Why do you still believe in a god?

[Progmetty]

I think people need to believe in God and a religion cause otherwise there's nothing to live for, if my death is the end of the story then why prolonged it? if those whose lives are filled with suffering and misery finally believe that it's never gonna get better than this then they'll either kill themselves or go on a killing rampage then kill themselves, why give a damn anyway.
If you don't know deep inside that the good you do will be rewarded then you won't do it or won't do it as often, it has nothing to do with being "naturally good hearted", there's no settings, good -as well as evil- are points of view.
In Bill Maher's documentary he talks to a church group and at the end he tells them "I think being without faith is something that's a luxury, for people who were fortunate enough to have a fortunate life. You go to prison and you hear a guy say: [You know what, buddy? I got nothing but Jesus in here.] I completely understand that. I think not having faith is a luxury", I really agree with that.
So those who are not stupid and still believe in God and religion are those who need it so bad in their lives, just like drugs, and needing it does not promote disrespect from me to either, who the fuck am I to judge?, what do I know? and what have I been through? I think this goes for all over-the-top we-are-so-clever atheists.
Slightly unrelated: One of the songs I always found lyrically fascinating about this subject is Metallica's Cure, even though it's musically weaker than the other stuff on Load; the lyrics really lifts it up for me to top 3 of this album.

The man takes another bullet
He keeps them all within
He must seek no matter how it hurts
So don't fool again

Yeah he thinks the answer is cold and in his hand
He takes his medicine
The man takes another bullet
Yeah he's been fooled again

Uncross your arms
Take and throw 'em to the cure, say...
I do believe

Uncross your arms now
Take 'em too, and say...
I do believe
Yeah, I do believe

The lies tempt her and she follows
Again she lets him in
She must believe to fill the hollow
She's been fooled again

Uncross your arms
Take and throw them to the cure, say...
I do believe

Uncross your arms now
Take 'em too, and say...
I do believe
Oh yeah, I do believe

Betting on the cure
It must get better than this
Betting on the cure
Yeah everyone's gotta have that sickness
'Cause everyone seems to need the cure
Precious cure

Betting on the cure
'Cause it must get better than this
Betting on the cure
Yeah everyone's got to have the sickness
'Cause everyone seems to need the cure
Yeah precious cure

I do believe

Betting on the cure
Yeah, It must get better than this
Need to feel secure
Yeah, it's got to get better than this, this, this
It must get better than this
Betting on the cure
Yeah, Everyone's got to have the sickness
'Cause everyone seems to need the cure

I do believe
I do believe
I do believe

[XJDenton]

Because something does not have to be true to be useful.

[Jamesman42]

Well, a complex mind can make simple things. Besides, the way to generate a fractal is, while simple, not simple enough to be intuitive. It was a surprise to anyone who first saw it (I believe Mandelbrot was).

I wasn't referring to generated fractals, rather self-similarity that can be observed in plants, animals, clouds and even mountain ranges. But on how it isn't intuitive, it's interesting that fractal structures pop up in the structure African villages. Whether they were intentional or unintentional I don't know.

Well, even if the fractal is "generated" by a complex mind (like God).

By intuitive, I mean that it wasn't something that we would have deduced so naturally, like us knowing that 1 tree here and one tree there makes two trees.

[Dublagent66]

I used to believe in god.  Not anymore.  Take a look around folks.  Is this the work of a divine being?  I don't think so.  There's something out there bigger than god and that's what I believe in......the universe.

[ack44]

Well, a complex mind can make simple things. Besides, the way to generate a fractal is, while simple, not simple enough to be intuitive. It was a surprise to anyone who first saw it (I believe Mandelbrot was).

I wasn't referring to generated fractals, rather self-similarity that can be observed in plants, animals, clouds and even mountain ranges. But on how it isn't intuitive, it's interesting that fractal structures pop up in the structure African villages. Whether they were intentional or unintentional I don't know.

Well, even if the fractal is "generated" by a complex mind (like God).

I know what you mean, that God made the conditions where fractals can happen. But there's really no reason to go back to complexity when it comes to fractals. The complex design of self-similarity in a snowflake is just the result of water molecules blowing around in the atmosphere.

[bosk1]

I have no say over what you've seen or how it influenced the way you look at the world, but

and you couldn't convince me otherwise.

this is what I call the end of intelligence.

