Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[Wildswanderer]

There are factual explanations in science about what the human brain experiences when it has religious thoughts. There's no evidence that suggests what believers claim is happening is actually happening. The human mind can easily create fantasies that the body responds to physically. When people masturbate they use imagination and create an experience that has both emotional and physical aspects.

If you disagree by all means make your case. Use facts.

So what you are claiming is people feel better because they believe in God. Right...that in itself doesn't make God's existence real.
But it also doesn't make it a fantasy.
My brain is going to create happy feelings when I genuinely experience love, not just when I imagine it.
But what you are doing is projecting. You think because you can't find God by using your logic no one else can either. When in fact, many former atheists have done just that.
Just because it hasn't happened to you yet doesn't make other people's experience of God incorrect or irrational.

 

[PureX]

Reason and logic are related. There is a way to make assertion and defend them through facts, data, and reason and these people can show their work IF they actually have facts and data and use reason. Those who make claims that do not follow this objective method, and have a dubious basis, is not rational.

That's simply not so. The rationale is simply to use some other means of determination besides what you consider logical. Intuition, for example. Or even chance. There are many ways to move through and understand the world. And existence is not limited to or defined by your way. I think it's weird that you don't understand this, and even more that you refuse to recognize it. Because I'm sure you must use these other methods on occasion. As we all do.

Now a person can say they believe in Good because it makes them feel good. That is a true statement.

It's a nonsensical statement. I don't even know what it means to "believe in good".

They can't then assert that their good feelings means everyone else should feel the same way, nor that what they believe in a God MUST exist because those good feelings exist. When theists assert that non-theists are wrong for not thinking the same way is not a rational line of thinking.

But they didn't say they believe in their "good feelings", or that their feelings determine what's good, to them. YOU said that. So you are putting your own bias into their words and then condemning them for it.

Seems to me that if you were such a strong critical thinker you would have recognized the 'flaw' in your conclusions. Not to mention the lack of actual content in the statement you were assessing.

No, I simply look at what works and what doesn't.

Just now, all you were looking at was your own bias being reflected back at you from your having projected it onto someone else's words. And you didn't even realize it. For something to "work" or "not work" some actuality must be present to be assessed. The statement; "I believe in good" contains no actual content. So you can't have determined whether it "works" or "doesn't work".

The fact that people often make statements that have no discernible or actual content doesn't logically give you an excuse to fill in the missing content with whatever bias makes it easy for you to 'defeat' their supposed statement. You either have to get them to elaborate and clarify their statement, or leave it unassessed. People who move through the world in a more intuitive way are often less able to clarify their methodology for you, or for themselves, because it's intuitive. But I can tell you for sure that this does not make intuition illogical, or irrational, or ineffective. It is often far more logical, rational, and effective than the belabored method of consciously gathering facts and evidence and then laboriously plotting out every possible conclusion and course of action to determine which one works or will work the best, you think. A method that I will point out is rife with subjective choices and reasoning. And is therefor not the objective juggernaut of logic and reason that you and so many others here seem t believe it to be.

There is no way for theists to argue for the validity and reasonableness of their beliefs. The claims happen to fail at a functional level, it is a bad recipe. There are no facts that demonstrate Gods, or any supernatural, exists outside of imagination.

I can, and I have done so many times. And I do so based precisely on theism's functionality.

 

[cladking]

I am not religious and I have no interest in discussing religion.

Many individuals like to associate with others who share the same beliefs so symposia, scientific conventions, and Peers were invented.

I think of it as the "Church of Holier Than Thou".

There's often nothing wrong with the reasoning of adherents but somehow they reached the conclusion that they know everything and anyone who isn't a member is confused and potentially evil or headed toward being evil. They think logically except where it involves their conclusions.

 

[PureX]

Many individuals like to associate with others who share the same beliefs so symposia, scientific conventions, and Peers were invented.

I think of it as the "Church of Holier Than Thou".

There's often nothing wrong with the reasoning of adherents but somehow they reached the conclusion that they know everything and anyone who isn't a member is confused and potentially evil or headed toward being evil. They think logically except where it involves their conclusions.

It's why I, personally, want nothing to do with any form of organized religion. As soon as it becomes 'organized', it loses it's purpose (to serve humanity) and becomes it's own antithesis (to be served by humanity). I am not, however, and 'enemy' of religion because I understand that billions of my fellow humans can use it to better themselves and their lives. I'm just not one of them.

