Why do people believe in god?

The idea of God drives the race of humanity towards order and function to replace the chaos that would otherwise consume this world if there were not a set of laws and law codes to rule man. Therefore the Law of Moses was instituted. The belief in a god is not control (as Christians, we have free will), but one could have a much better ruled life, if the belief in God is in your records.
 
Every logical point leads to the fact that there is no god.

So in my personal opinion anyone who belives in god is ignorant. (Don't take that the wrong way)
The only wrong way for a theist to take a statement like that would be to view it as somehow neutral, rather than what it is: an insult.
 
The only wrong way for a theist to take a statement like that would be to view it as somehow neutral, rather than what it is: an insult.

Oh I don't know about that.
If anything, his two statements there are an insult to himself.

First, logical points [whatever they may be...] don't lead to facts. Facts are empirical matters, not logical ones.


Second [and perhaps more importantly], his second statement is triply inane:

It doesn't follow remotely from the first.​

He states that it is his opinion [and thus, neither a matter of fact, nor one of logic].​

With respect to 'god', it can only be said that we are all ignorant.​



It's thought-lacking verbiage like this that gives atheists a poor name...
 
If we all didn't have an idea of god in are heads already and we all believed in the absence of a god. The idea of a god would sound crazy. But we live in a world filled with people who believe in god.

Oh I don't know about that.
If anything, his two statements there are an insult to himself.

Oh Yea?

First, logical points [whatever they may be...] don't lead to facts. Facts are empirical matters, not logical ones.

It is impossible for something (a.k.a. "god") to control the forces of nature. You can believe all you want but its simply impossible.

Therefor If there is a god he is just a man. Which makes him not a god. Too me that would mean he is nothing.

Why should I have do try to disprove when not a single person can even try to prove there is a god. Its impossible.

The idea of God drives the race of humanity towards order and function to replace the chaos that would otherwise consume this world if there were not a set of laws and law codes to rule man. Therefore the Law of Moses was instituted. The belief in a god is not control (as Christians, we have free will), but one could have a much better ruled life, if the belief in God is in your records.

You sir are smart. But i still have to argue, religion is still the number one way of mass control.

The only wrong way for a theist to take a statement like that would be to view it as somehow neutral, rather than what it is: an insult.

We can insult each other all day. But ether way there is no proof of god.
 
If we all didn't have an idea of god in are heads already and we all believed in the absence of a god. The idea of a god would sound crazy. But we live in a world filled with people who believe in god.
So you know what things would be like if they were radically different.

It is impossible for something (a.k.a. "god") to control the forces of nature. You can believe all you want but its simply impossible.
This argument has the following structure:

A is impossible
A is impossible

Therefor If there is a god he is just a man.

This is like the argument....

If it is not an orange it must be a bicycle.

Which makes him not a god. Too me that would mean he is nothing.
And the same logic is used again. Here we go from bicycles to nothing, as if this were logical.

Why should I have do try to disprove when not a single person can even try to prove there is a god.
I don't think Glaucon has said you should try to disprove, so this is a strawman.

You sir are smart. But i still have to argue, religion is still the number one way of mass control.
State. You have stated this, you have not argued it.

We can insult each other all day. But ether way there is no proof of god.

In the comparative religion forum I think your coining of the phrase

'Ether way'

is really quite wonderful.

Could be a metaphor for some religious phenomenon - the soul rising to heaven, for example.

Or it could be a metaphor for our universe from a poetic scientific viewpoint.
 
As Fraggle touched on, I believe the predisposition to believe in the mythology common to your tribe is adaptive; it helped with the social cohesion necessary for groups of humans to survive in hostile environments. Humans most deadly enemies have usually been other groups of humans, and the tribe that stuck together survived.
It's been suggested that the supernaturalist instinct may indeed have been an asset to humans in the late Paleolithic Era. The population had reached a level that there was competition between tribes for resources, and deadly violence was common. (One report I saw of a study of late Paleolithic bones using modern instruments indicated that more than half of adult human deaths were due to violence.)

If the technology of language were developed around this time (and we have absolutely no idea when it was developed, except to say that it is at least 10,000 years old, which puts it precisely at the Paleolithic/Neolithic cusp), members of competing tribes might have been struck by the discovery that they believed in the same gods and legends. (Pre-Abrahamic religions were polytheistic and Jung tells us that they all had the same basic pantheon of 23 gods and goddesses, a very rich and stable collection of archetypes.) This could have inspired them to cooperate.

The invention of the technologies of farming and animal husbandry--agriculture in combination--was right around the corner. Agriculture requires people to gather in somewhat larger groups than the extended families of a few dozen adults and children that comprised the average hunter-gatherer tribe. Tribes that could cast aside their suspicions and cooperate because of a shared mythology could have facilitated the Neolithic Revolution: the permanent settlements, division of labor, surplus productivity and social organization among people who had not known each other intimately since birth, which put us on the path to civilization.

Unfortunately religion eventually reached its limit as a facilitator of civilization and now acts as a brake. Religions grew beyond their archetypes and their accretions became codified. As they grew apart, rather than reinforcing one population's similarity and kinship to its neighbor, they reinforced their differences, stalling humanity in a standoff of tribalism.
Heathen is not a good word, it literately means non Christan
* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *

"Heathen" means "non-Abrahamist": anyone who is not Jewish, Christian or Muslim.
The idea of God drives the race of humanity towards order and function to replace the chaos that would otherwise consume this world if there were not a set of laws and law codes to rule man. Therefore the Law of Moses was instituted. The belief in a god is not control (as Christians, we have free will), but one could have a much better ruled life, if the belief in God is in your records.
This is something that might have seemed true ten thousand years ago when our tribes first learned to live together in peace and grow their own food. However today, as I noted above, religion has become a divisive force and is a motivator of strife and violence, i.e., an engine of chaos.

