Reasons why people want to believe in God.
invite response
2012 Oct 22, 10:35am 59,197 views 143 comments
« First « Previous Comments 59 - 98 of 143 Next » Last » Search these comments
Tenpoundbass
2012 Oct 25, 11:38pm
Romnesia might be elected because he appeals to people on the basis of their religions, even though privately he calls their religions "abomination".
Baahhh bahhh the President who is acting more like a Lunchroom class ass clown, than an adult much less the leader of the free world, called his opponent "Romneisa", bahh baaah. I'm a brainless sheep, so I like to throw that name around too... Bahhh bahhh.
I don't think I'm the only one that sees what he did there. It's cool when you're Lumpy from "My three sons" but really cheesy coming from the president.
Has this guy every actually addressed the American public with out asking them to pull his finger?
I think it's conventionally considered "I AM"
Well, it is sometimes translated like this, but one needs to remember that Old Hebrew had no verbs. So it was more like "he with the existence". The form often is called "imperfect", even though it is much different from the impefect of indoeuropean languages. It is more like a quality not limited by a particular situation, like a location in place or time.
curious2
2012 Oct 26, 4:55am
Romneisa", bahh baaah. I'm a brainless sheep....
You are neither brainless nor a sheep. Romnesia sticks because it fits, he campaigned promising to be left of Ted Kennedy, then says he governed as a "severe conservative," he signed ObamneyCare then he promised to repeal it now he promises to keep parts of it after all. I blame both executives who signed ObamneyCare and am not going to vote for either of them. Nevertheless, back to the topic of the thread, millions say they will vote for Romnesia because publicly he pretends to share their religious beliefs, even though privately he calls their religions abominations. His job is not to worry about those people, only to fool them on the basis of religion, so he can conquer the world on behalf of his cult.
Einstein found meaning in learning to understand the universe. Thomas Jefferson found meaning in replacing the evils of kings and priests with a new republic based on natural law.
Irregardless (that's the right word here) of the fact that Albert Einstein was not an atheist; the fact that one finds meaning in finding or refining scientific truth IMO indicates that there is such a Truth and a Meaning, which exists regardless of the finite and temporary state of a finite creature. That's precisely because I believe such meaning is real and deserves ethernal existence.
Similar would apply to Thomas Jefferson. His example is even better, because the fruit of his effort is completely gone now. That "New Republic" turned to an arrogant aggresive empire and as we speak turns to the "evil empire" of our time, much worse than what was British Empire at the end of 18th / begining of 19th century. However, his intelectual/social/political work still exists. Where and why? Because of his personal accievement that deserves an ethernal existence.
Please allow me not to comment on Bill Gates.
curious2
2012 Oct 26, 7:14am
Albert Einstein was not an atheist;
I'm curious why you say that? Would you instead call him a deist or agnostic, or a free thinker, or would you call him Jewish based solely on ethnicity? Is it identity, ethnicity, or ideas?
You seem to imply that eternal (note spelling) truth and meaning are somehow connected to religion, even though in fact religions rise and fall away. Most of the currently popular religions in America are quite recent in human history. There is no evidence to suggest that Jahweh will last longer than, for example, Thor or Zeus.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 26, 9:29am
And I'm sure there's sound scientific reasoning behind...
"There's also been studies showing that religious tendencies are genetic."
If I bother to do the Google search and prove you wrong yet again, will you be man enough to admit you are wrong? Come on, captain, I need some incentive to do the research you're too damn lazy to do.
marcus
2012 Oct 27, 2:49am
What kind of weasel dislikes my every comment in a thread where all I am doing is talking about my own personal experience or beliefs or speculating about others, that is, their reasons for belief in god ?
My guess is that it's my own personal troll, curious2, who I have on ignore.
What a sad little person he is. ALthough I am still kind of flattered by his obsession with me.
MisdemeanorRebel
2012 Oct 27, 6:58am
I don't know, there is a kind of dude who put ME on ignore because they got personally offended that I don't think their anecdotal experience is evidence for an omnipotent deity.
Even though they say they say they agree with many of my posts on most everything else.
Actually, there are two of these dudes.
