Why Are Some Inclined Towards Religion, But Others Not?

[Revoltingest]

I think your question and the claim it makes is a clear case of confusing what things are about.

Sorry to say it so frankly. But, there are some who have clearly demonstrated how atheists need much more faith than believers to hold on to their belief system. If one accepts this, then all of us, in general, atheists, Buddhist, Muslim, person who worships their ancestors, etc. - all are running the same software, the only difference is their target of their devotion. Of course, some people devote exclusive devotion to mammon; these may not care about the side issues much. Others, live to satisfy their human desires, and that is their focus.

But, the software is the same. The devotion is as intense. The focus is different, and that is all.

How does not believing in gods require more faith than belief?
Moreover, believers have extensive scripture with massive
detail to believe as inerrant truth.
It's rather like saying that sitting in me green chair blathering
on the internet takes more athleticism than running a marathon.
Another annoying simile....
Tis like saying that denying the existence of Santa Claus, the
Tooth Fairy, Mother Goose, & Cthulu takes great faith.

 

[Katzpur]

@Guy Threepwood and @Revoltingest, just from looking at your avatars and reading your dialogue, I have a hunch the two of your are going to be quite the team.

 

[Revoltingest]

@Guy Threepwood and @Revoltingest, just from looking at your avatars and reading your dialogue, I have a hunch the two of your are going to be quite the team.

Tis like we share one brain!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think your question and the claim it makes is a clear case of confusing what things are about.

Sorry to say it so frankly. But, there are some who have clearly demonstrated how atheists need much more faith than believers to hold on to their belief system. If one accepts this, then all of us, in general, atheists, Buddhist, Muslim, person who worships their ancestors, etc. - all are running the same software, the only difference is their target of their devotion. Of course, some people devote exclusive devotion to mammon; these may not care about the side issues much. Others, live to satisfy their human desires, and that is their focus.

But, the software is the same. The devotion is as intense. The focus is different, and that is all.

It takes faith like every other belief, except that it does not recognize itself as such, aka blind faith

 

[Revoltingest]

It takes faith like every other belief, except that it does not recognize itself as such, aka blind faith

Disbelief is not belief.
Does it take faith for you to not believe in the Easter Bunny?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Disbelief is not belief.
Does it take faith for you to not believe in the Easter Bunny?

Then likewise, as an a-naturalist, I have no faith or beliefs, I just don't believe in spontaneous unguided mechanisms capable of creating the universe and life.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then likewise, as an a-naturalist, I have no faith or beliefs, I just don't believe in spontaneous unguided mechanisms capable of creating the universe and life.

An unbeliever of the natural world, eh.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

An unbeliever of the natural world, eh.

nature creating itself.. by it's own natural mechanisms.. is a paradox unique to atheist beliefs..

 

[Revoltingest]

nature creating itself.. by it's own natural mechanisms.. is a paradox unique to atheist beliefs..

No paradox.
There's no reason to believe that the natural world hasn't always been around.
But if everything must have a beginning, then believers must apply that to their gods.
The resulting silence is deafening.

I've no belief about beginnings of such things....I didn't attend any of them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No paradox.
There's no reason to believe that the natural world hasn't always been around.

That's exactly why atheists originally mocked the primeval atom in favor of static/eternal models, no creation = no creator. But there was a beginning to nature as we know it, as it turns out

But if everything must have a beginning, then believers must apply that to their gods.
The resulting silence is deafening.

Likewise, If something can exist with no beginning, then believers of atheism must allow that for God also.. crickets!


But the 'apparent' paradox of first cause applies to any explanation 'where did THAT come from?' so it's a wash, and a moot point- since here we are, obviously there is a solution one way or 'tother

But nature creating itself... by it's own automated natural laws... is an entirely different paradox; creation without creativity- requiring an infinite regression of natural cause and effect. Creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of that can solve this paradox, create what nature alone never can

I've no belief about beginnings of such things....I didn't attend any of them.

So why assume some unknown natural mechanism? how confident are you in this belief?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's exactly why atheists originally mocked the primeval atom in favor of static/eternal models, no creation = no creator. But there was a beginning to nature as we know it, as it turns out

I can't speak for historical atheists.
My beliefs aren't based upon the need for the universe to be this way or that way.
It is what is.
And if I lack explanations for any particular phenomenon, that's just ignorance.
I'm OK with ignorance.
I practice it a lot....much to the frustration of fervent believers thant you know who colluded with you know who.

Likewise, If something can exist with no beginning, then believers of atheism must allow that for God also.. crickets!

