[Waragainstsleep]

The other day a read a pair of articles which were collected answers from a variety of people, who the publisher obviously considered to be well respected in their fields. One was answers for why those people personally believed in God, the other was answers from atheists as to why they didn't believe in a God.
Most of the respondents were either scientists, clergy, philosophers and members or leaders of humanist organisations.

In terms of the actual answers given, I didn't find anything particularly new or enlightening on either side.
As you would expect from a non-believer, the reasons for belief ring very hollow to me. Those that appear most honest were mostly the least detailed. Most of these can be reduced to "because I want to", "because the alternative seems worse to me", "because I just do", "because it gives me comfort" and I think there was a "because I was brought up to believe". While honest these answers often suggest to me a lack of true belief. Convenience, comfort or an unjustified preference implies to me that its more a case of appearing to believe and going through the motions so that you don't have to think about an alternative that you may dislike.

The original collections of answers:

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion...h-world-belief

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion...-believe-world

The problem is that pretty much all the answers that attempt to actually explain or justify their position just expose gaping logical flaws or flat-out make people sound stupid. I'm not trying to insult anyone when I say that. Thats just how I feel about it.

At any rate, I was wondering if anyone here could come up with anything better/clearer/more interesting/more honest about why they hold the beliefs they do. Atheists are welcome to answer the question too if they feel inclined but I suspect I've heard most of the reasons on that side and I certainly understand most of them.
I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone can offer better insight into the thought processes that make someone accept or even crave the existence of a supernatural being or creator.

If you've simply never questioned what you were told at church as a kid, then that to me makes a lot more sense though I'd love to hear why you never questioned it. If you researched two or more belief systems in a quest for personal truth, I'd love to hear how you settled on your final choice. I'm just trying to avoid stock answers, and the answers people give because they think they are expected by someone else.
Please be honest. if you are tempted to write "the bible must be true because it says so in the bible" or crap like that just save yourself the bother and me the bother of arguing or mocking you. If you answer honestly and intelligently, I promise not to mock at all and will only question to gain further understanding. I'm not looking to change anyone's minds with this thread.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I have a bundle of reasons, but they're mostly just rationalizations. The only true reason I believe what I do (atheism I guess) is that it makes me happier. I'm happier not having a sky-person always looking over my shoulder and second-guessing me. All the other rationalizations are secondary.

The same reason I use could easily apply to ardent believers: it makes them happier to have a sky-person watching their back. I'm cool with that.

The only group I'm not cool with is the one that is only happy when they can bully others into affirming their decision. The social dominance group. If them failing to achieve their social dominance by "outsmarting" other religious viewpoints is going to make them unhappy, then they should be unhappy.

[Waragainstsleep]

Any idea why it makes you happy though? For me I'm always happier knowing what I believe to be true. I cannot see the truth in any religion, none of it stands up to logical scrutiny so I have to conclude that its all wrong. Following all sorts of customs, rituals and traditions based on what I believe to be incorrect would royally irritate me.

Atheism is often accused of lacking any comforting qualities at all and its easy to see why. Truth is the only one I can see in it myself.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone can offer better insight

Odd that. I tried to offer insight in another thread, and you tried to impress me with your physics degree.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Any idea why it makes you happy though?

All I can say is that when I consciously choose to think I'm being puppeteered, I am less happy, and when I consciously choose the opposite, I become more happy. Beyond that, you have to start dissecting and defining happiness, which in my opinion is just hormones and neurotransmitters, there's not going to be any more logic to it than that. It just is. It's like hunger. We don't get hungry because of a logical need for food, we do it because of simple physiology.

For me I'm always happier knowing what I believe to be true. I cannot see the truth in any religion, none of it stands up to logical scrutiny so I have to conclude that its all wrong. Following all sorts of customs, rituals and traditions based on what I believe to be incorrect would royally irritate me.

That sort of logic is inconclusive. You have failed to prove any of the various religious hypotheses, so you declare the null hypothesis to be triumphant. But this is heavily dependent on what you decide the null hypothesis to be (and how high your standard of proof).

There are two kinds of experiments, the kind that disprove the null hypothesis, and the kind that prove nothing and so conclude that the null hypothesis remains. If you were using the first kind, that would be something. If you had a null hypothesis of God, and you were able to disprove it, that would be a logical support for atheism. But that's not what you have, so really all you're doing is choosing one null hypothesis over others and then rationalizing that choice.

If you get irritated over someone not believing the results of this second kind of experiment, whatever the subject matter is, then there's something wrong with your personality and that's what you should be working on. That sort of experiment just isn't as informative as you make it out to be.

Atheism is often accused of lacking any comforting qualities at all and its easy to see why. Truth is the only one I can see in it myself.

Here's one. The religious view the world as a scary dangerous place, one in which a benevolent caretaker is needed to shepherd us safely through. Whereas I view the world as a lush and inviting place, one in which we will do just fine and dandy without any supernatural help, and we can be the masters of our own destiny in a Horatio Alger sort of way. The religious pray for change/comfort, while I am perfectly happy the way things are right now. Atheism is optimism.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Odd that. I tried to offer insight in another thread, and you tried to impress me with your physics degree.

My recollection is that you claimed to have the answers to life, the universe and everything but the rest of us were too dumb to understand so you weren't going to bother trying.

I was trying to offer proof that I might be able to follow you if you made the effort, not impress you.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That sort of logic is inconclusive. You have failed to prove any of the various religious hypotheses, so you declare the null hypothesis to be triumphant. But this is heavily dependent on what you decide the null hypothesis to be (and how high your standard of proof).

There are two kinds of experiments, the kind that disprove the null hypothesis, and the kind that prove nothing and so conclude that the null hypothesis remains. If you were using the first kind, that would be something. If you had a null hypothesis of God, and you were able to disprove it, that would be a logical support for atheism. But that's not what you have, so really all you're doing is choosing one null hypothesis over others and then rationalizing that choice.

Each of us can only do our best when it comes to determining the truth, even those who do so logically. Given the absence of evidence, the most logical conclusion is that there is no god so I choose to believe that as truth. Alternative beliefs are either easy to disprove or too far fetched and contrived. In the absence of evidence, anything is possible, but that doesn't mean every explanation is equally likely. Its not always quantifiable of course. I couldn't tell you the odds that christianity has it right but I'm pretty sure atheism has the best odds of anything. Its just Occam's Razor.
I just know I wouldn't feel comfortable wandering about believing in something that deep down I knew to be false or ridiculous. I'm pretty convinced a lot of people are doing just this however.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Here's one. The religious view the world as a scary dangerous place, one in which a benevolent caretaker is needed to shepherd us safely through. Whereas I view the world as a lush and inviting place, one in which we will do just fine and dandy without any supernatural help, and we can be the masters of our own destiny in a Horatio Alger sort of way. The religious pray for change/comfort, while I am perfectly happy the way things are right now. Atheism is optimism.

