Why do people believe in God?

[Sarkus]

You are missing the point.

On the contrary, it is you who misses the point.
That bad things were/are done in the name of religion is neither evidence nor argument for or against the veracity of their belief that god exists. Or do you think it is?

Since your previously off-topic posts in the previous thread have been moved here, under the question of "Why do people believe in God", let's now try to stick to that, rather than simply bash religion, please. Or would you prefer the title changed to "Naive religion bashing"?

So, let me ask: do you know the difference between belief in God, and following a religion?
Do you think that the the veracity of one's belief in the existence (or non-existence) of God is somehow evidenced by the acts of a religion?

 

[kx000]

Would you exist if all you could do in nature was to be saved and become unlimited, or be a divine (true) fallen angel? The problem of evil attempts to deny God, but there can be a messiah, and suffering is fair. I believe in God because that is my nature. Belief is trust, hope, and happiness. Faith in love, is faith in life, and that is belief and all-wish.

 

[Write4U]

That bad things were/are done in the name of religion is neither evidence nor argument for or against the veracity of their belief that god exists. Or do you think it is?

I have said enough on the subject. I'm done.

 

[Sarkus]

I have said enough on the subject. I'm done.

All you've said was off topic where you initially wrote it, and now that it's been put in a relevant place you can't support your position when asked about it?
Your issue seems to be against religion, and not even the core tenets of such but rather how man has used it to their own ends. But that doesn't answer the question here of why you think people believe in God in the first place. Do you have an answer to that, or do you really have nothing, which is what you've offered this far?

 

[exchemist]

Seems to me that some theists maintain belief via a sort of Castaneda mode, where they accept that reason can't access that aspect of reality but adopt an epistemology that allows a nonrational kind of knowing. Anyone who read those Castaneda bestsellers back in the day will recall the somewhat seductive appeal of a nonrational mode - when you're young it has an attractively subversive quality. The hell with all that plodding reason and science! Later it sinks in how much deception and illusion dwells in those paths of unreason. (and that Castaneda's anthropological research was exposed as fraudulent, his books fiction)

ID seems to be part of the larger instinct to anthropomorphizing nature. Hmm, all these things seem designed. Well, design must imply a designer! Kind of a subset of magical thinking.

I agree with you about what ID claims, ostensibly, to be about. However even that is a fraud. The true stated purpose of ID, as revealed accidentally in the Wedge Document, is to act as a Trojan horse for getting religion taught in the US state school system, the chosen route being via biology.

On the broader point, I think one should beware of the danger of mischaracterising religion by supposing its purpose is to provide explanations for the natural world. That is what one might term the "Dawkins fallacy". The fundamental purpose of most religion is to provide a guide for living one's life.

 

[C C]

Why are there 5.8 billion people who believe in a god and only 16 % of the world's population is atheist?

Many, if not all, humans will continue to worship concepts they either invent or abstract from regularities of the world. Theists go the extra step of personifying their ideas or ideologies (and supernaturlizing those beings, if applicable). Whereas secular orientations are content with leaving their artificial constructs at the level of social and philosophical prescriptions (moral, justice, political, virtues/conduct and community rites) to entice and enforce obeisance to them.

Devotion to immaterial or "represented by symbolic system" principles seems to be a necessary or at least key item for holding together and governing a tribe, and generating impetus toward complex social organizations (like civilization) and maintaining such. The original primitive populations arguably had to personify or biological-ize them to garner dedication; non-theists feel that is an unneeded stage with respect to an educated population.
_

 

[Pinball1970]

Dig a little deeper, ok?

Please please do NOT take that tone with me sir.
I do not have a degree in theology or History of religion but I assure you that I have taken a scientific approach to the subject.
What is the scholarly consensus on scripture?
Supporting archaeology?
Historical corroboration?

Peter Williams, Bart Ehrman, Daniel Wallace, James White, Bruce Metzger, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Geza vermes, Neil Silberman, Israel Finkelstein.

You read any of those guys?

 

[foghorn]

On the broader point, I think one should beware of the danger of mischaracterising religion by supposing its purpose is to provide explanations for the natural world. That is what one might term the "Dawkins fallacy". The fundamental purpose of most religion is to provide a guide for living one's life.

My bold above.
Why does that require a belief in a god?

 

[Sarkus]

My bold above.
Why does that require a belief in a god?

It doesn't require it (e.g. Buddhism has no requirement for such a belief), but of course many religions hold that at their core.
As to why some religions have that belief at their core, presumably because they are a group of like-minded individuals who all hold that belief, coming together because that religion makes sense to them.

 

[Write4U]

Please please do NOT take that tone with me sir.

You are taking that tone with me and your prejudice is based on rumor.

I do not have a degree in theology or History of religion but I assure you that I have taken a scientific approach to the subject.

And?

What is the scholarly consensus on scripture? Supporting archaeology? Historical corroboration?

