If you say you don't need God

[blü 2]

As a Baha'i we must base our investigation of Faith in reason. We must weigh all claims, all things and balance them in science.

Sounds like a good way to go.

The issue here for me is faith. I have varying degrees of faith in particular people, and in particular ideas, which are based partly on culture but mostly on experience. Perhaps a difference between us is the answer to the question, 'What kind of experience can validate or falsify a particular faith?'

 

[Remté]

@Remté - I think the message of this thread is that you're having serious trouble relating to non-theistic points of view.

This thread doesn't have a message. It's just discussion. If someone says they don't feel the need I say nothing. I aknowledge their answer. But if they deny it with false, doubtful or illogical reasoning I object to their reasoning, not to their answer.

 

[Remté]

You're making one pretty large assumption there, friend. Might I ask why?

It isn't mine. I am sharing it out of curiosity and idleness.

 

[Remté]

I've been in immediate threat of death due to violence a couple of times, once via machete, once via stoning. Does that count?

Not necessarily. If what you feel is not terror. You decide for yourself.

 

[Remté]

This doesn't really mean anything. If you can imagine an atheistic culture where the term "God" isn't even used, I doubt people would call their name in moments of stress or danger. It's less to do with an actual need for any kind of God than it is simply a deeply-embedded linguistic tick that people have been primed (possibly for hundreds of years) to yell out at moments of shock or extreme stress.

Besides, I tend to say "God" a lot less than I say "Jesus" in such situations, so such phenomenon, by your logic, dictates only the inherent truth of the Christian religion rather than any other.

You seem to assume the feeling of need is related to saying the word or thinking about it.

 

[sayak83]

Why don't you provide to yours?

You made the claim. Your thread. You provide evidence.
I have 15-20 atheist friends, they have not prayed to God during times of personal difficulty or bereavements.
How many atheists are you friends with?

 

[Remté]

It has everything to do with what you said. You claim, effectively, that people who reject your god when they can carefully and rationally reflect will accept your god when they're at their least rational.

This has nothing to do with "my" God. I don't believe atheism is rational per ce. Why do you think a person is least rational in times of danger?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In my country people stub their toes they often use the curse word for one of the old pagan god before our conversion to Christianity. Not that anyone believes in that god of thunder anymore, well except very few pagans.

Interesting. I wonder if there's ever been a study conducted on the things people in different cultures say as expletives under certain circumstances. Might be worth a Google.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You seem to assume the feeling of need is related to saying the word or thinking about it.

Then what difference does it make if people say "God" or "Jesus" or "Jiminy Cricket" or "Robbie Calhoun" or "Spiderman's pants" or "Jumpin' jackfish"? It still doesn't indicate anything about a specific need or desire for God.

 

[Remté]

Your claims.

They are unsupported, presumptuous and quite wrong and dangerous.

It does not help that you presume to have the right to expect those who point out that you are wrong to have the duty to disprove your claims.

Not so. Your claim, your homework.

I haven't asked anyone to disprove my claims. I have asked for thoughts and I find some explanations insufficient.

 

[Polymath257]

This has nothing to do with "my" God. I don't believe atheism is rational per ce. Why do you think a person is least rational in times of danger?

Yes, a person is least rational in times of danger. Rational though takes more time than instinctual emotional response. That's why we have the emotional response in times of danger: it gets the job done faster.

 

[Remté]

Then what difference does it make if people say "God" or "Jesus" or "Jiminy Cricket" or "Robbie Calhoun" or "Spiderman's pants" or "Jumpin' jackfish"? It still doesn't indicate anything about a specific need or desire for God.

True

 

[Remté]

Yes, a person is least rational in times of danger. Rational though takes more time than instinctual emotional response. That's why we have the emotional response in times of danger: it gets the job done faster.

It isn't just emotional though. It is also either rational or irrational depending on the individual and the specific situation.

 

[sayak83]

I doubt it. A prayer is here but a request.

A request made to an invisible and absent subject is highly unnatural unless made familiar through childhood or social practice. If an atheist grew up in a religious household, then it may happen...otherwise not.

 

[LuisDantas]

I haven't asked anyone to disprove my claims. I have asked for thoughts and I find some explanations insufficient.

Several of your posts have asked for "proof that you are wrong".

That is not how it is done. Not if you hope to convince others, that is.

 

[Remté]

Several of your posts have asked for "proof that you are wrong".

Really? I have not noticed. Well then I am sorry - that is not my intention.

 

[Jumi]

Interesting. I wonder if there's ever been a study conducted on the things people in different cultures say as expletives under certain circumstances. Might be worth a Google.

I think there are some local studies by country at least.

It also works for scaring bears (translations of cursewords not really on point)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This has nothing to do with "my" God. I don't believe atheism is rational per ce. Why do you think a person is least rational in times of danger?

Because that's when they're the most desperate.

One the reasonable options have run out, people have to choose between doing nothing and resorting to unreasonable options. Some people aren't comfortable with not doing anything.

... and quacks and religions have no shortage of unreasonable options to offer desperate people.

Are you familiar with medical quackery? Many of the same factors apply: once the reasonable options have run out, the person's mindset can change: "I see no good reason to think that this would work, but at this point, what do I have to lose?"

 

[wandering peacefully]

Yes, a person is least rational in times of danger. Rational though takes more time than instinctual emotional response. That's why we have the emotional response in times of danger: it gets the job done faster.

I agree but want to add that those who are rational quickly switch from flight or fight to what exactly do I need to do at this moment to save myself from this situation. This can be the differ between life and death. What rational people don't do is begin begging some mythological creature they don't believe is real, to save them. Ridiculous assumption .

 

[Twilight Hue]

As I have said before there are more terrifying things than one of this kind.

I guess that would depend upon the point of view. Life can be terrifying in its own right.