I like this. This is the sort of thing I was looking for.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Given the absence of evidence, the most logical conclusion is that there is no god so I choose to believe that as truth.

No, given the absence of evidence, it is most logical to make no conclusion at all, leaving the question open.

For all we know there is a lot of evidence, but only those religious people have been lucky enough to observe it. If there is in fact a God, then it's hard to believe he wouldn't know about us, and very well might be maintaining all of this mystery intentionally.

Why are you so intent to declare a winner, when the race hasn't even started? Even if there are odds on each runner (according to you, I'm not convinced), and even if you place bets, that doesn't mean you have a right to be mad at the other spectators who bet differently from you. You have a little too much faith in your wager.

I like this. This is the sort of thing I was looking for.

Glad to be of service!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If there is in fact a God, then it's hard to believe he wouldn't know about us

This seems an odd declaration. What is your evidence for this?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The problem is that pretty much all the answers that attempt to actually explain or justify their position just expose gaping logical flaws or flat-out make people sound stupid. I'm not trying to insult anyone when I say that.

If you answer honestly and intelligently, I promise not to mock at all and will only question to gain further understanding.

Why Thank you! Thank you so much for promising to let us explain ourselves to you and not get mocked... for our lack of intelligent and "logical" reasons for belief... You are a piece of work, but I'll give a little bite anyway as futile as it may be

I was wondering if anyone here could come up with anything better/clearer/more interesting/more honest about why they hold the beliefs they do.
I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone can offer better insight into the thought processes that make someone accept or even crave the existence of a supernatural being or creator.

This issue was beaten to death on this forum multiple times. And there's even a recent thread that re beat it to death which you were involved in.. Mocking people, none the less who didn't mock you. Lots of people gave you long thoughtful answers and you called them illogical among other things... so what else is there to say? you disagree..

If you researched two or more belief systems in a quest for personal truth, I'd love to hear how you settled on your final choice. I'm just trying to avoid stock answers, and the answers people give because they think they are expected by someone else.

Again, beaten to death. Do you expect the same people on these forums to come up with different answers than they already did? Everyone who was willing to discuss this subject already did and isn't going to change their debate.

if you are tempted to write "the bible must be true because it says so in the bible" or crap like that just save yourself the bother and me the bother of arguing or mocking you.

I have never in my life heard anyone say "the bible must be true because it says so in the bible"; especially from anyone on these forums. The only time I hear this is when "logical", "oppressed", atheists put it in people's mouths. I think it's funny how much atheists use the word logical to insult people when their general argument always reverts back to telling religious what the bible says, what they believe, and putting words in their mouth. Another silly accusation every atheist makes is claiming that Christians are constantly banging on their doors waking them up in the morning trying to convert them... And then you guys expect a to be taken seriously. Excuse me for seeing no sincerity in your post.

In order to have an "intelligent" debate / argument on ANY subject, there must be a common ground of agreement to start from. That is what is lacking in most Political debates. Otherwise it goes nowhere. You see I've found that people have different ideas of whats "logical". for example:

Each of us can only do our best when it comes to determining the truth, even those who do so logically. Given the absence of evidence, the most logical conclusion is that there is no god so I choose to believe that as truth.

Actually that is not the most logical conclusion no matter how much you think it is. An "absence of evidence" does not conclude that something doesn't exist. If you were a scientist, your dissertations would not be credible. The irony is, from religion you could learn that an "absence of evidence" means you should have no opinion/conclusion on the matter at all. So If there no proof, to you that supernatural exists and no proof that it doesn't; you can't conclude anything. Obviously the religious believe that they have more evidence that supernatural does exist than doesn't. I know what it's like to be an atheist; I've been there, so I know the thought process and I consider it more simplified than what I believe in now.

Now for the common ground part:

Do you believe in good and evil (right or wrong)? Or are these make-believe to you?

Are morals / right / wrong, all just relative to each person depending on their view?

To religious people; religion provides a standard for morals; one that has proven to work for thousands of years and stood the test of time even with cultural changes. If people actually followed the rules and had the mentality the world religions tell them to have their lives would be near perfect, the world would be perfect.
Do you have an alternative to this standard of morals? One that is the same or superior?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, given the absence of evidence, it is most logical to make no conclusion at all, leaving the question open.

I wasn't looking to get into semantics really but literally speaking, atheism means a lack of belief in god rather than a belief that there is no god. Not as trivial a distinction as it may seem. I may have phrased it as the latter however so I suppose I must apologise in order to make this point now.

If you want to get into it, I cannot scientifically deny that there is a god if creator of the universe in which we live is a sufficient definition of god for you. As far as I know its possible a sentient being created our universe deliberately or otherwise but if you want to introduce immortality, omnipotence, omniscience, creating us deliberately in his image and affecting our lives to this day then this is well into the realms of far-fetched for me.

Given the absence of evidence, I could choose to leave the question open, but where does that get anyone? If there was a god, I'd quite like to know. Especially if he expects something of me. So it makes sense that I or anyone else would want an answer to work with. Since we can only work with the best answer we can get it then makes sense to pick the most likely answer. I maintain its more likely that there isn't a god from our human perspective at least since it is the only theory that doesn't involve the introduction of baseless, arbitrary assumptions. There is probably an infinite number of these theories that could be postulated from the God of Abraham to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to Iluvatar or maybe the Smurfs created the Universe. These to me are mostly equal in their scientific validity.

In many ways I suppose I don't believe we will ever be able to answer the question absolutely of whether or not a god exists. Again, if that is correct it seems to me more logical to pick the best answer than to simply not bother. There is plenty of precedent for this in science. The laws have been rewritten more than once and at least some of them will undoubtedly be rewritten again as we refine our collective knowledge of our universe and its workings.

[screener]

Never been a joiner when the members of the "club" believe the same thing.

My grandmother tried every version of christianity available to her and her take was she could be better served by picking and choosing herself what to believe.

She believed in an almighty but the fractured organized versions weren't for her.

Her basic tenet was, do unto others ...

Keep it simple.



To those that think piety keeps people moral, think about it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Why Thank you! Thank you so much for promising to let us explain ourselves to you and not get mocked... for our lack of intelligent and "logical" reasons for belief... You are a piece of work, but I'll give a little bite anyway as futile as it may be

I fully realise this looks quite patronising but I know there are people here who would suspect me of posing this question solely so I could argue with them about their answers. Indeed, I may have done exactly that on some occasions in the past. That is truly not my intention this time around.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Again, beaten to death. Do you expect the same people on these forums to come up with different answers than they already did? Everyone who was willing to discuss this subject already did and isn't going to change their debate.

