Why do people believe in Gods?

  • Thread starter Tom McCurdy
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the differences between understanding science and religion, with one being more complex and time-consuming while the other is perceived as simpler and requiring blind faith. The concept of innate mystical experiences is also brought up, with evidence from brain imaging and drug-induced experiences, and how these experiences may play a role in religious beliefs and behaviors. The conversation also mentions the comfort and ease of believing in a higher power, and the idea that some individuals may be more predisposed to having such experiences. Overall, the conversation raises questions about the reasons for believing in gods and the role of mystical experiences in religious belief.
  • #36
hypnagogue said:
I'd qualify that a bit: you're talking about the ability/propensity of people to spontaneously experience these things in their usual environments, given their typical behaviors and biological profiles and so on. I think a very hefty chunk of the variance lies not so much in differences in actual ability to have "mystical" kinds of experiences, so much as it lies in differences in the extent to which people find themselves in, or put themselves into, conditions favorable to producing mystical experiences. Most people do not meditate with great discipline, or partake in psychedelics, or have some particular kind of altered-state-inducing epilepsy, or have particular pieces of brain tissue artificially stimulated by neurosurgeons, etc.


Religions are social constructs, and the notion of God as anthropomorphic father figure up in the sky looking down on us is too. However, there is a particular state of consciousness that is closely affiliated with the religious worldview (in the broadest and most general sense of the term). This state of consciousness is indeed "innate" just to the extent that it is capable of being triggered in most or all people by very basic neural mechanisms-- it does not act through the sophisticated level of personal beliefs and propositional knowledge and so on. By way of analogy, probably some majority of the people in the world have never experienced the altered state associated with marijuana; nonetheless, it is the case that this state of consciousness is "innate" to the human condition, to the extent that any human can experience it given the proper low-level neural stimulation.
Well, roads are social constructions; they wouldn't have been built in the first place unless humans had legs to walk upon them with.
But saying therefore that the legness of humanity is terribly important to consider in any analysis of the history of road construction is rather far-fetched.

Merely pointing at some possibly biological feature, and then automatically assuming that that feature has been deeply important in the development of some social phenomenon, is a misconception (or at the very least, a wholly inadequate argument).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
arildno said:
Merely pointing at some possibly biological feature, and then automatically assuming that that feature has been deeply important in the development of some social phenomenon, is a misconception (or at the very least, a wholly inadequate argument).
I'd say it's more than a mere assumption. Virtually every (if not all) religious bodies have some sort of spiritual leader(s) who are claimed to have some special kind of experiential access to the divine, whether it's a prophet or a visionary or a shaman or whatever. For example, Jesus fasted in the desert, Mohamed had visions of angels, Buddha was enlightened, tribal shamans are known to partake in psychedelic drugs, etc.

Approaching from the other side, the mystical experience intrinsically has resonance with some sort of religious sentiment. It may be hard to believe this if one has never had the experience firsthand, but it is true. Read Aldous Huxley's http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/doors.htm [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
And how, if I may ask, would the social effect of the leader's revelations be different whether the leader is a charlatan or has had "actual" experiences?

I.e, what is the specific social importance of the purported biological feature?
 
  • #39
arildno said:
And how, if I may ask, would the social effect of the leader's revelations be different whether the leader is a charlatan or has had "actual" experiences?
If the leader was sufficiently clever and charismatic, it likely would make no difference. Just as my discussion with you right now would be no different if you turned out to be a sufficiently cleverly designed automaton (presumably with no real "consciousness" to speak of).

Nonetheless, it seems exceedingly unlikely that each such leader should have been merely a charlatan with no special experiences to speak of. If that were the case, one would be hard pressed to explain this peculiar recurring pattern of charlatans across the world who consistently and independently come up with the same sort of descriptions of experience and teachings from those experiences. The more elegant and empirically more well-founded explanation is that this experience is reported consistently and independently simply because there is some common brain mechanism at work accounting for certain bare essentials of the experience.

And of course, it would also be rather peculiar that there would exist a particular state of consciousness (or perhaps, a range thereof) as fundamental as waking consciousness or dreaming, which somehow seems to find deep resonance with the purely intellectual creations of some charlatan.
 
  • #40
1. So, you admit that it wouldn't make any difference after all.
2. Furthermore, if the prophet (whether a charlatan or not) appears at an "unfavourable" time or place, he won't get any following, however eloquent he may be.
3. If the times are "favourable", but the prophet isn't eloquent (according to the society's standards at that time), he won't get a following.

