Is the Mind Too Insecure or Frightened to Know that There Is No God?

[Beaudreaux]

We needn't conceive a "God" to know ourselves as eternal beings; just conceiving the social construct ("I") to be a product of natural processes can accommodate that. While it's true that most people indulge fear of the loss of the social construct in a preconceived notion of "death", I've never been able to follow the train of ideas that suggest that that might lead to a conception of "God".

So, I guess I'm asking, what does insecurity and fright have to do with it?

You are of course correct here in that one does not HAVE to have a God to believe in life after death. It does seem that the large mindshare of life-after-death worldviews also include a God of some type.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Perception and reality are products of our minds. Evidence too.
I think some non-believers make an error in the influence they believe fear of death has on believers. I don't think insecurity comes into it - for me it's about perception.
If someone believes God does not exist, then for that person he does not. The flip side is that if I believe God exists, then for me, He does.
Given that I do not accept that objective truths is knowable to us humans, for me, there is no tension inherent in the notion that God can both exist and not exist depending on your vantage point.

Really? You believe subjectivism is true?

The problem I have with your viewpoint (other than it does not address whether or not an individuals fear of non-existence motivates them to believe in a God) is that it leaves the rest of what you say with little meaning. All you can say about anything is that it's your opinion. Even your subjectivist worldview has no grounding in truth and no more validity than your opinion on whether eggs taste good or whether red is a pretty color.

You can never really use the word "ought". On what basis could you say that anyone "ought" to do anything. Hitler was not wrong about the Holocaust. Systematically killing 6 million people was right for him. You just personally don't like it in a way that has no more importance than the fact that you don't like liver and onions (just guessing about the l&o. Personally, I love it. ).

No. The mind is not too insecure or frightened to know that there is no God. I suggest the idea that it is so, is the result of cross situational projection, i.e that predictions of others responses to different situations are rooted in predictions of one's own response in that situation.

But you are a subjectivist. According to your worldview, everything you perceive is a product of your mind. It would go against your worldview to posit that there are other, real people out there. We're just in your mind. There are no "other's responses" are there?

 

[Beaudreaux]

We are? Which one?

The one titled "Is the Mind too Petty or Limited to Know God"

Simple answer: we don't. God was not simply invented, rather it is the label given to a certain set of experiences which are inarguably real (correctly interpreted is another matter).

I agree here. Correctly interpreted is the key, though. Evidence should not require much interpretation. Evidence for Rodney King's beating needs little. Evidence that George Bush was president needs little. Why does evidence for a deity seem to need so much?

No. I can entertain the notion easily, and indeed by my theology, the personality dies with the brain. Also, I can think of several theologies which make death even more frightening, not less. Why is it that unbelievers cling so desperately to this obvious strawman?

There are, of course, dire eternal consequences found in many conceptions of God, but these punishments are almost always for the unbeliever or non-follower. Christians, for example, have a REALLY dire eternity in their worldview, but just about every Christian thinks that's not where Christians go.

BTW, I did not post this thread because I am "desperate" and a question sincerely asked is not a "straw man."

 

[Beaudreaux]

Really? Explain to me, then, how the threat of eternal hell assuages fear of death.

See, now THAT's a strawman.

No one here is proposing that threat of eternal damnation assuages fear of death. It is the promise of eternal life in bliss that assuages fear of death. Show me a Christian who is a true believer who also believes he/she is going to hell and I will consider your argument. Otherwise, please build strawmen somewhere else.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I have to admit that when I first read the title of this thread, I found it to be an arrogant question. And not just a little arrogant, very arrogant. I made this judgment before I read the OP.

Reasons:
1. the words "To know there is no god" which is insinuates that someone knows for a fact that there is no god.
2. For the insinuation that the only reason the majority of people worship God is because they are afraid of death.

Sorry, I just had to say this. Go back to debating.

Well, I posted this thread, in part, because I found the thread http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/78330-mind-too-petty-limited-know-god.html similarly offensive. It presupposes the existence of a God. This thread presupposes the non-existence of one. It proposes that those who do not know God fully have petty, limited minds. This thread proposes that people who believe in God do so in part because they fear death.

 

[Beaudreaux]

In context? No.


I don't think so. The motivations for God-belief are so deeply buried in history that no meaningful observations can be made outside of that context.

Oh I don't think so. Politicians who want to get elected do not study what messages resonated with 13th century Mongol peasants. People studying the motivations of serial killers do not look to early mezoamerica. Stranger is right here. Studying why the Myans commited so many human sacrifices does almost nothing to help us understand why midwestern Lutherans believe the way they do.

But lets back up a bit. It doesn't matter how many people believed in these less-than-comfortable visions of the afterlife. One is enough to show that fear of death is not the only motive for belief - entire cultures reveals the argument as ignorant, at best.

