Why do people believe in God?

[James R]

kx000:

I was reading back over this thread and noticed a couple of your posts I didn't see before.

If there were a omnipotent God, what are the chances that he hates atheist back, and that is why we suffer? Is that possible to people? (No offense intended).

There are a couple of things you might like to think about, here.

The first one is this thing about atheists hating God. Do you understand that atheists don't believe in God? It wouldn't make much sense to hate something that you don't believe in, would it? I mean, you could hate it as a concept or an idea, I suppose, but not hate the actual thing.

For example, I don't believe that Luke Skywalker is a real person. So, while I might express my liking or disliking of him as a fictional character, it would be wrong to claim that I hate him as a person. Suppose that you believe, for some reason, that Skywalker is real, that I don't believe that, and that I hate the idea of Luke Skywalker. I suppose you could be forgiven for feeling offended, but you appreciate that, from my point of view, I don't actually think I'm hating a real person. Right?

I think God is a lot less clearly defined as an idea than Luke Skywalker is. Personally, I would put hating God on a similar footing to hating Luke Skywalker. That is - even if I really disliked a particular fictional character a lot, it would not be in the same ballpark as the sort of dislike I might express regarding an actual person who could actually act in the world.

The second think to think about is: why would an omnipotent being hate anybody? What would be the point? An omnipotent being can do whatever it likes. It could, for example, snuff the hated person out of existence in an eyeblink. But, also, is this omnipotent being the same one who chose to create that atheist in the first place? Did the omnipotent being create the atheist just so the being could hate the atheist, then? Secretly, then, wouldn't the omnipotent being be content in itself? It clearly wanted something to hate, so it created that thing. What could it possibly have to complain about?

A third thing to thing about is the whole suffering thing. This omnipotent God clearly wants suffering. If he didn't want it, he could end it in an eyeblink or - better - choose not to create it in the first place. It would be wrong of you to shift the blame to the atheist whom your God chose to create. You should place the blame squarely where the buck stops: with the omnipotent being who could end all suffering (or not allow it in the first place), but who - for whatever reason - chooses it.

You missed the point of my post, maybe we are here suffering for a reason. Maybe if man didn’t rebel against God, and if the human faithful didn’t fight the angelic faithful, God would not be punishing you.

When do you think this rebellion against God happened? Or are you thinking it's constantly happening?

The only reason we are suffering - if there's an omnipotent God - is because the God wants it to happen. After all, he could stop it at any time.

Is your God also omniscient? If so, then he created human beings knowing full well that they would "rebel". Therefore, it follows that he wanted that to happen, which against means that he isn't on very solid ground if he's whingeing about it now.

Also think about this: if this God worth worshipping? He could end suffering (or not allow it in the first place), but he chooses to enable it. If this omnipotent God chooses to create human beings so that he can punish them, then he is evil. Even if he is real, he isn't worthy of worship.

 

[Sarkus]

The first one is this thing about atheists hating God. Do you understand that atheists don't believe in God? It wouldn't make much sense to hate something that you don't believe in, would it? I mean, you could hate it as a concept or an idea, I suppose, but not hate the actual thing.

For example, I don't believe that Luke Skywalker is a real person. So, while I might express my liking or disliking of him as a fictional character, it would be wrong to claim that I hate him as a person. Suppose that you believe, for some reason, that Skywalker is real, that I don't believe that, and that I hate the idea of Luke Skywalker. I suppose you could be forgiven for feeling offended, but you appreciate that, from my point of view, I don't actually think I'm hating a real person. Right?

I'm not sure this argument stacks up, James R, as it seems to conclude that the property of "being real" is sufficient to change one's view of the thing, from "hate" to "not hate". Surely if you "hate X" while not thinking that X is real, you would surely still "hate X" if it was real? Whatever it is you hate about the concept of X would still be there if X is real, would it not? For example, someone produces a concept for a new car, and let's say I hate what they have come up with. If they go ahead and make it real, am I going to hate it any less, assuming the only change in my understanding is that it is now real rather than just a concept?
I therefore think it reasonable to conclude that if you hate what you think to be a fiction then you also hate what others think of as real, because other than the property of "being real" there's no other difference in what you're considering.

 

[Tiassa]

[Moderator note: off topic material split to separate thread, as requested by the poster.]

So, we're down to the point where atheists need to just censor what they're not capable of answering.

And you even had to lie about it. You decided to move my post, an episode of pursuing your own emotional needs.

Moreover, to cover for yourself, you don't even try to make a case, but, rather, just make demands↗ and then punish someone↗ for failing to satisfy you.