I've oft said there could be a god or gods.
Can't prove otherwise, so it must be possible.
But I disbelieve in things entirely unevidenced....unlike fervent believers in....well, you know.

But the 'apparent' paradox of first cause applies to any explanation 'where did THAT come from?' so it's a wash, and a moot point- since here we are, obviously there is a solution one way or 'tother

I'm OK not knowing where things come from.
(I know where babies come from though. Something to be avoided.)

But nature creating itself... by it's own automated natural laws... is an entirely different paradox; creation without creativity- requiring an infinite regression of natural cause and effect. Creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of that can solve this paradox, create what nature alone never can

Created itself?
I speculate that it just always in one form or another.
But certainty about such things is far far above my pay grade.

So why assume some unknown natural mechanism? how confident are you in this belief?

Tis unknown because we don't know.
I'm extremely confident that I don't know.

For someone who disagrees with me, you offer a lot of fun questions to answer.
It sure beats being told how delusional I am.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I can't speak for historical atheists.
My beliefs aren't based upon the need for the universe to be this way or that way.
It is what is.

which is what? and why so?

And if I lack explanations for any particular phenomenon, that's just ignorance.
I'm OK with ignorance.
I practice it a lot....much to the frustration of fervent believers thant you know who colluded with you know who.

let's leave the Russians out of this!

I've oft said there could be a god or gods.
Can't prove otherwise, so it must be possible.
But I disbelieve in things entirely unevidenced....unlike fervent believers in....well, you know.

Few things more subjective than evidence.. but aside from that- natural universe creating mechanisms get a waiver on being unevidenced?

I've no belief about beginnings of such things....
I'm OK not knowing where things come from.
I'm extremely confident that I don't know.

I speculate that it just always [was] in one form or another.

...so which is it?

For someone who disagrees with me, you offer a lot of fun questions to answer.
It sure beats being told how delusional I am.

You really shouldn't encourage me, but how about this hypothetical

You have a million $ to gamble,

anything you win goes to your favorite charity,
anything you lose or don't bet.. goes to Michael Moore's campaign for MI governor- focusing primarily on taxing property owners of Celtic descent, outlawing bacon, and prohibiting recreational use of vans..

You can split the bet any way you like

how much do you put on natural unguided mechanisms- all the way, no involvement of creative intelligence at any stage-

and how much do you set aside for the possibility of God?- some sort of creative, purposeful agent being involved

50/50?

 

[Revoltingest]

which is what? and why so?

I don't know why.
Tis beyond me to answer such questions.

let's leave the Russians out of this!

What if they bring caviar?

Few things more subjective than evidence.. but aside from that- natural universe creating mechanisms get a waiver on being unevidenced?

No.
I can't tell you whence or why the universe is.

...so which is it?

One or the other.

You have a million $ to gamble,
anything you win goes to your favorite charity,
anything you lose or don't bet.. goes to Michael Moore's campaign for MI governor- focusing primarily on taxing property owners of Celtic descent, outlawing bacon, and prohibiting recreational use of vans..
You can split the bet any way you like
how much do you put on natural unguided mechanisms- all the way, no involvement of creative intelligence at any stage-
and how much do you set aside for the possibility of God?- some sort of creative, purposeful agent being involved
50/50?

There's no way to calculate the odds.
One cannot just take the inverse of the number of possibilities presented.
And there could be additional possibilities.
I dislike gambling, & will spend my money on prostitutes & booze.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

Note:
This post isn't based upon any searching or research on this topic.
I know it's rambling.
I'm curious what people think.

Some categories.....
1) I notice that some people are drawn to a single force acting behind
the scenes to explain then natural world, eg, a god, a coterie of gods.
Furthermore, I notice they tend to see other things, eg, politics, as having
hidden forces to explain events, eg, the commie conspiracy to enslave
us all, the Muslim conspiracy to take over the world.

2) Others (this heathen included) tend to eschew hidden masterminds
(natural or supernatural) prefering explanations rooted in material causes.

I don't think #1 types are any less intelligent than #2s, but each has a
hardwired (or perhaps something more analogous to firmware) way of
groking reality.
I wonder?
- There appears to be a component of culture in determining orientation.
- Is there a genetic component too?
- Experience also appears to play a role, eg, unmet prayers, a desire for
spiritual connection to something greater than oneself.
- Some people will more readily adopt as truth something which is plausible
but unverified. Then all things are seen thru this lens.
- Others are more skeptical, & consider alternatives to what might be obvious.