I would say the opposite.  Yes, to be irrationally set in one's ways for no good reason is arrogant and irrational.  But to see and weigh the evidence and still leave room for doubt...that, to me, is a far bigger moral failing. 

To put it another way, these are two completely different scenarios:  (1) I believe in X and can't be convinced otherwise because that's just the way it's always been.  (2) I believe in X because I have seen and weighed the evidence and have become fully convinced that X is true, and therefore, cannot be convinced otherwise.  Scenario #1 is stupid.  But to make the mistake of beleiving scenario #2 is the same as scenario #1 is equally stupid.

[GuineaPig]

I agree #1 and 2 are different, but to preclude re-evalutation is dumb.  We wouldn't have gotten to where we are today as a species if we did. 

[ack44]

To put it another way, these are two completely different scenarios:  (1) I believe in X and can't be convinced otherwise because that's just the way it's always been.  (2) I believe in X because I have seen and weighed the evidence and have become fully convinced that X is true, and therefore, cannot be convinced otherwise.  Scenario #1 is stupid.  But to make the mistake of beleiving scenario #2 is the same as scenario #1 is equally stupid.

To think that what one person would consider to be "evidence" is sufficient to arrive at a truth that cannot be refuted is naive. It's still the end of intelligence because as GuineaPig said, it precludes re-evaluation. No modern day person should come to a point where they would block further questioning or investigation, imo.

[Jirpo]

Wasn't it originally believed God created Man, and also Earth? Now that evolution has been discovered (although Christianity at the time tried to suppress it), and we also know that the Earth was definitely not snapped up out of thin air by a creator, people are saying the whole universe and the idea of mathematics was designed by a creator? This just seems like the story has been changed to me. If God designed maths, why did he make the number Pi an irrational number? Why not just '3'?

I don't think the idea of Christianity is such a bad idea though, far from it. It has good values, and most Christians are good people who help society and make the world a better place. I also understand the idea of reaching out to someone for help or comfort. I just don't understand why you have to believe in a higher being/creator.

[Chino]

People believe in God for the same reasons they believe in Santa Clause as a kid, the stories and purpose are appealing. The only difference is that at some point we are told Santa doesn't exist.

[lordxizor]

Wasn't it originally believed God created Man, and also Earth? Now that evolution has been discovered (although Christianity at the time tried to suppress it), and we also know that the Earth was definitely not snapped up out of thin air by a creator, people are saying the whole universe and the idea of mathematics was designed by a creator? This just seems like the story has been changed to me. If God designed maths, why did he make the number Pi an irrational number? Why not just '3'?

Why shouldn't our ideas about God change as we gain more scientific knowledge? The fact that we can show that the Earth wasn't created in an instant doesn't prove that there wasn't a creator. Perhaps we are shedding our simplistic ideas about God and learning more about his methods.

The reason I believe in God "still" is because I believe I have felt him working in my life. I don't claim to know the details of how God works, but I know the things that have happened to me. There have been times in my life when I've trusted God and times when I've tried to do things my own way. Without fail, the times when I trusted God have been the best times in my life. To pray for very specific (and somewhat complex) things and to have them happen in ways that feel completely uncontrollable is something that I can't ignore. I'm not a person that thinks God is up there pulling the strings on every little thing happening in the universe, but things have happened in my life that I feel are beyond coincidence.

[sonatafanica]

But the problem with that is that whenever a scientific discovery comes along that makes creation more and more far-fetched, it just becomes a part of gods "greater plan".

[rumborak]

I think a good amount is also Loss Aversion. Most people grow up in their respective religion, and dumping all that halfway in one's life for an uncertain new way of life sounds worse than keeping to the familiar one, despite its obvious flaws. It's of course no fun business continuously shutting out the evidence of said flaws, but that's human psychology for ya.

rumborak

[Jirpo]

I understand your argument lordxizor, but it just seems as though Christianity used to oppose science and the discovery of new scientific concepts, and once these concepts have been proven or generally accepted it seems as though Christianity "changes sides" and accepts the science.

eg. Christianity - God created the world
Science - The Earth was creating by smaller pieces of floating rock joined together by gravity

Christianity's "new approach" - God created the universe
Science - The Universe was created by the big bang

Christianty - God created the big bang

and so on.

(That was just an example of what I was trying to get at, not saying any of that was true but that's the gist I'm getting from the whole thing).

