Why do Humans believe in the Existence of God?

[The Pandector]

No, I don’t. I’m sure it happens, but do people here realize the complexity of theology? I don’t think it’s likely that a person assents to the outlandish claims of over 1,000 pages for any of these reductionist, silly psychological explanations. And by “the first reason,” I mean the first reason you offered, that people believe because they think they’re supposed to. It’s not simply, “okay, I believe in God to avoid Hell.” Actual Christianity claims a heck of a lot more than that. And do people here realize how insulting these ideas are, that we’re too stupid to separate our base psychological desires over our ability to reason? That we’re not smart enough to interpret our own experiences in a reasonable way and if we were smarter, we would realize that it’s all just 2-bit psychology at play? That our hundreds of hours studying theology is just our minds playing tricks on us? And, apparently, not considering once that your own beliefs aren’t the simple result of going along with the changing beliefs of society?

Edit: I do admit I made the same arguments when I was an atheist, so I can see how they’re appealing explanations for why people have come to such drastically different conclusions than you have.

Couldn’t stop with a scrawny thumb up.

You have stated the situation well. I often wonder when I read some of these posts whether the writers are aware of the venom in their words. Because we have arrived at different conclusions, we are inferior, which proves their superiority. You know… not like they’re judging us or anything, it’s just so obvious that we’re stupid and delusional; no judgment there, right?

We can look at any point in human history and laugh at how those morons actually believed this or that, but for some people, logic dictates that having the latest truth claim means having all truth. They always deny that, but their hubris testifies against them.

(I wish I had recorded myself asking my doctor the same question each year of my life; ‘Doc, are eggs good for you?’ Then I could have a laugh fest listening to their answers swerve all over the road for 70 years. But at any given point during that time, by jolly, they Knew the answer… just as, right now, they Know The Real Truth about cholesterol.)

 

[The Pandector]

Every missionary who set/sets forth to foreign lands believed/believes that everyone should believe what they do and that people are supposed to believe in God (it's God's desire for people to believe in him). You don't think a good number of people believe in God because they believe that God/ The Bible says they're supposed to?

Too bad conversations like this seem always to miss the huge gap between going along with a religion and actually believing in it. Without doubt (says the elder who watched for decades) many people sitting in pews are merely paying their fire insurance premiums. I think most of the people you’re trying to typify were raised ‘in the faith’ and then proved to never have believed, not adults who heard a preacher and believed because they were told they should.

Maybe some background information. It seems there’s an assumption around here that people share their Christian faith thinking everybody ought to believe it. That would not be a Biblically informed position. History has proven that the model given by God works as advertised; lots of people hear the Gospel and a few people believe. Thousands of years later, there is still a remnant of God’s faithful on earth. And, just like thousands of years ago, people of faith are still ostracized and belittled. And those that are being saved are still being saved.

If a missionary went abroad hoping to convert nations, he should have stayed home and studied his Bible. If he went out in search of those few who are being saved, then he found them as he preached to the masses.

But Christianity is saddled with the history it has been handed by the popes, their miserable crusaders, and other delusionals who missed Jesus’ memo that his kingdom is not of this world. So, many look at the history of the politicized ‘church’ paradigm and believe that those yahoos are representative of Christ’s body on earth. They are not. Likewise, the political machinations of many who profess Christ today are really only that: political machinations.

I think that, to understand why believers believe, you would first have to differentiate between true believers and those just making fire insurance payments. To do that, you would first have to be a believer.

 

[Hypnalis]

Given my tone to this point, I suspect you have already triumphantly determined that I will not engage with you on scientific grounds and that makes you a winner, because after all, winning is what it’s all about.

This isn't about winning or losing.

As I explained last time, it's about keeping subjective and objective domains separate. Science and religion coexist easily, but neither can be used to verify the principles of the other.

First off, we notice that I don’t show up in the physics forum and try to enforce my understanding of physics.

Actually this is exactly what causes our disputes

If you "stayed in your lane" we would never disagree on religious matters.

We get into trouble when you make something up, then claim it's scientific fact and that it scientifically proves some key aspect of religion such as the existence of "capital G" god.

I don't even see why this needs to be proven. And the attempt certainly has harmful side-effects.

The socially useful aspects of christianity are being ignored by mainstream society, with (IMO) distinctly negative effects on our culture(s).
And I suspect "new atheism" (which IMO takes things too far) is a side effect of it too: an over-correction by people who think religion hasn't been staying within its natural domain.

New Atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Pandector]

This isn't about winning or losing.

As I explained last time, it's about keeping subjective and objective domains separate. Science and religion coexist easily, but neither can be used to verify the principles of the other.


