Why do people believe in religion?

[TheKnight]

A good point. However; not facing reality to aid in this forward motion, but rather religion, in some ways brings unfortunate side-effects.

Ah yes. But what does it matter that one faces reality? Does it change anything?

This makes me a little uncomfortable and I would like it to stop.

So it bothers you that human beings do things that human beings shouldn't do. Promote ethical behavior. There's no need to attack what a person believes. As I've said to many before, "Don't care about the belief, care about the action."

Sure, you could advocate different beliefs, but there's no reason to be insulting when you do so.

So essentially, I'm okay with religion as long as it doesn't bother people; with urging them to join the club, or repent by extortion, or tell people they are bad because of some religious conviction - and everything worse than that. But I would like them to acknowledge, if they can, that it is not real, that it is just a tool to stay motivated.

So basically, you're OK with religion if it agrees with you, but if it doesn't then religion is a bad thing?

Because your vision of a better world and my vision of a better world are probably ultimately different from one another and everything would go along much nicer if everyone believed and followed MY vision of a better world.
So you must drop your silly views of the world and take up my silly views of the world so we can achieve my . . . er . . . OUR now common goals for a better world. :drool:

My vision of a better world is a world where there is peace between all people and nations. Is yours any different?

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

My vision of a better world is a world where there is peace between all people and nations. Is yours any different?

My statement was meant as a joke.
Generally speaking our wishes for a peaceful world are most likely similar. It is in the details where things begin to get messy I'm sure.

 

[TheKnight]

My statement was meant as a joke.
Generally speaking our wishes for a peaceful world are most likely similar. It is in the details where things begin to get messy I'm sure.

There aren't many details. A peaceful world is a peaceful world. My wish is that we get there. How we get there, well that doesn't really matter to me.

 

[Katzpur]

The chances of a God existing are so small, that it seems a waste of time to even consider the possibility. It would seem like something a second-grade philosopher would one day write his only book on.

Well, if that's truly the case, you certainly ought to very easily be able to prove that God is a myth. Theists may base their belief in God on faith, but atheists base theirs on science. Not that I object in any way to the scientific method, but it seems to fall miserably short in disproving something you think should be obvious to a child.

 

[darkendless]

Well, if that's truly the case, you certainly ought to very easily be able to prove that God is a myth. Theists may base their belief in God on faith, but atheists base theirs on science. Not that I object in any way to the scientific method, but it seems to fall miserably short in disproving something you think should be obvious to a child.

Not quite true sorry. Science and atheism are unrelated.

I don't believe in God because i don't need to. I don't have a reason to and i certainly despise what man has said about God over the ages.

Science has better things to do than worry about theists. Mainly because even if there was a way to disprove God, more than likely most would ignore it or nit pick at it much the same as theists (in general) nit pick at evolution.

Science is not involved with mans mental creations. It works to achieve understanding of mechanisms in and around us. I think the God mechanism is important, because as far as we know there is no God mechanism. There is nothing consistent enough about faith to interest science. As a result, not enough evidence exists to bother, because such a movement would be shot down by the rest of the scientific community before it got a chance.

 

[eclectic23]

maybe i should have been more clear. my original post was directed at diederic. my intention is never to offend. i can sympathise with the idea that religion can warp peoples brains, just like many other things. ignorance will always find a leader. i was just trying to suggest that a handfull of crazys shouldnt cause someone to close the door on new ideas. i was never religious, and never thought i would be. but im here, learning that it doesnt have to be so black and white. i just hope that other people will give new ideas a chance like im trying to.

 

[ayani]

D ~

your definition of religion is very limited.... there are as many reasons people have for believing something as there are people!

some people believe what they do because it makes sense to them. others believe and worship as they've been taught by parents and society. others believe what they do because of a personal experience which has shaped or changd their views and beliefs. often, it's a combination of factors, and one person can hold many beliefs and world views over a life time.

 

[Katzpur]

Not quite true sorry. Science and atheism are unrelated.

I wasn't trying to show a relationship between the two, and I agree with you. I probably should have included Diederick's comment (below). Without it, my answer didn't make a lot of sense.

]They avoid scientific evidence and when it is in front of them they explain it away in the most pathetic fashion.

Here's what I was getting at: I often see atheists accuse theists of ignoring scientific evidence. That's exactly what Diederick did. His implication was that if we would just acknowledge the findings of science, we would have to admit that there is no God. That's absurd and anyone -- theist or atheist -- should be able to see that.