Thus, in any explanation of the evolution of a particular religious movement any biological substratum is wholly insufficient, and can be considered irrelevant.
Neither does pointing to some biological feature yield much of an explanation of religious movements in general beyond hand-waving, common social factors are more likely to have been important.

Solid historical explanations are based first and foremost on the local level, general histories of mankind (with some "deep" universal forces at work) , are in general, fantasies of the author.
 
  • #41
arildno said:
1. So, you admit that it wouldn't make any difference after all.
Yes, just as I admit that it wouldn't make any difference to this discussion if you turned out to be a sophisticated computer program. Does that imply that you are just a sophisticated computer program? :tongue:

arildno said:
2. Furthermore, if the prophet (whether a charlatan or not) appears at an "unfavourable" time or place, he won't get any following, however eloquent he may be.
3. If the times are "favourable", but the prophet isn't eloquent (according to the society's standards at that time), he won't get a following.
Sure.

arildno said:
Thus, in any explanation of the evolution of a particular religious movement any biological substratum is wholly insufficient
Insufficient, yes. The nature of religious bodies cannot be accounted for entirely by appeal to individuals' personal subjective experiences.

arildno said:
and can be considered irrelevant.
Absolutely not! Having a source of food is insufficient to sustain life. That does not mean that food is irrelevant to sustaining life.

arildno said:
Neither does pointing to some biological feature yield much of an explanation of religious movements in general beyond hand-waving, common social factors are more likely to have been important.
The common biological feature explains why various religious figures in history have independently reported the same fundamental kinds of experiences. If nothing else, to the extent that these experiences were important in forming these figures' worldviews, and to the extent that these figures went on to become instrumental in founding and sustaining world religions (yes, by social means), we can see a major role for the mystical experience in the foundation of religion. And that is leaving aside the role such experiences play in influencing the religiousity of everyday people, whether explicitly or perhaps even subconsciously.
 
  • #42
Wherever have I stated I'm not a computer program?

The fact that we need food to eat is, basically, irrelevant in the explanation of eating habits.

As for the prophets:
Mohammed, for instance, was an avid reader of previous religious texts (prior to his great revelations). So was Jesus, if the reports about his discussions with other rabbis are to be believed.
Same with a mystic like Meister Eckhardt.
That is, the uniformity of experience reported can hardly be seen as unambiguously and solely affected by this biological feature.
The uniformity of experience might well be significantly effected by their similar reading habits.
 
  • #43
arildno said:
The fact that we need food to eat is, basically, irrelevant in the explanation of eating habits.
I was merely using that example to illustrate that if X is not sufficient for Y, it does not follow that X is irrelevant to Y. Please don't read anything more into it than just that.

arildno said:
As for the prophets:
Mohammed, for instance, was an avid reader of previous religious texts (prior to his great revelations). So was Jesus, if the reports about his discussions with other rabbis are to be believed.
Same with a mystic like Meister Eckhardt.
That is, the uniformity of experience reported can hardly be seen as unambiguously and solely affected by this biological feature.
The uniformity of experience might well be significantly effected by their similar reading habits.
I have no doubt that their personal histories had some influence in forming their respective experiences. Really, it is unavoidable for this to be the case for any kind of experience. Nonetheless, there are certain features that are more or less universal. It's very much like the near death experience phenomenon: one's beliefs will inform some of the content and interpretation of the experience, yet there is some common framework that all such experiences are built upon.

In any case, once again-- I see the key piece of evidence here as being that these experiences can be generated by purely low-level, gross neural activations: drugs, epilepsy, brain stimulation, etc. These sorts of activations do not operate at the sophisticated level of propositional knowledge. Their method of opertation acts on a more fundamental level, like the kind that determines whether one is awake or dreaming.

In fact, dreaming may be an instructive example. What one has read and experienced in the past will surely inform the content of one's dream, but it will not change the fact that one dreams, or some of the more common and basic features of dreaming (e.g. surreal and/or disjointed). Likewise for mystical experiences: the detailed thoughts and interpretations may vary, but the fundamental experiential features are the same, as they are generated by more fundamental neural mechanisms.
 