Actually this is exactly what causes our disputes

If you "stayed in your lane" we would never disagree on religious matters.

We get into trouble when you make something up, then claim it's scientific fact and that it scientifically proves some key aspect of religion such as the existence of "capital G" god.

I don't even see why this needs to be proven. And the attempt certainly has harmful side-effects.

The socially useful aspects of christianity are being ignored by mainstream society, with (IMO) distinctly negative effects on our culture(s).
And I suspect "new atheism" (which IMO takes things too far) is a side effect of it too: an over-correction by people who think religion hasn't been staying within its natural domain.

New Atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, we misunderstand each other. Take a recheck of whether I have tried to enforce my understanding upon you, or whether I simply respond to your unwarranted public attacks on believers. When I offered an alternative understanding, it was because you challenged me to do so, not because I was trying to force my faith or understanding on you.

Check some of the other posts and see whether I am misreading your comments, or whether maybe you seem to go out of your way to insult believers. I don’t think you need to check around to know whether you feel free to make dismissive, derogatory and demeaning remarks about believers, which alone ought to give you pause.

But when I respond to that, well, I am obviously trying to cram my religion down your throat. Your version of me staying in my lane means you making public assertions and derogatory remarks about which you are ignorant… and me just shutting up while you dole out stale fleshly wisdom. However, you don’t define ‘my lane’, although you think you do. Another manifestation of your real enemy.

 

[Hypnalis]

whether I simply respond to your unwarranted public attacks on believers.

This is nonsense. I "attack" lies and half-truths, not people.

You are more than welcome to go looking for anything I've written that attacks believers for being believers, and present it as evidence. I've never done that. Provide links, not more insinuations, because I'll check every claim.

Warning: you won't find a single example. You wouldn't find one if you read everything I've ever written anywhere.

BTW I know exactly what you react to, and why it makes you react the way it does. It's not because I'm trying to attack you personally.
It's a form of this (or at least this is close enough):

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's uncomfortable to face an internal contradiction. There's a mental process that resolves the discomfort, but it's not a rational process. It's quite likely to induce denial and externalization of the cause (blaming an external factor).
It's unlikely (not impossible) for it to facilitate re-evaluation of the contradictory opinions.

 

[Au Naturel]

I've never met anyone who believes Christianity because "everyone is supposed to" or to avoid Hell. The first reason I've never even heard of as a possibility.

That describes the entire community where I grew up. Believe in God, accept Jesus as your savior, or you will go to hell. The peer pressure to believe was strong.

Believing because you want to go to heaven is just a variation of not wanting to go to hell. The two go together as push-pull motivation in fundamentalist Christianity.

 

[Neri]

This is nonsense. I "attack" lies and half-truths, not people.

You are more than welcome to go looking for anything I've written that attacks believers for being believers, and present it as evidence. I've never done that. Provide links, not more insinuations, because I'll check every claim.

Warning: you won't find a single example. You wouldn't find one if you read everything I've ever written anywhere.

BTW I know exactly what you react to, and why it makes you react the way it does. It's not because I'm trying to attack you personally.
It's a form of this (or at least this is close enough):

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's uncomfortable to face an internal contradiction. There's a mental process that resolves the discomfort, but it's not a rational process. It's quite likely to induce denial and externalization of the cause (blaming an external factor).
It's unlikely (not impossible) for it to facilitate re-evaluation of the contradictory opinions.

And you have some of your own cognitive bias' and dissonances that I've tried to address with you, that you blatantly ignore.

This addresses some of them

And this addresses other's that you seem unaware of

This one is also along the lines of things I've tried to talk to you about in the past

 

[Neri]

These valid points also seem under considered from the folks who view "science" as the verified truth, and not just a series of conceptual models and measuring technologies that are, very much, a modern phenomena and not "objective truths".

 

[Neri]

And one more, for your consideration, seeing as we are using logic and rhetoric to discredit other's points of view.
It's easy to discredit each other and to what ends? Hopefully to bring a little humility and respect into the discussion when it appears lacking.
Our minds are great tools to expand our own frame of references, if people are questioning my motive, that's more of where I am coming from than investment in selling people my own world view. None of you will share my particular world view and that's not at all the point.
I do, however, reserve the right, as we all have, to bring more information in for your consideration, hopefully for growth of your thought processes.

 

[tree]

REMINDER

This forum is not for debating religion, preaching to others or
talking down to others based on their religious beliefs.
Post #1, Hello and welcome to the Religion Forum

 

[Nitro]

 

[Kalinychta]

not a simple question to answer.

It’s an extremely simple answer, in two words: fear and hope.