I'm not looking for a debate on the reasons to believe or not so much as personal stories or theories of how or why peoples beliefs started in the first place. I have a feeling that people sometimes hold something back when they describe how they found faith or why they stuck with it. Not a very scientific statement I know, but something about those answers in the articles I linked just gave me that impression.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I have never in my life heard anyone say "the bible must be true because it says so in the bible"; especially from anyone on these forums. The only time I hear this is when "logical", "oppressed", atheists put it in people's mouths.

I can see how it looks like this but when I have done it, it has been wholly appropriate to the best of my knowledge. I have heard arguments which can be perfectly, accurately reduced to this point. There are a great many more which can be shown to be circular reasoning.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I think it's funny how much atheists use the word logical to insult people when their general argument always reverts back to telling religious what the bible says, what they believe, and putting words in their mouth.

There is no 'Book of Atheism'. If an atheist wants to argue with a christian, they must try to disprove the 'evidence' of the bible. Not all christians believe every word of the bible, or least they don't take it all literally but its much harder to debate without quoting scripture. You may notice that I don't tend to do it very often, if ever.
If one is accused of being illogical or stupid, one will usually take offence before one admits that one is in fact being illogical or stupid. I do not use the word to insult people. I use it when I think someone is being illogical.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Another silly accusation every atheist makes is claiming that Christians are constantly banging on their doors waking them up in the morning trying to convert them... And then you guys expect a to be taken seriously. Excuse me for seeing no sincerity in your post.

This is not a claim I have ever made in these forums or anywhere else. The only christians of any kind to have come to my door are Jehovah's Witnesses. I am fully aware that they are only one denomination of christianity and that they hold a number of views that could be considered unusual or atypical by other christians. The ones which visited me were friends of a girlfriend I had at school and they were indeed trying to convert me, I assume for her benefit. Or rather her families' benefit. We drifted apart after leaving school and they eventually gave up after asking me outright if they were getting anywhere. No christians have knocked on my door since.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

In order to have an "intelligent" debate / argument on ANY subject, there must be a common ground of agreement to start from. That is what is lacking in most Political debates. Otherwise it goes nowhere. You see I've found that people have different ideas of whats "logical".

I think both sides of this particular debate are guilty of oversensitivity. We get offended and frustrated with each other. It goes to show how much people care about their personal worldviews.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Actually that is not the most logical conclusion no matter how much you think it is. An "absence of evidence" does not conclude that something doesn't exist. If you were a scientist, your dissertations would not be credible.

As I clarified in my previous post, I consider it the most likely solution, and by that token the most logical for me to choose to believe. Its more a case of it being less logical to infer that something arbitrary does exist given zero evidence.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The irony is, from religion you could learn that an "absence of evidence" means you should have no opinion/conclusion on the matter at all. So If there no proof, to you that supernatural exists and no proof that it doesn't; you can't conclude anything. Obviously the religious believe that they have more evidence that supernatural does exist than doesn't.

See my previous post regarding most logical conclusions. I think we should be careful to use words like conclusion in this case. I prefer to call it the most likely solution to the question of the existence of god, rather than an conclusion to it. Like you say it is unreasonable to draw any absolute conclusion from a lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I know what it's like to be an atheist; I've been there, so I know the thought process and I consider it more simplified than what I believe in now.

This is interesting. If you ask the question "Does god exist?" and answer "No." then that is the end of matters. If you answer "Yes." then it leads to a great many further questions. Is that what you mean about the simplicity of atheism?
I apologise if you have detailed it before, but what led you to abandon atheism? Was there a particular 'eureka moment' for you?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Now for the common ground part:

Do you believe in good and evil (right or wrong)? Or are these make-believe to you?

Are morals / right / wrong, all just relative to each person depending on their view?

To religious people; religion provides a standard for morals; one that has proven to work for thousands of years and stood the test of time even with cultural changes. If people actually followed the rules and had the mentality the world religions tell them to have their lives would be near perfect, the world would be perfect.
Do you have an alternative to this standard of morals? One that is the same or superior?

I understand that particular sets of morals, rules and laws are associated with religions. I know that many modern countries derive their laws from the morals of one or more religions. The most important morals seem to be common to most religions. You will often struggle to find many atheists who disagree with the majority when it comes to the morality of murder or theft or fidelity. I think most people can agree on these and a few other core morals, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
I don't see that morality and religion are inevitably connected. There has certainly been influence one way and the other over the millennia but you don't need to believe in god to believe that murder or rape is wrong. Hence I don't see morality or lack thereof as evidence for or against god. Most of these core morals can be explained in social or even evolutionary terms.
I can see how differences in morality might help you to choose one religion over another, but I don't see why a sense of right and wrong would lead someone to believe in god or not.

[Paco500]

It's easier to explain how I lost my faith rather that why I believe what I believe.

I grew up in a Christian home- parents came from a long line of believers, Episcopal (C of E before they crossed the pond) on my fathers side and Southern Baptist on my mothers. We attended an "evangelical" Episcopal church.

Growing up I really wanted to believe and told myself I did, but found myself faking it a bit and working to hard a acting as though I was moved by the spirit. I generally felt there was something wrong with me rather than with the church. I self identified as a Christian and actively participated in church groups, camps, etc and defended my faith in public.

When I was 18, my father died pretty quickly from cancer. This pretty much destroyed my world. I tried to take solace in the church, prayed like mad and told myself it all had to be true. Heaven must exist- what my father believed must be true. We would meet again in the afterlife because the alternative was unbearable- that my hero, the most important person in my life, simply ceased to exist.

I continued on this track for years. I attended church after church, joined various youth ministries and studied theology at university. The cornerstone of my faith was that it was the faith of my father and he could not have lived and died believing a lie.

When I got married, I insisted on a church wedding. The church was there through my wife pregnancy and the birth of my son. And then everything changed.

Once I became a father, I understood with unconditional love actually was. I new then and there I would do anything for my child. I would sacrifice anything for his happiness and I would thoughtlessly lay down my life for his. He was my creation and his well-being became secondary to my own.

I started to think about how I was feeling- about this new truth. Of course I wanted my son to love me, but that we secondary to the reality that I loved him with everything I am. I made no demands on him, I was here to serve him, not the other way around.

I began to think about this in light of the god I had been taught about my whole life. I was his creation, and while he claimed to love me as a father loves his children, I saw a startling contradiction to my own experience. I would do whatever it took to protect my child from harm. The god that I was brought up to believe in let me father die and shatter my world. I loved my son and demanded nothing in return. God demanded I loved and worshiped him and promised me damnation if I didn't love him enough.

