Just crious, why do people still believe in gods?
 

I was just wondering why people believe in still believe in gods.

Also, if you could include your level of education and what you studied in college that would be great.

Why? Too long to really explain here....but i suppose the short version is that i've come to beleive that what i sense by reason, emotion, ethics, and experience through reflection and community is real, as real as anything else i've sensed.

Currently a Junior in college, majors in Religious Studies and History. Planning on Div school afterwards.

Well, I'm not going to argue with Chavos -- got some real cred there. But I think that there are multiple reasons. And I would say that it least some of it is built-in. When you're in trouble and someone else comes along and says, "I'll stand with you as you deal with this problem," do you feel better? Of course. And with that support you keep going through hard times rather than giving up or turning back.

For some people, belief in a god helps the same way: when times are tough, it's easy to give up and turn back. But belief in a god that will somehow help them or support them gives them the strength to continue. And really, a great many problems in life are resolved eventually if the person just keeps on keeping on, through the pain to the other side. Without support, it's hard to do that. With support -- especially from faith in a caring god -- it's easier.

So, that's one reason for some people. I'd say that there maybe be as many reasons for believing in God as there are people on this earth.

Excellent insight Rodney. There are 3 main reasons that many religion appeals to many people:

Fear/ Insecurity - The fear of going to hell is a lot greater than the fear of being wrong. It’s just easier on the psyche. It is also good to have something to rely on in tough times, something to make you feel that everything will be ok. It is often a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Megalomania - Being a servant of an all-powerful god makes you a master of the universe in many ways. To believe that you are one of the creators chosen followers and have exclusive access to the truth is a rush.

Indoctrination - Many people are raised in the church and it is the filter for their life. Leaving the church at age 20 was the most frightening experience of my life. I can’t imagine feeling more alone. Not only had I lost my schema for the entire world, but also I was distanced from most of my friends and family. The church was my home and the center of my social life. It’s hard to give that up.

I have a Bachelors in Business Admin, Marketing and Finance, but I think your implication that religious people may be primarily uneducated is way off base. Many of the most well educated and intelligent people I have ever met are deeply religious even though often in their educational lives, science and belief come into conflict.

some people need a god to give their lives meaning.

Are you asking why some people believe in gods as in polytheism, or religion in general? Two very different questions.

For a variety of reasons; myself personally, because I believe it to be true, which I believe for a variety of reasons. I have a Master's Degree in Philosophy and am currently a Master's student in German.

You say "still" as if somehow we should be beyond that at this point. Faith is a vital part of any perspective because no one can ever predict with perfect accuracy what is going to happen to you when you get out of bed every day. People still believe in god because there is no conclusive evidence that they shouldn't. People will believe in god until science can prove without a shadow of a doubt that god doesn't exist(good luck). Even then some will still believe in a god just as some still believe the vikings will make it to the playoffs this year.

the way you posed the question implies so many things that a person who believes in God would probably never agree with.

you said...

"I was just wondering why people believe in still believe in gods."

what has happened recently that would have ruled that out for them? the majority of theists in the world (Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc.) believe in a God (or gods) that exists without any reliance on scientific data for confirmation of his existence. so, from that perspective, we aren't any closer to *knowing* if God exists. your question really becomes mute for the majority theists. i realize that this question wasn't necessarily posed to theists only, but it does frame the argument in a way that i think is ill-fitting.

We should be beyond faith. We can get beyond faith.

An excellent article by Martin Willett, on faith and why we should get past it.

Although I do not believe in God or Gods, such belief can be a useful hermeneutic device for understanding the spiritual world which we cannot observe directly.

I am defining spiritual world as that which exists beyond space, time, energy, and mass.

Of course I cannot prove the existance of a spiritual world, and my point is not to debate whether or not there is such a reality. Such debate is futile.

But I think it is certainly possible that there are planes of existence beyond what our minds can conceptualize and observe. Because we cannot directly conceptualize and observe them, those that have a spiritual aspect to their paradigms require a symbolic method to understand them. For some, the "god concept" is what does that.

I do not believe in god, but I think a better question would be is... Why dont you believe in god.

Most people cant give a cohesive answer.

I don't believe in god. I have faith in science.
Seeking BS in Chemistry

Well, i tend to agree with Pascal's argument. In Pascal's "Wager" he essentially logically point out the reason to believe in God.

if you draw a table
If you believe in God and there is God: infinite happiness
If you believe in God and there is no God: Temporal (finite) suffering
If you don't believe in God and there is God: Eternal (infinite) suffering (ie. hell)
If you don't believe in God and there is not God: Temporal (finite happiness)

so in conclusion, as a wager, it's better to bet on believeing in God because you have a chance to have infinite happiness and if you lose, all you get is finite suffering. but if you don't believe in god, you get either eternal suffering or temporal happiness. if you add it all up, it's worthit to believe in God

I hate Pascal's wager... Its just a fear tool used to make you feel like you have to believe in God. I could go on and on about this, but I'm too tired to right now, and I don't have any of my good quotes with me to help back up my claims. If you're going to believe in God, do it for other reasons than duress.

God and science rule two seperate realms. Until science can tell me conclusively what happens after i die, or how long the universe has existed in any form theism and science can coexist peacefully.

There is actually a huge conflict there. During the Renaissance, the Christian church made it a deal with science that it should hold responsibility for matters of the soul and the afterlife. Metaphysics has been separated from the sciences ever since. As a result very little research has ever been done in the field and the scientists who do seek answers in this realm are often regarded as quacks and have very little attention paid to their research.

because some people have faith

The human makeup is such that we cannot do without faith. Without faith we give up and there is no reason to pursue anything. I have faith that I can give me daughter a decent education. I have faith that if I keep working I can pay off my debts. People have faith that humans will learn from their mistakes. Citizens have faith in the law of the land to protect them. Now if you are talking about faith in a supreme being - there is no reason in the world that you have that is suffient to convince me that I'm better of believe that this world is completely caotic and a result of chance. You cannot convince me that there will be no ultimate punishment whether it be carma, reincarnation, or hell for the deeds of those who so disrespect other humans as to torture or kill them without regret. Faith in a supreme being or God is necessary to most humans and will always be. It's the fountations of most cultures and cultural traditions. It's not going away its just too ingrained.