 

[The Pandector]

This is nonsense. I "attack" lies and half-truths, not people.

You are more than welcome to go looking for anything I've written that attacks believers for being believers, and present it as evidence. I've never done that. Provide links, not more insinuations, because I'll check every claim.

Warning: you won't find a single example. You wouldn't find one if you read everything I've ever written anywhere.

BTW I know exactly what you react to, and why it makes you react the way it does. It's not because I'm trying to attack you personally.
It's a form of this (or at least this is close enough):

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's uncomfortable to face an internal contradiction. There's a mental process that resolves the discomfort, but it's not a rational process. It's quite likely to induce denial and externalization of the cause (blaming an external factor).
It's unlikely (not impossible) for it to facilitate re-evaluation of the contradictory opinions.

You are absolutely correct. I apologize for my accusations concerning your rhetoric. They were untrue and I retract them.

I recognized both the argument and the tone, but you are not the one who used the rhetoric I referenced. Again, I apologize.

 

[The Pandector]

This is nonsense. I "attack" lies and half-truths, not people.

You are more than welcome to go looking for anything I've written that attacks believers for being believers, and present it as evidence. I've never done that. Provide links, not more insinuations, because I'll check every claim.

Warning: you won't find a single example. You wouldn't find one if you read everything I've ever written anywhere.

BTW I know exactly what you react to, and why it makes you react the way it does. It's not because I'm trying to attack you personally.
It's a form of this (or at least this is close enough):

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's uncomfortable to face an internal contradiction. There's a mental process that resolves the discomfort, but it's not a rational process. It's quite likely to induce denial and externalization of the cause (blaming an external factor).
It's unlikely (not impossible) for it to facilitate re-evaluation of the contradictory opinions.

I’m familiar with cognitive dissonance. This is not that, but rather another example of the talking down and demeaning I mentioned earlier.

 

[Fino]

That describes the entire community where I grew up. Believe in God, accept Jesus as your savior, or you will go to hell. The peer pressure to believe was strong.

Believing because you want to go to heaven is just a variation of not wanting to go to hell. The two go together as push-pull motivation in fundamentalist Christianity.

I understand that's the premise of Christianity, but I would have a hard time believing that the community you grew up in did not also insist on adherence to the rest of Scripture.

 

[Dagan]

For the sake of putting forth something that no one has brought up at all:

We just had a spectacular solar eclipse where many of we who live in the US got to witness Totality. It was amazing. It obviously involved bodies from the "heavens" that people have, do and always will debate per their creation. But you know what almost every single person just flat out ignores? The dead on science that was involved (to the exact minute) predicting it and proved as flawlessly accurate as humanly (maybe even Godly) possible. The facts and details that accurately let everyone know where to be, when to look, etc. etc. etc. etc. were all spot on. Science did that. Science said it would be so...and it was proven. It's happened so, so many times. It's going to keep happening.

THAT is why people believe in science more or just more than "only" religion. It's the proof and how exacting it is. No one had to put blind faith in the solar eclipse. We all simply could trust that it was absolutely going to happen, and it did so exactly as expected.

Again, though, if some folks would understand that science is the study of creations, and if they believe whatever deity is the founder of said creations, then science wouldn't ever be treated like something to divide anyone. Science "might" one day prove that some specifically detailed and themed God is improbable, but to be brutally honest, as general as most devout religious people allow their Gods to be, science really just helps establish said God's greatness any time that they want it to...and just shows you as close to perfectly detailed "proof" of God's creations compared to simply preaching the unproven (miracles) from ancient texts.

 

[Rachie]

Also, in my own personal experience as well as my experience having many autistic friends, probably one of the LAST places to find people who say they believe (but actually don't) and therefore are disingenuous, would be on an autism forum. Autistics are loathe to be disingenuous.

Pretty much heard similar. I have heard that Autistic people generally are very honest people. So posting here you have to tell things as you've seen them. I added a Youtube for general interests on here so people could see who i was as well, so they know you are real. bit extra measures on here.

 

[Jonn]

Autistics are loathe to be disingenuous.

Some...
Maybe even most...
But not all...

 

[SeanF]

Honestly, I have loved reading the discourse especially between @The Pandector and @Hypnalis. Thanks for the interesting read. I also appreciate the complexity of the arguments from both sides. But I think the thing I appreciate the most is that I feel both sides have managed to cool down a bit and return to civility. Kuddos. This is not easy and is maybe an area where people with AS may actually excel. In the meantime, I am looking forward to watching some of those videos that people posted. Thanks, all.

 

[Magna]

Some...
Maybe even most...
But not all...

Ok. Do the exceptions negate the rule?