I struggled with this for years, going through the motions and carrying on. About five years ago I admitted to myself I didn't believe in the god I thought I knew as a child. I spent a few more years searching for another avenue to the divine and found dead-ends. I realised I was happier not trying to believe in something that completely contradicted my own life experience. I realised that I was ok with the fact that my father was not in heaven but in my memories- an integral part of who I am and he can live on in me and in my children, although they never met him.

So that is how I lost my faith and why I don't believe what I don't believe. I'm not sure I ever did. I'm strong enough to admit it now and my peace, my joy and my reality is in my life, my world and my children. That is enough for me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

This seems an odd declaration. What is your evidence for this?

God is in some way interested in the world (created/governs/tinkers/whatever). Humans are a significant part of the world.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I wasn't looking to get into semantics really but literally speaking, atheism means a lack of belief in god rather than a belief that there is no god.

Not according to the dictionary, and not according to your pointed animosity towards people who do believe. There is another word for "absence of belief rather than a belief of absence," it's called agnostic.

Given the absence of evidence, I could choose to leave the question open, but where does that get anyone?

Who says we're entitled to "get anywhere" without evidence?

"Given that I don't know the winning lotto numbers, I could choose to keep my dollar, but how does that win me the jackpot?"

There is probably an infinite number of these theories that could be postulated from the God of Abraham to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to Iluvatar or maybe the Smurfs created the Universe. These to me are mostly equal in their scientific validity.

Actually, the eyewitness testimony of Abraham et al, while unreliable and unverifiable, still puts it head and shoulders above known fabrications like the FSM and Smurfs.

In many ways I suppose I don't believe we will ever be able to answer the question absolutely of whether or not a god exists. Again, if that is correct it seems to me more logical to pick the best answer than to simply not bother. There is plenty of precedent for this in science. The laws have been rewritten more than once and at least some of them will undoubtedly be rewritten again as we refine our collective knowledge of our universe and its workings.

As a scientist, I find this assertion abhorrent. It's unscientific to treat a lack of evidence as evidence, and it's downright unethical to use conclusions drawn from this error (or even sound conclusions for that matter, but in this case you already admitted you know this is an error) as a bludgeon to suppress opposing viewpoints. Even demonstrably wrong ideas are given a fair shake, and if the innate truth of the evidence is not enough to convince someone, you don't start attacking them over it. That's not science, that's a witch hunt.

[Shaddim]

Why do you believe what you believe?

I trust my senses and don't worry about the opinions of others.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

At any rate, I was wondering if anyone here could come up with anything better/clearer/more interesting/more honest about why they hold the beliefs they do. ...
I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone can offer better insight into the thought processes that make someone accept or even crave the existence of a supernatural being or creator.

This is as complex of an answer as I can come up with: God made me believe.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you've simply never questioned what you were told at church as a kid, then that to me makes a lot more sense though I'd love to hear why you never questioned it. If you researched two or more belief systems in a quest for personal truth, I'd love to hear how you settled on your final choice.

I grew up in an strictly atheistic/evolution-based family belief system. Never questioned it. I just took the brainwashing lock step. Never attended a worship service of any kind until I was 19. My parents even avoided family wedding ceremonies when I was growing up. Mocking Christians was the S.O.P.

I have researched every belief system I have ever heard of since then, and can say that after 20ish years of searching have settled into a predominately Independent Baptist doctrinal belief base.

[hyteckit]

Logic and common sense. Math and science. Ask a lot of questions.

Went to Catholic school and Sunday school for a brief period. Don't believe any of it. Makes no logical sense. Sunday school was kinda fun though. Free stuff and trips are always nice.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

God is in some way interested in the world (created/governs/tinkers/whatever). Humans are a significant part of the world.

Another odd declaration. What is your evidence God cares about the world?

Neither creating, governing, or tinkering qualify. Humans can do all those things and not care, why would you put that past a god?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I trust my senses and don't worry about the opinions of others.

What exactly did you sense that made you believe?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

This is as complex of an answer as I can come up with: God made me believe.

This is circular reasoning (Please don't take this as an attack). What did god do to make you believe in him? Did you just wake up one day with an overwhelming feeling that god existed? Or did you see or hear something that led you to that conclusion?

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I grew up in an strictly atheistic/evolution-based family belief system. Never questioned it. I just took the brainwashing lock step. Never attended a worship service of any kind until I was 19. My parents even avoided family wedding ceremonies when I was growing up. Mocking Christians was the S.O.P.

I have researched every belief system I have ever heard of since then, and can say that after 20ish years of searching have settled into a predominately Independent Baptist doctrinal belief base.

What made your final choice stand out from the others?
Do you still get on with your parents since converting?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Not according to the dictionary, and not according to your pointed animosity towards people who do believe. There is another word for "absence of belief rather than a belief of absence," it's called agnostic.

From the etymology of the word, atheism means a lack of theism, perhaps not from the dictionary definition. I freely admit I have jumped the extra distance and chosen to believe there is no god but in practical terms this is pretty much the same thing as not believing or not making up your mind. I'm just more likely to bother to disagree with those who make up their minds the other way.
For the record my animosity is rarely towards people who believe or even their belief so much as their rationalisations for and the consequences of their beliefs.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Who says we're entitled to "get anywhere" without evidence?

"Given that I don't know the winning lotto numbers, I could choose to keep my dollar, but how does that win me the jackpot?"

So you take your best guess at what the numbers will be. Trouble is no one guess is any better than any other. Of course in this example you have plenty of empirical evidence that there is jackpot for you to win. Not the case when it comes to theism.

Given that the entire universe could be in my head, or I could be trapped in The Matrix or a Holodeck simulation gone wrong, you could disregard any evidence if you chose to do so. Plenty of science is based on assumptions. When we prove one wrong, we have to go back and rebuild everything that collapses as a result.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Actually, the eyewitness testimony of Abraham et al, while unreliable and unverifiable, still puts it head and shoulders above known fabrications like the FSM and Smurfs.

An eyewitness account is certainly more evidence for this particular idea than the FSM. Right up until someone claims that they have spoken to the FSM and he told them to go write a book. Such a person would be held up as funny, blasphemous or mentally ill and I don't see why that same standard shouldn't apply to someone who lived thousands of years ago. If anything he is less likely to have a modern sense of humour, and is certainly less educated than we are today so he could have been more easily tricked by another human being or even his own mind.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

As a scientist, I find this assertion abhorrent. It's unscientific to treat a lack of evidence as evidence, and it's downright unethical to use conclusions drawn from this error (or even sound conclusions for that matter, but in this case you already admitted you know this is an error) as a bludgeon to suppress opposing viewpoints. Even demonstrably wrong ideas are given a fair shake, and if the innate truth of the evidence is not enough to convince someone, you don't start attacking them over it. That's not science, that's a witch hunt.