  • #44
Here are the common responses:

Religon provides explnations
-People created religon to explain puzzling natural phenomena
-Religion explains puzzling experiences: dreams, prescience, etc
-Religion explinas the orgins of things
-Religions explains whey there is evil and suffering

Religion proivdes comfort
-Religious explanations makes mortality less unbearable
-Religion allays axiety and makes for a comfortable world

Religion proivdees social order
-Religon holds society together
-Religion perpetuates a particular social order
-Religion supports morality

Religions is a conitive illusion
-People are superstitious they will believe anything
-Religous concepts are irrefutable
-REfutation is more difficult than belief

there are more but I will have to add them later, the point of my class so far is to say that this viewpoint including any of the previous belives or any related believes to be an insuffient answer. We are examinging more psychological causes, such why people believe any anything. Things such as minorally intuitive concepts and hyper active dection agencies.. I will have to type more when I am a bit more sober :)
 
  • #45
quote=Tom McCurdy]the point of my class so far is to say that this viewpoint including any of the previous belives or any related believes to be an insuffient answer[/quote]

Do you mean insufficient to validate religion or insuffucuent to explain why people believe?
 
  • #46
Tom McCurdy said:
The title of the psych 401 class I'm in right now... just curious to what people here think?

I'll comment on what the class's viewpoint is after I get a few responses, it will be intersting what kind of viewpoint people take.

I don't know if anyone has covered this aspect of God creation but it does have to do with what most have already said about explaining something complicated with something fairytale-like and easy to comprehend.

Historically there have always been gods recorded and revered by the general population of most cultures around the globe.

Generally we notice that the depictions of the gods show them as being humans yet, in many cases, many times larger than the rest of the population. This was a simply way to depict someone as being more important than everyone else... (or... there were giants ruling the planet, some other thread!)

What is probably causing all the confusion about Gods and God and Godesses is that there were select and elite groups who studied the nature of their environment a little more astutely than their peers and who came up with solutions to some of the problems of maintaining a society and civilization. These feats constituted god-like behaviour in the eyes of the common person.

Consider the Sumerians and their gods. In fact the Sumerian/Babylonian/(Iraqi) records (what's left of them:eek: ) show only the achievements of kings before any mention or records of Gods.

At some point those Sumarian kings, who came up with ways of keeping order in the society and who devised ways of irrigating the crops and even invented writing and who also showed great benevolence to their people, some 5000 years ago, were considered as gods or "demi-gods'.

As time passed people held the memory of a powerful person and the next few generations down the line only remember that their irrigation channels were devised and created by Gods... they must have been because no human, as they understood humans, could have come up with such a good idea.

This sort of sequence is seen throughout history in Egypt, Greece, North America and Europe etc... or, at least, before the wholesale, mass production of gossip about one or two particular humans and their invisible father etc (started 2000 years ago)... which is a large scale example of the type of process explained above. Although, there are more totalitarian and monopolistic reasons for the creation of that myth and God.

Any kind of technology that benefited a large number of people who had no idea how it worked or how to come up with ideas of their own impressed a population so much that, soon after the fact, people regarded it as miraculous and its inventors as Gods.

Similarily, as has been suggested here in this tread, natural occurances and disasters were also attributed to Gods because of the impact and cultural memory they have and initiate. And because of the awe inspiring, otherwise unexplainable power of such occurances. Of course, today, the woman doing the weather on Channel 11 is the deity... or, mine, anyway:!)
 
Last edited:
  • #47
selfAdjoint said:
quote=Tom McCurdy]the point of my class so far is to say that this viewpoint including any of the previous belives or any related believes to be an insuffient answer

Do you mean insufficient to validate religion or insuffucuent to explain why people believe?[/QUOTE]

insufficent to explain why people believe
 
  • #48
well i haven't really read this thread. But something i learned from general math.

To understand the 4th dimension, we need to project the 4th into the 3rd. and to understand the 3rd dimension, we project in into the 2nd.

Your asking, wtf you smoking. But let me explain.

How exactly did things happen back then? Cant really understand, not enough information. So let's look to something we know. SOO. what is a religion that is recent and very well documented on how it went down.

Nice example i can think of would be Scientology. Mr. L Ron Hubbard.

So what do we see? HE was a man. Hopped up on drugs(alcohol at least). wrote up some science fiction and mislabelled it as non-fiction. People believed the pyramid scam. There you go. So your asking. ok sure...
Some interesting things. There has been done a biography and we know Hubbard was JUST A MAN. But the followers are now deifying him trying to make him a god.

Ok let's look at Jesus. same thing happened. got a bunch of followers. He was just a man(if he even existed to begin with, let's not try this one here) he died. 30+ years pass before anything is written down. and jesus started becoming a god. while its true some denominations believe that jesus was just a man.

anyway so now that's its explained how beliefs move into god image.

