We could always take the legal way: the onus is on the one making the accusation.
As long as someone just claims something, but doesn't accuse anyone in particular, there is, generally, no case.
Why do people believe in god?
- Thread starter LuckAse
- Start date
We could always take the legal way: the onus is on the one making the accusation.
As long as someone just claims something, but doesn't accuse anyone in particular, there is, generally, no case.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Science has no sense of humor. Semantic sleight-of-hand is not tolerated.
Tricksy trolling seems to be the norm here?
Everything you said proves the existance of God.
No, it only shows that things exist.
Another proof for God: The love revealed by Jesus in His teaching, life, death and Resurrection...
No, it only shows a good and caring human.
Even some major religions say that Jesus was not Divine.
Well. I think I'll go see a movie. This is getting boring.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I'm not the moderator of this subforum so my standards don't apply here. But in my bailiwick (Linguistics and A&C), I like to keep the discussions a little more on topic. Occasional jokes and foolishness are okay since this is not an actual academy, but still we should strive not to lose the point of the thread.
Good point, which illustrates my own point, above. It seems that we have indeed lost the topic. It's Why people believe in God, not Whether that belief is justified.
As I said, this is not my territory. I just grit my teeth and try to move past it.
On a website that tries to be about science, discussions of religion--which can be defined uncharitably as antiscience--tend to degenerate into foolishness rather quickly.
Because this is exactly what happens. People who actually want to participate in an intellectual discussion about an interesting topic find that they're wasting their time and bail out.
And I'm making the assumption that this comment was not sarcastic, since I haven't been keeping a scorecard to identify which of you are serious and which are not.
You re quite correct. In a quick skim of the last 200 posts here are the only ones responsive to the thread's question:
Fraggle {in post 539} about “Jung wrote about archetypes and the collective unconscious “ etc.
Mind over mater’s post 532 (is basically Pascal’s wager argument for belief in god)
To believe without knowing or showing says something about the possible hold of strong belief in the human condition.
Some candidates are natural selection, in which wind and other sounds led to a believe in nature spirits, along with the wise motivation to suspect moving bushes as bears, a much safer stance than carelessness; emotions having a pathway direct into consciousness, bypassing the rational; the wish to be taken care of, such as in the family structure, extending it; the brain ever operating toward survival, not wishing to consider its own end, perhaps then devising a way that it could ever go on, such as in an afterlife; simplistic thinking, such as that life must require Life behind it, then quickly forgetting this template.
Some candidates are natural selection, in which wind and other sounds led to a believe in nature spirits, along with the wise motivation to suspect moving bushes as bears, a much safer stance than carelessness; emotions having a pathway direct into consciousness, bypassing the rational; the wish to be taken care of, such as in the family structure, extending it; the brain ever operating toward survival, not wishing to consider its own end, perhaps then devising a way that it could ever go on, such as in an afterlife; simplistic thinking, such as that life must require Life behind it, then quickly forgetting this template.
Explain the occurence of the likes of self-realisation, the eightfold path, etc. Explain why, in India, men in their later years put aside their materialism and actively sought an ascetic life, and thus "enlightenment", which led to Sikhism and the guru movement.
Explain why shamans exist, and why inititation rites have been a part of human culture for thousands of years.
Explain the rise of Christianity, and its "triumph" over paganism in Europe following the demise of the Roman Empire. Try to do this without resorting to any simplistic arguments.
Explain why shamans exist, and why inititation rites have been a part of human culture for thousands of years.
Explain the rise of Christianity, and its "triumph" over paganism in Europe following the demise of the Roman Empire. Try to do this without resorting to any simplistic arguments.
They found peace and comfort.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I'll leave those for someone more familiar with them.
Sikhism was a reaction to the Hindu and Muslim faiths which dominated India at the time. Without them, there would be no Sikhs.
Jung calls these universal motifs archetypes and tells us they're part of the collective unconscious. He lived when the science of genetics was just getting started. Today we would say that an archetype is a type of instinct--a belief rather than an urge to behave or react in a certain way--and that instincts are pre-programmed into our synapses by our DNA. Some instincts can be explained as the result of natural selection, others are not so easy to understand without knowing what life was like in the era when they arose, and there are surely some that are accidental products of genetic drift and genetic bottlenecks.
But the rise of Christianity began before that demise as did its "triumph". Constantine I made Christianity legal in 313, and Theodosius I made it the empire's official religion in 380. Roman monks took Christianity to all corners of the empire, spreading it as part of Roman culture. Chinese monks did the same with Buddhism in east Asia, as did Muslim warriors in the west.