These other faiths obviously felt that less than comfortable afterlives were better than the idea that they would cease to exist. Further support for the OP.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Never.


Only if you rely on artificial limitations on whose beliefs are worthy of consideration, which is blatantly dishonest.

I see. So you believe there can only be ONE motivation for believing in God. ONLY ONE. Because to propose that there might be more than one and that people might have different motivations is "dishonest." Please enlighten the rest of us. What is the ONE TRUE motivation for believing in God? If you cannot produce it, then maybe you should think a bit before hurling insults at people asking legitimate questions.

I repeat the question, why do unbelievers cling so determinedly to this obviously false notion?

Generalize much?

Ignorance is one thing, but when you completely dismiss science and history, not to mention the plethora of believers who politely inform you that it's not the case, you become no better than any YEC.

Ever have a Jehovah's Witness come to your house? You know what they used to ask people within the first 5 sentences? "If you died today, do you know where you'd spend eternity?" Many other religious faiths warn non-believers of the consequences of not believing. AS THEY SHOULD if that's what they really believe. If you believed that people who did not accept Jesus, believe in Allah, etc., would suffer eternal angquish, what kind of rotten selfish SOB would you be if you didn't tell them so. And isn't the purpose of telling people this to get them to believe in God so they will be saved from the flames? To be offended by this, or to insist that such motiviations for belief do not exist strike me as....as......what's the best way to describe it....

Oh yeah! That works. :yes:

 

[Beaudreaux]

You want to talk fallacies? You're counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

No, you're counting the misses and ignoring the hits. If we count them all, which do you think outnumbers the other?

How is pointing out willful ignorance a fallacy? Oh, I get it.... "logical fallacy" to you means "point I don't want to address."

At this point, I can only assume you do not understand the OP.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Moving the goalposts and shifting the burden. You made the claim that most people believe in God due to comforting visions of the afterlife. Support or withdraw.

Why do you always do this when people ask you to provide support for wild claims? If you have read somewhere that there were many people in the past who believed in a religion that promised believers horrible afterlives, why hide that info? Do you even have it?

 

[Storm]

Beaudreaux, do you really expect me to answer a dozen posts?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Beaudreaux, do you really expect me to answer a dozen posts?

Well, you post about 6,000 times a year, but if you want to ignore these I understand. Maybe just answer one?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1484021-post47.html

 

[Storm]

I see. So you believe there can only be ONE motivation for believing in God. ONLY ONE.

Where the hell did you get that idea?

Because to propose that there might be more than one and that people might have different motivations is "dishonest."

Not remotely what I said.

Please enlighten the rest of us. What is the ONE TRUE motivation for believing in God?

Another strawman.

If you cannot produce it, then maybe you should think a bit before hurling insults at people asking legitimate questions.

You've gotten seriously oversensitive. But, I guess you'll see what you want to see.

Generalize much?

After writing an op like that, you accuse me of generalizing? Pot, have you met my friend kettle?

Ever have a Jehovah's Witness come to your house? You know what they used to ask people within the first 5 sentences? "If you died today, do you know where you'd spend eternity?" Many other religious faiths warn non-believers of the consequences of not believing. AS THEY SHOULD if that's what they really believe. If you believed that people who did not accept Jesus, believe in Allah, etc., would suffer eternal angquish, what kind of rotten selfish SOB would you be if you didn't tell them so. And isn't the purpose of telling people this to get them to believe in God so they will be saved from the flames? To be offended by this, or to insist that such motiviations for belief do not exist strike me as....as......what's the best way to describe it....

I'm not offended. I answered the op, which only presented one motivation for belief, and a spurious one at that.

 

[logician]

There are other reasons people invent or need gods. One is that people need a big Mr. Fix-it to fall back on for all of their problems, when something goes wrong, Mr. Fix-it will make it right.

 

[EverChanging]

I agree that death is not the only motivation. Many people do assume that if a god exists, an afterlife also exists, and I'm sure that's comforting to them, but others want someone watching out for them, or if not individual people, the general welfare of the earth. Others may not find any comfort in God, but believe that it's necessary to explain the universe or life.

I do think an afterlife has something to do with people's acceptance of certain religions, though. The religions that have become popular are the ones with an afterlife. Judaism doesn't promise that, and they're a pretty small religion. Christianity and Islam, on the other hand, are really popular.

I don't believe in an afterlife, and while I admit that has been an uncomfortable viewpoint at times, at other times, it actually has been kind of comforting. When I REALLY think of living forever, it doesn't sound that great. And it's also comforting to think that the many people who are having terrible lives, suffering greatly, it's comforting to think that they won't suffer forever.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm going to feel like I lived forever because that's all I perceive -- not before or after death. When I'm dead, I won't know it. Life is all I will ever know. That's a nice thought, too.