There are certainly many many cases where no answer is better than a wrong answer but I don't think this question is one of them. You are effectively saying that it logically forbidden to even try to answer the question of the existence of god. That doesn't sound scientific to me. I cannot believe it is good science to refuse to ask a question.

Logic can certainly take you as far ruling out most if not all of the usual suspects for god, but it can never rule out a creator of the universe. This is the point where we have to start discussing the semantics of what defines a god and what doesn't. As I say, I cannot scientifically rule out that the universe was created by a sentient being.
Logic can never really go further than agnosticism. Proving something doesn't exist is pretty difficult. All you can do is refute the evidence cited for why it does exist. That is not the intended purpose of this thread.

For the purposes of this thread, lets just assume that my atheism covers the belief that none of the previously established gods exist. Perhaps we should start another thread about an atheistic/scientific definition of god and the scientific validity of asking the question of his existence in the first place.

The purpose of this thread is to find out about the questions that people ask themselves about god. What answers did you find that led to your conclusions and how did you arrive at those conclusions?
I'm also curious how many people keep asking those questions on a regular basis and how regularly?

I know that some people struggle with these questions while others simply don't care either way. I'm interested in the nature of the struggle and the resolutions.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

From the etymology of the word, atheism means a lack of theism, perhaps not from the dictionary definition.

And from the etymology of the word "trivia," from the latin "tri" for "triple" and "via" for "way," then "trivia" must mean a "three-way," or "the place where 3 ways meet." It certainly doesn't mean "pieces of information with little importance or value."

I freely admit I have jumped the extra distance and chosen to believe there is no god but in practical terms this is pretty much the same thing as not believing or not making up your mind.

No it's not.

So you take your best guess at what the numbers will be. Trouble is no one guess is any better than any other.

You can't tell any difference between buying a random lottery ticket vs not buying any lottery ticket?

An eyewitness account is certainly more evidence for this particular idea than the FSM. Right up until someone claims that they have spoken to the FSM and he told them to go write a book. Such a person would be held up as funny, blasphemous or mentally ill and I don't see why that same standard shouldn't apply to someone who lived thousands of years ago. If anything he is less likely to have a modern sense of humour, and is certainly less educated than we are today so he could have been more easily tricked by another human being or even his own mind.

You're confusing evidence that already happened with evidence that might happen. Do you really not know the difference?

Look, a rabbit might give birth to a rhinoceros, thus disproving the theory of evolution. Does that mean evolution has no more merit than the alternatives?
The earth might fly out of its orbit tomorrow and smash into Tatooine, does that mean gravity is false and Star Wars is true (today)?

There are certainly many many cases where no answer is better than a wrong answer but I don't think this question is one of them. You are effectively saying that it logically forbidden to even try to answer the question of the existence of god. That doesn't sound scientific to me. I cannot believe it is good science to refuse to ask a question.

Moving the goalposts

As I say, I cannot scientifically rule out that the universe was created by a sentient being.

So you just skip the science part (who told you to use science anyway?), but talk and act as if you used science and it supports you. You're not fooling anyone. And you're giving all of science and atheism a bad name in the process.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Another odd declaration. What is your evidence God cares about the world?

Neither creating, governing, or tinkering qualify. Humans can do all those things and not care, why would you put that past a god?

There are lots of different beliefs about what god is, and this seems to be (one of) the only thing(s) they all have in common. Since this thread is about religion, all I have to go by are the gods people believe in, not the gods we can make up on the fly. IMO.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You can't tell any difference between buying a random lottery ticket vs not buying any lottery ticket?

This is your analogy and it doesn't work at.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're confusing evidence that already happened with evidence that might happen. Do you really not know the difference?

I know the difference full well. Are you really saying that posing a hypothetical is another futile exercise? And you are calling me a bad scientist?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Look, a rabbit might give birth to a rhinoceros, thus disproving the theory of evolution. Does that mean evolution has no more merit than the alternatives?
The earth might fly out of its orbit tomorrow and smash into Tatooine, does that mean gravity is false and Star Wars is true (today)?

You really think these are equivalent to my example? Here:

"I, Waragainstsleep spent last night deep in conversation with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, creator of the universe. He has asked me to write down some guidelines for humanity to live by:
"
1: Don't be a dick;
2: Don't support Manchester United;
3: Don't try and make Rabbits mate with rhinos. See rule one;
4: The winning lottery numbers are....."

The FSM got tired and wandered off at this point promising to come back with a few more some other time."

There you, I've made the claim, now my example is no longer evidence of what might happen. Its happened. Let me know when your rabbitoscerus gets born.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Moving the goalposts

I don't think I am but if I were its better than ignoring them altogether for fear of scoring at the wrong end.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So you just skip the science part (who told you to use science anyway?), but talk and act as if you used science and it supports you. You're not fooling anyone. And you're giving all of science and atheism a bad name in the process.

You'd prefer I used my imagination instead of science? Call it logic if you prefer but its like this: I can't scientifically disprove the existence of anything since whatever it is might simply be hidden from me. I cannot scientifically prove that my sofa is not a shape-shifting alien wildebeest but I'm pretty damned certain it isn't because I have no reason whatsoever to surmise that it is a shape-shifting alien wildebeest.

A lack of evidence can still tell you something under certain circumstances. This is perfectly scientifically valid. What is not valid science is to infer the existence of something you have no evidence for. Perhaps you are arguing that I have no evidence for the lack of god? By this false logic, you would prove the existence or truth of anything and everything.

I really don't know what makes you think I'm trying fool anyone either. What do you think I have to gain by this alleged deception?

[sek929]

I was raised Catholic by my very traditional close-knit family. We attended church every Sunday and said grace before dinner every night, which we ate together at the dinner table. Past that, however, my parents were not very 'god-centric' people. Prayer and belief were never taught as more important to me than facts and science. I grew up without cable television, watching programs like Nature and Nova on PBS. This fostered, which still continues today, a love of the outdoors and natural sciences.

I, too, never felt like I was actually a believer in god, more just going through the motions because that what I perceived my family wanted me to do. In large part this is what my parents also did, as my grandparents really were the last generation on my bloodline that really took church and religion seriously. When I entered middle school my mother very frankly asked me if I wanted to continue going to church and sunday school. I said no, as I pretty much only goofed off in sunday school and breakfast was the best part of Sunday mornings. This pretty much ended my family's routine of church, instead we'd have a big family dinner early on Sunday, and still say grace, in fact we still say a simply grace to this very day before dinner, and I'll explain that later on.