Of course I am speaking specifically of the Abrahamic religions. Their built-in superiority complexes inspire entire sects to rise up in war against each other every few generations. Jung said, "The wars among the Christian nations have been the bloodiest in human history." He overlooked Genghis Khan, but with that one exception he was right. He also didn't live long enough to see the spectre of a three-way nuclear war among Christians, Jews and Muslims.

My analysis, and one that a couple of Jungians agree with, is that since religion, as a collection of instinctive archetypes, is a model of our own unconscious or "spirit," the polytheistic model is a rich multi-dimensional representation of our spirit, and helps us understand ourselves. Whereas monotheism is a one-dimensional model, which attempts to squeeze all of that richness onto a pathetic linear scale where everything falls somewhere on a line between "good" and "evil."

Much of our nature simply can't logically fit onto the "good" end of that scale, so we submerge it into our unconscious and try to deny it, where it festers in what Jung calls the "shadow" until one day it erupts into truly "evil" behavior.

Abrahamic culture has an uncanny way of synchronizing the submerging and festering of entire communities, so their evil behavior erupts in coordination, overwhelming the secular institutions that normally keep order by ostracizing, locking up or simply executing evildoers. Thus we have Holy Wars.

Civilization is stalled right now, with the three sects of Abrahamism prepared to erupt into one of these periodic cycles of violence all at once, and this time with nuclear weapons.

Religion is indeed an engine of chaos.
 
So you know what things would be like if they were radically different.

This argument has the following structure:

A is impossible
A is impossible

If its impossible then its not possible. Right? Or in the world of god is everything possible? :roflmao:
This is like the argument....

If it is not an orange it must be a bicycle.


And the same logic is used again. Here we go from bicycles to nothing, as if this were logical.

I don't think Glaucon has said you should try to disprove, so this is a strawman.

State. You have stated this, you have not argued it.



In the comparative religion forum I think your coining of the phrase

'Ether way'

is really quite wonderful.

Could be a metaphor for some religious phenomenon - the soul rising to heaven, for example.

Or it could be a metaphor for our universe from a poetic scientific viewpoint.

And you haven't said one thing worth listening to.

Just criticizing my every word.

* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *

"Heathen" means "non-Abrahamist": anyone who is not Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

The definition read not jewish, christian or muslim. My main arguement is against christians. So i didn't think it was relevent.

Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:
 
What is your concept of god? Does the god you believe in care about the fate of humans? Or is it a distant, impersonal god?

God- not "my God" but God- is with me every moment of my life. He is like an invisible buddy next to me. Yeah- I know how nuts it sounds but God is also an invisible buddy for you too... He is not some abstract concept- He is right there next to me with me like a best buddy.

As such, Karma plays a big role in my life- being nicer more than not.
 
Sounds more like your consisous that a god to me. I'm not here to degrade or judge you. It was my believe that most people believe in a all seeing all knowing god.
 
...
And the same logic is used again. Here we go from bicycles to nothing, as if this were logical.

...
I don't think Glaucon has said you should try to disprove, so this is a strawman.

...
You have stated this, you have not argued it.


As usual, Doreen is quite insightful.

And you haven't said one thing worth listening to.

Just criticizing my every word.

You however, continue to demonstrate your lack of insight.
These statement are pretty indicative of how ignorant you are.



Indeed.



It is impossible for something (a.k.a. "god") to control the forces of nature. You can believe all you want but its simply impossible.

Nice reasoning.

lol

Not that you paid any attention to my critique, which is another example of your ignorance, here you introduce notions that weren't even mentioned by you before. Attributing alleged properties to the subject in question and thereby simply stating it's inability to exist is fallacious.

As another poster noted, your problem [beyond your inability to reason..] isn't with 'god', or even the concept of god, but rather with the way in which believers make use of god.

Slow down, and try thinking sometime.
 
Your not even on topic, your topic is telling me I'm ignorant.

Don't post if your not going to add to the topic.
 
Your not even on topic, your topic is telling me I'm ignorant.

Don't post if your not going to add to the topic.

Ah, I see. You need to be treated like a child.
Here, I'll hold your hand and walk you through the discussion:

True or false: do people believe in god?
 
.

why do you try soo hard, to prove to who beleive in god, that there's no god???
why do you have to do all that effort to proove that you're right,
you don't beleive in god, i or he/she beleive in god,
end of story, :)
see, it's soo simple,
you don't need to prove that you're right and they're wrong, or they're right, and you're wrong,
ever heard of free thoght??you should try it
:D
 
.

Because its a discussion.

hmm, yeah, hehehehe
well;, about my personeel answer,
about why i beleive in god,
simple, i cant prove it to you, what convince me, don't convince you, also, i cant convince atheist, i'm not too relegious, so, it's hard for me, to convince who don't beleive in god, to beleive in god,
 
I don't have a problem with people who believe in god first of all.

Personally I don't believe, because i see no reason too, and i see no proof.
 
.

I don't have a problem with people who believe in god first of all.

Personally I don't believe, because i see no reason too, and i see no proof.

:D
i didnt said that you have a prob. with who beleive, :p
and after all, every one have hes logic, some people, their logic tell them not to beleive, some other, their logic, tell them to beleive,
as for me, my logic tell me to beleive, and your logic tell you not to beleive
:)
 
Back
Top