This was just the pure politics of censoring what you're not capable of answering.

 

[James R]

I believe that Tiassa posted something. It was not a public apology or a retraction.

Nothing has been censored. The off-topic material split off from this thread can be found in post #1 of the following thread:

Insinuations, accusations and immorality

 

[Tiassa]

Nothing has been censored. The off-topic material split off from this thread can be found in post #1 of the following thread:

Again, it wasn't off-topic. You just let your emotions get the best of you, and for a fallacy↗.

It was so irrational and unnecessary, James.

By excluding relevant material from the discussion, you have in fact censored.

And the thing is, it all remains strangely relevant; your behavior makes the point better than my argument ever can. Like I said↗: Why do people believe in God? Largely because they learned to, and it's a lot of trouble to then not believe, and the only promise such a conversion can offer is uncertainty. And in terms of both uncertainty and the trouble of transforming belief, atheistic solipsism is one of the easiest and most apparent fulfillments of anti-atheist prejudice and expectation among religious people.

Discussing that solipsism is only irrelevant to why people believe in God if one is just not capable of answering.

Furthermore, we should note the discussion was relevant to W4U's thread in two ways; not only did his atheistic solipsism complicate his discussion with me, it is also part of the apparent shift in rhetoric after the title and opening post. You might observe, I'm not the only one discussing that shift with him.

And in disrupting the discussion as you have, you kind of went and made the point for me.

 

[Write4U]

I have some overarching conception of God that sort of makes sense only if it doesn't interact with the internal machinations of the universe, and as such I would claim that this God is unknowable.

So one can give an unknowable God any properties one sees fit? Is this not what has happened and with disastrous results?

Lest we forget.
The Sect-less Religion

Religious pluralism is a term as contentious as the rest of western constructs like tolerance, racial equality, gender mental make-up and pro-choice. As problematic as its definitions, history shows us the ugly side of the pretty face. Historians have analyzed the colonization wars and come to a conclusion that abhors the religious and agnostics alike.
Minhaaj Rehman

Christianity, a beautiful religion spread by the labor of love and kindness by Jesus PBUH had been a source of identity for over a billion people around the world. His life was filled with sacrifice, compassion, and healing for the downtrodden. After his demise, avarice crept into his teachings and what was meant to be the veil for the bodies of unkempt, draped the lowliest of the clergy with finest of the silk.

One of the greatest books on psychological and dehumanising effects of colonization on colonial people is Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth”. Book published in 1961 in french with the title Les Damnés de la Terre.

Jean Paul-Sartre himself took the pains to write an excruciating and self-immolating preface for the it. Amidst his critique of colonization and French brutality in Algeria he notes the symbiotic relationship of the Church and the Armies.

While the white man encroached the lands of what Fanon calls “lumpenproletariat” of Marx, the Church ratified not only its actions but convinced the natives of a divine legitimacy for all this. Jesus PBUH would bless their souls if they died working for the ‘intelligent race’. Frantz speaks of it in these words:
“I speak of the Christian religion, and no one need be astonished. The Church in the colonies is the white people’s Church, the foreigner’s Church. She does not call the native to God’s ways but to the ways of the white man, of the master, of the oppressor. And as we know, in this matter many are called but few chosen.”

Ironically, about the same time Spanish Armada was on its way to bring triumph and plata back to the country, Christianity was at the crossroads of a reformation not very far from it. Martin Luther having witnessed the corruption of clergy in Rome had reneged as the priests of his time proclaimed.

The largest denomination of monolithic Christian faith would become a story of the past and from it unstoppable branches would sprout forth. It would burn Europe in centuries to come through protestant and catholic wars.

https://medium.com/minhaajmusings/the-sect-less-religion-4c2439c303ef

 

[Write4U]

That's because you only allow religion to be defined in such a preclusive manner. And, let's face it, at some point that becomes bigotry. The reality is that most religious people just aren't as evil as your sixteenth-century nightmares require.

But I am not talking about individuals (my wife is catholic). It is the institutions and their religious leaders that have been and are becoming again the cancer in the body spiritual.

If a person walks the walk instead of talking the talk regardless of belief, I can respect that.
But religion allows for walking the path of violent enforcement and that is evil. My familiy and I have been victim of such evil (destruction of a priceless sculpture), I rather deal with atheists who have no means of being forgiven and have to carry the burden of guilt personally for the rest of their lives.

Religious people scare me, but they need not fear from me. OTOH, religious people hate the atheist in me and I fear them, justly so!