The above things apply to many things other than just religion.
Thoughts?

I used to wonder whether authoritarian personality types favor or disfavor religion. Religion certainly worked for the kings of old who claimed to be "king ordained by God." But doesn't having a god make people personally accountable for their sins? Doesn't God stand above the king and state? You'll find that there are totalitarians who have favored religion (the kings of old Europe, the Spanish Falangists, Muslim fanatics, ultra-Rightists) and then there are totalitarians who have disfavored religion (Communists and the Neo-Nazi social-Darwinist World-Church of the Creator cult). Adolf Hitler seemed to mix atheistic social-Darwinism with religious beliefs about Adam and Eve being Aryans and non-whites being animals descended from apes. I have some neat videos "Hitler Stole My Ideas" and "Hitler's Religion" about Jorges Lanz, the man that Hitler's beliefs about Aryans being the master race came from. Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels - Wikipedia

 

[DennisTate]

Note:
This post isn't based upon any searching or research on this topic.
I know it's rambling.
I'm curious what people think.

Some categories.....
1) I notice that some people are drawn to a single force acting behind
the scenes to explain then natural world, eg, a god, a coterie of gods.
Furthermore, I notice they tend to see other things, eg, politics, as having
hidden forces to explain events, eg, the commie conspiracy to enslave
us all, the Muslim conspiracy to take over the world.

2) Others (this heathen included) tend to eschew hidden masterminds
(natural or supernatural) prefering explanations rooted in material causes.

I don't think #1 types are any less intelligent than #2s, but each has a
hardwired (or perhaps something more analogous to firmware) way of
groking reality.
I wonder?
- There appears to be a component of culture in determining orientation.
- Is there a genetic component too?
- Experience also appears to play a role, eg, unmet prayers, a desire for
spiritual connection to something greater than oneself.
- Some people will more readily adopt as truth something which is plausible
but unverified. Then all things are seen thru this lens.
- Others are more skeptical, & consider alternatives to what might be obvious.

The above things apply to many things other than just religion.
Thoughts?

I am not sure if "genetic component" is the best word for it but......
Helen Wambach Ph. D. found that about ninety percent of her volunteers could be hypnotized......
and get impressions of "past lives."

Over sixty percent of her volunteers were women.....
and yet of the huge number of past lives viewed over the last four millennia.....
it worked out to

"• 50.6 % of the past lives reported were male and 49.4 % were female"

... ........

To a degree.....
our soul seems to be playing out a role in each lifetime
that we learn major lessons from.......

Spirituality

I saw that I had been both wealthy and poor, man and woman, sick and well, royalty and common personand even victor or villain Yet, I fully understood that each life was vital and going on for a much needed purpose.

Every lifetime, I learned, is orchestrated by our guides and the Elders to flow perfectly with one anotherteaching us something important about life, the Self, the Self of others, our Creator and the potential that exists within the Super Universe that surrounds us all. For the first time I had a comforting sense of trust that no matter what happened to a person in life, only good could ultimately come from it, as down the road God eternally works all things to a good end." (Christian Andreason, chapter 5)

What Christian Andreason reports being shown corresponds well with Dr. Wambach's research:


Dr. Wambach & Reincarnation

 

[atanu]

Note:
This post isn't based upon any searching or research on this topic.
I know it's rambling.
I'm curious what people think.

Some categories.....
1) I notice that some people are drawn to a single force acting behind
...
2) Others (this heathen included) tend to eschew hidden masterminds
...
Thoughts?

Well, scientists are working towards theory of everything. So, your bipolar categorisation is not correct. And I do not think that all religious people believe in hidden external masterminds. I however, believe in farty-smelly-revolting thoughts and tendencies residing in subconscious.
.....

I was born in a communist-materialist environment and am a scientist by profession. Till about 2000, when my communist-atheist father breathed his last on my arms, I had no questions of my own. I blindly believed that this body was me.

But seeing my father die and experiencing life and consciousness flow out of a physical body, gave rise to some questions regarding the source of digestion power that converts food to energy and makes poo and also to consciousness that knows the poo.

To make the long story short, I now understand the 'ego me' as a continually changing/evolving bundle of desires. And I believe that this desire packet keeps getting embodied as per the contents of the desire basket. I further understand that the 'ego me' is not the seer. I believe that to see-know the continual change in the 'ego me', a stable observer is required.

Some desires of 'ego me' are manifest like tip of an iceberg. The whole packet, however, lies hidden from intellect in one's own subconscious. The seer has the power to free the ego-mind from the trap of ever continuing bundle of desire. The seer is the real me.
......