Why do people believe in God?
well as explained in an adherent document done by cambridge named: Atheism Contemporary Rates and Patterns
One leading theory comes from Norris and Inglehart (2004), who argue that in societies characterized by plentiful food distribution, excellent public healthcare, and widely accessible housing, religiosity wanes. Conversely, in societies where food and shelter are scarce and life is generally less secure, religious belief is strong. This is not a new theory (Thrower, 1999). For example, Karl Marx (1843) argued that people who suffer in oppressive social conditions are apt to turn to religion for comfort. Sigmund Freud’s (1927) central thesis was that belief in God served to comfort humans in the face of earthly pain, suffering, and death. However, Marx and Freud provided no data. Norris and Inglehart (2004) do.
and as they say. the data shows this to be true. with some exceptions.

Pretty much all situations usually have problems in it. which then you have poor people. These people have a bad life for the here and now. so they goto God to have comfort that at least once they die, they will have happiness. Personally even if I was in very poor conditions I would still find it very egotistical to think that there was any after-life.
 
  • #49
Pretty much all situations usually have problems in it. which then you have poor people. These people have a bad life for the here and now. so they goto God to have comfort that at least once they die, they will have happiness. Personally even if I was in very poor conditions I would still find it very egotistical to think that there was any after-life.
A large part of the problem may be the difficulty many people have in believing in this life.
 
  • #50
Jesus, I'm surprised no one (but me) brings up our biological heritage: Darwinism. It's all around us you know. Reigion, I believe, is one more survival strategy humans have employed for coping in a hostile world.

We are fragile creatures still limited by our supposedly "higher intellect". In some some ways, we're still in the middle ages, still living in a demon-haunted world.

How anthropocentric it is that some choose to believe in a grand heavenly destination after death, a supreme being "caring" about us, and that we should be so prescient to know about it. It's just not there. God I mean. We've gotten dethroned in the past, by Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Hubble. And we will continue to be so by future generations as our place in the Universe continues to grow more unimportantly.
 
  • #51
saltydog said:
Jesus, I'm surprised no one (but me) brings up our biological heritage: Darwinism. It's all around us you know. Reigion, I believe, is one more survival strategy humans have employed for coping in a hostile world.

We are fragile creatures still limited by our supposedly "higher intellect". In some some ways, we're still in the middle ages, still living in a demon-haunted world.

How anthropocentric it is that some choose to believe in a grand heavenly destination after death, a supreme being "caring" about us, and that we should be so prescient to know about it. It's just not there. God I mean. We've gotten dethroned in the past, by Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Hubble. And we will continue to be so by future generations as our place in the Universe continues to grow more unimportantly.

Actually, in a thread in the philosophy section to do with beliefs about nothing I did state, on Feb 23,06

quantumcarl said:
Believing everything and anything may be a normal survival trait where this ability prepares the mind for as many situations and curcumstances as are potentially probable. Those who are unable to imagine a potential situation, ie: look ahead, are destined to live a life of shock and disorientation which, by many standards, doesn't even resemble survival .

So this is a case of "great minds thinking alike" or "fools seldom differing", its all in how you percieve it.:uhh: :bugeye:

Again, perception is a potential that allows you to see the world as "hostile" or as "sublime". For some reason, many chose the hostile route... the route of struggle.

Historically, the perception of the world as a hostile environment has produced God's of vengence and hostility. Whereas the perception of the world as not being hostile has produced Gods of abundance and tolerance.

Because of historical facts like the above, people should realize by now that "life is what you make it" (Brian Ferry) "celebrate it".
 
Last edited:
  • #52
quantumcarl said:
Because of historical facts like the above, people should realize by now that "life is what you make it" (Brian Ferry) "celebrate it".
I'll accept that as true, and because of it I'll do whatever I want and screw those who get in my way. Dammit, life's petty so I'll take what I want when I want it! You're just an insignificant little piece of matter on the cosmic scale, what differnce does it make if I kill you? Maybe I'll just join the mafia: if I die what difference will it really make and if I succeed then I'll live comfortably.

The problem is obvious, so obvious in fact that I wish I didn't even have to point it out. Before jumping to conclusions here let's look at facts. I can't prove god exists, even though I believe he does. There is nothing I can ever do to prove his existence. But let's be fair: you can't prove he doesn't. You can explain away his meaning, you can make all sorts of claims about social conditioning and you can give a reason why we believe in god. But what you can't do, what you can never do, is prove he doesn't exist.
There are bigots in the side of religion, but surely there are just as many bigots in aetheism. Among the learned there is a general disregard for religion, and there is a snobbish attitude. Well, this is why you believe in god, but I'm smarter then that. I can understand all of the sociological and physcological reasons, so of course I'm right when I say he doesn't exist. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, just trying to expose an underlying mentalilty. I think it is sad that we, the learned, should sink to the same depths of arrogance as those people we claim are wrong in their arrogance. Nowadays if religion is mentioned it tends to be passed off and generaly ignored becuase it is thought to be obsolete and outdated.

saltydog said:
How anthropocentric it is that some choose to believe in a grand heavenly destination after death, a supreme being "caring" about us, and that we should be so prescient to know about it. It's just not there. God I mean. We've gotten dethroned in the past, by Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Hubble. And we will continue to be so by future generations as our place in the Universe continues to grow more unimportantly.