We have to have faith in something be it relgion, science, or ourselves. I prefer not to have ultimate faith in myself because I know I make mistakes.

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education with Minor in Bible.

There are two definitions for faith. The faith in a daughter's education, paying off debts (and having a secure retirement), and faith that humanity will learn and evolve from its mistake are all rational faiths. With such faith one is aware that result is not certain. Yet the choice is made to pursue the goal anyways in hope of attaining the result.

The other flavor of faith is blind faith. Blind faith postulates that the result is certain. Therefore if the goal is pursued, it is not a matter of hope, but a matter of certainty that it will be attained.

Saying that one cannot convince you of your conclusion that there is no such thing as chance creation/existence or the non-existence of ultimate punishment; make me presume that you have blind faith on this matter. Another words you are certain of this knowledge. Yet I do not believe that you are an irrational or dogmatic person. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you are saying that you are not convinced by the alternatives to your religious beliefs and therefore do not wish to accept them as truth.

Therefore if you were in fact a rational person then I would assume that you have rational faith in the existence of god and god’s creation of the universe, as the knowledge is uncertain.

When it comes to the subject of metaphysics most people simply feel the need to take sides in the arguments. In such a case they simply pick a side and have faith that it is correct. Other people, like myself, do not chose sides readily but rather choose to have faith in neither argument until one is proven correct.

Blind faith is not as common as some atheist would have you think. If it were then we would still be living on a flat world, as all scientific discoveries would have been dismissed. Yet it does occur and when it does it is the greatest abomination to all humanity because blind faith is the anti-thesis of though and knowledge. For blind faith does not allow one to question nor to allow other possibilities to come into play.

Is there such thing as blind antifaith?

scepticism / rationality

I don’t think that antifaith is the correct term for it.

Certainly one can have faith that a result will not occur. If it is rational then one hopes that a result does not occur. If faith is blind then one is certain that a result will not occur. Though such thoughts are obviously synonymous with their positives. For example: if one has hope for a desired result then it is clear that one also has hope that the alternatives do not happen. If one has blind faith in a result then one has blind faith that the alternative cannot happen.

If on the other hand you are referring to antifaith as a term for the blind faith in the non-existence of god, then I can assure you that it does exist. Though the term used is rather poor because religion does not have a monopoly on faith.

Mind you am I making up these definition as I go along…though they seem to fit so far.

People are afraid of freedom. If handed absolute freedom, most people would not know what to do with it. The belief that an omniscient being is watching them gives them an excuse to restrict their actions.

Belief in God is fear of freedom (I came up with that before X-files. Damn you, Chris Carter)

it gives people a framework by which they can live their lives, believing it will ultimately lead to a reward if they follow it. It could also give people an easy way out, so they can say god created me so i have no choice in how i live.

I had a funny kind of realization last night, why not believe that when you die you go to a wonderful carnival in the sky. In this carnival in the sky everyone is happy and all things are great and everyone is happy there, even bad people.

I mean a wonderful carnival in the sky that everyone is invited to is about as rational as anything else...

Same reason I believe in gravity..... it exists.

I have spent quite bit of time searching for the truth; it is a part of my very essence, as I grew up in a pseudo-religious family and then continued my studies in both eastern and western philosophy/theology. The truth that I have found is that there is a diety, and a unity among mankind. It makes logical sense, and it rings true to my spirit.

I am a senior in an undergrad studies program of english literature. (although I think that this has no bearing on anything at all)

I'm not sure if I do still believe in a god. Most religious ideas seem like utter nonsense to me any more, and I was raised Catholic. But still, there are a couple things here and there that have kept me from going completely athiest. Just things that seem like they can't be just coincidence.

I have a Master's in accounting, for your educational inquiry

I'm not very avid religiously, but I do believe in a God.

Simply because I like to have faith, not fear or insecurity, or any of that, just that I like to believe there is something else after death.

Humans still believe in "Gods" because.....they need to. Like it or not, most people cant survive without the crutch under an arm.

You're comparing God, THE God, to a crutch??

Oh you're going to hell for that one!! :p

svt01, If your god really wants me to burn eternally for that statement....I not only pity the ignorance(of your god and you) ,but would honestly prefer the company of your made up anti god in the afterlife. Please dont attempt to "save" me,I prefer an open mind.

I think you could change the whole focus, but not the gist of this thread by inserting "The Green Bay Packers" wherever you find the word religion and "Brett Farve" wherever you find the word god.

Someone can't tell sarcasm very well. :lol:

Hehe... so much for an open mind.

yes

so am i then


o well



what a great god that sends good people to hell because they dont belive in him


yea thats a god i want to follow

I'm sorry but I find this "debate" a little fucked up. First off you guys are stating reasons why people must believe in god. If you don't believe yourself, then who the hell are you to state why others believe. Lots of people don't believe just because they grew up to it. Yes they might when they were younger, but there comes a time when everyone evaluation their faith... thus this reason is BS. I have yet to see this one. As for the fear? Yeah I suppose that one could be a working one... but if many people only believe because they are scared... don't you think many of them would just try to figure out God's existance so they can hopefully ignore it or find a loophole? That seems more logical to me. I have yet to see a christian that acts the way they do because they are scared of God. They are happy with they live their life, not scared shitless. Megalomania? Yeah, I can see this one happening, I won't disagree with that. The fact that its a main reason though, I will disagree with. That sounds more like the assholes that also believe in God. "I have a god, you don't, so FUCK YOU" kinda thing... not everyone has that belief.. I'd put that much lower than a top three.