 

[cladking]

I don't believe I know what any word in any sentence means and that this ignorance is universal in man and the cause of every utterance having a different meaning to every observer.

Since I believe this I have no use for inductive reasoning and barely use it at all. My thinking is deductive reasoning coupled with intuition.

There was a time when most "scientific thought" was deductive as well but this has been evolving (in leaps and bounds one funeral at a time) in the last century. I believe this was caused by numerous erroneous assumptions made by 19th century scientists and these assumptions can't be tested or studied deductively. During this time "religious thought" has been becoming more deductive due to the constant attack of those who believe in science.

This has led to a schism. It has also led to a lot of "science" being not only wrong but highly religious and a lot of "religion" being rational.

 

[cladking]

I am not, however, and 'enemy' of religion because I understand that billions of my fellow humans can use it to better themselves and their lives.

I guess I anticipated your post since I hadn't seen it when I typed my last one.

Thanks.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You somehow assume you know what's rational for someone else without experiencing what they experience? Again that's just prejudice.

Rationality is independent of the source. Reason is a prescribed path. Reason only permits one correct sum from adding any given addends. Imagine talking to somebody who isn't aware that adding has a prescribed set of rules, hasn't learned to do it, doesn't recognize when others do properly, and thinks his own sums arrived at by his own method is just as valid as a sum arrived at using the prescribed rules of addition. He says to the skilled adder who tells him he misadded, "You somehow know what is a proper sum without experiencing what they experience. Rejecting my sum is just prejudice." What's your reply to that? Probably something similar to my answer to your comment. Correct adding is independent of the adder. Adding is a prescribed path from addends to sum.

Prejudice and bias, which are preferences for one thing over another, are good things if they're rational, that is, derived empirically. That's what learning is - arriving at a set of preferences. People that have learned to evaluate evidence properly and come to sound conclusions - critical thinkers - have a justified prejudice against other methods of deciding what is true. They try to avoid thinking in those ways themselves, and they reject it in others. Yes, that's a prejudice, and one of the better ones, just as the prejudice against creative adding is a good one, because it is rational, and is part of learning how to add.

You think because you can't find God by using your logic no one else can either

Nobody can find God with logic. There is no sound argument that ends, "Therefore God." Theistic philosophers have tried and failed for centuries.

Also, there is no evidence that makes a god necessary to account for it, nor makes a universe with a deity in it more likely than a naturalistic universe. If you've come to such a conclusion, you've used a different path. This is why believers are told repeatedly that their belief is irrational, which many find offensive. They shouldn't. If they are willing to believe in gods, they can embrace the irrationality of that belief without trying to argue that it is reasonable to people who understand that reason doesn't support the belief. They won't get an argument there.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are many theists who are extremely good scientists.

Agreed. Newton, a physicist and mathematician but also an alchemist, is a classic example. His faith-based thoughts were largely excluded from his other work such that Principia is essentially the same as it would be had a gifted atheist written it, until Newton runs out of math and mistakenly concludes that the solar system and the celestial motions he describes would not be stable, and inserts the finger of God to make periodic corrections to prevent the big planets from absorbing the smaller ones, or throwing them into the sun or interstellar space, a defect corrected a century later by new math that reveals a stable solar system without an intelligent ruler needed to keep it working.

And we have several theistic scientists on RF. I don't know how good the RF scientists are at their jobs - likely very good - but I can evaluate their arguments and assess their level of understanding of science and their skill at critical thinking, and see that they think as well as any atheistic skilled critical thinker. I'd include you in that group, although I don't know if you are a scientist. Like Newton, they and you have learned to compartmentalize faith-based thought.

 

[PureX]

I don't believe I know what any word in any sentence means and that this ignorance is universal in man and the cause of every utterance having a different meaning to every observer.

Since I believe this I have no use for inductive reasoning and barely use it at all. My thinking is deductive reasoning coupled with intuition.

There was a time when most "scientific thought" was deductive as well but this has been evolving (in leaps and bounds one funeral at a time) in the last century. I believe this was caused by numerous erroneous assumptions made by 19th century scientists and these assumptions can't be tested or studied deductively. During this time "religious thought" has been becoming more deductive due to the constant attack of those who believe in science.