Go figure.
marcus
2012 Oct 27, 12:55pm
Re: "put ME on ignore because they got personally offended that I don't think their anecdotal experience is evidence for an omnipotent deity."
I hope you don't mean me. I certainly don't claim to have any evidence of gods existence or non-existence.
I have you on ignore for a reason that isn't personal. It's because I have a tendency to get trolled (maybe my issues) by people who for whatever reason incessantly ridicule or put down believers. I find it annoying when people see an an equivalence between asserting their non belief in god, with mocking, deriding or otherwise poking fun of believers.
It's not personal. I just don't want to get sucked in to the discussion only because I'm annoyed that you haven't grown past that.
As I said above:
How insecure does someone have to be about their non belief, that they can't even do it with out putting down all believers (not just fundamentalists) ? It's like they aren't satisfied without what they think is proof that any and all spiritual belief is wrong, and worthy of being proselytized about.
It's obvious to me that this is an expression of conflict.
THe true atheist has no such judgement about religion. It's like "hey i can't relate to it, but I don't need to judge it." "who am I to judge it ? I just concern myself with my beliefs (or non belief) regarding god."
MAybe I'm just wrong, and I'm the one with issues. Even if so, by ignoring you, I don't waste my time reacting to what I find annoying.
I was going to cite threads of yours, but I only see threads from the last week or so. Not sure what going on with that.
In any case, I'm sure you're a nice guy thunderlips, and I like you, and think you are intelligent, it's just...well I think I've already explained as best I can.
curious2
2012 Oct 27, 1:22pm
MAybe I'm just wrong, and I'm the one with issues.
Yes, you are. Besides, in your mind, everything is always all about you anyway.
What kind of weasel dislikes my every comment in a thread where all I am doing is talking about my own personal experience or beliefs or speculating about others, that is, their reasons for belief in god ?
My guess is that it's my own personal troll, curious2,
Your guess is incorrect, and so is your statement. You've been insulting people, and falsely accusing them of things they didn't say or do, as usual.
And it's funny how you seem to follow at least two people you claim to Ignore. Evidently it's part of your pattern.
there are two of these dudes.
It might be Marcus using two accounts. I noticed when he said he had started to "Ignore" me that immediately there were two accounts ignoring me, when there had been zero before then. He also uses a separate browser to follow me, and apparently he follows you also because he replied to your comment above.
Marcus also started another thread complaining about the "ridiculous trouble" he has opening Firefox so that he can follow the people he's pretending to Ignore.
Marcus must have some reason for these delusions of being persecuted. Part of it is the religion thing, i.e. wanting to believe (and therefore believing) that he is God, because delusions of grandeur typically go along with paranoia about persecution. Other religious people aren't always so paranoid though. Another possibility:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z79KWUCLd0A
Because Marcus believes that he is God, the Christian tradition compels him to believe that he is also the Messiah. That means he must be singled out for persecution, even when he isn't, so that he can become a martyr to his own self-aggrandizement. After all, it's all about Marcus.
EastCoastBubbleBoy
2012 Oct 27, 1:38pm
We want to understand who we are and where we came from. Its part of what we call human nature. Just like a three year old can ask “but why?†ad nauseum, each explanation we derive from science begets more questions.
Belief in God, for some (myself included) is a natural progression out of thus seemingly innate inquisitiveness.
I’m curious how you are tying atheism into a Sunday school class.
Tenpoundbass
2012 Oct 27, 2:14pm
What kind of weasel dislikes my every comment in a thread where all I am doing is talking about my own personal experience or beliefs or speculating about others, that is, their reasons for belief in god ?
I'll never understand the pettiness of SOME people on this board.
FWIW I threw you a bone.
I’m curious how you are tying atheism into a Sunday school class.
I don't think it's tying atheism into it. I just want kids understanding atheist positions.
You seem to imply that eternal (note spelling) truth and meaning are somehow connected to religion, even though in fact religions rise and fall away.
No, (and thanks for the right spelling) of course it is not connected to religion, it is connected to the existence of God.
MisdemeanorRebel
2012 Oct 28, 2:17am
I was going to cite threads of yours, but I only see threads from the last week or so. Not sure what going on with that.
In any case, I'm sure you're a nice guy thunderlips, and I like you, and think you are intelligent, it's just...well I think I've already explained as best I can.