Do you mean, what is the scientific concensus on scripture and that it has been declared that it is not science!
My example of the "Skeptics Annotated Bible, Quran, Book of Mormons" lists the flaws these manuscripts contain that disqualify Scripture as scientific manuscripts.

Peter Williams, Bart Ehrman, Daniel Wallace, James White, Bruce Metzger, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Geza vermes, Neil Silberman, Israel Finkelstein. You read any of those guys?

Meaningless name dropping!

 

[Write4U]

Why does that require a belief in a god?

It doesn't require it (e.g. Buddhism has no requirement for such a belief), but of course many religions hold that at their core.
As to why some religions have that belief at their core, presumably because they are a group of like-minded individuals who all hold that belief, coming together because that religion makes sense to them.

Humans are herd animals. We all know that. But Foghorn posed the right question and I second that question.

Herd behavior is the behavior of individuals in a group acting collectively without centralized direction. Herd behavior occurs in animals in herds, packs, bird flocks, fish schools and so on, as well as in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behavior#

 

[Write4U]

All you've said was off topic where you initially wrote it, and now that it's been put in a relevant place you can't support your position when asked about it?
Your issue seems to be against religion, and not even the core tenets of such but rather how man has used it to their own ends. But that doesn't answer the question here of why you think people believe in God in the first place. Do you have an answer to that, or do you really have nothing, which is what you've offered this far?

Yes, fear of the unknown. People believe in God because they have been sold a "bill of goods".
Heaven and Hell do not exist and when you die, YOU, that is your brain, will cease to function and there will total oblivion and "nothing to be afraid of, nothing at all" (Anil Seth).

 

[Pinball1970]

Do you mean, what is the scientific concensus on scripture?

That it is not science!
My example of the "Skeptics Annotated Bible, Quran, Book of Mormons" lists the flaws these manuscripts contain.[/QUOTE]


Literature search, consensus, published works.
Dating is scientific, not just carbon dating and methods used in archaeology but also paleography and historical criteria. Skilled well thought out methods to determine what the authors originally wrote and when they put pen to paper.

 

[Pinball1970]

You are taking that tone with me and your prejudice is based on rumor.
And?

Do you mean, what is the scientific concensus on scripture and that it has been declared that it is not science!
My example of the "Skeptics Annotated Bible, Quran, Book of Mormons" lists the flaws these manuscripts contain that disqualify Scripture as scientific manuscripts.
Meaningless name dropping!

What like Penrose and Tegmark They are experts in their field.

 

[Write4U]

That it is not science!
My example of the "Skeptics Annotated Bible, Quran, Book of Mormons" lists the flaws these manuscripts contain.

That quote is incorrectly attributed to you. Please correct.

Literature search, consensus, published works.
Dating is scientific, not just carbon dating and methods used in archaeology but also paleography and historical criteria.

Yes, all that is scientific, but that does not make scripture science.

Skilled well thought out methods to determine what the authors originally wrote and when they put pen to paper

Yes, and science has come to the conclusion that scripture is not science.

 

[Write4U]

What like Penrose and Tegmark They are experts in their field.

I am discussing the work of these accredited scientists. Should I cite them as anonymous authors .

 

[Sarkus]

Humans are herd animals. We all know that. But Foghorn posed the right question and I second that question.

And I have explained that not every religion does require it. There is a difference, therefore, between religion and belief in God. You, for whatever reason, are focussing on religion, rather than why people believe in God in the first place. So, no, Foghorn didn't really post the right question. Unless, of course, you want to derail this new thread that has been set up to discuss why people believe in God?

Yes, fear of the unknown.

Quite possibly. But that is from the outside looking in, i.e. an answer from someone who doesn't believe that is looking at people who do. What do you think the people who do believe would answer to the same question?

People believe in God because they have been sold a "bill of goods".

Again, what do you think believers would answer to the question?

Heaven and Hell do not exist and when you die, YOU, that is your brain, will cease to function and there will total oblivion and "nothing to be afraid of, nothing at all" (Anil Seth).

And how do you think you know this? It is quite clearly your belief, but are you pushing it as knowledge on your part? You have stated that "science has come to the conclusion that scripture is not science" - post #55 - so I do hope you are not claiming that science somehow proves something that you have stated is beyond its purview?

 

[Write4U]

And I have explained that not every religion does require it. There is a difference, therefore, between religion and belief in God. You, for whatever reason, are focussing on religion, rather than why people believe in God in the first place.

Can you prove the existence of God?
No? Then I don't believe your claim that there is a god.

So, no, Foghorn didn't really post the right question. Unless, of course, you want to derail this new thread that has been set up to discuss why people believe in God?

This why David Bohm complained about science becoming so fractured that no one knows what the other is talking about.

There have been thousands of gods and you don't believe in any of them except for One. So you are atheist about all prior gods except the current one.
Well, I am atheist and I don't believe in just one more god than you do.

Quite possibly. But that is from the outside looking in, i.e. an answer from someone who doesn't believe that is looking at people who do. What do you think the people who do believe would answer to the same question?
Again, what do you think believers would answer to the question?