Another thing, whats this "I don't believe in God I believe is science" Or "Rationalism is Anti-Religion." Now I'm sorry, but I believe is Science, Rational, and God. OOOOOOH did you catch that? all fucking three. It IS possible you know. For this being a philosophy board I figured this would be a given, something even I remember discussing in philosophy course.

God = No Freedom? Maybe to some, but not to all. I have freedom to do whatever the hell I want. My life is good. I don't want to live it any other way, even IF God did not exist. He doesn't restrict what I do.. luckily for me, I just prefer to help people than to screw them over.

Faith? Why do we still have faith? Faith != christianity. Some have faith is science, some have faith in God, some have faith in their car that it wont' break down on the interstate when its -40 degrees outside. I don't think Fait is the word you really want to go for.

Oh, um Tecoyah? Yeah you say people NEED God? Who the hell are to make such a bold statement as this? You don't even believe. If you think SOME people NEED God.. then my apology, but you didn't so you just generalized all believers as someone that HAS TO have a God. Sorry but thats very very wrong. Also if you state that people NEED a god, and you don't seem the slightest bit willing to change your mind... you don't have that open mind you think you do.

Dragon2Fire, we have an entire life as "proving grounds" to live in a life of harmony without all that greedy bullshit we see here. Thats why its here and not there. I mean think about it.. if someone doesn't give a rat's ass about you, why would you invite them to your house? Think about that, I don't invite people over if I don't care for them, or if I hate them... Why can't a God do the same thing.. Is it not possible for a God to care too? Besides, the funny thing is this. You are stating God is evil as he sends people to hell. So you are saying you don't believe in God, yet you do believe that he sends people to hell. How does that make sense? Figure that out a bit more, he doesn't just send people to hell of the whim. I personally don't think that many people go to hell. IF you're a good person, you still have a chance to that harmony of which I speak. God is like the master poker player, he's had the time to look at us and just KNOW if we're lying or not. When we die and get judged, he'll KNOW if you honestly are good and want to be up there with him or if you don't. This doesn't mean ignore God until you die.. as I'm sure he'd see that too. But there are people who don't believe cause it just doesn't make sense or doesn't seem plausable. I think that when they get judged they still can be "saved." I put that in quotes for a reason, I'm sure you can understand why. Also I am going to be a bit redundent with this but... You don't want to follow a god who doesn't invite people into his land that don't like him..... just as you don't seem to want to follow him as is sounds like you don't like him. So your reasons to not like him are very similiar to his reasons to not let people into heaven... Kinda weird, is it not?

As for me? I was born and raised Catholic, and then I took time to look upon my faith and analyze it. I still very much believe in God, but not for any of the reasons I saw stated here by the non believers. Personally, aside from it making sense, much like the response "Because it exists.... just like gravity".. there is also this. I have gone through too much in my life for me to NOT believe. To not believe would be to ignore everything I have witnessed. I can tell you some of the things I have witnessed, and if you honestly are not willing even willing to believe me(or at least leave your mind open to it being possible), then you'll just see me as insane. If that is to be the case, then so be it. You don't have to believe me, but you should take a more open mind before judging me to be an insane lunatic. I was one of the main people going to get the Paranoia boards started. So that I would have a place to express many of the things that I witnessed. Personal Experience is a reason why people believe in God. (maybe not all, but its my reason for one, and I haven't seen a single non believer state this one) I am a Junior in College, majoring in Psychology. I am probably going to take a minor in Computer Science and Anthropology.

I would also like to point something out. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the people on this board who do believe in God don't make us shitty excuses as to why people don't believe... Yet many of the people who don't believe are making up some rather crude responses for anyone that does?

no what i am saying is acrroding to orgainze christaniy you only go to heavn if you are a christian and to me that is fucked up


you make my point for me if there is a god and i am a good person i sould go to heavn but what i am saying is thats not how the bible puts it


the bible says that if you dont belive in god you go to hell and i am sorry but thats worng


if there is agod like that i want nothing to do with him


now if god as you claim does let good people into heavn weather they belive in him or not well then that is a good god

Yeah.. I was thinking that was more along what you thought. We've talked about this before.. but I must have just read it wrong every time... :( Yeah, I think one should be able to get to heaven on good merits alone. But I still think there is the chance for ultimate "redemtion" so to speak at judgement.

But we have to remember, what happens right after we die.. we don't really know.. so who knows how we'll feel...

I believe in God/gods for multiple reasons.

mainly I believe because I live. I have defied science too many times. I've been on my deathbed five times, i've rolled off of a ramp onto my head with no injury, i've OD'd, i've suffocated, i've wrecked, i've done lots of impossible shit to believe I don't get some divine intervention time to time.

i believe in gods cuz I've seen spirits. mind you I've beaten painkillers, been on hundreds of medications and more. These were not hallucinations.

I have far too many links with people to believe we're just matter without a big picture. feeling things go very wrong and knowing who it is hundreds of miles away... it happens to me all the time.

and as far as God.... i see it in a light that terrifies most people.

i realize that I can think whatever I want and change nada. God can be a spoiling mom, neutrel or evil and I can't do a thing about it. God has the rulebook in hsi hand and he can damn well do as he likes.

this is where i differ. it scares me at times but I follow my heart. period. I believe in a God (Christ) that

1) knows we fuck up
2) doesn't expect perfection from flawed beings
3) is forgiving
4) He will help when possible, but will not live for you
5) He loves us. when we violate each other without just cause we sin.

if thjis isn't correct don't follow him. I will not support a cruel god without major reasoning. i will not back up bad things or habits.

so in a nutshell. i still believe. i gotta run, sorry for such shoddy writing!

If you don't believe in God, and he doesn't let you into heaven. So what, you don't believe in him, right?
Like most laws here on Earth, you can't plead ignorance and expect to get away with stuff. God gave us freedom of choice as well as intelect to search out the truth and find him.
This of course is my opinion.

let me try to make myself clear


what if you live in place were there is no belif in god


read afracian tribe


but you live a good life


should you go to heaven


i mean you really are ignorant


acorrding to your bible those people go to hell


is this right i think not

as far as I'm concerned, what the Tribes believed in is the same God we believe in.. they merely interpreted it differently. Look at the bible and how many different way it is interpreted. There is no "ONE" religion as we all have interpreted him a bit different.. Same guy.. he's just looked up with a lot of variety. Those Africans still go to heaven.

