assaults or the like.  In your bellowing for "examples" i would like you to justify calling me hostile.  Angry, perhaps.  Hostile.  Yea right...  Or should you go the way of any other religious type with power and shut me up; because you elevate negative criticism to personal attacks.  Its funny, but not unexpected, how this micro-example of religious disagreements replicates in the macro space.

[Perpetual Change]

Its funny, but not unexpected, how this micro-example of religious disagreements replicates in the macro space.

You've got to be kidding.

[Pirate]

There isn't really any solid justification for 'needing' to be religious or to have faith, that I can think of. Same goes for not being religious. The way I see it, all you really need for justification is a personal want or preference to be either.

I'm talking about defending specific, historical claims of Christianity. People can be spiritual without having any justification for being so, but I find that kind of strange. Why believe something if you have no reason to believe it's true?

Emotional reasons, perhaps? Maybe some people simply find comfort in the prospect of an afterlife, or the existence of a loving 'father'. Social reasons? Maybe people enjoy the community that comes with organized religion. Personally, I am not religious because I don't really need these things for my livelihood.

[Chino]

There isn't really any solid justification for 'needing' to be religious or to have faith, that I can think of. Same goes for not being religious.

This was a really good read.

https://www.amazon.com/God-Part-Brain-Interpretation-Spirituality/dp/0966036700

[William Wallace]

There isn't really any solid justification for 'needing' to be religious or to have faith, that I can think of. Same goes for not being religious. The way I see it, all you really need for justification is a personal want or preference to be either.

I'm talking about defending specific, historical claims of Christianity. People can be spiritual without having any justification for being so, but I find that kind of strange. Why believe something if you have no reason to believe it's true?

Emotional reasons, perhaps? Maybe some people simply find comfort in the prospect of an afterlife, or the existence of a loving 'father'. Social reasons? Maybe people enjoy the community that comes with organized religion. Personally, I am not religious because I don't really need these things for my livelihood.

I consider those both benefits of organized religion. But they're not justifications for belief by themselves, in my opinion.

[hefdaddy42]

I think I see what you're saying, WW, and if so, I think I agree.
 

[rumborak]

Emotional reasons, perhaps? Maybe some people simply find comfort in the prospect of an afterlife, or the existence of a loving 'father'. Social reasons? Maybe people enjoy the community that comes with organized religion. Personally, I am not religious because I don't really need these things for my livelihood.

I consider those both benefits of organized religion. But they're not justifications for belief by themselves, in my opinion.

Yeah, but by the time you may (or may not) start asking for the justification, you've gotten so used to the benefits over the years that it's very unlikely you'll wean yourself off.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Emotional reasons, perhaps? Maybe some people simply find comfort in the prospect of an afterlife, or the existence of a loving 'father'. Social reasons? Maybe people enjoy the community that comes with organized religion. Personally, I am not religious because I don't really need these things for my livelihood.

I consider those both benefits of organized religion. But they're not justifications for belief by themselves, in my opinion.

Yeah, but by the time you may (or may not) start asking for the justification, you've gotten so used to the benefits over the years that it's very unlikely you'll wean yourself off.

rumborak

That's not true in my case. I nearly rejected religion at 18 years old, right around the time you think you know everything. But if I ever come to a point where I know Christianity is bogus I won't hang around because of church potlucks. But I'm not there yet. Maybe I'll read some books by the Jesus Seminar. 

Honestly, and unfortunately, I don't think many Christians today consider that they should know why they believe in God. If they ever question, they start by reading some crummy Christ-myth book or the God Delusion and it destroys their faith. But I'll grant that some probably consciously make the decision to "have faith" because it's comforting.

[Pirate]

My point is that a lot of people recognize that religion is a lifestyle choice (these days) more than anything. I'm saying that the people who realize that it's just as likely that a god exists as it doesn't can and do still choose to be religious for personal reasons - and the same goes for people of the other persuasion. I'm going to be skeptical about any kind of argument to back up belief or nonbelief, in my opinion it's just unnecessary and missing the point.

[rumborak]

Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially. Other than the (potential) cost of being wrong, and knowing that you might be wrong. The first one adds no cost (you lose nothing if you're wrong), the second one, well let's put it this way, a lot of people are quite comfortable with maintaining beliefs they know are quite at odds with external evidence.

rumborak

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

I'm with you TheVoxyn. I don't mind people being religious at all, but I don't know I just can't convince myself to believe in any of these thing.