 

[darkendless]

I wasn't trying to show a relationship between the two, and I agree with you. I probably should have included Diederick's comment (below). Without it, my answer didn't make a lot of sense.

My apologies, i thought it was something strange for you to say, in every post i've ever read of yours you have been very reasonable

Here's what I was getting at: I often see atheists accuse theists of ignoring scientific evidence. That's exactly what Diederick did. His implication was that if we would just acknowledge the findings of science, we would have to admit that there is no God. That's absurd and anyone -- theist or atheist -- should be able to see that.

Well that would be an issue considering my geology lecturer is a mormon. The bigger issue though is that we, the students, cannot bribe him to push our marks up with beer

However, replace God in his sentence with bible and there are some problems. Assuming we are taking the bible literally, there are a few things that just cannot be. I won't list them here, im sure you've seen the 4000000000 threads dedicated to them. However, most people do not take everything literally, which is sensible in my view. However, something i've always struggled to make sense of is when to and when not to take things literally.

Once again here im displaying my complete lack of biblical understanding

 

[darkendless]

D ~

your definition of religion is very limited.... there are as many reasons people have for believing something as there are people!

some people believe what they do because it makes sense to them. others believe and worship as they've been taught by parents and society. others believe what they do because of a personal experience which has shaped or changd their views and beliefs. often, it's a combination of factors, and one person can hold many beliefs and world views over a life time.

I said exactly that a few pages ago

In my above post i was responding directly (and incorrrectly) to Katzpur.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

“I was just trying to suggest that a handfull of crazys shouldnt cause someone to close the door on new ideas. I was never religious, and never thought I would be. but im here, learning that it doesnt have to be so black and white. I just hope that other people will give new ideas a chance like im trying to.”

Religion is hardly a “new” idea. It has been around, at least the supernatural flavor, for many thousands of yrs. It has in all that time produced virtually nothing of value. It has instead contributed - willing or not - to wars and hate and death. In spite of that dismal record of contribution to the advancement of civilization people still believe it. And they do so simply because it makes them feel better. It offers nothing more. And indeed by its own standards CAN offer nothing more.

The history of its attitude toward knowledge is not a happy one. More than any other factor supernatural religion has slowed impeded deflected and blocked the advancement of knowledge of the natural world; and continues to do so. As we see here every day. If “religion” were in charge of us we would be curing the plague by whipping ourselves and singing hymns to some god thing to make it all go away.

Supernatural religion is foolish and absurd on its face and those who believe it little better

 

[Katzpur]

My apologies, i thought it was something strange for you to say, in every post i've ever read of yours you have been very reasonable

No biggie. And thank you.

Well that would be an issue considering my geology lecturer is a mormon. The bigger issue though is that we, the students, cannot bribe him to push our marks up with beer

Yeah, I can see where that would present a real challenge. I'll have to see if I can come up with any alternatives for you.

However, replace God in his sentence with bible and there are some problems.

Absolutely.

Assuming we are taking the bible literally, there are a few things that just cannot be. I won't list them here, im sure you've seen the 4000000000 threads dedicated to them. However, most people do not take everything literally, which is sensible in my view. However, something i've always struggled to make sense of is when to and when not to take things literally.

You're right. Most people don't take a literalist approach to the Bible, particularly to its account of the creation. As to what we should be interpreting literally and what we should be interpreting metaphorically, that's a question on which even theists can't seem to agree.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Religion is hardly a “new” idea. It has been around, at least the supernatural flavor, for many thousands of yrs. It has in all that time produced virtually nothing of value. It has instead contributed - willing or not - to wars and hate and death. In spite of that dismal record of contribution to the advancement of civilization people still believe it. And they do so simply because it makes them feel better. It offers nothing more. And indeed by its own standards CAN offer nothing more.


Can you solidly evidence any of this? Has produced nothing of value? Everything we have has contributed willing or not to wars hate and death. How is religion any different? People believe in religion only because it makes them feel better and it offers nothing more? So religion doesn't provide inspiration and guidance to make people better at all?


The history of its attitude toward knowledge is not a happy one. More than any other factor supernatural religion has slowed impeded deflected and blocked the advancement of knowledge of the natural world; and continues to do so. As we see here every day. If “religion” were in charge of us we would be curing the plague by whipping ourselves and singing hymns to some god thing to make it all go away.


