Why do believers believe what they believe?

[Audie]

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.

I wasn't talking about proving God. Did you
see the word God? I said " religion" and
"evidence".

Reading comprehension, remedial, intro to, 099

 

[Audie]

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.

Always complaining about " academics".

Characteristic of those who never graced
the ivyed halls with their presence

 

[dybmh]

Always complaining about " academics".

Characteristic of those who never graced
the ivyed halls with their presence

I see you couldn't answer the question about your own faith-based choice of evidence.

I did pretty good in college, BTW.

 

[Trailblazer]

It sure isnt fun to read that bloated turgid prose.

Then don't read it.

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.

You don't know any of my wants or needs, you only know your own wants and needs.
You are not only rude, you lack personal boundaries.

Apparently you stumbled into somethhng that
filled an unrecognized need.

No, that is not what happened. How arrogant you are to speak for me. Why not just speak for yourself?

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

That shows how much you know about me. The very last thing I need is a religion.
You study them with a bias, which is much worse than a passion, but I have no passion for religious texts, I only believe what they say.

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

Then the solution is very simple: Don't read them.

 

[Trailblazer]

I wasn't talking about proving God. Did you
see the word God? I said " religion" and
"evidence".

Reading comprehension, remedial, intro to, 099

There is evidence for religion, you just don't like it. That's not my problem or God's.

 

[osgart]

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.

My point of convincement is simply different then yours. Anybody can tell that you are being honest about it. I've wanted to believe and never could. Whether someone wants to believe or does not want to believe makes no difference to what they believe.

There is no absolute standard for all evidence. Evidence is always a matter of interpretation. Not everybody interprets evidence the same way. I don't think everyone is uniform in their acceptance of evidence; that includes atheists.

From person to person all individuals often arrive at different intuitions and form their interpretations of evidence from those intuitions.

Not all evidence is direct and tangible, and thus irrefutable. Not all evidence is of the same kind.

I find that a lot of critical thinkers officiate their standards of evidence as the absolute, unquestionable standard of evidence for everybody. So it is adhered to quite religiously.
I think the reality is that people arrive at different intuitions all the time, and end up being categorized and stereotyped.

Not every evident thing is scientific, nor does it have to serve some physical practical usage to be evident. That's how I see it anyways.

 

[Audie]

There is evidence for religion, you just don't like it. That's not my problem or God's.

Of course there's evidence.

As with what Twaim said, any kind will
serve. Specious is more than good enough.

 

[Audie]

My point of convincement is simply different then yours. Anybody can tell that you are being honest about it. I've wanted to believe and never could. Whether someone wants to believe or does not want to believe makes no difference to what they believe.

There is no absolute standard for all evidence. Evidence is always a matter of interpretation. Not everybody interprets evidence the same way. I don't think everyone is uniform in their acceptance of evidence; that includes atheists.

From person to person all individuals often arrive at different intuitions and form their interpretations of evidence from those intuitions.

Not all evidence is direct and tangible, and thus irrefutable. Not all evidence is of the same kind.

I find that a lot of critical thinkers officiate their standards of evidence as the absolute, unquestionable standard of evidence for everybody. So it is adhered to quite religiously.
I think the reality is that people arrive at different intuitions all the time, and end up being categorized and stereotyped.

Not every evident thing is scientific, nor does it have to serve some physical practical usage to be evident. That's how I see it anyways.

How many scams, religious or otherwise
would succeed if people didn't hope, want to
believe?

You were fortunate to have a strong internal
defense against self deception.

Others dive right in, and even think its a great
virtue, beloved of the Creator of the Universe

 

[osgart]

How many scams, religious or otherwise
would succeed if people didn't hope, want to
believe?

You were fortunate to have a strong internal
defense against self deception.

Others dive right in, and even think its a great
virtue, beloved of the Creator of the Universe

I agree with this.

 

[osgart]

Some people want to believe in God so they'll do every mental gymnastic thing to get to a belief they cherish out of desperation and despair.

Others are convinced of God by other things; moral intuition, strongly persuasive teachings that match their intuitions, etc.

 

[F1fan]

What's your standard of proof? Do you just trust, or do you verify?

The standard is well defined and accepted. It isn't controversial except to some believers.

 

[dybmh]

The standard is well defined and accepted. It isn't controversial except to some believers.

Do you trust, or do you verify?

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no absolute standard for all evidence. Evidence is always a matter of interpretation. Not everybody interprets evidence the same way. I don't think everyone is uniform in their acceptance of evidence; that includes atheists.

From person to person all individuals often arrive at different intuitions and form their interpretations of evidence from those intuitions.

Evidence is always a matter of interpretation. People interpret the same evidence differently so they arrive at different conclusions.
That sounds like what I have been saying for years on this forum. Apparently, you and I think alike....
I only wish I could get people to understand this, it is so obvious.

 

[sayak83]

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.

I would point out that you yourself have also rejected that direct experience of God is possible despite such claims from many religious practitioners of various streams. So perhaps you yourself are not as open minded and objective about other peoples' claims as you think?

 

[F1fan]

Do you trust, or do you verify?

Trust or verify what?

 

[Trailblazer]

I would point out that you yourself have also rejected that direct experience of God is possible despite such claims from many religious practitioners of various streams. So perhaps you yourself are not as open minded and objective about other peoples' claims as you think?

Did I say I 'believed'' everything that other people claim?
I can take people at their word as to why they believe what they believe without 'believing' their claim.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

I can attest to the truth of what she is saying. I didn't see her investigate the Baha'i Faith over 50 years ago, but I know she always tells the truth. I also can also attest also that her Baha'i beliefs are unconventional. I managed to make her a little more conventional over the years, but not much.

 

[Audie]

Evidence is always a matter of interpretation. People interpret the same evidence differently so they arrive at different conclusions.
That sounds like what I have been saying for years on this forum. Apparently, you and I think alike....
I only wish I could get people to understand this, it is so obvious.

Ah, the grim Spetre of SEDI.

Same Evidence Different Interpretation

All evidence is equally valid. All interpretations
have comparable merit.
There is no correct interpretation, there is just opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The standard is well defined and accepted. It isn't controversial except to some believers.

I still do it different than you and some other believers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah, the grim Spetre of SEDI.

Same Evidence Different Interpretation

All evidence is equally valid. All interpretations
have comparable merit.
There is no correct interpretation, there is just opinion.

Or that correct interpretation only works in a limited sense.
Not that it always works or that it never works, but that it is limited as a method.