Well, if certain topics send you to the moon, well I guess I've had days like that myself. I suppose we've been there/done that enough I'll pass on any future commentary along those existential experience lines. I'm more interested in the historicity of Prophets and Gods anyway.
And yeah, I know what you mean about previous threads. I was trying to find some old threads on religion and while I can find them in comment search, I couldn't open them.
It might be Marcus using two accounts.
Nah, it's another poster, not Marcus, with whom I thought there was mutual agreement about most things, or at least some shared concerns.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of ignore, for me, I save it for truly ignorant or irksome posters, like those who write in all CAPS or who can't spell. Can't say I've used it on this forum, yet.
marcus
2012 Oct 28, 5:23am
I'll never understand the pettiness of SOME people on this board.
True. And curious2 is beyond petty. The guy has a raging boner for me and can't stop thinking about me, which is flattering, although then again, he is such a sad pathetic little person that truth be told I would prefer that he find some other ways to channel his emotional problems.
Also, I'm not gay, so at the same time, it does sort of gross me out.
lostand confused
2012 Oct 28, 5:52am
God is no longer counting sins against mankind, except for unbelief in Christ, which cannot be forgiven because, like a law of physics, belief (faith) in Christ is necessary for eternal life.
Ok now that you bring science into it, where is the proof??
curious2
2012 Oct 28, 7:26am
so that is why i believe. it's good news that God is not counting my sins against me, and that i can have eternal life by simple faith.
See comment #1 (ego, lack of accountability): "As an added bonus, being God means they are superior and immortal, and that all of their actions (no matter how evil) are God's will. That bonus is particularly useful if you want to make a name for yourself by flying an airplane into a building. No need to feel sorry...."
curious2
2012 Oct 29, 6:26am
curious2 is....
For someone who pretends to Ignore me, Marcus spends a lot of time thinking about me, including his particularly vivid fantasy which he described above and which I won't quote. It was Sunday, I guess that's his Fun Day. Today's Monday, back to math class:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78252508@N05/7269250694/
Alas Marcus pretends to be, of all things, a math teacher. I suspect Marcus may be a plant to bring disrepute upon teachers and the teachers union:
[Prop 30] is a waste. We all know that it probably all goes right in to the pockets of those union bosses.
(For actual information about Prop 30, you can read the SJ Mercury News.)
Some people want to believe because it's easier than studying, calculating, and reasoning. If the question is the square root of 361, it's easier to pick a number and believe rather than calculating. Validating that feeling of ease may build self-esteem like in the Simpsons' parody math class. The Simpsons characters are expressly parodies though, they don't pretend to be real.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 29, 7:18am
For someone who pretends to Ignore me, Marcus spends a lot of time thinking about me, including his particularly vivid fantasy which he described above and which I won't quote.
Marcus always says he's putting people on ignore and then doesn't. It's his way of saying, "Waaaaa! I'm getting the last word and I'm not listening anymore!" It all comes down to his emotional maturity level, that of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum.
curious2
2012 Oct 29, 8:08am
Marcus always says he's putting people on ignore and then doesn't. It's his way of saying, "Waaaaa! I'm getting the last word and I'm not listening anymore!"
And because of that, what might otherwise be a brief kerfluffle becomes a permanent division. He rejects reason, insists that his feelings are the only valid ones, and then locks them in permanently. I saw an interesting program on crows recently, they are surprisingly intelligent for birds, can even recognize and hold a grudge against specific people for up to two years. So, likening Marcus to a two-year-old throwing a tantrum may be apt, but it would be a two-year-old bird. In this regard, Marcus embodies a reason why people want to believe in their religion: they find it more comfortable to join an unthinking community with pre-defined enemies (Satan, infidels) rather than evaluate individual behavior.
Marcus embodies a reason why people want to believe in their religion...
Sorry, but this is a non-sense. "Believing in religion" is like "believing in believes". Why are you so affraid of mentioning God?
curious2
2012 Oct 29, 8:49am
Why are you so affraid of mentioning God?