This has led to a schism. It has also led to a lot of "science" being not only wrong but highly religious and a lot of "religion" being rational.

I think the primary factor in how people choose to cognate their experience of being, is control. We humans really want to be in control of our own fate. And we are sincerely frightened by the idea or realization that we are not. Theists, for the most part, are people who understand how little control they actually have in life and are justifiably frightened by it. It's why they are theists. Faith in that power greater than themselves gives them a way of dealing with or negotiating with this lack of control in life, and with the fear of that lack of control. Non-theists are for the most part people who believe that they can gain that control they seek by reasoning their way through their circumstances, themselves. And they hold to this ideal just as fervently as any theist holds onto his God, because both of them doing so to provide them with some resolution, even if imaginary, to this predicament of not being in control of one's own fate, and their fear of not being in control of it.

There's no right answer. Sometimes we can use reason to gain some control over our circumstances, and other times reason is useless. Some people are more frightened of this lack of control because they have been greatly harmed by it in life. While others have not been face to face with their own profound impotent vulnerability, and so still believe (according to their experience) that they do have significant control over their own lives. The "facts and the evidence" are different for everyone because everyone's experience of control and the lack of it is different. And so, of course, then, are the solutions we choose in dealing with this dilemma.

 

[F1fan]

That's simply not so. The rationale is simply to use some other means of determination besides what you consider logical. Intuition, for example. Or even chance. There are many ways to move through and understand the world. And existence is not limited to or defined by your way. I think it's weird that you don't understand this, and even more that you refuse to recognize it. Because I'm sure you must use these other methods on occasion. As we all do.

Intuition isn't any more reliable than faith, so irrelevant.

And "rationale" does not mean rational. Putin can present his rationale for invading Ukraine. This means he presents a case HE thinks is valid. We can certainly examine his Rationale and reasons for the invasion. Rationale might be valid, or it might not be. Notice you don't even value reason and logic as effective tools, but resort to the fuzzy and malleable "rationale" and "intuition" as tools, which as I noted are unreliable. This is Putin thinking, not reasoned, logical thinking. You want what you want and you will find a way to manipulate thinking to justify what you want. This is arguing for religion.

It's a nonsensical statement. I don't even know what it means to "believe in good".

Typo, I meant:

Now a person can say they believe in God because it makes them feel good. That is a true statement.​

People do believe in God because it feels good. Not because it is a reasoned conclusion.

But they didn't say they believe in their "good feelings", or that their feelings determine what's good, to them. YOU said that. So you are putting your own bias into their words and then condemning them for it.

Science says these beliefs and feelings are good to the believer. This is known when the reward system of the brain lights up as subjects think religious thoughts. And I'm not condemning anyone for this. I'm saying theists take their own good feelings from their religious beliefs and experiences as if atheists should do the same. Look for yourself, there are many theists offended that atheists exist, that we don't assign meaning and value to religious concepts. They desire atheists to comply and conform to the norm of belief in God. Theists fail time and time again to provide rational arguments about why non-believers should think it is likely any sort or type of God exists. Atheists certainly have no emotional motive to comply or conform. As science explains the vast majority of humans have biological traits that motivate them to seek conformity and belonging through belief in norms, and this is best observed as being a belief in a God.

Seems to me that if you were such a strong critical thinker you would have recognized the 'flaw' in your conclusions. Not to mention the lack of actual content in the statement you were assessing.
Just now, all you were looking at was your own bias being reflected back at you from your having projected it onto someone else's words. And you didn't even realize it. For something to "work" or "not work" some actuality must be present to be assessed. The statement; "I believe in good" contains no actual content. So you can't have determined whether it "works" or "doesn't work".

You explain no actual flaw in my conclusions here, except to mention my typo again. So you can't expose any actual flaw in my reasoning and conclusions?

The fact that people often make statements that have no discernible or actual content doesn't logically give you an excuse to fill in the missing content with whatever bias makes it easy for you to 'defeat' their supposed statement. You either have to get them to elaborate and clarify their statement, or leave it unassessed. People who move through the world in a more intuitive way are often less able to clarify their methodology for you, or for themselves, because it's intuitive. But I can tell you for sure that this does not make intuition illogical, or irrational, or ineffective. It is often far more logical, rational, and effective than the belabored method of consciously gathering facts and evidence and then laboriously plotting out every possible conclusion and course of action to determine which one works or will work the best, you think. A method that I will point out is rife with subjective choices and reasoning. And is therefor not the objective juggernaut of logic and reason that you and so many others here seem t believe it to be.
I can, and I have done so many times. And I do so based precisely on theism's functionality.