Which religion are you speaking of exactly? Because last I checked there are very few Hindu or Buddhist sects which reject the knowledge and gains made by science. You are guilty of the utopian fallacy. Doesn't matter what system of organization or ideology you use: 50% of the world's population has an IQ of 50% or less. A great many are going to believe dumb things and are going to act stupidly regardless of range of ideas they have available to believe in.

Supernatural religion is foolish and absurd on its face and those who believe it little better

And that final little piece of "wisdom" is the reason why most theists have no interest in listening to a lot of what Atheists have to say. You don't have to couch your arguments in insult and belittlement in order to get your point across. Most people react poorly to being ridiculed and belittled (fancy that?). Perhaps, it might behoove Atheists to be a little more accepting of other people for who they are, be a little more graceful, and show some tact. You see from their perspective the Atheist who belittles them is just an arrogant jerk lauding their "superior" intellect over the "poor dumb misguided man of faith." A little humility both intellectual and emotional goes a long way towards getting your views accepted.

MTF

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"You see from their perspective the Atheist who belittles them is just an arrogant jerk lauding their "superior" intellect over the "poor dumb misguided man of faith." A little humility both intellectual and emotional goes a long way towards getting your views accepted."

Another theist who thinks we are selling something.

I have no interest in converting you - none - at all. Such an effort is both futile and foolish. Theists believe this stuff because they WANT to. No amount of evidence, no logic, no list of fact will make any impression whatever. If it did belief in this nonsense would have vanished ages ago.

Believe whatever fairy tale you fancy. No one cares - least of all me. But follow Carlin's 11th commandment.

We aren't buying what YOU are selling.

 

[Diederick]

I'm deeply sorry for not responding to this any sooner.

Diederick,
Much of what you have said is true, but one more reason ought to be mentioned.
The reason that all peoples, educated or ignorant, having association with other peoples or not, have religion in their ranks,

Excuse me? You say that, regardless of other people being around us, we have religion in our ranks? I have religion in my ranks, but they'd better not utter a single word of it against me or anyone I hold high enough. Anyway... I didn't quite get that.

IS, God put within man, when He created man, the desire to find, and learn about his maker.

This is what I would call curiosity, and it's not for "a maker" but for "an origin". I indeed want to know where this all came from, but that doesn't automatically have me looking for some invisible guy with a beard.

This is called Christian Existentialism. Mankind has a desire to worship something greater than himself!!

Where did I hear that last phrase before? And Existentialism has indeed Christian branches, but it seems a gross misunderstanding of what it stands for. Existentialism dictates that every man is without a natural or God-given reason and purpose, and therefore must create this himself. To on that note dive into religion, the DIY kit for hopeless people; seems like cheating in arts class. It seems so clear that Existentialism wants people to individually explore these questions, that it strikes me as odd to find this argument. At all.

The Bible tells us exactly what faith is at Heb 11:1. The Bible also tells us that all people DO NOT have faith, 2Thes 3:2, that to please God we must have faith, Heb 11:6.

Thanks for making me get my Bible out of the bookshelf. Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. In other words, it is wishful thinking sustained by ignorance of evidence which claims the contrary. Hebrews 11:6 is about pleasing God, now has this position defended itself yet? Why should I want to please God? And last, but certainly not least, 2Thes3:2 just claims that people that do not have the faith (wishful thinking sustained by ignorance), are "perverse and evil men".

And when did we establish, as Existentialists, that the Bible is a good tool to find our personal reason and purpose? Isn't the Bible part of a supposed "God-given meaning"?

Anyone without faith has only this life to hope in.

I could have hope of another life beyond this - but I wouldn't find it reasonable and stop hoping for it very soon. I have more important things to do.

Faithful people have the hope of bing resurrected, if we die, into a paradise earth, with the opportunity to live forever, in peacefulness and happiness. It would therefore behoove everyone to study God's word and try to acquire faith. This is not just any faith, what saves a person is the faith in the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who died for every man who puts faith in his name, and obeys his commandments, John 14:21, John 1:29, Matt 20:28, Acts 4:12.

But it's still just hope. Just faith. And it doesn't make anyone want to study the Bible, because it doesn't make sense to a whole lot of people. It doesn't make sense to start day-dreaming about a fairy-tale world which might exist (by which I mean it most probably doesn't), especially since someone (Paul, I believe) invented all these special rules to get into that world. I find it more likely that we live in the Matrix, God is too pretentious.

 

[Humanistheart]

All sorts of non-psychotic things can resemble psychosis (IE obsession with a sports team).