With the beginning of my adolescence I took the cliché road of a strict Atheist. Damning religion and mocking those who believe in it. This, too, was also more of a going through the motions sort of thing, as I never really took the time (or brainpower) considering what exactly my Atheist beliefs really meant. This continued until I was around 19-20.

I'm not sure what sparked my growing agnosticism. Perhaps it was just a case of maturity, perhaps it was because I started to get more annoyed with Atheists and their ridiculous behavior, whatever it was I started to question the absolute "there is no god" with a more even-keeled approach to the unknown.

As it stands today I consider myself to be a person of faith, but with a slight disdain for organized religions. I fully entertain the notion of a being (or beings, or energies, etc etc) much greater than myself. I find the vast expanse of the universe not a condemnation of god, but a grand glory of which I am beyond comprehending. I firmly believe in the evolution of species on this planet, but that too is not in any way proof that god does not exist.

Basically god, to me, in the loosest sense of the word is what is beyond the veil of our reality. He/she/it is not some omnipotent puppet-master, he/she/it does not display human emotions (love, vengeance, hate, etc), and if such an entity exists he/she/it most certainly does not concern itself with the daily habits of evolved apes on a speck of dust orbiting one of billions of galaxies.

Back to saying grace. I say grace (we thank god for this food, amen) not as a prayer to the christian god, or even the analogous entity I spoke of above, but as an acknowledgement of my great fortunes in life. To be blessed with a loving family to sit down with to eat a filling meal, that's the jist. In this way I do not feel like I am 'going through the motions' because I am truly thankful for my life.

I think a little Tool may be in order:

Swirling round with this familiar parable
Spinning, weaving round each new experience
Recognize this as a holy gift and
Celebrate this chance to be
Alive and breathing

[screener]

Originally Posted by sek929 

As it stands today I consider myself to be a person of faith, but with a slight disdain for organized religions. I fully entertain the notion of a being (or beings, or energies, etc etc) much greater than myself. I find the vast expanse of the universe not a condemnation of god, but a grand glory of which I am beyond comprehending. I firmly believe in the evolution of species on this planet, but that too is not in any way proof that god does not exist.

Basically god, to me, in the loosest sense of the word is what is beyond the veil of our reality. He/she/it is not some omnipotent puppet-master, he/she/it does not display human emotions (love, vengeance, hate, etc), and if such an entity exists he/she/it most certainly does not concern itself with the daily habits of evolved apes on a speck of dust orbiting one of billions of galaxies.

Well said, my grandmother felt pretty much the same.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is your analogy and it doesn't work at.

I know the difference full well. Are you really saying that posing a hypothetical is another futile exercise? And you are calling me a bad scientist?

Based on your posts, yes absolutely. You appear to lack any sense of a degree of certainty, any appropriate confidence intervals.

You really think these are equivalent to my example? Here:

"I, Waragainstsleep spent last night deep in conversation with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, creator of the universe. He has asked me to write down some guidelines for humanity to live by:
"
1: Don't be a dick;
2: Don't support Manchester United;
3: Don't try and make Rabbits mate with rhinos. See rule one;
4: The winning lottery numbers are....."

The FSM got tired and wandered off at this point promising to come back with a few more some other time."

There you, I've made the claim, now my example is no longer evidence of what might happen. Its happened. Let me know when your rabbitoscerus gets born.

In this case, we have evidence that you are lying, because you said so yesterday. Biblical characters may also have been lying, but based on the reactions of their followers contemporary and since, it is less likely than the near-certainty with which we know that you are now lying. Also those alleged prophets put their money where their mouth was; will you?

I don't think I am but if I were its better than ignoring them altogether for fear of scoring at the wrong end.

Again you lack degrees; you can't distinguish a question from an answer, you can't accept the existence of a question without an answer. I objected to you declaring an answer (a "right" answer, supposedly supported by "science"), and you think that means I don't want you to even ask the question.

You'd prefer I used my imagination instead of science? Call it logic if you prefer but its like this: I can't scientifically disprove the existence of anything since whatever it is might simply be hidden from me.

Well don't let that stop you from "using" science anyway

I cannot scientifically prove that my sofa is not a shape-shifting alien wildebeest but I'm pretty damned certain it isn't because I have no reason whatsoever to surmise that it is a shape-shifting alien wildebeest.

If 4 billion people had a heartfelt belief that it was, with many claiming to have actually seen it, I would have to take that possibility into consideration. Barring any evidence or test to show it is not, the correct answer is "I don't know."

A lack of evidence can still tell you something under certain circumstances. This is perfectly scientifically valid. What is not valid science is to infer the existence of something you have no evidence for. Perhaps you are arguing that I have no evidence for the lack of god? By this false logic, you would prove the existence or truth of anything and everything.

No, not the existence, the possibility. In your world, there is no gray area, either the thing is "proved true" or "proved false." Here in the real world, there is a middle ground call "uncertainty," in which the possibility is still open for either true or false.

I really don't know what makes you think I'm trying fool anyone either. What do you think I have to gain by this alleged deception?

Pride

[Doofy]

Oi, Sekky... ...don't be bringing sanity in here, boyo!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is circular reasoning (Please don't take this as an attack).

It is circular logic just as, not believing simply because God has not reveled himself to you, is circular logic (not a volley, just a similar observation).

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

What did god do to make you believe in him? Did you just wake up one day with an overwhelming feeling that god existed? Or did you see or hear something that led you to that conclusion?

He simply caused it to happen. It happened when I was reading the Book of Romans.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Or did you see or hear something that led you to that conclusion?

I have always seen God through creation, I just followed my brainwashing I was raised up with and rejected that a creator existed. Now I acknowledge the creator.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

What made your final choice stand out from the others?

ALL of my friends were of a similar belief base with the exception of my girlfriend at the time. Trust me, I did NOT want to become a believer. It happened against my own will. Amazingly enough, when I was converted I was given enough perseverance by God to stand firm in my belief of him and not reject him when I had contact with my friends after my conversion. My current inner circle matches my belief base, but I have many friends and acquaintances who have diverse beliefs.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Do you still get on with your parents since converting?

Actually, much better. One reason is that I follow Jesus' teachings on honoring my parents. My father still tries to engage me (mostly when he's very drunk [severe alcoholic], along with an uncle), but I simply, kindly, state my beliefs and that if they are interested I will go into depth on those beliefs if they want me to. The conversation usually dies off very quickly. I do have a cousin who describes himself as a "seeker" that I have very engaging conversations with about my beliefs and we both enjoy the conversations greatly.