I have no fear of mentioning God, whether your particular version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other, although I recognize that Jehovah's Witnesses and certain Jewish sects are prohibited from saying or even writing "God". (This is one reason why injecting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s caused immediate division, resulting in a Supreme Court case saying kids can't be required to say that, which may be one reason why religious fundamentalists crusade against "activist judges.") But, I tend to refer to religion rather than any one god, because I don't see a reason to take sides. To refer to "God" the way you do seems to presuppose the existence and validity of exactly one, perhaps Jehovah, while in other contexts it would refer to Allah. I don't fear any of the gods or their names, but their adherents do cause me some concern, especially Muslims and Morons.
curious2
2012 Oct 29, 8:54am
Dude, seriously, tinyurl.com
Actually the reason I didn't click on his link is it seems to include some sort of tracking code. Since you work in that field, I'd be very curious to know what you think about it, and whether tinyurl might actually conceal such codes.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 29, 9:04am
BTW, I'd like to share this
I am a Christian, and as a Christian there are certain things which I believe to be moral and others that I believe to be immoral. What I DO NOT believe in is alienating those who have differing beliefs and trying to force my moral beliefs onto them through laws. If one definition of the “moral choice†was meant to be the only option, human beings would not have been created with free will. I do not believe it is my job as a Christian to push certain causes. I do believe that it is my task to love those on both sides of the issues, whether their definition of “right†aligns with mine or not.
1. Everyone has a sense of morality and moral beliefs. Being a Christian is irrelevant. I'm an atheist and I have very specific and well thought out moral beliefs that I can rationally justify.
2. I agree that morality should not be forced upon others by law. I'd even go further as to say that morality should not even affect laws. However, rights should determine laws and rights and morality sometimes overlap. For example, it isn't illegal to murder a person because it's immoral to do so, although clearly it is immoral. It's illegal to murder a person because you are violating his right to live. Rights serve as the basis of all laws including environmental ones.
3. Human beings weren't created with free will, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. There's already a thread for that. Check under religion. In any case, the concept of free will, meaningless as it is, should have no bearing on the practicality or theory of law, rights, and deterrence.
4. There is nothing wrong with "pushing" certain causes as long as the cause is just and the way you are pushing it is as well. I push for social justice, responsible management of resources, and civil and human rights, and rational thinking. I push quite strongly for these causes, pissing off quite a few people on this site. But I always "push" ethically and genuinely. I never deceive or try to trick someone into accepting my argument as I believe reasons are more important than conclusions.
There's nothing wrong with a Christian pushing for a just cause, but I would argue that any just cause is independent of religion. Of course, those who believe that faith is a virtual would have to disagree with me. I personally consider faith to be a vice.
5. One can passionately disagree with another person without hating that person or thinking that person is an idiot, especially if one accepts the principle that reasons are more important than conclusions. For example, I could disagree on economic issues with another rationalist simply because our priorities are different. I may value stability more than opportunity, and the other rationalist might hold the opposite value. Nevertheless, as long as we're both rational, neither one of us will despise the other person.
As for love, that is simply an emotion and therefore neither a prerequisite for interacting with others or necessarily helpful. One can be cooperative with others without experiencing the emotion of platonic love, and to say that one loves everybody is simply a lie and it cheapens the meaning of the word. The human brain simply does not behave like that. One can act compassionately towards everyone in the world, but that's an entirely different thing. I can certainly be compassionate and help another person in distress without being emotionally involved with that individual.
But I always "push" ethically and genuinely.
No offence, but this sounds like "I manipulate other people ethically and geniunely". I know you did not mean this, but for me what you wrote is an oxymoron.
I'm an atheist and I have very specific and well thought out moral beliefs that I can rationally justify.
I'm most interested in both your moral believes and their rational justification.
As for love, that is simply an emotion...
Love is an emotion? An absolute non-sense for me. In my world love is the ability to sacrifice something of your own (including your emotions) for the sake of someone or something else. I know for sure that's what this girl meant in her post, and since you took it from the post of that girl it would be only intelectually honest to use words in the sense she uses them.
I would argue that any just cause is independent of religion
I would like to see your definition of the term "just". I'm used to the meaning from Psalter, but I suspect yours may be way different.
Oh, there is also one used in the games theory. It's extremely subjective. A player considers a game just, when he has a strategy to end it with a positive profit. No fixed sum game may be just for all players. Materialist games are usually fixed sum games.