Resemble? I'd say an obsession with sports is psychosis. Have you seen football fans? It's like a cult. Very member oriented, people go out and paint themselves colors likea religious ritual, they do dances and cheers and invoke god to aid their team, it's pretty out there.

 

[Scott C.]

Science is based on observation, evidence, and inference; but religion doesn't have the built in mechanisms science does in filtering out unsubstantiated information. Science is repeateable or predictable, self correcting and amendable to new info' that may actually supplant a previous theory. How is religion anything like that?

There are hundreds of thousands of religions, and few actually accept the exact same revelation, doctrine, holy writ, etc. as religions other than theirs. Religions tend to be very provincial while science is applicable to anyone anywhere. Science is universal. There's nothing to even suggest science is anything like a subset of religion.

Religion may or may not be true. There are lots of religions that have conflicting doctrine. I'm referring to what I call "the Gospel of God". God has revealed truth and posseses all truth, scientific or spiritual. All truth is therefore part of the Gospel. Scientifically verifiable physical truths are therefore a subset of the Gospel, by this Gospel definition. My pursuit is to understand the Gospel, the best I can. This involves a constant quest for truth, whether I find in scientific books or true scripture.

The scriptures tell us to "experiment" with the word of God. Sounds like science. God gives us steps to take and promises results. If we follow the steps, we will realize the results. This is how we come to know God. This experiment is real with real results. But, unlike typical scientific experiements, the spiritual experiment is deeply personal. The heart, the soul, the desire to know, and the recognition of divine results - are all personally experienced at a profound level - in a way that changes hearts and behavior and beliefs and lives. Unlike typical scientific experiements, the results can't be empirically demonstarted to others.

For me, my spiritual experiments and results are as real and convincing as what I see, touch, taste, smell, and hear. In some ways, they are perhaps more impactful and penetrating and memorable than the physical senses.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Resemble? I'd say an obsession with sports is psychosis. Have you seen football fans? It's like a cult. Very member oriented, people go out and paint themselves colors likea religious ritual, they do dances and cheers and invoke god to aid their team, it's pretty out there.

Lmao. Been there. Personally I'll take the Cult of Manchester United and a few pints of beer over any organized religion.

 

[ellenjanuary]

What is an atheist? Someone who doesn't try to put words in god's mouth.

I believe in religion because religion is necessary. There is a general assumption that religion is the refuse of the less intelligent. So what? My neighbor told me not to mention math because he just didn't get it. I was like, who cares? It's cool. Drew a quick sketch of Pythagoras's theorem to introduce the guy for this thing I'm working on. Since I obviously love the stuff, he wasn't ashamed to show me how he didn't know the difference between the numerator and denominator in division. No big. Some people just don't do math. Others just don't do philosophy. Or biology, or chemistry; or civil engineering.

People fear what they do not understand. Death. Nuclear energy. Particle accelerators. Barney. Religion provides comfort, community, and a sense of security. Religion provides moral direction in a simple, straightforward manner; with clearly exaggerated thus easily understood examples. Science illustrates how morality can develop in man but gives little clue as to what that morality should be. For that, there is philosophy; surprisingly, such is how my religion began~

there must be reason
gwyneth paltrow is god
i believe in convergence

~What's that last step? Thing I'm working on involves the validation of the continuum hypothesis. The result accepted by Gödel is far from ideal. There seems to be a direct line from Pythagoras through India and Arabia straight to Cantor. A path through the human mind that cannot be real. Where does such a path lead? Would you believe, god?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

"You see from their perspective the Atheist who belittles them is just an arrogant jerk lauding their "superior" intellect over the "poor dumb misguided man of faith." A little humility both intellectual and emotional goes a long way towards getting your views accepted."

Another theist who thinks we are selling something.

I have no interest in converting you - none - at all. Such an effort is both futile and foolish. Theists believe this stuff because they WANT to. No amount of evidence, no logic, no list of fact will make any impression whatever. If it did belief in this nonsense would have vanished ages ago.

Believe whatever fairy tale you fancy. No one cares - least of all me. But follow Carlin's 11th commandment.

We aren't buying what YOU are selling.

You can't convert what isn't there Omar. I am not a bloody Theist. I don't believe a personal deity is possible. I don't believe in an impersonal deity (not technically). So what exactly do you suppose you are converting?

So go ahead and sit there entirely convinced of your superiority; you obviously care or you wouldn't respond to derision when someone did not first levy it at you. My whole point is you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. And I don't buy what you are selling: you obviously care or you wouldn't keep thinking others were trying to convert you.

MTF