You're A Theist Because...

[Audie]

Of most of the theists I have met, of all stripes, none are theists because they:

- Want a purpose in life so they look for a theistic religion that gives them something to do. Not only is this shallow, the illusion will die quickly. Even religions may not propose a concrete idea as to the purpose of life and this may be found in a mystical philosophy or otherwise.

- Are afraid of death.This is insincere and, again, the illusion will die quickly.

- Are born into it. Most serious practitioners I know have evaluated their faith and found it solid. Nowadays many people who are born into faith families have the option to evaluate their faith, find it wanting, and leave. Even if this isn't the case in real life, certainly on the internet one has the freedom to be honest.

These are the most common 'reasons' I hear being put forward by prominent atheists (Dawkins, for example, has used all three). People are theists for all sorts of reasons, and I find it irresponsible for other people to try to tell us why we believe, as if there's some sort of strange pity-party going on for us. And yes, 'My life experience' is a completely valid reason for being a theist.

Protesteth too much?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Because this thread isn't about me? And I'm not looking for it to become a debate about why I believe what I do.

So your OP rants about 3 items that atheists or anti-theists posit may be, or are some reasons people may entrench themselves in "faith", and then refuse to provide any examples that could supplant those 3 "false" notions of why people become or remain theists. The only one you gave was "my life experience" - which I agree - is fine/acceptable as a reason - but is entirely vague and could, quite honestly, easily encompass all 3 of the "negative" reasons you railed against.

We're basically left with "all sorts of reasons" and "my life experience" to go on as examples of "positive" reasons to become or remain a theist. Excuse me if it ends up seeming a little odd that the thread was started in the first place if this was where you were willing to leave it.

Note I said "was", because I understand you may have felt your hand forced later on in the thread and provided more detailed examples of reasons you feel are "positive" - I just don't intend to read that far, and wanted to point out the defeated stance you seemed to take on page 1.

 

[Nakosis]

That sounds like a belief to me, not an emotion. Now, there is going to be emotions going along with that belief, yeah. Such as feeling angry because you believe someone is cheating on you. But the belief that someone is cheating on you is, as said, not the emotion, but the belief.

Your other example strikes me as a belief as well, not an emotion. Stuff like "I feel my creditor cheated me" is synonymous with "I believe my creditor cheated me" or "I think my creditor cheated me" not with "I'm upset my creditor cheated me." Put another way, we commonly use "I feel" in a way that actually means "I think" or "I believe" rather than actually describing an emotion. It's important to recognize that difference.

There's a different but it is hierarchical and the distinction isn't really that great. Belief is generally something you have a higher that average confidence in. Like a belief in a God. Something for whatever reason you feel you have a good reason to accept. Then there's I think there is a god. Still having some questions, not as much certainty. The base level would be, I feel a god exists, like when you feel scared or jealous in this case but don't have any good reason for it.

Hopefully most people don't jump from feeling to belief without a good conscious determination behind it but I suspect many do. End up falsely accusing a spouse based on a feeling they've elevated to a belief without good reason.

However if it makes more sense to you, the subconscious provides feelings and emotions.

 

[Rival]

So your OP rants about 3 items that atheists or anti-theists posit may be, or are some reasons people may entrench themselves in "faith", and then refuse to provide any examples that could supplant those 3 "false" notions of why people become or remain theists. The only one you gave was "my life experience" - which I agree - is fine/acceptable as a reason - but is entirely vague and could, quite honestly, easily encompass all 3 of the "negative" reasons you railed against.

We're basically left with "all sorts of reasons" and "my life experience" to go on as examples of "positive" reasons to become or remain a theist. Excuse me if it ends up seeming a little odd that the thread was started in the first place if this was where you were willing to leave it.

Note I said "was", because I understand you may have felt your hand forced later on in the thread and provided more detailed examples of reasons you feel are "positive" - I just don't intend to read that far, and wanted to point out the defeated stance you seemed to take on page 1.

Again, this thread is not about me and if I gave reasons I'm sure people would want to argue with me about my personal reasons and as I said, this is not about me, but theists in general and atheists' common misconceptions of us. And there are 'all sorts of reasons'; I could not possibly list them all because that would be generalising all theists and I do not know even half of the reasons why they are theists, as all their reasons may be unique.

 

[Rival]

Protesteth too much?

No, just bulldozing misconceptions put on theists by those lacking insights into our reasons, so think they can guess them.

 

[Nakosis]

Why cant you trust your feeling, though?

If I had a feeling someone was going to hurt me, either I believe it (put trust in its validity) or not. That, I can see a consequence. If we saw it positive, we can use that feeling to understand the nature of our mind and what we can trust regardless if its true or not. If it is true, we trust our feelings and protect ourselves. It we trust it is false, depending on how it affects us, we can address the source or the symptoms.