Would you clarify what you call just in this case?
BTW, Dan, regardless of religion, I do not believe in just causes. IMO, there are only just or unjust means. Any cause momentarily turns into unjust, when unjust means are used for it.
One example quite obvious to me: when British and American airforce started bombing German cities at the end of the WW2 targeting residential areas rather then military and industrial centers they turned their war into unjust cause. Americans made their cause especially bad on August 6th, 1945.
I have endless number of such examples.
curious2
2012 Oct 29, 9:58am
Any cause momentarily turns into unjust, when unjust means are used for it.
One example quite obvious to me: when British and American airforce started bombing German cities at the end of the WW2 targeting residential areas rather then military and industrial centers they turned their war into unjust cause.
That is a very interesting example, and in fact senior officers within the American military argued the same point at the time. People who lived through that era told me, "It was a desperate war." I think the war accomplished a mix of results, some just (e.g., ending the Holocaust and Occupation) and others not (e.g., Soviet conquest of eastern Europe). I would point to other examples from other wars (e.g. Andersonville) to show that wars are like fires: however just the original merits of the cause may have been, the context of war can quickly devolve into unjust means. Yet, some have pointed to precisely that WWII example as a moment when America's moral compass seemed to lose some of its bearing.
Returning to the original topic though, it reminds me of Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. When people are presented with a difficult question, they tend to substitute an easier question instead. It happens all the time when asking people to guess at likelihoods, because statistics are hard; people tend to answer based on the ease of recalling familiar examples, which is often a predictably wrong answer. The question of what is just, in the context of occupied Europe and the Holocaust, is difficult. With so many people getting killed and maimed, and a Treasury unable to sustain the war effort much longer, what is the least unjust result? That is a hard question. Asking instead, "What does our religion say," may be an easier question, but ease doesn't make it a better question or even an adequate substitute.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 29, 2:29pm
but this sounds like "I manipulate other people ethically and geniunely". I know you did not mean this, but for me what you wrote is an oxymoron.
Then change your interpretation of reality to reflect actual reality. Nothing I can do about communication errors on your end.
I'm most interested in both your moral believes and their rational justification.
When I have time, I'll write about how moral systems should be structured.
Love is an emotion? An absolute non-sense for me. In my world love is the ability to sacrifice something of your own
You are confusing yourself with wishy-washy Disney-induced thinking.
Love, hate, fear, wonder, joy, sadness are all emotions.
an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
The willingness to sacrifice oneself for another may be the result of an emotion. Don't put the cart in front of the horse. In fact, the entire purpose of emotions is to elicit certain behaviors in animals in response to certain situations.
We can model emotions, confirm their existence in various species, and even age them, i.e. determine when they evolved.
I would like to see your definition of the term "just".
I believe I used the term social justice rather than justice, which mean different things, but I'll define both in a reasonable way. I personally don't believe in nit-picking on definitions as nomenclature is not important, ideas are.
Just - Honest and fair without special consideration for any one party over another. To make decision as if the consequences of those decisions were randomly and unpredictably applied to all participants.
Example: A society is based on small towns. The populations of the towns continually increases. When a town reaches a critical population, all the townsfolk create an identical town, building by building, nearby. Then the townsfolk are randomly assigned to live in the new or the old town. As no one knows which town they are going to live in, everyone has a motive to not cut corners on making the new town.
Social Justice - The application of honesty and fairness in the design and operation of society and in the resolution of disputes. A socially just society is based on several principles
1. Rights not privileges. All persons have the same exact rights and no person has any privileges.
2. Truth before agendas. The truth may never be covered "for the greater good".
3. Transparency in all government.
4. Equality of opportunity, the lack of a class or caste system, removal of barriers to entry including the use of money and power to stifle competition of businesses, politics, or ideas.
5. Preservation of public resources including the air, land, sea, and biodiversity of the planet.
6. Structuring systems such that the self-interests of individuals complement rather than compete with the interests of society as a whole.