This block of text makes no credible argument against reason and logic, nor offers any advantage to using intuition (faith). You are making an excuse for those who use intuition. If the people can't articulate what intuition is or how it guides then it sounds careless and reckless. Doing things through feeling is notoriously a bad idea. Trump operates through what feels good to him, and does not think through any consequences. This is not a smart approach. This is why reason, critical thought, logic all have a huge advantage as a cognitive tool.

 

[firedragon]

Many individuals like to associate with others who share the same beliefs so symposia, scientific conventions, and Peers were invented.

I think of it as the "Church of Holier Than Thou".

There's often nothing wrong with the reasoning of adherents but somehow they reached the conclusion that they know everything and anyone who isn't a member is confused and potentially evil or headed toward being evil. They think logically except where it involves their conclusions.

In my opinion, that's exactly how atheists think. Or at least the evangelical atheists. This forum is predominantly filled with aggressively evangelical people who dont like to call themselves that. I say predominantly, maybe not all. Thats why they participate here. The biggest group according to a survey in someones thread showed were atheists. They are the most united group in the forum. In my anecdotal experience they call themselves by "we" more than any other group. And though not all, I have had enough and more encounters with those call themselves superior, intellectual, scientific, etc etc, and there are those call all theists as "Intellectually stunted, mathematically inferior, and have no ability to be scientific". That is personal experience in this forum.

When this kind of thing is said, I have had a few atheists jump up and ask for evidence, but when I ask for evidence to the claim all theists are delusional or stupid by default, there won't be any. So it becomes a clash of statements, and double standards. Of course whats also is common is to do some ad hominem because the "we" clan should not be addressed that way. People get very affected.

 

[F1fan]

It's why I, personally, want nothing to do with any form of organized religion. As soon as it becomes 'organized', it loses it's purpose (to serve humanity) and becomes it's own antithesis (to be served by humanity). I am not, however, and 'enemy' of religion because I understand that billions of my fellow humans can use it to better themselves and their lives. I'm just not one of them.

But being organized is the major reason people are religious. It's how the human brain evolved to be religious, that is how a tribe unifies and bonds through the shared beliefs, rituals, norms, etc. People identify as one sect or another, and this is their tribe. They won't abandon their affiliation any more than they will abandon ideas of God.

 

[Link]

Summary: Why do you believe in God? What do you find to be the most compelling evidence that God exists?

Long Version:
I have found that I am getting frustrated at the thought of people who do not listen to reason, logic, evidence, and facts. You may have noticed this frustration seeping into the conversations I have on RF. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just angry at you for not seeing what I see, which is not really fair. I'll will try to have more patience and explain things more clearly in the future.

One way to influence others is to first be influenced by them. In other words, seek first to understand, then to be understood. Maybe I would be less frustrated if I actually knew the reasons why you believe in God. Help me understand, and in turn I will respectfully respond, and if you care to hear I will respond with the reasons why I don't believe in God.

Thank you in advance for the conversation

I've explained many times, that we can exist in God's vision and can't anywhere else because only God can truly see us and judge us as we are. Who we are is subject to judgment, it's contingent on judgment defining it, without a perfect judgment there is no exact who we are, and there is no even guessing who we are in this case. It would be an illusion and we would be a made up fantasy by the mind as far as our value and inner image/beauty goes.

 

[F1fan]

I think the primary factor in how people choose to cognate their experience of being, is control. We humans really want to be in control of our own fate.

Look at evangelicals, they want to control others, too. Women's reproductive rights through antiabortion laws. Kids learning about gays through book bans. Kids learning the USA had a racist past (and present) through revisionist history. Voting access made harder through voting regulations. Election results in the future in question because Republicans are fighting for control of state's election boards to control vote counts. This is all rooted in the religious right and their desire to limit freedom and liberty to THEIR way of belief. And their rationale is that they have God on their side. Righteousness.

And we are sincerely frightened by the idea or realization that we are not. Theists, for the most part, are people who understand how little control they actually have in life and are justifiably frightened by it.