Your interpretations of these events are completely subjective; All you know is that you've survived accidents. This does not equate to divine intervention.

Appeal to Personal Ancedote. Religous and spiritual hallucinations can be caused by something as simple as an electric alarm clock:Experiences of spiritual visitation and impregnation: potential induction by frequency-modulated transients from an adjacent clock.

I wouldn't say that.

He's talking about entrance in to heaven, and how he is the path therin. Many take this to indicate that in other folds there are those who are heeding the voice of the true shepherd, even if they don't know it.

There are other passages too, and the main idea drawn from them is that people are judged according to the law that is written upon their hearts. in which case, your example people would probably fare pretty well. many christians, even fairly hardline ones, beleive that people who have never heard the gospel are given a chance to hear it and accept it before judgement. personally, i don't believe in judgement as a single event, or reward/punishment as two eternally dichotomous states, but that's not really the point here.

ps...i wonder why people never choose white, upper class heathens for this sort of example. doesn't seem right that "african" is an appeal to pity, or alternately, that christianity is being set up to appear racist. meh.

First off, you're speaking about Z here. This is a man who has gone through A LOT.. more than mere "accidents" Although what you say sounds valid, I simply cannot figure everything to happen to Z to be Accidents.

Ok, so its possible.. first off, I've seen many things too. I don't do drugs, I'm barely on any meds (allergy related), and I've seen things before I even took any meds. I've seen things before my belief in God was strong, and I sleep through alarms.. simply don't hear them.I've seen angels, I've seen Hell ( or at least somethin similiar), I've seen random spirits, I've even seen Deamons. It may be possible to trigger some things, but it isn't a reason for all of them.

White Upper Class HAS heard of christianity, they are not secluded from the world, they have phones, and the net, and communication outside of their home. Thus, it didn't fit quite what Dragon was stating. He chose africans as there still are a few tribes that simply stay away from society at large. They have them and thats it. THIS is what he was going for.

Believe in Gods? Does it really matter?

By there very conventional definition, any "God" is, by default, possessing of abilities, powers, strengths and intelligence far in excess of that possessed by mortal man.

So they really wouldn't need my help or support, now would they?

I've always subscribed to the philosophy of being the best "me" possible, and in so doing helping my fellow man through my deeds.

FYI: Sophomore in college - after taking a decade-long haiatus from higher education.

Your and other's inability to figure it out does not mean it had to be God. A wide vareity of unusual accidents does not equal out to God anymore than it does 'well a invisible intangiable pink elephant set him up'. If you want to believe that God's been kicking your ass then bringing you back from the brink of death, fine. Just realize that it's an irrational one unless you can bring out some evidence.


Hallucinations don't have to be caused by drugs. As mentioned in the article above, the electromagnetic anomolies caused by an alarm clock were sufficient to make someone see and feel things. Lots of little things can have impacts on the human mind. Seismic activies, etc. etc.

BTW, what does sleeping through alarms have to do with anything? Are you actually suggesting that you slept through your alarm clock and were late for work because of *supernatural activity*??????????

Neurotheology - the study of religous experiences on the brain.
linky 1 linky 2

Hallucinations.

I've no faith. I don't think I am any better or worse off because of that.

Having faith, blind faith, is to me about accepting something as true, as fact, without basis. If I could accept God as fact, if I could accept that a god exists to begin with, then maybe I might grow faith out of that.

The big problem with me and faith, religion, belief, whatever you want to call it, is that it seems ruined by the culture of religion. No specific religion, but the existence of religion. Each religion wants to describe and perceive divinity in their own, slightly unique way. Most of them have special, sacred books (written by man, of course) to back their claims up, and provide them with guidance and solace. Well, good for them.

I find myself having more faith in science, because it does not claim to be something that it isn't -- for the most part. Scientific articles do not claim to be God's word, in fact whenever new discoveries are made, old information and research is re-examined and at times discredited. This does not seem to happen to the Bible, for example. The Bible is not allowed to be touched, it cannot be discredited or seriously examined, because it is the word of God, and thus The Truth.

Well, that's all very exciting. But if something cannot be questioned, examined, even considered false if need be, merely because it is thought to be "the word of God", then as far as I can tell it has no credibility to begin with. I guess this is where blind faith would come in. But for me, it doesn't.

Yes, you can claim that of course the Bible can and should be examined, even questioned, and there are people out there who do this all the time. However... Herein lies the problem. Not only is Christianity such an old dog that it cannot be taught new tricks, but it is hard to examine and question material which has no reference, no practical credible background or research behind it to back it up. How can one begin to question and discredit such information that is provided with the assumption that, because it is the word of God, it does not need to be proven? That it requires no actual proof to back up the fairy tales? Because of the nature of the Bible, you can only question its content via philosophical means, not really with scientific measures.

Interestingly enough, both science and philosophy offer means to doubt, question, study and discredit, and thus grow. Nothing is considered absolute, anything can be discredited, any information can be updated when new discoveries are made. This is not true for religion.... Religion leaves no room for growth, unless it is within well-defined boundaries.

Perhaps religion has ruined faith for me. Perhaps science stepped in, when God failed to deliver. Either way, faith in God offers some people with easy answers for questions that they have been wondering about. When in doubt, turn to the Bible. God also offers them comfort, understanding and, in some ways, knowledge and even growth.

Science and philosophy provide me with all these things, and more. Blind faith fell short of doing so.

I just have gotton to know Z over TFP, and some of his recoveries just don't seem to be natural. They seem to be miracles.. which I might add is a term used by Doctors. Also God didn't send him to death. If you get sick, you get sick.. in his case he got something in his genes..but thats another story. God may have helped him live, but I don't think God purposely made him ill.