[Ħ]

Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially.

Maybe sola fide once-saved-always-saved Christianity, but almost all religions require a great deal of self-sacrifice.

[Pirate]

Pure belief doesn't require anything.

[j]

Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially.

Maybe sola fide once-saved-always-saved Christianity, but almost all religions require a great deal of self-sacrifice.

Yeah, and lately, I feel more and more like that's the most popular brand of Christianity.  Although the lack of personal responsibility is obviously an appealing doctrine.

Pure belief doesn't require anything.

Huh?

A set of beliefs regarding how to live one's life, especially if there are supposed eternal consequences, "requires" certain action.

-J

[Pirate]

I know plenty of people that expect to go to heaven for basically just believing in God.

[El JoNNo]

To any normal person it requires evidence and inquiry, which could be a difficult and possibly mental taxing task.

Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially.

 

I understand that your more or less generalizing the end point. To go more deeply; you are giving up a great deal depending on the religion. If right you have given up nothing and have received your reward. If wrong you have wasted many hours/days even years: praying, attending church, teaching your children wrongly, spreading your wrong beliefs to others; possibly persecuting others based on your beliefs, rulling out scientific reason and fact based on beliefs, ect...

You pretty much waste the only life you will have being wrong or are punished because another religion was right.

the second one, well let's put it this way, a lot of people are quite comfortable with maintaining beliefs they know are quite at odds with external evidence.

This is probably the worst part, people who willfully dismiss reality. These people vote and it is painful that they do. I'm less perturbed if someone sees evidence and is wrong about how they interpret it or do not know any better. Those who are intellectually dishonest are below dirt; they do nothing but hurt society.  

I know plenty of people that expect to go to heaven for basically just believing in God.

Well aren't they in there own little world; every "official" text would suggest otherwise. Assuming it's Christianity

[hefdaddy42]

I know plenty of people that expect to go to heaven for basically just believing in God.

You know plenty of stupid people.

[Pirate]

Don't I know it!   

[rumborak]

To go more deeply; you are giving up a great deal depending on the religion. If right you have given up nothing and have received your reward. If wrong you have wasted many hours/days even years: praying, attending church, teaching your children wrongly, spreading your wrong beliefs to others; possibly persecuting others based on your beliefs, rulling out scientific reason and fact based on beliefs, ect...

yeah, but the trick is that religions, all religions, are set up so that you never find out. That is, the only people who ever find about whether it's right or wrong are dead people, who conveniently can't tell you about it.
So, you can never be proven wrong in your lifetime and thus there isn't really a price tag attached to being religious. I mean, these days there is a bit; every bit of scientific news that negates some claim your religions has made is a bit of a "sting". But, there's a simple solution to that; don't read up on those things. I don't think it's particularly surprising that the widespread understanding of Evolution in religious circles is "one day an ape became a man". It's a convenient misconstruction because they know if they actually looked into it, they would have to deal with some very unpleasant questions; and that would be a "price tag".

rumborak

[Fiery Winds]

To go more deeply; you are giving up a great deal depending on the religion. If right you have given up nothing and have received your reward. If wrong you have wasted many hours/days even years: praying, attending church, teaching your children wrongly, spreading your wrong beliefs to others; possibly persecuting others based on your beliefs, rulling out scientific reason and fact based on beliefs, ect...

yeah, but the trick is that religions, all religions, are set up so that you never find out. That is, the only people who ever find about whether it's right or wrong are dead people, who conveniently can't tell you about it.

rumborak

I see what you're saying, but it's not so much a "religious trick" as it is a fact of death.  From a scientific point of view, the "trick" is that we can never find out what happens to a consciousness after we die.  Do we enter a state of euphoria due to a release of chemicals in the brain that give the illusion of paradise?  Do we cease to exist? 

[El JoNNo]

There is no scientific reason to believe that conscienceless continues after death. All logic would point to eradication of the individual once the brain ceases.

[rumborak]

I think first you would have to show that the human mind is more than just a product of the physical brain. And having read neuroscience articles over the last 10 years, I see no reason to assume it is not.

rumborak

[Pirate]

Interesting. Articles such as?