This attitude shows a complete lack of understaning of the true problem regarding religion. The problem is not what you believe, i.e. god exists or he doesn't, but the problem is what makes you beleive, and what your belief's make you do. Face it, aetheism is just as much a matter of faith as religion, both are belief's. Neither one can be proven right or wrong, and this is the first step when discussing the problem. Once we come to this common ground then other problems can be solved. However, it is very hard to reach this common ground because it is hard to let go of a belief once you have it. In your blatant dismisal of religion you have become that exact same as that which you decry.
Please, don't think you can explain away all of life's problems. You can't. Religion will continue, aetheism will continue and the good thing to do is try to reconcile the two. Follow in the footstep of Thomas Aquinas or Soren Kierkegaard, not in those of Gregory VIII or Friedrich Nietzsche.
 
  • #53
quantumcarl said:
"life is what you make it" (Brian Ferry) "celebrate it".

Thanks. I need to be reminded of that.
 
  • #54
Dawguard said:
This attitude shows a complete lack of understaning of the true problem regarding religion. The problem is not what you believe, i.e. god exists or he doesn't, but the problem is what makes you beleive, and what your belief's make you do. Face it, aetheism is just as much a matter of faith as religion, both are belief's. Neither one can be proven right or wrong, and this is the first step when discussing the problem. Once we come to this common ground then other problems can be solved. However, it is very hard to reach this common ground because it is hard to let go of a belief once you have it. In your blatant dismisal of religion you have become that exact same as that which you decry.
Please, don't think you can explain away all of life's problems. You can't. Religion will continue, aetheism will continue and the good thing to do is try to reconcile the two. Follow in the footstep of Thomas Aquinas or Soren Kierkegaard, not in those of Gregory VIII or Friedrich Nietzsche.

I disagree. Atheism is not a matter of faith but rather an emergent quality of wisdom. Religion on the other hand is a survival strategy for a limited intellect. What your beliefs make you do? I suppose religious beliefs couldn't stop those catholic priests from raping young boys, couldn't stop the pope from selling "tickets to heaven", couldn's stop them from burning women at the stake under the guiadance of "Malus Maleficarum", and being at the root of much of the "Holy War" now going on in the Middle East. Neither one can be proven right or wrong? It's not a matter of proof but of understanding the world we live in: Atheism by far better describes our world then some Middle-Ages cock-a-mammy fairy-tale. Complete lack of understanding? Believing in a God, in my opinion, reflects a failure to grasp the historical struggle of man to understand the world. I do not dismiss religion: It is a survial strategy that works (on the average).
 
Last edited:
  • #55
saltydog said:
I disagree. Atheism is not a matter of faith but rather an emergent quality of wisdom. Religion on the other hand is a survival strategy for a limited intellect.
This is my point, you are blatantly labbeling all religious people as limited intellects. You think you are better then them, so what they have to say isn't as important as you're opinion. You write them off and in so doing become dogmatic and blind. You refuse to listen to their explanations, instead choosing to laugh at their puny minds because yours is so great.

saltydog said:
What your beliefs make you do? I suppose religious beliefs couldn't stop those catholic priests from raping young boys, couldn't stop the pope from selling "tickets to heaven", couldn's stop them from burning women at the stake under the guiadance of "Malus Maleficarum", and being at the root of much of the "Holy War" now going on in the Middle East.
This is a problem, but surely you aren't stupid enough to think this is indicitive of religion as a whole. You're the briliant thinker, right? Surely you're smart enough to recognize that there are pacfists in religion. Surely you're smart enough to realize that the actions of a few are not condeming of the whole. Surely you're smart enough to recognize that using this argument you are condeming yourself to be judged by the actions of other aetheists. Perhaps you should be lumped in with Stalin, Lenin and Mao. Hasn't their animosity towards religion slaughtered millions? How can you ignore that when you so eagerly point out the murder done by religion? The answer is you are blinded by your dogmatic hatred of religion. The atrocities commited in the twentieth century by aetheists damn them just as much as the atrocities comitted in the name of religion. The problem is human nature, not what human nature believes.