If you could, I would love to read about this person's Experiments in depth. Did he ever point out any "chills"? I'm just curious as to the details, and the subjects that he used and so on and so forth.

You mentioned some were triggered through alarm clocks, I was merely rooting out that that isn't a possibility for me, because I"m still sleeping when they go off. ;)



"This does not explain all religious experience by any means."
This is from the Secondly Linky. This is all I was trying to point out. What you say may be true, but what I say also has a possiblity of being true. I was in no way trying to say you were wrong

It's late, I'm tired, I'll try to reply back to this in the next coupla days. But one more thing to note.
Most religious people believe that the human body has a soul, many of them will say how the soul and the mind are very much related.. the mind is connected to the brain, and the brains helps produce the spiritual experiences.. which it is "made to do.. (The brain is set up in such a way as to have spiritual experiences and religious experiences," ) So this quote was used to "disprove" God, where as I just used it to help prove...

I'm not asking to change your mind, but I am asking you to look at the possiblity.

GakFace,

I don’t think that you are listening to papermachesatan. He is saying that miracles, angels, souls, the afterlife, a pot of tea, etc, do not prove god. Mentioning more random crap will not make your point any more clear nor disprove his.

There are many flaw in proving god by association with phenomenon (besides the obvious one that no link can be proven), one of them is that it is rather inconsistent. Z may have gotten sick and recovered many times. Other people will get sick, stay sick for years and die a painful death. So if the case of Z proved a god then the case of many other sick people disproved god.

Then there is this whole tendency of the religion crowd to be awfully selective without any explanation whatsoever. For example:
If god does exist, then god obviously made Z ill and then cured him. After all who else is going to make him ill? Frankly that seems a bit cruel to me, like torturing an ant. But I digress.

This may surprise you but most Atheists and Agnostics believe they have a soul as well. I for example have a whole theory on the matter. I believe that the unification of the mind, body and the world creates a sprit; the spirit becomes a soul after our death. Which indicates that I also believe in an afterlife. I am rather fond of the teachings of Jesus and have always tried to embrace the Golden Rule. Would it also surprise you that I find angels more likely then god? After all many people report seeing angels. Even though they may be hallucinations that a hell of allot more evidence then we got on god so far.

So you see, to me god is not a necessity for any of those things to exist. They make just as much sense to me with god’s absence.

It's not an a scientific term. A miracle, by definition is a an [extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs Science does not deal with the supernatural as a miracle would indicate. Even more so, doctors don't have to be good scientists or follow the scienitifc method; Doctors in the ER, etc. = applied science.

Additionally, even though many scientists hold religious beliefs, honest ones won't try to pass them off as valid scientific theories though.

Optimisim, enviorment, etc. can all play signficant roles on recovery. But we'll say, for the sake the discussion, that the recoveries were unusual. That doesn't still doesn't mean that God did it. Please provide evidence of God's involvement. I don't understand why you keep insisting that your lack of knowledge on what happened means that God did it.

I recieved the article via someone else so I'm not sure how to find it. I would google, "neurotheology", "Laurentian University", "Dr Persinger"


Of course neurotheology doesn't explain everything. It doesn't try to..

The Burdeon of Proof of divine interventions and God still remains on you.

Cart before horse. The brain just happens to be suscepitible to outside natural interference which can induce hallucinations, etc. that are interpreted as religious experiences.

And about souls.. if the soul and the mind were very much related, why does a persons personality and mental capabilties change when one side of the brain is damaged?? And more so, why does God need an elaborate set-up or back channels to reach us through?

There you go again, jumping to conclusions.

The brain is shown to be susceptible to outside natural interference which can account for 'religious experiences' = GOD???? wtf



I'm just as open to the possibility as the next guy. But I need proof.

Sadly, you are correct about many of those things, if by Christianity you are purely referencing the conservative strain which is most well known in the US. I would thouroughly disagree if you were attempting to characterize the faith as a whole.

The bible, first and foremost, to me is about relationship. Questioning, criticizing, curious, engaging, experimenting, relationship.

One of my pastors has a saying about that a Christian should treat the bible like a farmer handles a chicken. Carefully, but with a willingness to grab it and dig in. Its a funny way of saying it, but i think it captures the point. Literalism kills the bible...and i'm not the only Christian to think so.

Anyhow, all i ask is that Christianity doesn't get portrayed soley as a conservative endevour. there is a sizable, vocal, and intellectually developed movement that is outside and against fundamentalism.

First I want to point out that I'm not here to disprove a thing. I was merely trying to point out that God is a possibility, and nothing more.

When I said that the quote was to disprove God, I did not say YOU used it to disprove God, I had read the article and that is where I had gotton it from.

Also why would it be that God makes people sick? "Shit happens." And yes that could be just as plausable for someone's recovery, but there is also the possibility that God was there too.

Many people agree that its kind of hard to prove god exists and that its just as hard to prove the opposite.

If I offended any of you, I am truely sorry for this. I in no way meant to disprove a thing. Nor did I try to say God is the only way, or that you were wrong. I'm not here to prove a thing, this is why I'm not bringing hard cold truths with me.

Hey, I wasn't offended.. My point is just that while God is a possibility, so is an invisible, intangiable, physics defying pink elephant. And while its okay to believe in God or the Devine Pink Elephant, you're just going to have to realize that it's an irrational one. :)

Its also possible that aliens have tricked us for thousands of years... Its possible that I am but a character is someone's reoccuring dreams. Its all possible. But just as you think my belief in God is irrational... I think you not believing in God is just as irrational. As people will agree the proof is hard to prove no matter which direction you go. So If to believe is Irrational, and to not believe is Irrational... what IS rational?

GakFace,

Not offended, this is a philosophy forum after all so one must expect arguments. I hope that I was did not come off as hostile; if I did I give my sincere apologies. :)

On to the discussion at hand,

One should not replace one’s beliefs with other beliefs. One should accept that their knowledge is limited. We have no knowledge of how reality was conceived or of its purpose. There are possibilities, but one must acknowledge them as theories, not truths.