7. Elimination of parasitic behavior, rent-seeking, and economic hostage taking.
8. Emphasis on sustainability and efficiency rather than exploitation and short-term wealth generation.
Now, you are going to get a lot more variance in what people consider to "social justice" to be, especially because most people who use that term are artsy-fartsy types. I, however, am not.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 29, 2:30pm
BTW, Dan, regardless of religion, I do not believe in just causes. IMO, there are only just or unjust means. Any cause momentarily turns into unjust, when unjust means are used for it.
Of course if one uses evil to accomplish a good goal, the evil more often than not outweighs the good. However, that does not mean there are just and unjust goals. Here's a simple counter-example that shows the flaw in your statements.
Consider one and only one means: pushing a button. Now hook up the effect of that button to one of two outcomes. In scenario one, pushing the button will release a puppy that is tied to railroad tracks, saving the puppy's life. In scenario two, pushing the button will drop a puppy onto the railroad tracks as a train is coming, killing the puppy.
Given that a person making the decision of whether or not to push the button knows the outcome in both scenarios, one can easily see that the goal of saving the puppy is just and the goal of killing the puppy is unjust even though the means are exactly the same and thus must be either both just, unjust, or neutral.
Clearly then, a goal in itself can be just or unjust. Again, do not confuse this conclusion with the entirely different statement that the ends justify the means.
Americans made their cause especially bad on August 6th, 1945.
On that we agree. I've always held Truman to be a war criminal.
Of course, if you want to deal with real moral dilemmas, consider the following.
There's a button before you. If you push it, Hitler will have died of a heart attack before coming to power and the Holocaust will not have happened. No other effects will occur. Do you push the button? Do you murder Hitler in order to save millions of other lives, innocent ones?
Second scenario... This time the button kills Hitler's mom when she was a little girl. Do you still push the button? Do you kill an innocent girl to prevent her from giving birth to a genocidal maniac? What if the button killed Hitler's grandmother or great-great-great-great grandmother?
You are confusing yourself with wishy-washy Disney-induced thinking.
Love, hate, fear, wonder, joy, sadness are all emotions.
As I already pointed out, your argument is intellectually dishonest, because you took the word "love" out of the context and interpret it in a way different from the way the author of the text you discuss used it.
Given that a person making the decision of whether or not to push the button knows the outcome in both scenarios
This is the most misleading assumption in real life situations.
There's a button before you. If you push it, Hitler will have died of a heart attack before coming to power and the Holocaust will not have happened. No other effects will occur. Do you push the button?
My answer is "no"! The rest of your hypothetic scenario is obsolete.
Just - Honest and fair without special consideration for any one party over another. To make decision as if the consequences of those decisions were randomly and unpredictably applied to all participants.
Example: A society is based on small towns. The populations of the towns continually increases. When a town reaches a critical population, all the townsfolk create an identical town, building by building, nearby. Then the townsfolk are randomly assigned to live in the new or the old town. As no one knows which town they are going to live in, everyone has a motive to not cut corners on making the new town.
I wonder why anyone would care about this?
Especially puzzling why do you care about it?
Social Justice - The application of honesty and fairness in the design and operation of society and in the resolution of disputes. A socially just society is based on several principles
Well, you define social justice in details. But why do you think it is good?
Socially unjust systems may become today way more efficient than socially just ones. What's wrong about them? Assuming you have a chance to get into a social elite, why would you oppose such a system? Please try to avoid joggling synonyms, like just is fair or equal.
Well, I will tell you why, since you do not reply. It's because your believes come out of Christian humanism. Yes, however pervert and stripped of their roots they are still by-product of the Christianity.
« First « Previous Comments 59 - 98 of 143 Next » Last » Search these comments
I'm teaching a religion class in a Sunday school.
Last Sunday I tried to give my pupils (10-12 y.o)an assignment to find out why some people want to believe in God. I asked them to write about it from both perspective: of those who think they do believe and those who think they don't.
Their reaction was:
--but how will we find out?
me--Ask your friends.
--Where?
me--Ask other kids at your school, i'm sure you'll find some atheist there.
They shouting (5 or six at once)
--IT IS FORBIDDEN TO TALK ABOUT RELIGION IN SCHOOL!!!!
The rest of the conversation is not very important, but it boils down to the fact that there is no way to openly talk about this in American society.
So, I want to ask you here to tell what are possible reasons people want to believe in God. Any opinion would be very valuable. Religious atheists are more than welcome!