Religious Terrorism

Terrorism in the name of religion has become the predominant model for political violence in the modern world. This is not to suggest that it is the only model because nationalism and ideology remain as potent catalysts for extremist behavior. However, religious extremism has become a central issue for the global community. In the modern era, religious terrorism has increased in its frequency, scale of violence, and global reach. At the same time, a relative decline has occurred in secular terrorism.

The old ideologies of class conflict, anticolonial liberation, and secular nationalism have been challenged by a new and vigorous infusion of sectarian ideologies. Grassroots extremist support for religious violence has been most widespread among populations living in repressive societies that do not permit demands for reform or other expressions of dissent.

What is religious terrorism? What are its fundamental attributes? Religious terrorism is a type of political violence motivated by an absolute belief that an otherworldly power has sanctioned—and commanded—terrorist violence for the greater glory of the faith. Acts committed in the name of the faith will be forgiven by the otherworldly power and perhaps rewarded in an afterlife. In essence, one’s religious faith legitimizes violence as long as such violence is an expression of the will of one’s deity. Table 6.1 presents a model that compares the fundamental characteristics of religious and secular terrorism.

more..... https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/33557_6.pdf

 

[Sarkus]

So one can give an unknowable God any properties one sees fit? Is this not what has happened and with disastrous results?

One can come up with any definition or understanding of God that you want. Just don't then assume you're talking about the same God as the next person.

 

[Write4U]

One can come up with any definition or understanding of God that you want. Just don't then assume you're talking about the same God as the next person.

I believe that I am the one who declared that there are as many gods as there are believers.
The strange thing is that no one knows the true definition of God. It is an unknowable quantity.

That's because you only allow religion to be defined in such a preclusive manner. And, let's face it, at some point that becomes bigotry. The reality is that most religious people just aren't as evil as your sixteenth-century nightmares require.

But I am not talking about individuals (my wife is catholic, but spent her life nursing sick people).
A good religious person is just a good person. I don't buy this "Original Sin" story.

Original sin is the Christian doctrine that holds that humans, through the fact of birth, inherit a tainted nature with a proclivity to sinful conduct in need of regeneration. The biblical basis for the belief is generally found in Genesis 3, in a line in Psalm 51:5, and in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 5:12-21.Wikipedia

I don't need anyone to tell me that I am sinful. To those who accuse me, clean up your own backyard before commenting on my lawn.

It is the institutions and their religious leaders that have been and are again becoming the cancer in the body spiritual. And the Sheep that do as they are told.

If a person walks the walk instead of talking the talk regardless of belief, I can respect that.
But religion allows for walking the path of violent enforcement and that is evil. My familiy and I have been victim of such evil (destruction of a priceless sculpture), I rather deal with atheists who have no means of being forgiven and have to carry the burden of guilt personally for the rest of their lives.

Religious people scare me, but they need not fear from me. OTOH, religious people hate the atheist in me and I fear them, justly so!

Religious Terrorism

Terrorism in the name of religion has become the predominant model for political violence in the modern world. This is not to suggest that it is the only model because nationalism and ideology remain as potent catalysts for extremist behavior. However, religious extremism has become a central issue for the global community. In the modern era, religious terrorism has increased in its frequency, scale of violence, and global reach. At the same time, a relative decline has occurred in secular terrorism.

The old ideologies of class conflict, anticolonial liberation, and secular nationalism have been challenged by a new and vigorous infusion of sectarian ideologies. Grassroots extremist support for religious violence has been most widespread among populations living in repressive societies that do not permit demands for reform or other expressions of dissent.

What is religious terrorism? What are its fundamental attributes? Religious terrorism is a type of political violence motivated by an absolute belief that an otherworldly power has sanctioned—and commanded—terrorist violence for the greater glory of the faith. Acts committed in the name of the faith will be forgiven by the otherworldly power and perhaps rewarded in an afterlife. In essence, one’s religious faith legitimizes violence as long as such violence is an expression of the will of one’s deity. Table 6.1 presents a model that compares the fundamental characteristics of religious and secular terrorism.

more..... https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/33557_6.pdf

 

[Write4U]

One can come up with any definition or understanding of God that you want.

Can one and be right? One god with some 6 billion interpretations?
More Prone to Believe in God than Identify as Religious. More Likely to Believe in Heaven than in Hell. 2023

Two thirds of respondents around the world claim they are religious. Slightly more people believe in God and there is a life after death – according to a majority around the world. A majority also agree that there is a heaven and hell (although we are more confident in the “Good place” than the “Bad one”). Whether religious or not most people seem to believe that there is some mighty power beyond our understanding – a God.
Religious beliefs are more influenced by education, age and personal income.

https://www.gallup-international.co...ore-likely-to-believe-in-heaven-than-in-hell#

 

[Write4U]

One can come up with any definition or understanding of God that you want. Just don't then assume you're talking about the same God as the next person.