[edit]...oh i did not see that your new threads. I should continue this discusion in them.[/edit]

Cheers.

I used to use the word 'Debate' & 'Argument' interchangably, BUT.. there is a difference between the two.

I expect debates, yes. Me & Mephisto have have some good ones. Arguements I do not expect. I also have no intentions of getting anyone angry, I thought that I might have so I figured before letting people brew some anger to me, that I would apologize. I'd rather have a civil debate with people I can call friends, and at the very least respect, rather than get into an arguement, those never end up good.
---------------------------
As to your post.. "There are possibilities, but one must acknowledge them as theories, not truths." I completely agree with ya. I can completely accept the fact that I believe in a Fluke, that I've been tricked by aliens, or that I'm only the figment of someone's imagination. But I BELIEVE that God does exist. All are possible, there's just one I follow more closely too.

I love looking at all the possiblities out there.. with everything. It makes life that much more interesting.

But unlikely and unsupportable. Thus holding such to be true is irrational.


What's irrational about refusing to hold something that doesn't have any real evidence to be true?


Proof of the Negative is a logical fallacy; it's virtually impossible to disprove that something does not exist. And, I don't have to disprove anything. I'm not claiming that God exists. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

So, where's your proof?

Justify how not believing in something without supporting evidence is irrational.

Actually, as many people will say, we won't really KNOW until we die right? If thats the case any of these ideas are just as possible as the next. Some sound weird, but they are still entirely possible. And this being a Philosophy forum, I figured those two examples would be accepted as they are both fitting in the philosophy category.

Hmm.. I still believe that God exists.. and I stated me reasons in my first post... Can I use your quote back? :)


You are claiming that God does not exist, this is your claim. So I do believe a burden lies on you.

I already know that I cannot make someone believe in God. I have already had debates with God vs. No God. Luckily I did it with friends, so that things wouldn't get out of hand. It lands in standstill everytime. And you know what it ends up coming down to? Faith. Faith is not something you can force upon someone.. its personal. From that No matter what I say, you won't believe because of me. I'm not going to force you either. Any of this would only push us apart. I only came in this thread origially to point out something that I saw and disliked. As for what I'm here to say. I'm here to say God is a possiblity.. no more, no less.

Wait.. so you're telling me my belief in God is irrational, but your BELIEF.. which you refuse to give any evidence for.. is rational?

We won't know until we die, correct. So explain to me why I should believe in it while there is no credible evidence supporting such a belief.


And which of your reasons = credible evidence??

*SIGH*. Do you not understand how the burden of proof works? *Only positive claims can be evaluated. The default assumption is that nothing except for yourself exists (your existance is an a priori)* I have made no claims. You claim that there is a god. I challenged this claim. You must provide evidence that there is a God.

Our debate is out-of-hand? :confused:

Concession accepted. Faith in something which there is no proof is as irrational as me saying "I have faith that 2 + 2 = 6."

I'm here for a similiar purpose: I just want to say that an invisibile, intangiable, physics defying purple elephant is a possibility with as much credibility as your God.


Its impossible for me to prove that he doesn't exist. Proof of the Negative and Burden of Proof fallacies.

Not why I'm here. When it comes to the belief in God, I only point out the possibility. If you don't want to examine the possibility, I don't see how anything that I say will change your mind.


I follow spiritualness as well, you do not. I think what we see as credible changes because of this. Again why I don't like to go into deep detail.

yeah, I figured I ended up making it sound like that. I never came in here making the claim that God exists, I made the claim that he has the possiblity of existing.


I personally have had the debates of God Vs. No God.. and I hate to do them, and so I am saying I don't want to get it out of hand. I simply don't like them, so I'm not going to do it.

well technically 2+2+ could = 6, if we agreed that 2 was actually what we would put for 3.... I am not "conceding," Its that that is how they would come down. It wasn't.. my last retort was faith, and without it I would lose... it would be... Standstill, then I'd still say Faith. Whats the problem? A religious faith just doesn't turn into anything someone who isn't religious.. So even though to someone that believes might think the faith issue would turn the table.. it doesn't make sense to the otherside. It stays a standstill.

When did I say different? I can just as easily understand why people say God doesn't exist. To me they all have a plausability.. but I personally take one more to hear than the others.

Amen.

Oh guys this is getting silly, I promised myself that I would not post here for a while but I feel that I should.

By acknowledging this you are also acknowledging the possibility of god not existing. The statement works both ways. If god is a possibility then it is also possible that god does not exist. So there is a 50% chance of god not existing without even discussing any properties of god. As properties are added the chance of any particular concept of god being correct becomes less and less likely to be true.

But who cares about odds. What’s important is what you do with the concept of god, whose existence you have hope in.

Ethics, morality, creation, the nature of the universe, existence, angels, souls, afterlife, luck, fate, we can discus all of these concepts with or without a god. Our model of the universe works just as well without a god so I must ask the ask:

What makes you choose god as the final answer? Why do you choose to believe in a god?

Your numbers are completely specious. May or may not exist does not lead to the logical conclusion of 50/50 probablity of existance.

Its not about the numbers. Open yourself the possibilities, ask yourself the questions, live in to that search, and find an answer for yourself. Already done so? Great. I respect your answer and self-examination. Think you might return the favor?

Of course it doesn’t.
I know, that’s what I said.
Indeed, either god exists or god doesn’t.
I have no answer. I am searching for answers. Since the theists have answers I would like to know how they got them.

Yes. So: Open yourself to possibilities, live in to the search for an answer, and find either an answer or a journey that you feel is right.

That will require listening. And you may not like what you hear.

I don't mean to be an ass...but the why of beleif has been documented in this thread and others many, many, many times from many perspectives. Perhaps i am cynical, but I have yet to see such an statement simply respected for what it is.