My brother has begun a very self destructive path of alcoholism that has caused him and others great grief with ruined relationships, costly decisions, and severely diminished health. When he is only mildly drunk I enjoy his company, but that only lasts a short time in the day and then conversations with him are incoherent and difficult to follow. As a result we are not close. My parents one night asked me how my brother and I, being raised nearly identically, could have diverged so greatly in our behaviors and success in life. The only answer I could give was "There but by the grace of God go I." Before my conversion I had the same desires and actions he had. Pure hedonism. I truly believe I am not an alcoholic simply because God stopped it from happening.

[sek929]

One point I forgot to raise...

In the 'eyes' of a paramecium, are we not gods? Perhaps what we consider a god to be is simply a being of the same exponentially powerful scale. With the limited ways a bacteria can interact, and comprehend our existence, perhaps the same can be said for the way we are able to understand and comprehend what god is.

The universe scales from the incomprehensibly tiny, to the incomprehensibly massive...I believe this is also true of life.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I truly believe I am not an alcoholic simply because God stopped it from happening.

How about your belief in GOD.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I truly believe I am not an alcoholic simply because God stopped it from happening.

This is an excellent example of the kind of thinking that led me to follow my heart and reject the notion of God. I have two children. If one ends up loving me less later in life, I would not do any less in protecting their well being. You seem to be saying that God saved you from alcoholism because you loved him and worshiped him and your brother did not and is condemned by Him to this life.

If I behaved this way towards my creations- my children- I would be considered a pretty lousy parent.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

This is an excellent example of the kind of thinking that led me to follow my heart and reject the notion of God. I have two children. If one ends up loving me less later in life, I would not do any less in protecting their well being. You seem to be saying that God saved you from alcoholism because you loved him and worshiped him and your brother did not and is condemned by Him to this life.

If I behaved this way towards my creations- my children- I would be considered a pretty lousy parent.

"God stopped it from happening" is another way saying: "Nothing happens without providence". I guess another way to have put it was "God gave me the hope to diverge from my brother's path in life". Because of the hope that is in me, I have reasons to rejoice that my brother does not. It is by God's grace that I have that hope.

You are using man's understandings to judge God. A God that I believe is an all-knowing, omnipotent being. You are lowering God to your standards. I would suggest to you a thorough study on the biblical story of the Prodigal Son.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by sek929 

One point I forgot to raise...

In the 'eyes' of a paramecium, are we not gods? Perhaps what we consider a god to be is simply a being of the same exponentially powerful scale. With the limited ways a bacteria can interact, and comprehend our existence, perhaps the same can be said for the way we are able to understand and comprehend what god is.

The universe scales from the incomprehensibly tiny, to the incomprehensibly massive...I believe this is also true of life.

You are describing some of the intellectual difference on the 'NN Forums as well!

[screener]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I would suggest to you a thorough study on the biblical story of the Prodigal Son.

Setting yourself up here.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You are using man's understandings to judge God. A God that I believe is an all-knowing, omnipotent being. You are lowering God to your standards.

It is my contention that God needs to be raised to mine.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I would suggest to you a thorough study on the biblical story of the Prodigal Son.

If you had read my above post and not made an assumption, you would have noted that I was a practicing christian for 30 years. One that studied, prayed, witnessed and taught. I took a theology degree at university. I'm kind of familiar with the parable of the prodigal son.

But more importantly, I really don't care what you believe. From what little I've picked up about your life over the years here, while I believe you have grounded your life on something I cannot believe in, I think you are doing some good in the world. More power to you. Do I think you are wrong? Absolutely. Do I want to "convert" you. Not in the slightest. I did not respond to your post to criticise your beliefs, but rather to show an example of the belief system that I rejected. I'm sorry I personalised it. I will not begrudge you trying to convert me, but reading the prodigal son one more time is not going to do it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Good conversations here, people.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I trust my senses and don't worry about the opinions of others.

The irony is that the Christian God really cares about other's opinion of him and his existence.

God doesn't trust human senses, but demands blind faith in him.

Didn't God try to kill everyone once by flooding the Earth because we didn't value his opinion much?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It is my contention that God needs to be raised to mine.

If you had read my above post and not made an assumption, you would have noted that I was a practicing christian for 30 years. One that studied, prayed, witnessed and taught. I took a theology degree at university. I'm kind of familiar with the parable of the prodigal son.

But more importantly, I really don't care what you believe. From what little I've picked up about your life over the years here, while I believe you have grounded your life on something I cannot believe in, I think you are doing some good in the world. More power to you. Do I think you are wrong? Absolutely. Do I want to "convert" you. Not in the slightest. I did not respond to your post to criticise your beliefs, but rather to show an example of the belief system that I rejected. I'm sorry I personalised it. I will not begrudge you trying to convert me, but reading the prodigal son one more time is not going to do it.

I did read your post. I came to a conclusion, not assumptions. I know many people who are "a practicing christian for 30 years". And anecdotally, from my experience and everyone I have talked to, the majority of them do very little actual studying. I'll even admit that I had probably read the story of the prodigal son a few dozens times, heard a few sermons, and even taught about it myself before I truly grasped it. It is an amazing lesson.

I am not trying to convert anyone. I hope I made it clear that pople don't convert one another. My belief is that God does that. I do have to follow the commandment Jesus gave of "Go therefore and (1)make disciples of all nations, (2)baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (3)teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."
1. You can only make a disciple from one who already believes.
2. Same with baptizing
3. This can be done with anyone.

Again, not trying to convert, just witnessing, teaching, and testifying.

[Railroader]

I understand you are probably just trolling, but if you are genuine then you'll answer these questions. If you don't then we'll know you were just trolling. The thread has been pretty free from poor behavior so far.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The irony is that the Christian God really cares about other's opinion of him and his existence.

Where did you come up with that? Please give references.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

God doesn't trust human senses, but demands blind faith in him.

Where do you get this idea that is contrary to what the Bible teaches? Please give references.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Didn't God try to kill everyone once by flooding the Earth because we didn't value his opinion much?

Is this your interpretation of the story of the Flood? Was this taught to you or did you come to this conclusion by yourself? Please give references.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Based on your posts, yes absolutely. You appear to lack any sense of a degree of certainty, any appropriate confidence intervals.

You are criticising me for not being scientific, and criticising me for being scientific in the same thread.
Nothing in science is 100%. There is always a chance that you will discover new and contradictory evidence. Every theory, every model, every law and every conclusion is susceptible to this. They are only ever our best conclusions at the time.

According to you its bad science if I choose to pick a preferred answer, then its bad to be uncertain about it?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If 4 billion people had a heartfelt belief that it was, with many claiming to have actually seen it, I would have to take that possibility into consideration. Barring any evidence or test to show it is not, the correct answer is "I don't know."