But the feelings can be used for benefit or left as consequence. Depends on how you define trust and whether that trust leads you to address feelings in an appropriate way by training our mind or letting your feelings guide your actions. It doesnt mean you cant trust your feelings. They do exist. Its using your mind to know which feelings you trust and which you do not. In other words, its mind related not feelings related.

So, if someone believes in god its because of their feelings. They have experiences and guides and resources to confirm their feelings based on the logic they put together from their mind. Once their mind is confirmed with that truth (without actualy having physical evidence to show it), they can either benefit from what they find or find consequence (satan for example)

But all in all, its all about the mind rather than feelings Feelings just is. We can control the mind thus our bodies. But our sensations we cant. It just is. So, I dont see how they can be right or wrong in regards to trust. Thats only if our minds interpret it that way. Depends on culture and preexisting experiences.

Recap.


Feelings just is.
Its the mind that interprets those feelings to know whether we trust tem or not
The feelings dont need to be true or fact in order to benefit
Thats why I wonder if you feel you cant trust feelings, what is the consequence or the opposite if those feelings were false but you can still find benefit nonetheless?

I think you can control your feelings. Not directly but you can provide feedback to your subconscious. I think you can even get to a point of being able to trust your feelings, but you have to consciously provide guidance to you subconscious. Like in anger management. A person gets unreasonably anger in inappropriate situations. You have to let your subconscious mind know this feeling is not appropriate, then there are times it is appropriate but that is something you have to consciously decide.

I don't know if if is trust as much as being consciously aware of your feeling and consciously deciding they are appropriate. I can consciously cause myself to be happy or angry. It's just knowing what triggers these emotions and pulling up the right memories. The feeling you find beneficial, you can trigger them when you feel it's appropriate, you can shut them down as well when it's not.

You provide the validation for your feelings. It doesn't really matter if you use science or logic. That's my preference because these provide a very strong validation. It is important, IMO, that this is done as a conscious choice however.

 

[Audie]

No, just bulldozing misconceptions put on theists by those lacking insights into our reasons, so think they can guess them.

If you say so

 

[Rival]

If you say so

You have no reason to doubt me. You think you know why theists are theists better than the believers themselves?

 

[Nakosis]

So you're just projecting what you want to see onto the answers others give. Now I understand why I've tuned out this sort of discussion in the past.

Actually I'm relying on my experience, my understanding. I express it so it can be corrected. I'm certainly willing to listen to a better explanation.

I "feel" God exists in the same way I "feel" that the city of Cincinnati exists.

I believe you. I'm willing to take you at your word. For Cincinnati there is a lot of objective evidence for it's existence. For God it's more subjective. I see a difference in validation. I understand not everyone does.

 

[`mud]

Geee...I finally get the difference between objective and subjective.....Cincinnati and `God`
Beside a dirty river and on an invisible cloud !

 

[Audie]

I do not doubt you.

Nor do I think I know better than (all) "believers".
Theists? Are they the same thing? Are they.
all the same? Including, operating on the same
level of intellugence and emotional maturity?

Of course, I sure do know better about some things
than some believers, including things central to
rheir beliefs.

But seriously-
How could I think such nonsense as you suggest.

On ye flip side, how can you propose to speak for
all such people as fall under the heading of believer, or
theist, or offer some statistical analysisof how deep or
shallow they are?

Do you think all atheists think all theists fit into your op?

I ofetn enough encounter people who display reason
enough to think that they if not all "believers", in
whatever their selected "theism" fit very nicely into
one or more of your too-ptotested categories.

Maybe you are not one who (flip side again) says
atheists are "in rebellion" and deny "god" because
they want a life free of consequence from sin,
want to be their "own god", and so on. That
atheists have purpose in life, nothing to look foreward to
but death and oblivion.

If so, great. It gets tiresome. (But it is also most
revelatory as to their thinking)

I wont propose to tell you or "theists" what they
all think, or why; you can skip telling atheists
what they think, and why

Maybe we can get by with something like
"Let's all try to remember not to stereotype
eachother"?

 

[Rival]

Nor do I think I know better than (all) "believers".
Theists? Are they the same thing? Are they.

I was using the word 'believers' as synonymous with 'theists' in this instance to avoid using the same word three times, which is a faux pas in English.

Including, operating on the same
level of intellugence and emotional maturity?

No, they do not.

Of course, I sure do know better about some things
than some believers, including things central to
rheir beliefs.

This is not the point. The point is why they believe in a god or gods in the first place. Not how much they know about their given religion.

But seriously-
How could I think such nonsense as you suggest.

Because you argued with me as though you did.

On ye flip side, how can you propose to speak for
all such people as fall under the heading of believer, or
theist, or offer some statistical analysisof how deep or
shallow they are?