I've examined the possibilty. Don't forget that I, at one point, believed in God. I eventually disgarded the possibility as truth when it became clear that God has about as much credibility as the previously mentioned pink elephant.


Occam's Razor eliminates the need for the spirtual component. Chance and Coincidence explain events far better than 'supernatural, invisible, physic's defying, omnipotent intervention.'

God is a possibility right along there with the pink elephant. I do not dispute the possibility. I just challenge the notion that faith in something without any supporting evidence at all is a rational thing.



We'd be deluding ourselves into believing that 2 was really 3. If 2 = 3, then 2 is not 2.

He's a possibility and that's all he's got going for him other than your desperate desire for his existance. That does make the belief or faith in him rational.

desparate desire? with what rational means do you read gak's mind? extrasensory perception? magic? divine intervention? you "win" only to the exent that you use emotionally loaded language to put words in someone's mouth. simply, there is a dispute on evidence. screaming that you're right, and using smartass phrases like "concession accepted" does not in fact make it an accepted fact that you are correct. perhaps i will regret my candor here, but i think it needed to be said.

style over substance. care to actually address my arguments instead of complaining about which adjectives, etc. I use?

God is a logically useless and unnecessary part of any theory to explain phenomena, etc. Anything that is rational can be logically justified.

this isn't a style question. putting words in someone's mouth: a logical fallacy.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

using emotionally loaded terms: a logical fallacy. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pl.htm

Unless God has granted you a miraculous insight in to Gakface's brain, your arguement ends in purely fictive and prejudicial material.

You are correct; I do not know that he has faith out of desperate desire.. He could have faith due to many things besides a desire: fear of the unknown, delusions, ignorance, being manipulated...

Congratulations on your successful nitpick.

a challenge to the spirit in which you conduct your arguements is not about nitpicking. you're being quite illogical about this...and it hurts the quality of the discussion. using appeal to emotion, and assuming facts not in evidence is not a rationally sound means to prove a thesis.

*sigh*

I've conceeded that claiming he has faith out of desperate desire for God's existance does not take into account a number of reasons such as fear of the unknown, delusions, ignorance, being manipulated, etc. It was erroneous for me to state that his faith is based on a desperate desire.

Now, would you care to address the rest of my argument or are you finished?

All this talk and we still can't get beyond the age old:

Person1: I believe in god.

Person2: You can't prove god exists.

Person1: I know i can't prove it in any way that you can appreciate, but i know it in my heart.

Person2: You can't prove god exists.

Person1: I know, but i still have faith in the existence of god.

Person 2: You can't prove god exists.

I have removed all of the thinly veiled "my ideology is better than yours" insinuations for your reading convenience.

I don't think that's a fair assessment and overly simplifies the last two 'positions'.

Person1: I believe in god.

Person2: You can't prove god exists.

Person1: I know i can't prove it in any way that you can appreciate, but i know it in my heart.

Person2: Faith is irrational. Believing, in your heart, that 2+2=6 does not make it true.

*third exchange unneeded.*
..

Believe if you want but recognize that God is as an irrational method for describing the unknown as it was 150 years ago.

If you can't be civil...then you can't expect to be spoken to. I'm sorry, but i'll take this as a statement that you have no desire to discuss things maturely.

No, actually i think it is accurate. What person two is saying in your example really boils down to "you can't prove god exists." You can use whatever clever little phrase you want, but what you are saying is the same. You haven't disproven anything. Just made all the readers aware of the fact that you misunderstand the extent to which faith, however irrational, permeates everything that we do as human beings.

As for faith, it takes a certain amout of effort to ignore the fact that if not for everyday plain old faith, life would be very different. Do you have faith in your physician? Do you have faith that the person stopped at the red light isn't going to just peel out and hit you as you cross the street? Faith, however irrational, is the grease of life. Without it you'd never get out of bed in the morning. Do you know that the sun is for sure going to come up tomorrow? If you say yes, than you are a liar. Do you know that your parents, or girlfriend, or boyfriend, loves you? How can you be sure? I bet you act as though they do love you. Because you have faith.



You'll never find a scientific way to describe what belief in god and the afterlife describes. And you'll never win an argument about what happens when you die if the only tool in your shed is rationality. Shit, theres enough irrationality going on under the guise of culture and economics in the living world. Just because something is irrational doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

Everything you have said is just a variation of, "Well, you can't prove it" because that is all you have.

EDIT:
You're right. Im not being very fair. I apologize.

My position has been that God has no supporting evidence and consequently, faith in him irrational. Yes, most of the debate revolved around God's existance. My summariziation does include what my last response to GakFace's post covered, however.

There's a far greater amount of evidence in my physician's competence - Medical degrees, laws, etc. than there is in God. I don't know that the car stopped at the red light won't just peel out other than the probability is low and they most likely know of consequences of doing such; even then, I procede across cautiously. Faith is the grease of life and faith in things with evidence supporting their dependability is not irrational. And you are correct than I cannot be 100% certain that the sun's going to come up or that my parent's love me. The sun has consistently come up and gone down for all of recorded history; it's safe to assume it will come up. I also have evidence of my loved one's love towards me. God has no evidence what-so-ever. Faith in something with evidence is far different in something faith without evidence. That's where the boundry of the rational and irrational lie.

I'd be highly interested in hearing what makes a spirtual assessment of what happens when you die so accurate.

If you're refering to faith, see the above.

See the above quote taken from one of my earlier posts.

So what if someone claims to have personal evidence of the existence of a god? Since that evidence may be purely experiential how is it any difference from the "evidence" that you have as to your loved ones' feelings towards you?

I agree though, faith based on rational thought is generally better placed than blind faith. What if i claim that it is possible to believe in the existence of god based purely on the very rational belief that the universe was created? Surely the idea that the universe was created by some sort of force is nothing new to you, why is it so irrational for that force to be sentient? I think it is irrational to label as irrational something which you have no direct or even secondhand knowledge of.