 

[Beaudreaux]

It should be quite obvious to anyone reading the OP (posted by an atheist, BTW) that not ALL human minds can be too insecure or frightened to know there is no God. It is interesting to me that you throw the term "straw man" around so liberally and yet your entire approach to this thread is one giant straw man. No one is saying that EVERY human mind is too insecure and frightened to realize there is no God. But it seems you are saying that NO ONE is motivated to believe in God to escape eternal punishment. That's a head-in-sand position.

Where the hell did you get that idea?
Not remotely what I said.

So, as I suspected, you must believe there are multiple valid motivations for believing in God. If everyone comes to believe in God in their own way, why is it so hard for you to believe that some people believe in God out of fear and insecurity? As I have pointed out, many Christians start their conversations with unbelievers by asking where they will spend eternity. It is just silly to say that NOBODY believes in God out of fear of mortality.

You've gotten seriously oversensitive. But, I guess you'll see what you want to see.

No Storm, it just annoys me that you find it necessary to personally insult people who disagree with you. That's not how I like to debate, though I do get upset and fight back when I feel I'm personally attacked. Whether you're telling people they are "desperately" clinging to beliefs, or that their position is "dishonest" or "ignorant", or that they have had a failure of imagination or that they're just as bad as YECs or that they are accurately represented by a picture of a person with his head in the sand, your responses are insults to the person to whom you are responding and have nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

After writing an op like that, you accuse me of generalizing? Pot, have you met my friend kettle?

The OP is a question, Storm, not a statement. It is not a rhetorical question. It asked for responses.

I'm not offended. I answered the op, which only presented one motivation for belief, and a spurious one at that.

You have presented no good reasons why that motivation should be considered spurious. Only incredulity that someone would ask the question.

 

[3.14]

We have a god for 3 reasons

1 We need rule's and control, but we can't control everything so we create an external being that controls everything that we can influence thereby satisfying our need for control

2 We are inclined to belief large groups and inclined to be part of large groups, religion utalizes both

3 We are bored with reality, we spend most of our live's trying to get away from reality, a god allows for the possibility to ascend past the limitations of reality

 

[Kilgore Trout]

3 We are bored with reality, we spend most of our live's trying to get away from reality, a god allows for the possibility to ascend past the limitations of reality

Like never having to die?

 

[Willamena]

Really? You believe subjectivism is true?

The problem I have with your viewpoint (other than it does not address whether or not an individuals fear of non-existence motivates them to believe in a God) is that it leaves the rest of what you say with little meaning. All you can say about anything is that it's your opinion. Even your subjectivist worldview has no grounding in truth and no more validity than your opinion on whether eggs taste good or whether red is a pretty color.

Is that (what you've said here) true? And yet... somehow it's your opinion.

 

[sandandfoam]

All you can say about anything is that it's your opinion.

Agreed

Even your subjectivist worldview has no grounding in truth

Do you claim to be an authority on objective truth?

and no more validity than your opinion on whether eggs taste good or whether red is a pretty color.

Again I agree

You can never really use the word "ought".

I didn't.

On what basis could you say that anyone "ought" to do anything. Hitler was not wrong about the Holocaust. Systematically killing 6 million people was right for him. You just personally don't like it in a way that has no more importance than the fact that you don't like liver and onions (just guessing about the l&o. Personally, I love it. ).

Onions yes, liver no. From my pov there's an enormous difference between the two

But you are a subjectivist. According to your worldview, everything you perceive is a product of your mind. It would go against your worldview to posit that there are other, real people out there. We're just in your mind. There are no "other's responses" are there?

I believe there are real people out there, it is possible they're all in my mind . Point is I don't know anyone as they are in themselves, I only know them as I perceive them.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Do you claim to be an authority on objective truth?

Nope. Just claim that it exists.

Originally Posted by Beaudreaux
On what basis could you say that anyone "ought" to do anything. Hitler was not wrong about the Holocaust. Systematically killing 6 million people was right for him. You just personally don't like it in a way that has no more importance than the fact that you don't like liver and onions (just guessing about the l&o. Personally, I love it. ).

Onions yes, liver no. From my pov there's an enormous difference between the two

What would that difference be? How is your opinion on the Holocaust any different from your opinion on how calf's liver tastes? In both cases you are simply expressing how you feel about something. You have no basis for saying that Hitler ought not to have killed 6 million Jews. He was right for him, wasn't he?

Point is I don't know anyone as they are in themselves, I only know them as I perceive them.

But aren't you saying that there is no objective "them" to perceive? If there were, then perception would not be everything, but merely a lens through which we experience objective reality.