[rumborak]

The myriads articles in all kinds of popular magazines for example, the ones talking about how the brain is partitioned for certain tasks, with different areas responsible for reasoning, for personality, for self-identification etc. etc.
For example, I remember reading this article that talked about "interesting" brain injuries. One of them was to do with personality; the wife of the injured said "there's nothing 'wrong' with my husband. He functions completely normally, can do all the tasks he could do before. But, after the injury, he was a different person. His whole personality had changed, and I was simply no longer in love with this new person."

EDIT: Another one was even more interesting. It had knocked out the "decision center" in some people's brains. There was one recollection of a guy who fell into a pool and was at the bottom of the pool. He knew exactly that he would die if he didn't start to swim to the surface. But, he simply couldn't make the decision. Whatever that "spark" is there in all of us that makes the transition from thinking about stuff to actually doing it, it was gone in him. Somebody eventually pulled him out, otherwise he would have drowned.

rumborak

[j]

EDIT: Another one was even more interesting. It had knocked out the "decision center" in some people's brains. There was one recollection of a guy who fell into a pool and was at the bottom of the pool. He knew exactly that he would die if he didn't start to swim to the surface. But, he simply couldn't make the decision. Whatever that "spark" is there in all of us that makes the transition from thinking about stuff to actually doing it, it was gone in him. Somebody eventually pulled him out, otherwise he would have drowned.

Yeah, that would be the premotor cortex.  Crazy stuff.

I've read some interesting stories where some sort of mental trauma can cause a person to either lose short term memory entirely after a certain point in their life, or have the opposite effect (they start to remember every detail of every situation, to a ridiculous degree).  Mind-blowing.

And I agree, there's no reason to assume that there's an aspect of the self that isn't somehow manifested physically.  But to be fair, that's an area (the nature of consciousness) that is very sketchily understood, even among neuroscientists.

-J

[rumborak]

I think partly it's not "well understood" because people are half looking for this mystical entity that corresponds to the soul, but fail to find it.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially. Other than the (potential) cost of being wrong, and knowing that you might be wrong. The first one adds no cost (you lose nothing if you're wrong), the second one, well let's put it this way, a lot of people are quite comfortable with maintaining beliefs they know are quite at odds with external evidence.

rumborak

I don't agree with this. We lose sight of the difficulty associated with religious practice because we live in a relatively free society. But consider Christians in other parts of the world, people who risk their lives in order to believe. I find it unlikely that they would potentially sacrifice their necks for something they know is bogus. 

[ack44]

Most Christians wouldn't sacrifice their lives for their beliefs. Most "believe" but not in the same way they believe the sun will rise the next morning. If belief was that radical, so would evangelism be. It's a matter of feeling that it's real. That's the problem of treating God like a person. You may be able to say that there's "evidence" for his creation, but there's no personal and emotional actions of God like there were in the OT. You talk to him in words but he doesn't respond in words. There's supposed to be a personal relationship but there's no personal responses. So it's easier to believe more strongly that hefdaddy42 exists than that God does. At least you can get personal responses from hef.

[rumborak]

Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially. Other than the (potential) cost of being wrong, and knowing that you might be wrong. The first one adds no cost (you lose nothing if you're wrong), the second one, well let's put it this way, a lot of people are quite comfortable with maintaining beliefs they know are quite at odds with external evidence.

rumborak

I don't agree with this. We lose sight of the difficulty associated with religious practice because we live in a relatively free society. But consider Christians in other parts of the world, people who risk their lives in order to believe. I find it unlikely that they would potentially sacrifice their necks for something they know is bogus.  

I don't know dude. If people in a Western country can convince themselves that the Earth is 6,000 years old, there apparently is no bound to what the human mind can construct as "reasonable conclusions". As so many studies have shown, most of people's conclusions and decisions are based on gut feeling, and get rationalized after the fact. So, in the end, the conclusion is the first point that needs to be satisfied, how to get there is secondary.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Personally, I'd lump those who refuse to believe the earth is round with those who refuse to believe in a God.  Both ignore reality and chose to place their hope in a hopelessly tortured convolluting of all available evidence.

[El JoNNo]

lol