I'm not saying it is accurate, just that when it comes to things that by their very nature can't be proven or disproven it is a waste of time to try and write said thing off as irrational. I'd like to hear your rational, scientific fact-based perspective on the afterlife or lack thereof. Where do you think we go after we die? Let me pre-emptively state that whatever you think is wholly irrational. At least as irrational as believing in some sort of deity.

So i'm wrong. You're argument is essentially "you can't prove it and it is irrational." My bad. Its still not a very compelling argument. It is very rational to wonder about that which cannot be explained. It is also very rational to make sense of the unknown as best as you can based on your experiences. How is it irrational to believe in god, even lacking the empirical, quantitative evidence that you seem to need?

Paper: thank you for revising your tone...

Understood... The problem is that we've been talking about the evidence we see. You simply disagree with how to interpret said evidence. That's fine...but acknowledge that there is an interpretive debate. Ultimately, most of us understand that faith is arational. It is not understood soley with reason, nor does it stand in direct defiance of our intellectual capabilities...but it is reliant on knowledge that is non-testable in a scientific means.

Aside from some perjorative language, and the conclusions as to the value of arational thinking and evidence...that's the same thing i see you saying.

filtherton:
Very interesting...i like the way you put it.

1) They were taught to. GakFace's demurral aside, many people never get beyond their childhood conditioning. (one of them is running the country these days.)

2) Searching for truth is hard work, many or all facets of which have at this point a specialized vocabulary that takes time, effort, and desire to learn. However, people are fundamentally curious, so, if they haven't the resources or desire to try to find out what's really going on, or if they lack patience or ability or gumption, then God is as good an answer as any. (Yes, you read that right: because they're stupid, lazy, or both.)

3) Expanding on the last, there are things that literally cannot be known. You run across them in science and math all the time. The Heisenberg Uncertainly Principal is a good example from science and Gödel's Theorum is a proof of the existance of things unkowable in math. Now, those are two rigorous examples, but there are many people who, when confronted by these lacunae in knowlege feel a lack (as if emtpy space needed filling. It doesn't). So they fill that lack with God.

4) Because the human mind sometimes talks to itself in such a way that it seems like the speech is coming from without. Sure, there's schizophrenia, but I am actually talking about enlightenment - the fourth and fifth Arisotoelian souls.

5) Because God is where you define it.

I am 34 with 7 years of college and not degree.

As for what I believe, I think God is a semantic convenience. There's a whole lot of things out there that I don't understand, and somewhat fewer things that I do. They are all God. I think the afterlife lasts between cause of death and cessation of brain function, but feels eternal subjectively. However, I also belive that if I am wrong about this, that there is sufficient commonality among religions that, if I live a good life, then I'll have a good afterlife, and if I don't it's because God is a bastard.

Oh, and I think Blind Faith is a fools game. (Winwood was better with Traffic.) If it makes you happy, though, enjoy.

If there is an omniscient, omnipotent (and possibly omnibenevolent, but I only need the first two for this argument) God that created humanity, then the human capacity for science was created by God, the human endeavor of science was forseen by god, and, frankly science has as much God in it as church, which is also a human endeavor to answer a human proclivity: curiosity.

Therefore, God and science are not incompatible, and, if either rules anything, it is merely parts of the same thing, and those parts either overlap significantly or are identical.

This is Hell, nor am I out of it.

Edit: Removed (by author) for excessive flippancy and lack of any possible positive effect.

I'm not saying that god and science can't coexist. Just that god can generally be used to explain the things that are beyond science. Religions generally evolve along with scientific thought(when they aren't trying to silence the scientists). Example: many christians see the story of adam and eve as mere myth/parable/metaphor since evolution became the vogue method of creationism.

So if believing in a deity is stupid and lazy, how lazy do you have to be if you can't even take the time to believe in anything? Now this kind of argument is ad hominem at worst and misleading at best.
Do you know that many religions require that their pastors/priest actually go to college? My dad had to get a masters degree. How stupid and lazy is that?
I think i know what you mean though, that many people lack the desire to attempt to make sense of their own spirituality. I agree with you there.

chavos wrote:
Thanks fellow minnesotan. You're pretty well spoken yourself.

It would depend on the 'personal evidence' involved. I would question the premises, the situation, and the circumstances of the claim,etc. .

God's an unnecessary part of explaining any phenomena. Chance and Coincidence serve as superior explanations to phenomena unexplainable by other means. Consequently, God is an irrational belief.

Why do we have to go anywhere at all when we die?

See second response in this post. :)

EDIT:
delete me.

Agreed. :)

Okay, well prove to me that your parents love you. Right now, over the internet, with completely rational and non-anecdotal evidence. Good luck.

Emotion isn't all that necesary either. Love? Who needs it? All anybody needs is cold hard reason. I'm sure you argue with your parents and call them irrational because they bear the unnecesary cross of loving you. I'm also sure that you, as the guardian of rational necessity, wouldn't be caught dead having sexual relations for non-procreative reasons.

Let me make a list of other things that are unecessary: art, science, reading, love, computers, coffee, friends, trust, beauty and well, pretty much everything else beside oxygen, water, food, and shelter(depending on your climate).
Pretty much everything that has changed about humanity starting with agriculture has been wholly unecessary.

Geez, that means there are a great many things that humanity takes for granted that aren't necessary.
Yet we continue to do all these things. Why? I'm guessing we do the things we do because they give meaning to an existence which, if you follow logic's directions, appears to be completely meaningless. Now, if your a nihilist(not hard for me to believe at this point) i just have to ask you something. If everything is so meaningless and unecessary why are you even arguing about it?
Finding meaning IS a necessity. Without it you are a robot waiting to die. Spirituality, and even the belief in god, give people meaning. Just like art and love give people meaning.

So you believe that we just stay in our bodies after we die? Dead people are still there, they're just being unresponsive to the physical world? Sounds pretty rational to me. Do you honestly think that we don't go anywhere after we die or do you have actual thoughts on the matter?:)

See first response in this post.