The thing is, it can never be proven that God doesn't exist, especially if the "facts" about Christianity keep changing. But if God did exist, you would think there would have been instances of generally accepted "miracles" unexplained by science. I'm trying to get at that its easier to prove God exists than prove that he doesn't, but it hasn't been proven yet.

Just think if someone came up with the idea of a God in current times, not in medieval times. No-one would believe them, and it would have to be proven to be accepted as true. Just because the idea came from the past, where people knew much less about the workings of the universe, it was accepted at the time and so follows through today.

Edit: Beaten to it by sonatafanica, basically part of what I was trying to say.

[hefdaddy42]

I believe in God because of direct experience of God, not because some book says so. 

[sonatafanica]

I believe in God because of direct experience of God, not because some book says so. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not a Christian in some form?

[lordxizor]

But the problem with that is that whenever a scientific discovery comes along that makes creation more and more far-fetched, it just becomes a part of gods "greater plan".

I can understand where you're coming from if you look soley at the people who think the Bible is meant to be taken 100% literally and is 100% correct in everything. I don't believe that. I believe the Bible is a historical document that was written by men at a particular time in history. Not to say that it isn't useful from a religious standpoint and not that there isn't God's truth in it. How would men, thousands of years ago, write about the universe being created and gravity pulling mass together and whatnot. No one would have had the slightest clue what they were talking about. People wrote using the knowledge that they had, which at the time was very little about the physical world.

Why does faith need to be a constant, unchanging thing? Why can't the details change based on knowledge gained by people? The basic principles don't change: God created the world, God wants a relationship with people, etc. Only the details that probably don't really matter much in the grand scheme of things change. Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.

[Dublagent66]

I believe in God because of direct experience of God, not because some book says so. 

Really?  How does that work exactly?

[Chino]

]
I Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.

No but his followers at one time were willing to lock away, stone, or burn whoever challenged the original 6 day theory. It just seems like God is being shaped to fit whatever group of people is currently living. Isn't suppose to be the other way around.

[yeshaberto]

have i missed something...I don't keep up with evolution.  has evolution found the explanation for where matter came from?

[GuineaPig]

wut

[Ħ]

wut

It seems like you always have trouble understanding other people's posts.

[Chino]

have i missed something...I don't keep up with evolution.  has evolution found the explanation for where matter came from?

No, evolution is usually used in explaining how one one life form may slowly alter over time if it's environment allows it to. I don't stay up to date on the bible. Has it found an explanation as to where God came from?

[zerogravityfat]

i don't believe because i feel strong enough to cope with my problems without a need for help.

[lordxizor]

]
I Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.

No but his followers at one time were willing to lock away, stone, or burn whoever challenged the original 6 day theory. It just seems like God is being shaped to fit whatever group of people is currently living. Isn't suppose to be the other way around.

I have a hard time discussing things like this with with non-believers. Here's the problem I have. If a religion or faith changes over time you say that it can't be true because people are changing their beliefs based on scientific facts. Apparently a religion should not grow or change it's faith based on discoveries made in the world. Or you expect that God should have given us every piece of knowledge that we need in the very beginning so there's nothing else to learn, thus our faith doesn't change. On the other hand, if I believed in a literal 6 day creation, you'd say I was ignoring the facts that science has proven and thus can't be correct. So there's really no way for me to win. I don't really know what else to say to you about this subject, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Voyage 34]

Plus, without a god, there is really no point to life because we are all going to cease to exist someday.  Sure, existentialists say that you ought to live in the moment, but ultimately there will be no point because you won't have any memories to enjoy when you're dead because you're dead.

Finite =/= worthless.

You're creating the standards of worthwhile yourself.

Yes, and just because you want a god to exist because it gives your life purpose does not make it so. Just because the idea that life was a big accident that just sort of happened sounds unappealing doesn't mean it's not true. My point is, just because something sounds nice doesn't make it true, and vice versa.

[Ben_Jamin]

I still believe because things have happened in my life to make me see things aren't really what they seem. People can manipulate good into bad, and vise versa. Love is god and god is love, that's the part of god that lives within us all. We are here temporarily, and along the way many have lost/forgotten these teachings of the past. Science can only go so far until it will contradict itself, which is why I believe its another culture religion thing. Yes were technologically advanced but are we really advanced when we still have all these troubles that seem to be getting worse.

[Bonham]

I think what I have a hard time understanding is: Why Christianity?