I'm not trying to cover up the faults of religion, only trying to say that the blame is with the people, not with their beliefs. The beliefs can be separated from the person and their actions. There is nothing wrong with aetheisms or religion. Stalin and Pope Leo were both evil men, but what you are doing is vilifying their beliefs instead of them.

saltydog said:
Neither one can be proven right or wrong? It's not a matter of proof but of understanding the world we live in: Atheism by far better describes our world then some Middle-Ages cock-a-mammy fairy-tale.
Here again you show a broad generality. I wonder if you have ever studied religion apart from its history. Have you read books on Christian, Muslim and Judaeic theology? Have you examined every facit of it? I doubt it, because if you had then you would have realized that religion is not incompatable with modern science and philosophy.
Let me use an illustratuion. Relgion deals with the after-life and the metaphysical, and science deals with hard reality. Now, these two are driving in completely separate roads, never touching, never conflicting. The problem arises when they are placed together. Religion cannot explain natural phenomenon, but neither can science explain the supernatural. What happens when we die? We cease to exist? Prove it. You can't: only religion speculates here, not science. Each to their own, and nothing will be wrong. You claim that science can solve everything, and in so doing you are the same as religious people who claim that religion can explain everything.
 
  • #56
Dawguard said:
You think you are better then them

Hello Dawguard. I can tolerate all your comments except the one above. No . . . I don't.
 
  • #57
I'm sorry to missinterpret you. My intent is not to bash aetheistic beliefs, and if you think that religion and science are equal and can coexist peacefully once we find the right balance, then we have no dispute.
 
  • #58
Dawguard said:
This is my point, you are blatantly labbeling all religious people as limited intellects. You think you are better then them, so what they have to say isn't as important as you're opinion. You write them off and in so doing become dogmatic and blind. You refuse to listen to their explanations, instead choosing to laugh at their puny minds because yours is so great.
Alright. First of all. Statistically. The average IQ for theists is much lower then non-theists. In north america(not including mexico)

But ok you what to state you explanation. PLEASE DO.

Explanations that are acceptable: Logical proofs, evidence, etc.
Not accepted explanations: i saw jesus in the sky when i was high.

his is a problem, but surely you aren't stupid enough to think this is indicitive of religion as a whole.
Definately not. You will never hear me argue against most of the far eastern religions like Buddhism or Jainism. Unless its a specific thing such as karma or samsara.

But when the doctrine of say the muslim faith says to kill non-believers. This gives you the RIGHT to criticize the WHOLE religion. Sure maybe there are muslims who are pacifists. who wouldn't hurt a fly. BUT this just means they are BAD muslims, that they won't be getting their virgins in heaven. Thusly in conclusion. When you hear about that muslim suicide bomber killing loads of people. He ISNT an extremist. He is simply what muslims should be.

Surely you're smart enough to recognize that using this argument you are condeming yourself to be judged by the actions of other aetheists.
Not true. The only thing atheists have in common is the lack(or no) of belief in any god. There is no organisation. There is no nothing. So you can't judge any atheist for what another atheist does because there is no dogma to follow.

WAIT up. aetheists? perhaps i might be wrong. I thought you mean ATHEIST but you seem to spell in aetheists everywhere. So either your not educated enough. or your talking about something completely different and off topic. But for arguements sake i will continue my response assuming ofcoarse that you simply arent educated enough to know what an atheist is or even how to spell it.

I'm not trying to cover up the faults of religion, only trying to say that the blame is with the people, not with their beliefs.
im sorry but again, uneducated. IF you actually study the abrahamic religions. and ACTUALLY read the doctrine(bible-qu'ran-OT)

Leviticus 20-13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Man so homosexuals should be killed? How nice! while i somewhat agree. I think we should just send them all to some island. I don't think that's very nice. But hey EVERY good christian is OBLIGED to kill any homosexual he sees.

So say a couple redneck dudes go around killing homosexuals in the name of christianity. They arent crazy. They are good christians doing what good christians SHOULD be doing. So all those christians not going around killing homosexuals. We will have great fun in hell together.

Have you read books on Christian, Muslim and Judaeic theology?
Have you? I would probably have to say No. Or you would know how absurd they are.

Religion cannot explain natural phenomenon, but neither can science explain the supernatural.
This is a pretty good joke. Religion can't explain the world. Which is seen QUITE often. Ill give a christian example.