They would crucify me, just like they did another person who claimed to be the son of god.

And how do you think you know this? It is quite clearly your belief, but are you pushing it as knowledge on your part? You have stated that "science has come to the conclusion that scripture is not science" - post #55 - so I do hope you are not claiming that science somehow proves something that you have stated is beyond its purview?

There is no such thing as having to prove a non-belief .
I have explained why I don't believe.

I believe you cited that religion is not science. I agree. And I don't have to prove anything.
I don't have to prove the non-existence of a god or that religion is based on a belief in a god.
That burden falls on the believer.

 

[Sarkus]

Can you prove the existence of God?
No? Then I don't believe your claim that there is a god.

First, I don't claim that there is a God. Second, the issue here is why people do believe in God. You simply asserting that there is no God, that there is no proof of God, that those who claim God exists can't prove that God exists, doesn't actually address the question being asked, which, as a reminder, is "why do people believe in God". Not "Why do people not believe in God?" or "Do you think God exists?". Do you comprehend the difference between the question asked in the thread title, and the questions you are answering?

This why David Bohm complained about science becoming so fractured that no one knows what the other is talking about.

It's got naff all to do with what David Bohm said, but rather everything to do with you being unable to address the question posed in the title of the thread. The fact that most religions require - or at least have as their central tenet - belief in God is neither here nor there. The question is not why people follow religions. The question is not why you don't believe. The question is not what you think science can't prove. It is asking why you think people do believe.
Are you able to stick to answering that question?

There have been thousands of gods and you don't believe in any of them except for One. So you are atheist about all prior gods except the current one.
Well, I am atheist and I don't believe in just one more god than you do.

I don't believe in any God, Write4U. I am an atheist with regard all claims of God that I am aware of. I am also agnostic. Maybe you want to pay attention to what people have said that you're replying to, because nothing I have said suggests that I am anything other than an agnostic atheist. Instead, however, you seem to knee-jerk an irrelevant response to the question being asked, as if the very subject matter triggers you.
Pay attention to the thread title, Write4U. It will help you stop being irrelevant in threads you post in, and help you keep on track.

They would crucify me, just like they did another person who claimed to be the son of god.

??? Do you not understand the question I have asked, that is being asked in the thread title? Do you think I am asking you to claim to be the son of God???
Right - let's break this down in simpler steps:
You are an atheist, right. You don't believe in God. We've established that.
Now imagine that there is a person called Bob. Bob believes in God, okay. Whether he is religious or not is, initially, irrelevant. The important thing is simply that he believes in God.
Now, here's the question that this thread is asking: why do you think that Bob believes in God?

There is no such thing as having to prove a non-belief .
I have explained why I don't believe.

You go far further than a mere non-belief, though, Write4U. Your language and posts are littered with claims that such things as heaven are false. Do you have the belief that they are false, or do you simply not have the belief that they are true? Do you even appreciate the difference between believing not-X to be true, and not believing X to be true?

I believe you cited that religion is not science. I agree. And I don't have to prove anything.
I don't have to prove the non-existence of a god or that religion is based on a belief in a god.
That burden falls on the believer.

Noone is asking you to prove anything, unless you make positive claims (note that a claim that "X is false" is a positive claim that X is false). And you are making such positive claims.
But, that is beside the point, as the issue of this thread is not why you don't believe, but why you think that people do believe. Can you at least start to answer and discuss that question, rather than digress onto you knee-jerking about what you think of religion, or bleating that you don't believe etc.
I.e. answer the question!
Please!

 

[Write4U]

First, I don't claim that there is a God. Second, the issue here is why people do believe in God. You simply asserting that there is no God, that there is no proof of God, that those who claim God exists can't prove that God exists, doesn't actually address the question being asked, which, as a reminder, is "why do people believe in God". Not "Why do people not believe in God?" or "Do you think God exists?". Do you comprehend the difference between the question asked in the thread title, and the questions you are answering?

I have answered that. I learned that chimpanzees also worship. I provided evidence for that assertion. I also learned that Chimps and humans had a common ancestor, I provided evidence for that assertion.

Thus if both Chimps and Humans have belief in a god or gods, this belief must have been acquired by the common ancestor and as a result this original belief of an "unseen but powerful threat", that makes itself known once in a while when it is angry by causing a thunderstorm, and who later became Thor.

I believe that I have made a case that far from accurate observations by humans, the earliest gods were already a "known" threat of all kinds of trouble from the wrath of this unseen sky-being that brought misery and hardship to the 'troupe".

IMO, belief in god may have become a genetic engram.

Finding the engram, or even knowing where in the brain to look, is understandably difficult. The search begins in animals with simpler nervous systems, like the sea slug Aplysia californica. The idea is: Look at an animal’s brain, teach them something, and look for changes in the brain’s structure. Aplysia reflexively withdraws its siphon

.... Read more