There are so many different interpretations of God, many of which are perfectly rational extrapolations from human ignorance. That ignorance still exists; we don't truly know how the universe came into being or how to emulate human consciousness. So why would you claim to know everything? Organized religions claim to eliminate all our naivety, but the origins of their texts themselves are unknown, and the details described are absurdly specific. It's like what they say about alibis: if you include too many specific details, they become very difficult to believe.

I could see why one might believe in some sort of creating/maintaining force behind the universe, but the specifics that religious texts delve into makes an unlikely origin story even more unlikely. Just because millions of people believe in something that has no rationale doesn't make it any more likely to be true; why not create a personal system of beliefs instead of clinging to the tired old horse that is structured religion?
(I don't mean to bash religious people in any way, just trying to create some discussion)

[GuineaPig]

I agree with a lot of that post.  Often I find that when people argue for their faith, its usually applicable to nearly every one, not just Christianity.  I think it shows how much upbringing has to do with religious preferences.

[rumborak]

wut

It seems like you always have trouble understanding other people's posts.

No. yeshua's post showed that he's confusing evolution with particle physics. "wut" is a pretty reasonable answer to that.

rumborak

[sonatafanica]

]
I Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.

No but his followers at one time were willing to lock away, stone, or burn whoever challenged the original 6 day theory. It just seems like God is being shaped to fit whatever group of people is currently living. Isn't suppose to be the other way around.

I have a hard time discussing things like this with with non-believers. Here's the problem I have. If a religion or faith changes over time you say that it can't be true because people are changing their beliefs based on scientific facts. Apparently a religion should not grow or change it's faith based on discoveries made in the world. Or you expect that God should have given us every piece of knowledge that we need in the very beginning so there's nothing else to learn, thus our faith doesn't change. On the other hand, if I believed in a literal 6 day creation, you'd say I was ignoring the facts that science has proven and thus can't be correct. So there's really no way for me to win. I don't really know what else to say to you about this subject, so I'll just leave it at that.

Well, that's the thing. If people change the definitions of what a god allows over time, doesn't that just prove that god is just a creation of humanity?

And as far as six day creation stuff goes, like Chino said, it used to be the only truth until science came along and disproved it. And rather than saying, "Well fuck, there's a huge hole in this story then", it just becomes, "well, the bible didn't literally mean six days", which is to say that people now know the mind of their god. And as more and more things come along, the texts just turn into a the Big Book of Metaphors.

[Bonham]

]
I Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.

No but his followers at one time were willing to lock away, stone, or burn whoever challenged the original 6 day theory. It just seems like God is being shaped to fit whatever group of people is currently living. Isn't suppose to be the other way around.

I have a hard time discussing things like this with with non-believers. Here's the problem I have. If a religion or faith changes over time you say that it can't be true because people are changing their beliefs based on scientific facts. Apparently a religion should not grow or change it's faith based on discoveries made in the world. Or you expect that God should have given us every piece of knowledge that we need in the very beginning so there's nothing else to learn, thus our faith doesn't change. On the other hand, if I believed in a literal 6 day creation, you'd say I was ignoring the facts that science has proven and thus can't be correct. So there's really no way for me to win. I don't really know what else to say to you about this subject, so I'll just leave it at that.

Well, that's the thing. If people change the definitions of what a god allows over time, doesn't that just prove that god is just a creation of humanity?

And as far as six day creation stuff goes, like Chino said, it used to be the only truth until science came along and disproved it. And rather than saying, "Well fuck, there's a huge hole in this story then", it just becomes, "well, the bible didn't literally mean six days", which is to say that people now know the mind of their god. And as more and more things come along, the texts just turn into a the Big Book of Metaphors.

I can't stand all of that desperate rationalization of a manuscript that's so flawed. When confronted with creationism, people said, "Oh, well THAT part isn't literal, but the rest is totally true." When it's asked why God allows so much suffering out of mankind's control, the response is, "It's all part of God's plan". People will go to tremendous lengths to defend their beliefs, even when numerous holes are poked through them.

To reiterate on my earlier post, why continue to stand up for a specific, shared system of beliefs when there's an infinite number of other faiths, all with at least as much claim to accuracy as yours? What makes your religion better than others?

[Progmetty]

What makes your shoes better than others? it fits you right, you wanna believe it's because you think it's the correct one but naah, it's because it fits you right.
"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." Morpheus, the El Barto of fiction.

[TheVoxyn]

I like shoes without holes in them.

[Chino]

It really all boils down to people fearing the shit out of death.