2 Chronicles
4:2
Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

BUT if you use the equation that they teach in grade 2. That would make a value of 3 for Pi

While the real value for Pi is around 3.14159

striking difference.

Oh and second part. Science can't exlain supernatural. But let's take that back to religion. Oh wait they CANT explain worth **** neither. Obviously. If they could they would shove it in your face.

What happens when we die?
I don't know and you don't know neither. What likely happens is we cease to exist. But I am happy with I don't know and you don't know neither.

SO to end my arguement. I will place the challenge. That you so heartily want to express(top of this post, the first quote).

Code:
But ok you what to state you explanation. PLEASE DO.

Explanations that are acceptable: Logical proofs, evidence, etc.
Not accepted explanations: i saw jesus in the sky when i was high on cocaine.
 
  • #59
Dawguard said:
This is my point, you are blatantly labbeling all religious people as limited intellects. You think you are better then them, so what they have to say isn't as important as you're opinion. You write them off and in so doing become dogmatic and blind. You refuse to listen to their explanations, instead choosing to laugh at their puny minds because yours is so great.


This is a problem, but surely you aren't stupid enough to think this is indicitive of religion as a whole. You're the briliant thinker, right? Surely you're smart enough to recognize that there are pacfists in religion. Surely you're smart enough to realize that the actions of a few are not condeming of the whole. Surely you're smart enough to recognize that using this argument you are condeming yourself to be judged by the actions of other aetheists. Perhaps you should be lumped in with Stalin, Lenin and Mao. Hasn't their animosity towards religion slaughtered millions? How can you ignore that when you so eagerly point out the murder done by religion? The answer is you are blinded by your dogmatic hatred of religion. The atrocities commited in the twentieth century by aetheists damn them just as much as the atrocities comitted in the name of religion. The problem is human nature, not what human nature believes.

I'm not trying to cover up the faults of religion, only trying to say that the blame is with the people, not with their beliefs. The beliefs can be separated from the person and their actions. There is nothing wrong with aetheisms or religion. Stalin and Pope Leo were both evil men, but what you are doing is vilifying their beliefs instead of them.


Here again you show a broad generality. I wonder if you have ever studied religion apart from its history. Have you read books on Christian, Muslim and Judaeic theology? Have you examined every facit of it? I doubt it, because if you had then you would have realized that religion is not incompatable with modern science and philosophy.
Let me use an illustratuion. Relgion deals with the after-life and the metaphysical, and science deals with hard reality. Now, these two are driving in completely separate roads, never touching, never conflicting. The problem arises when they are placed together. Religion cannot explain natural phenomenon, but neither can science explain the supernatural. What happens when we die? We cease to exist? Prove it. You can't: only religion speculates here, not science. Each to their own, and nothing will be wrong. You claim that science can solve everything, and in so doing you are the same as religious people who claim that religion can explain everything.
The problem is human nature, not what human nature believes.”

This is precisely the problem I have with religious beliefs, the tenet that human nature is basically flawed and therefore we should all be condemned without a hearing or any further examination of our actions.

It is in fact what we believe that determines our choices and actions. Yes, we must be free to believe as we choose since it is by testing our beliefs that we learn the difference between right and wrong. Knowledge, which is condemned by many religions as the cause of our downfall, is what provides us with the information we need to determine what we could and should do to live as humans must live, through reason, on this Earth.

Believing in a life after death dispenses with reason and devalues and trivializes the one life we do have. When we cease to value our own existence, we loose the reason we have to use reason to bring value to our existence.

Believing this, “The problem is human nature, not what human nature believes”, and acting accordingly is what brings about the ‘justification’ for believing that it is ‘true’.
 
  • #60
munky99999 said:
Alright. First of all. Statistically. The average IQ for theists is much lower then non-theists. In north america(not including mexico)
My point exactly, this arrogance that atheists are smarter and better.

munky99999 said:
But when the doctrine of say the muslim faith says to kill non-believers. This gives you the RIGHT to criticize the WHOLE religion. Sure maybe there are muslims who are pacifists. who wouldn’t hurt a fly. BUT this just means they are BAD muslims, that they won't be getting their virgins in heaven. Thusly in conclusion. When you hear about that Muslim suicide bomber killing loads of people. He ISNT an extremist. He is simply what Muslims should be.
I'm not trying to argue for one religion over another, so this argument is null. Just because this is what you claim the Muslim faith is this way doesn't make all the religions this way. As you said, eastern religions don't have this, so the problem is not with religion.

