• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do believers believe what they believe?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Some atheists have claimed that believers believe in their religion and in God because they want to believe, and the implication is that believers have no evidence for their religion or God’s existence, so the 'only reason' they believe is because they want to believe.

I have replied that I believe because of the evidence for God and my religion, not because I want to believe. I have gone through periods in my life where I have not wanted to believe in God or be a Baha’i but I retained my belief because of the evidence for Baha’u’llah. Other times I wanted to believe, but that is not the reason for my belief, I believe because of the evidence. When I stumbled upon the Baha’i Faith during my first year of college, the very last thing I was looking for was God or a religion. I just happened to find it, investigate it, and then I believed it was true. That was over 50 years ago.

I am not saying that all believers believe in their religion or in God because of the evidence, I am only speaking for myself. Some believers might believe because they want to believe and some believers might believe for other reasons, such as having been brought up in a particular religion, or maybe even because society expects people to believe in God. These are not the reasons I believe. I was not brought up in any religion or with a belief in God and I always went against societal expectations and societal norms. The Baha'i Faith is an unconventional religion, but I am too unconventional to fit in the Baha’i community so I do my own thing.

Believers could say the same thing to atheists, that atheists don’t believe in God because they don’t want to believe, since there is evidence for God’s existence. Maybe some believers have said that, but I never have. When atheists tell me that they don’t believe in God because there is no evidence, I take them at their word. They do not ‘see’ any evidence for God so they don’t believe in God. Why then don’t they take me at my word when I say I believe because of the evidence? It is because they don’t ‘believe’ there is any evidence, so in their minds that means believers cannot believe because of the evidence.

Nobody can ever know why a person believes or disbelieves except that person, so I don't think people should speak for other people and tell them why they believe or disbelieve. They should take them at their word because otherwise they are as much as calling that other person a liar.
 

an anarchist

Your local loco.
I can answer the title question for myself though.

I believe because my belief empowers me. I definitely want to believe. Now whether I can attribute the empowerment to the literal existence of a higher power or rather to the power of mind, I'm not sure.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Some atheists have claimed that believers believe in their religion and in God because they want to believe, and the implication is that believers have no evidence for their religion or God’s existence, so the 'only reason' they believe is because they want to believe.

I have replied that I believe because of the evidence for God and my religion, not because I want to believe. I have gone through periods in my life where I have not wanted to believe in God or be a Baha’i but I retained my belief because of the evidence for Baha’u’llah. Other times I wanted to believe, but that is not the reason for my belief, I believe because of the evidence. When I stumbled upon the Baha’i Faith during my first year of college, the very last thing I was looking for was God or a religion. I just happened to find it, investigate it, and then I believed it was true. That was over 50 years ago.

I am not saying that all believers believe in their religion or in God because of the evidence, I am only speaking for myself. Some believers might believe because they want to believe and some believers might believe for other reasons, such as having been brought up in a particular religion, or maybe even because society expects people to believe in God. These are not the reasons I believe. I was not brought up in any religion or with a belief in God and I always went against societal expectations and societal norms. The Baha'i Faith is an unconventional religion, but I am too unconventional to fit in the Baha’i community so I do my own thing.

Believers could say the same thing to atheists, that atheists don’t believe in God because they don’t want to believe, since there is evidence for God’s existence. Maybe some believers have said that, but I never have. When atheists tell me that they don’t believe in God because there is no evidence, I take them at their word. They do not ‘see’ any evidence for God so they don’t believe in God. Why then don’t they take me at my word when I say I believe because of the evidence? It is because they don’t ‘believe’ there is any evidence, so in their minds that means believers cannot believe because of the evidence.

Nobody can ever know why a person believes or disbelieves except that person, so I don't think people should speak for other people and tell them why they believe or disbelieve. They should take them at their word because otherwise they are as much as
Exactly. You want to believe your "evidence".

Own it.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
To paraphrase Mark Twain-

If it's religion, any sort of evidence will answer.

But if it's a fact, proof is necessary.

As long as the proof matches reality, then it's good. But facts and proofs and logic can all be abused. And academics can be egotistical liars.
 

an anarchist

Your local loco.
Clearly that's not the case considering what is being said in the recent threads about logic and truth.
Well I'm not all caught up with every thread haha but I'm assuming it's something like
"It is illogical to believe in God"
Am I somewhere in the ballpark?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Exactly. You want to believe your "evidence".

Own it.
You do not know what I want, only I know that. I am not going to own what you think I want. That is your possession.

I do not 'want' to believe my evidence. I believe it because I have scrutinized it and I could not refute the claims of Baha'u'llah, no matter how hard I tried.
If you think it is "fun" being a Baha'i, think again.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
But if it's a fact, proof is necessary.
Religion is not a fact because it can never be proven that God exists or that a religion is true.
But that in no way means that God does not exist or that no religion is true.
Proof is just what atheists want, it does not MAKE anything true.
Reality is what it is, independent of proof.
Logic 101.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
You do not know what I want, only I know that. I am not going to own what you think I want. That is your possession.

I do not 'want' to believe my evidence. I believe it because I have scrutinized it and I could not refute the claims of Baha'u'llah, no matter how hard I tried.
If you think it is "fun" being a Baha'i, think again.
It sure isnt fun to read that bloated turgid prose.

There's a place where wants and needs blur together.
But I understand the need to believe gain of needs must come thro' pain, The more the better.


Apparently you stumbled into somethhng that
filled an unrecognized need.

Not being burdened by such neediness. I can look
at religious texts dispassionately.

That balulah stuff is overwritten obscurantism with mo
content . I'd rather be marooned with the book of mormon.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Well I'm not all caught up with every thread haha but I'm assuming it's something like
"It is illogical to believe in God"
Am I somewhere in the ballpark?

No, it's the same thing that I've been debating for weeks. The academics, experts are telling a half-truths.

The half truth looks like this:

If ( XYZ is not true ) then ( XYZ is ABC ).

The whole truth looks like this:

If ( XYZ is not true ) then ( XYZ is ABC AND not ABC ).

But the only way to figure that out is to compare the so-called proof with reality.
 
Top