But all we need is one Holy Roller who is going to cleanse the Earth from Atheists and Apostates.
And that is why I am scared of all of them.

The last time I was in church accompanying a friend, the preacher told his congregation to always makes sure they know who they are dealing with and verify that they believe in god and never hire an atheist.
This is recent history, so things have not changed very much since the 17 century.

Religious people have been killing each other for 2000+ years. It's going on today.
Religious hate is rampant!
But when a rare mad scientist commits a crime, all of science is being blamed for being evil, go figure.

 

[Write4U]

ARE wrong. The earth is not flat, Planets are not stars, disease not caused by demons, Covid was not fake etc etc

But God(s) persists, why is that?

 

[Pinball1970]

But all we need is one Holy Roller who is going to cleanse the Earth from Atheists and Apostates.
And that is why I am scared of all of them.

Where the hell do you live? Tehran?

 

[Pinball1970]

But God(s) persists, why is that?

Do you mean why do people get things wrong?

 

[Write4U]

Where the hell do you live? Tehran?

Does it matter where I live? The question is valid everywhere! (I live in NW US)

Do you mean why do people get things wrong?

This many people? For this long? Without evidence?

Robert Hazen explains how life began as an emergent property of a dynamic system of self-forming and self-referential patterns.

But instead of showing the science, many school boards vote to include Intelligent Design as a alternate to evolution and in spite of several popes declaring evolution as fact!

It is consciousness that has escaped examination, until fairly recently.

 

[Pinball1970]

This many people? For this long? Without evidence?

Yes I will refer you to flat earth again

Robert Hazen explains how life began as an emergent property of a dynamic system of self-forming and self-referential patterns.

This thread was split from your off topic meanderings. Can you at least stick to one of the three which is ,"Why do people believe in god" This one?

But instead of showing the science, many school boards vote to include Intelligent Design as a alternate to evolution and in spite of several popes declaring evolution as fact!

Again not relevant to why in the first place but contributes to why some religions persist.

It is consciousness that has escaped examination, until fairly recently.

Prove me wrong and show me that you are actually capable of sticking to one line of thought on one thread.

 

[Sarkus]

Q: "Why do people believe in god?"
A: "I think the question you should be asking is what are the issues with religion, and why people should not believe in God, so I'll answer those...."

Reminds me of those people taking exams who didn't know the answer but wanted the teacher to know they knew something about something. The answer was correct... if only they had asked the right question.

 

[Write4U]

Yes I will refer you to flat earth again

Are talking about science or beliefs? How many people believe in a flat earth?
Are you suggesting that all religious people believe in a flat earth? Where are you going with this?

When was the first recognition of a spherical earth and by whom?

Spherical Earth or Earth's curvature refers to the approximation of the figure of the Earth as a sphere. The earliest documented mention of the concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it appears in the writings of Greek philosophers.[1][2] In the 3rd century BC, Hellenistic astronomy established the roughly spherical shape of Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference. This knowledge was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.[3][4][5][6] A practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's circumnavigation (1519–1522).[7]

The concept of a spherical Earth displaced earlier beliefs in a flat Earth: In early Mesopotamian mythology, the world was portrayed as a disk floating in the ocean with a hemispherical sky-dome above,[8] and this forms the premise for early world maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus. Other speculations on the shape of Earth include a seven-layered ziggurat or cosmic mountain, alluded to in the Avesta and ancient Persian writings (see seven climes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

 

[Write4U]

This thread was split from your off topic meanderings. Can you at least stick to one of the three which is ,"Why do people believe in god" This one?

I am answering the question!

The reason why people believe in god is the fact that universe operates in a manner that looks intelligent.
But the "watchmaker" story is not a scientific observation. It's mythology.

I am proposing a viable replacement for the concept of a "Causal God".

You ask the question but you don't want to hear the answer.

 

[Pinball1970]

I am answering the question!

The reason why people believe in god is the fact that universe operates in a manner that looks intelligent.
But the "watchmaker" story is not a scientific observation. It's mythology.

I am proposing a viable replacement for the concept of a "Causal God".

You ask the question but you don't want to hear the answer

That is better.

Yes, we are intelligent pattern seeking mammals and we anthropomorphise objects and events.

An active volcano is a result of seismic activity, unstable larva lakes and other geological features but to ancient man? Mother earth is angry, the mountain god is angry.