I do not.

I said: "Of most of the theists I have met, of all stripes, none are theists because they:"

Do you think all atheists think all theists fit into your op?

No. See above.

I ofetn enough encounter people who display reason
enough to think that they if not all "believers", in
whatever their selected "theism" fit very nicely into
one or more of your too-ptotested categories.

Yes, some will, but I was not talking about all of them. Not all theists fit into those categories, and I have met very few who do. This is my point. Evidently our experience of theists is different, or you have simply made assumptions about why they are believers in the first place.

Maybe you are not one who (flip side again) says
atheists are "in rebellion" and deny "god" because
they want a life free of consequence from sin,
want to be their "own god", and so on. That
atheists have purpose in life, nothing to look foreward to
but death and oblivion.

You are right, I do not say this.

all think, or why; you can skip telling atheists
what they think, and why

I said 'These are the most common 'reasons' I hear being put forward by prominent atheists', not 'All atheists'.

 

[Audie]

No need for me to "assume" with people who
come out and say it?

The reasons put forth by ye "prominent atheist"
who only represents himself are in fact very common.
No assumptions needed.

Is there anything to your op other than
golly them stereotypers should stop
steteotyping?

 

[Milton Platt]

Of most of the theists I have met, of all stripes, none are theists because they:

- Want a purpose in life so they look for a theistic religion that gives them something to do. Not only is this shallow, the illusion will die quickly. Even religions may not propose a concrete idea as to the purpose of life and this may be found in a mystical philosophy or otherwise.

- Are afraid of death.This is insincere and, again, the illusion will die quickly.

- Are born into it. Most serious practitioners I know have evaluated their faith and found it solid. Nowadays many people who are born into faith families have the option to evaluate their faith, find it wanting, and leave. Even if this isn't the case in real life, certainly on the internet one has the freedom to be honest.

These are the most common 'reasons' I hear being put forward by prominent atheists (Dawkins, for example, has used all three). People are theists for all sorts of reasons, and I find it irresponsible for other people to try to tell us why we believe, as if there's some sort of strange pity-party going on for us. And yes, 'My life experience' is a completely valid reason for being a theist.

I prefer to ask people what they believe and why they believe it. They often give some of the very reasons you are saying they do not. This does not mean they do not give other reasons, or multiple reasons.

I find often they cannot readily provide any reasons, because they haven’t given that question much thought, which is okay.

In no case have I found that someone came to a religious belief through sound scientific study.

 

[Rival]

Is there anything to your op other than
golly them stereotypers should stop
steteotyping?

I am more suggesting better dialogue between theists and atheists.

 

[Audie]

I am more suggesting better dialogue between theists and atheists.

Mutual cessation of stereotypes is a good
thing for intdrtribal communication of a peaceful sort.

Your op was just about a couple of "prominent
atheists" though.

Perhaps you could send them a note.

 

[Audie]

I prefer to ask people what they believe and why they believe it. They often give some of the very reasons you are saying they do not. This does not mean they do not give other reasons, or multiple reasons.

I find often they cannot readily provide any reasons, because they haven’t given that question much thought, which is okay.

In no case have I found that someone came to a religious belief through sound scientific study.

Exactly so on the above; and on the last,
you never will. Statements to contrary are protesting
too much.

 

[`mud]

Rival has some really good points to make, and so does Audie.
They both care about what choices are made by other people.
Most people are into their own worlds of beliefs, sans hearing.
One must hear the thoughts of all the other's thinking, to hear it.
One can't `hear` the real spirit of the another's inward feelings !
One's spirit doesn't travel well, there's no path to the other's ears.
One's cognizance can't be heard as well, and also it can't be felt.
The `spirit` within us is ours alone, and can't be easily shared,
the only method one can have is the teaching of the spirit's good.
But....as much as we preach, the message of spirit is poorly heard,
and seldom felt, the beliefs are only varied, and the effects slight.
NuffStuff

 

[Audie]

Rival has some really good points to make, and so does Audie.
They both care about what choices are made by other people.
Most people are into their own worlds of beliefs, sans hearing.
One must hear the thoughts of all the other's thinking, to hear it.
One can't `hear` the real spirit of the another's inward feelings !
One's spirit doesn't travel well, there's no path to the other's ears.
One's cognizance can't be heard as well, and also it can't be felt.
The `spirit` within us is ours alone, and can't be easily shared,
the only method one can have is the teaching of the spirit's good.
But....as much as we preach, the message of spirit is poorly heard,
and seldom felt, the beliefs are only varied, and the effects slight.
NuffStuff

Any post following yours is superfluous, you've said
more and better than in all posts up till now.

 

[Holdasown]

They both care about what choices are made by other people.

That is their problem.