munky99999 said:
Not true. The only thing atheists have in common is the lack(or no) of belief in any god. There is no organization. There is no nothing. So you can't judge any atheist for what another atheist does because there is no dogma to follow.
Nor is there a united dogma for religion. Religions vary so greatly that there is no organization between them either. My point about atheist slaughters was that they can't be indicative of all atheists. Equally so crimes committed by a religious person can't be indicative of all religions.

munky99999 said:
WAIT up. aetheists? perhaps i might be wrong. I thought you mean ATHEIST but you seem to spell in aetheists everywhere. So either your not educated enough. or your talking about something completely different and off topic. But for arguements sake i will continue my response assuming ofcoarse that you simply arent educated enough to know what an atheist is or even how to spell it.
No, its not off topic, I just didn't check my spelling. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, so please don't lower the debate by sinking to that level.

munky99999 said:
IF you actually study the abrahamic religions. and ACTUALLY read the doctrine(bible-qu'ran-OT)
Leviticus 20-13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Man so homosexuals should be killed? How nice! while I somewhat agree. I think we should just send them all to some island. I don’t think that’s very nice. But hey EVERY good Christian is OBLIGED to kill any homosexual he sees.
Not true. With Christian religion this falls under what is known as theocratic law. This was done away with once Christ died because the model of theocracy was no more. This is the reason for the old and new testament, the doctrines of grace and redemption. Without delving to far into specifics, which I can't do on this forum, I would advise you to read systematic theology by Calvin, or St. Augustine. They answer this question specifically.

munky99999 said:
So say a couple redneck dudes go around killing homosexuals in the name of Christianity. They aren’t crazy. They are good Christians doing what good Christians SHOULD be doing. So all those Christians not going around killing homosexuals. We will have great fun in hell together.
Once again, is you actually understand the doctrines of Christianity then you would see that this is not so. However, this is simply bashing one religion, and is not my point. I repeat, I am not here to justify every religion, only the mindset that causes people to believe in any religion. Please, no bashing of religion, calling them stupid, baseless caricatures, etc.

munky99999 said:
Have you? I would probably have to say No. Or you would know how absurd they are.
In this you are wrong. I have studied many religions, both their history and their doctrine. Just because you think they are wrong doesn't make them absurd. I could take you point by point to justify them, as I did above with your misinformed belief of homosexuals. However, I repeat that I am not here to be an apologetic for specific religions, nor is that the point of these forums. In the future I will not explain any doctrines, and I appeal to you not to use your belief of doctrines to bash all religions.

munky99999 said:
This is a pretty good joke. Religion can't explain the world. Which is seen QUITE often. Ill give a Christian example.
2 Chronicles
4:2
Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

BUT if you use the equation that they teach in grade 2. That would make a value of 3 for Pi

While the real value for Pi is around 3.14159

striking difference.
So okay, the math is off. So what? What's that got to do with anything? It was probably rounded off to an even number of cubits. That or they simply wrote it wrong. Who cares? You're grasping at petty straws here.

Dmstifik8ion said:
Believing in a life after death dispenses with reason and devalues and trivializes the one life we do have. When we cease to value our own existence, we loose the reason we have to use reason to bring value to our existence.
I could say the same about atheism: that it robs us of everything special. It takes away the divine light and reduces us to mere animals, ripping all meaning from life. Our purpose and existence could be a lot clearer using religion then vague philosophies. This is not to say that one is right or wrong, only that either could be used. Never forget that the father of existentialism, which is exalted as the atheists answer to the meaning of life, was Soren Kierkegaard, a Christian. The ideas of existential meaning of life is not limited to atheists. Of course this is only an opinion and worth no more then yours. As for it detracting from reason I point you towards Isaac Newton, that great scientific shaker and thinker was the same man who carried a Bible with him. Albert Schweitzer, one of the smartest men of the century, was a firm Christian and ended up going to Africa to help the poor, oppressed people there. So much for religion causing stupidity and irrational hate. There are smart men on both sides: there are humanists on both sides: there are philosophers on both sides, scientists, etc.

Dmstifik8ion said:
It is in fact what we believe that determines our choices and actions.
Sure, but all beliefs end up in similar actions. Stalin's belief that religion had to be purged from society resulted in millions of dead, thousands more forced into slave labor. Islamic Jihadists' beliefs drive them to kill themselves and others. The action is the same, regardless of the belief.
So, what does this imply about the nature of humans? If the action is the same and the belief is only used to justify it then we have to see that we as humans are naturally inclined to that action. Thus the belief is not to be blamed.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
613
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
747
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
844
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
Replies
51
Views
4K
Back
Top