Your question should probably be: Why did Roman emperors adopt Christianity?
I've seen it suggested that it was the Christianization of Rome that brought about its downfall, not the other way round. These arguments are way over my head, both philosophically and politically.
Any responses?
I agree. In fact it is much like my earlier post410:
Plus another post in which I note that denial of unavoidable unpleasant things is a nearly universal psychological escape / protection mechanism of humans. Thus the finality of death is denied and all sorts of post death continuations of life are invented to facilitate this denial.
Here's an argument that I hope doesn't get too simplistic:
One of the strongest influences on your consciousness that you learn as you grow up, is that you learn to believe in your ability to think. You start to believe, unlike a young child, that what you think and say is important, even more important than what you do.
You start to believe that having an opinion, about anything, is so important that you need to be seen as supporting one opinion over another--this process probably starts when you start school and encounter such opinions from other children.
Anyway, you know that opinions and having them isn't really as important as you also have learned to think they are, the latter process being more a coping mechanism, so you "fit in" and can deal with other people. As a child though, you remain in awe to some extent of the ability of grownups to think about things and discuss them, perhaps even to the extent of feeling some jealousy towards this ability they seem to have.
So, the concept you also have of something that transcends all the thinking and discussing, is perhaps a way to reassure yourself that it is all just ideas. You learn that you too, can have ideas--but where do they really come from? You can't help being influenced by those around you, and so neither can you help having ideas that also conform to those social norms you learn about.
This supposed transcendent "other" gives you a way to suspend your belief, to question if you are really thinking the way you should, or if thinking in and of itself is really the whole point. Otherwise, all you learn about is how to conform and eventually, perhaps you stop questioning. You end up doing what you perceive most of the grownups doing--you accept it all and join in, and then you lose this innate ability to question the role of your thinking mind, and it "becomes" what you think you are.
So by then, you are that which you think you are, and not a being who can exist without those necessary thoughts supporting this existential model you have formed, by "fitting in", by coping and by not wanting to be perceived as an outsider. Thus you lose a certain ability, and instead believe it isn't needed, or even desirable to question the "norm".
And I hope you are having the time of your life,
But think twice,
That's my strong advice.
Who do you, who do you, who do you
Who do you think you are?
Ha ha ha, bless your soul,
Do you really think you're in control?
--Gnarls Barkley
One of the strongest influences on your consciousness that you learn as you grow up, is that you learn to believe in your ability to think. You start to believe, unlike a young child, that what you think and say is important, even more important than what you do.
You start to believe that having an opinion, about anything, is so important that you need to be seen as supporting one opinion over another--this process probably starts when you start school and encounter such opinions from other children.
Anyway, you know that opinions and having them isn't really as important as you also have learned to think they are, the latter process being more a coping mechanism, so you "fit in" and can deal with other people. As a child though, you remain in awe to some extent of the ability of grownups to think about things and discuss them, perhaps even to the extent of feeling some jealousy towards this ability they seem to have.
So, the concept you also have of something that transcends all the thinking and discussing, is perhaps a way to reassure yourself that it is all just ideas. You learn that you too, can have ideas--but where do they really come from? You can't help being influenced by those around you, and so neither can you help having ideas that also conform to those social norms you learn about.
This supposed transcendent "other" gives you a way to suspend your belief, to question if you are really thinking the way you should, or if thinking in and of itself is really the whole point. Otherwise, all you learn about is how to conform and eventually, perhaps you stop questioning. You end up doing what you perceive most of the grownups doing--you accept it all and join in, and then you lose this innate ability to question the role of your thinking mind, and it "becomes" what you think you are.
So by then, you are that which you think you are, and not a being who can exist without those necessary thoughts supporting this existential model you have formed, by "fitting in", by coping and by not wanting to be perceived as an outsider. Thus you lose a certain ability, and instead believe it isn't needed, or even desirable to question the "norm".
And I hope you are having the time of your life,
But think twice,
That's my strong advice.
Who do you, who do you, who do you
Who do you think you are?
Ha ha ha, bless your soul,
Do you really think you're in control?
--Gnarls Barkley
Good arguments. Perhaps one would be thrown out of the tribe in the old days for not accepting the gods or the nature spirits.
Once in the groove, though, one might also come to ever believe one's own thoughts that come, because one thought of them. May not be that easy to go against one's own thoughts, at least not on that same direct level. One would have to go to a higher level to become a spectator of one's own thoughts.
Love it
You outline being human from an animals perspective?
No, no animals, just a good lie/baloney detection kit, one hopefully not also contaminated by bias, as well.
Sit far back in the audience and try to note the drama on the stage of the mind more objectively.