Religious belief is notably fear-based. The belief is meant to attain some control over reality. But belief is God doesn't change any of that. You have no control over your genes, you get cancer, belief in God won't make that any different. At best you can argue how belief in a God can help stressed and traumatized people cope with fear and events outside of their control. But there are other options that are no superstitious.

But every day life isn't traumatic. There may be subtle or serious anxiety that some folks feel and experience and religion, that they adopt from organized religion, offers a means for them to distract and cope with this emotion.

It's why they are theists. Faith in that power greater than themselves gives them a way of dealing with or negotiating with this lack of control in life, and with the fear of that lack of control. Non-theists are for the most part people who believe that they can gain that control they seek by reasoning their way through their circumstances, themselves. And they hold to this ideal just as fervently as any theist holds onto his God, because both of them doing so to provide them with some resolution, even if imaginary, to this predicament of not being in control of one's own fate, and their fear of not being in control of it.

There's an illusion of not being in control, and the counter illusion of being in control. Religion sells people a dilemma, and then sells them the solution. It is a society of people whose emotional intelligence is not very good.

 

[Mock Turtle]

In my opinion, that's exactly how atheists think. Or at least the evangelical atheists. This forum is predominantly filled with aggressively evangelical people who dont like to call themselves that. I say predominantly, maybe not all. Thats why they participate here. The biggest group according to a survey in someones thread showed were atheists. They are the most united group in the forum. In my anecdotal experience they call themselves by "we" more than any other group. And though not all, I have had enough and more encounters with those call themselves superior, intellectual, scientific, etc etc, and there are those call all theists as "Intellectually stunted, mathematically inferior, and have no ability to be scientific". That is personal experience in this forum.

When this kind of thing is said, I have had a few atheists jump up and ask for evidence, but when I ask for evidence to the claim all theists are delusional or stupid by default, there won't be any. So it becomes a clash of statements, and double standards. Of course whats also is common is to do some ad hominem because the "we" clan should not be addressed that way. People get very affected.

Well done, so accurate too - in lieu of any appropriate frubal.

 

[PureX]

But being organized is the major reason people are religious. It's how the human brain evolved to be religious, that is how a tribe unifies and bonds through the shared beliefs, rituals, norms, etc. People identify as one sect or another, and this is their tribe. They won't abandon their affiliation any more than they will abandon ideas of God.

Some do and some do not. There are a great many theists in the world, and far less so that are active members of any organized religion. Some people need/want that sort of experience, and some do not. I do not.

 

[PureX]

There's an illusion of not being in control, and the counter illusion of being in control. Religion sells people a dilemma, and then sells them the solution. It is a society of people whose emotional intelligence is not very good.

I'm not talking about religion. I am not interested in religion. I am not a spokesman for religion since I am not religious. Religion does not = faith in God, and faith in God does not = religion. Unless you can understand this, and accept it, there is no point in our conversation, because you are not hearing me.

 

[F1fan]

Some do and some do not. There are a great many theists in the world, and far less so that are active members of any organized religion. Some people need/want that sort of experience, and some do not. I do not.

It's an interesting g phenomenon that there's such a diversity of religious belief. It amazes me that very liberal people can be Christian, but also members of the KKK. I suspect there are many theists who would not be religious had they not been expose to religious belief in early life. Just being religious is a malleable term, because there are people who are not openly religious, like don't go to church, but do believe in God. Can they explain why they believe in a God but are in different to religious ritual? Not in my experience. They tend to just be following the crowd.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not talking about religion. I am not interested in religion. I am not a spokesman for religion since I am not religious.

So what is your operating definitions for religion and religious?

Gods are religious ideas, so there is a hard task to divide God concepts from religion.

But as I noted, if you aren't religious, as many folks are not, but believe in God, perhaps you do so because you are just following the crowd.

Religion does not = faith in God, and faith in God does not = religion. Unless you can understand this, and accept it, there is no point in our conversation, because you are not hearing me.

Faith is a religious act. God is a religious concept. So I'm not sure how you aim to divide these from the category of "religious".

So I don't understand why you think this. I've not seen you present a case or reason what you avoid the label of religion/religious from your beliefs that are notably religious in nature.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nobody can find God with logic. There is no sound argument that ends, "Therefore God."

Hogwash.
I can say that exact same thing about atheism... it's completely illogical. All you've done here is make an unsupportable claim.