This is dreadful science. Shared opinions do not qualify as scientific evidence supporting those opinions. Even 4 billion of them. The number is irrelevant. Those people could have been tricked, brainwashed, bribed, poorly educated or lied to. These are opinions, not objective observations. It would be better science to investigate why these people hold such opinions. (Wait, what was my stated purpose for this thread again?)
My lie about the FSM won't get any truer if people start believing it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, not the existence, the possibility. In your world, there is no gray area, either the thing is "proved true" or "proved false." Here in the real world, there is a middle ground call "uncertainty," in which the possibility is still open for either true or false.

This seems to be in direct contradiction to what you said above, criticising my lack of certainty. You seem to have a real problem with the concept of logical conjecture. Do you know how many mathematical papers or theorems start with phrases like "Assuming that XXXXXX's Conjecture is correct, then it can be shown...."?
If Fermat's last theorem had been proven wrong, a substantial amount of maths that was built on it would have gone out the window. Centuries worth. This didn't stop people from doing it and it didn't stop people learning a great deal in the process. If you prefer to label it as logic rather than science go right ahead, for the most part I see little distinction between the two. Answering a question with the most logical answer based on present information can teach you much. Even if it is later proven false.

Saying "I don't know" and refusing to consider it any further is not literally unscientific but it goes against the inquisitive spirit of science, it is dull and it teaches nobody anything. "What right do we have to get anywhere?" is even worse.

A scientific law is only our best version of the truth at the time, based on whatever evidence we have. My assertion that there is no god may be less scientifically valid than the second law of thermodynamics but until you come up with something more compelling than public opinion I maintain that it is the simplest and therefore most likely explanation for the lack of evidence supporting the existence of god. Occam's Razor.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There are lots of different beliefs about what god is, and this seems to be (one of) the only thing(s) they all have in common. Since this thread is about religion, all I have to go by are the gods people believe in, not the gods we can make up on the fly. IMO.

I would agree if this was a thread about religion in general, but this is a thread about why people believe what they believe.

You seem to be saying the only valid belief structures for discussion are the ones demanded by mortal institutions.

[Athens]

I believe what I believe because I have a very logical mind. But I was free to develop my own opinions on it. Had I been brought up religious I suspect I would be like any other religious person.

[ironknee]

great thread

let me add...our religion--at least in our early development--is based on what our parents thought.

kinda like born into english and thinks english is the best language

[subego]

American is God's language.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

This is as complex of an answer as I can come up with: God made me believe.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is circular reasoning (Please don't take this as an attack). What did god do to make you believe in him? Did you just wake up one day with an overwhelming feeling that god existed? Or did you see or hear something that led you to that conclusion?

Originally Posted by Railroader 

He simply caused it to happen. It happened when I was reading the Book of Romans.

Believe it or not, I can identify with where Railroader is coming from. Several times in my life, I have experienced a sense of intense impact, understanding, and emotional connection while reading the Bible, a feeling that can only be described as spiritual. I believe the medieval philosophers referred to this impact as an "insight," but the word has grown to have a different connotation today.

I recall first experiencing it while reading the Sermon on the Mount around the age of 13. The feeling was very powerful, and the words just seemed to make complete sense leaving no dangling questions.

In the last few years, I've had that feeling a few times in my now non-religious reading of the Bible, particularly when a fresh understanding of something once very obscure to me comes into focus.

However, I've also experienced this feeling reading Buddhist writings and, I think, once while reading some Ayn Rand and psychology books about depression, so it seems obvious to me now that this feeling is triggered by writings which emphasize a radical realignment of one's thinking. I think the writings need a somewhat counter-intuitive element to them to trigger this emotional response, because very flat, common-sensical writings don't seem to trigger it. For instance, "do unto others" doesn't trigger it because it's so obvious and non-objectionable, but Sermon teachings about carrying the soldier's pack or lending your shirt and cloak that seem to mix humility and charity to a burdening extreme seem to do it. For a real life example, hearing about parents offering forgiveness to their child's murderer in court triggers this powerful response; it's just so right and so wrong at the same time, the human impulses being mutually rewarded somewhat paradoxically.

So I totally buy it when people say they've feel unexplained spiritual feelings when reading the Bible, like a feeling of God changing their heart. But I think the real source is psychological, and isn't specific to the Bible.

Finally, I can recall a similar experience but in a very pedestrian circumstance. I was about 15, and my mom had just finished chewing me out over my messy room. I had this intense wave hit me when my mind connected the dots: if I kept my room clean, my mom wouldn't get angry, I'd stop hating her for yelling at me, we'd both be happier people, blah blah blah. It was the first time I can recall my mind just snapping around to someone else's point of view in an instant, with anger instantly replaced by affection. I recalled at that time how similar the feeling was to what happened when I was reading the Bible at 13, and was very puzzled by the event. (It didn't stick, my room stayed messy.) I didn't have this experience again until I was into my thirties, so those two events always stuck out as very strange. Then when I was recovering from depression, it happened several times while reading the various things I mentioned above, and I was going thru a point of considerable intellectual re-alignment. It's been several years since it last happened.

I keep saying "feeling," but it isn't the feeling that's powerful: it's that's your emotion instantly changed into another emotion, with a simultaneous change of thinking and perspective, like a metric ton of understanding was just dropped into your skull. Like that moment when the Grinch changed emotions, thoughts, and motivations in a single instance, like God touched his heart at that moment.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

I'll come back and read all of this in the morning but my short answer to the original question is that I don't believe anything. I know it because I've seen proof or I trust someone whose smarter than I who has. Trustis different than belief because it includes the possibility of human fallacy.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

So I totally buy it when people say they've feel unexplained spiritual feelings when reading the Bible, like a feeling of God changing their heart. But I think the real source is psychological, and isn't specific to the Bible.

Having taken over 350+ university-level credits, on very diverse subject matters*, I have read a lot. I also am a very capable speed reader with over 95% comprehension at full speed which has allowed me to read more than just about anyone I have ever met.

I have never felt about anything the way I did that moment when I came to believe. Nothing comes close. The only way to describe it was an intense awakening that there is a God/Creator. And even that lacks nearly everything that full encompasses the truth of the moment. I could write a book about it, and it would still be lacking in the complete affect it had on me.

*Religion, Literature, Physics, Electronic Theory, Mechanics, Business, Engineering, Philosophy, Art, Sociology, Anthropology, Geology, Biology, Chemistry, Design, Pedagogy, Music, and many more™. It helped working for a company that paid 100% (+books/materials) for any educational expenses.