Mind has many layers. But some put faith on only the intellect, which actually is a mere servant of the blind desires buried deep in subconscious. I consciously decided to question the intellect itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, scientists are working towards theory of everything. So, your bipolar categorisation is not correct. And I do not think that all religious people believe in hidden external masterminds. I however, believe in farty-smelly-revolting thoughts and tendencies residing in subconscious.
.....

I was born in a communist-materialist environment and am a scientist by profession. Till about 2000, when my communist-atheist father breathed his last on my arms, I had no questions of my own. I blindly believed that this body was me.

But seeing my father die and experiencing life and consciousness flow out of a physical body, gave rise to some questions regarding the source of digestion power that converts food to energy and makes poo and also to consciousness that knows the poo.

To make the long story short, I now understand the 'ego me' as a continually changing/evolving bundle of desires. And I believe that this desire packet keeps getting embodied as per the contents of the desire basket. I further understand that the 'ego me' is not the seer. I believe that to see-know the continual change in the 'ego me', a stable observer is required.

Some desires of 'ego me' are manifest like tip of an iceberg. The whole packet, however, lies hidden from intellect in one's own subconscious. The seer has the power to free the ego-mind from the trap of ever continuing bundle of desire. The seer is the real me.
......

Mind has many layers. But some put faith on only the intellect, which actually is a mere servant of the blind desires buried deep in subconscious. I consciously decided to question the intellect itself.

That was clear as mud.

 

[atanu]

That was clear as mud.

At least not solid, opaque and impenetrable.

 

[atanu]

Well, scientists are working towards theory of everything. So, your bipolar categorisation is not correct. And I do not think that all religious people believe in hidden external masterminds. I however, believe in farty-smelly-revolting thoughts and tendencies residing in subconscious.
.....

I was born in a communist-materialist environment and am a scientist by profession. Till about 2000, when my communist-atheist father breathed his last on my arms, I had no questions of my own. I blindly believed that this body was me.

But seeing my father die and experiencing life and consciousness flow out of a physical body, gave rise to some questions regarding the source of digestion power that converts food to energy and makes poo and also to consciousness that knows the poo.

To make the long story short, I now understand the 'ego me' as a continually changing/evolving bundle of desires. And I believe that this desire packet keeps getting embodied as per the contents of the desire basket. I further understand that the 'ego me' is not the seer. I believe that to see-know the continual change in the 'ego me', a stable observer is required.

Some desires of 'ego me' are manifest like tip of an iceberg. The whole packet, however, lies hidden from intellect in one's own subconscious. The seer has the power to free the ego-mind from the trap of ever continuing bundle of desire. The seer is the real me.
......

Mind has many layers. But some put faith on only the intellect, which actually is a mere servant of the blind desires buried deep in subconscious. I consciously decided to question the intellect itself.

The point is that anyone engaging in deep introspection will ........

 

[sayak83]

Well, scientists are working towards theory of everything. So, your bipolar categorisation is not correct. And I do not think that all religious people believe in hidden external masterminds. I however, believe in farty-smelly-revolting thoughts and tendencies residing in subconscious.
.....

I was born in a communist-materialist environment and am a scientist by profession. Till about 2000, when my communist-atheist father breathed his last on my arms, I had no questions of my own. I blindly believed that this body was me.

But seeing my father die and experiencing life and consciousness flow out of a physical body, gave rise to some questions regarding the source of digestion power that converts food to energy and makes poo and also to consciousness that knows the poo.

To make the long story short, I now understand the 'ego me' as a continually changing/evolving bundle of desires. And I believe that this desire packet keeps getting embodied as per the contents of the desire basket. I further understand that the 'ego me' is not the seer. I believe that to see-know the continual change in the 'ego me', a stable observer is required.

Some desires of 'ego me' are manifest like tip of an iceberg. The whole packet, however, lies hidden from intellect in one's own subconscious. The seer has the power to free the ego-mind from the trap of ever continuing bundle of desire. The seer is the real me.
......

Mind has many layers. But some put faith on only the intellect, which actually is a mere servant of the blind desires buried deep in subconscious. I consciously decided to question the intellect itself.

This kind of explains why you are bit overzealous regarding the perceived flaws of atheism in the forum.
The post was good. I myself put more focus on religious fundamentalism since, imo, with Communism in terminal decline, religious fundamentalism poses a greater threat to society today than any currently extant forms of atheism.