Why do people believe in god?

[wynn]

The way you state your question is in itself problematic, as you know. Apart from the fact that there is no consistent definition of the concept of "god", "believing in god" is a typical Western rational mind construct. This/that, black/white, atheist/believer, we require everything to be understood through dualistic thinking, because that is how we have learned to engineer our environment, to be safe.

Good point!

I think it is safe to say that everyone is a theist in some situations, some of the time, and everyone is also an atheist, in some situations, some of the time.
I don't think that people can practically be theists 24/7, or atheists 24/7.
Many people who are said to be saintly, have complained a lot about their lack of belief and sinfulness.

 

[Billy T]

... I think it is safe to say that everyone is a theist in some situations, some of the time, ...

That is correct. I was once sailing far from land at night in boat with an aluminium mast when I heard some hissing sounds. I looked up an saw a nice display of St. Elmo's fire at the top of the mask. Being a Ph.D. physicist I knew immediately I was in a very strong vertical electric field - quite likely to have boat hit by lightning.

I am an agnostic, but begged God not to let the boat take a lighting bolt.* That was automatic and only later rationalized with Pascal like - "What have you got to lose and you may gain if God does exist."

As they say: "There are no atheists in fox holes when mortars are falling nearby."

------------
* If it did, I knew there would be a strong dB/dt where my body was and its secondary current could kill me, even if the primary current of the bolt was conducted down to the metal keel.

 

[gmilam]

Doh.

It isn't really very complicated. If you don't understand something you lack understanding, and if you don't believe something you lack belief. Both of the lacks are because of the same something.

If you lack understanding of the principles of gravity and free fall, you might believe you can fly instead of falling. If you understand gravity, you should believe that you can't fly, but it's completely up to you.

Lack of understanding precludes belief. Saying you "lack belief" might mean you also lack understanding. So there are four possibilities:

1) You understand it and you believe it's true (that gravity for instance, means unaided flight isn't possible if you're a human).

2) You understand it and you don't believe it's true, you "lack belief" (so you don't believe you will fall towards the ground if you jump off a building--tough luck for you).

3) You don't understand it and you believe something else that isn't true (see 2)

3) You don't understand it and you don't believe it because you don't understand. (you've never seen an object falling, in your infantile world you still have to learn about falling objects, and that you will fall over a lot as you learn to walk).

So I think atheists and theists alike should be clear about their meaning. Do they mean they lack belief in the existence of a god because they've never really understood the concept--they are learning to "walk" as it were, or do they mean they've got past the understanding requirement and can form a genuine belief?

If they do mean the latter option, this is not something infants are capable of, so please stop assigning capabilities to people who don't have them. Infants aren't even "people" yet, are they people?

Yes, it is simple...

IF atheism = a lack of belief in god. (As oppsed to a belief that there is no god.) THEN infants obviously lack a belief in god (option 4 above).

The problem is that people have attached a negative connotation to the word atheist and are therefore afraid to use it.

From my own personal experience, I remember being pre-school age and hearing the "god" story... It never made sense to me. I tried to accept it and understand it, but it never really took hold. After 30 some odd years, I accepted it as a fairy tale and moved on. And if people weren't trying to shove it into the science textbooks it would still be a non-issue.

 

[kx000]

Good point!

I think it is safe to say that everyone is a theist in some situations, some of the time, and everyone is also an atheist, in some situations, some of the time.
I don't think that people can practically be theists 24/7, or atheists 24/7.
Many people who are said to be saintly, have complained a lot about their lack of belief and sinfulness.

Once you find God he does't leave you...

 

[kx000]

Doh.

It isn't really very complicated. If you don't understand something you lack understanding, and if you don't believe something you lack belief. Both of the lacks are because of the same something.

If you lack understanding of the principles of gravity and free fall, you might believe you can fly instead of falling. If you understand gravity, you should believe that you can't fly, but it's completely up to you.

Lack of understanding precludes belief. Saying you "lack belief" might mean you also lack understanding. So there are four possibilities:

1) You understand it and you believe it's true (that gravity for instance, means unaided flight isn't possible if you're a human).

2) You understand it and you don't believe it's true, you "lack belief" (so you don't believe you will fall towards the ground if you jump off a building--tough luck for you).

3) You don't understand it and you believe something else that isn't true (see 2)

3) You don't understand it and you don't believe it because you don't understand. (you've never seen an object falling, in your infantile world you still have to learn about falling objects, and that you will fall over a lot as you learn to walk).

So I think atheists and theists alike should be clear about their meaning. Do they mean they lack belief in the existence of a god because they've never really understood the concept--they are learning to "walk" as it were, or do they mean they've got past the understanding requirement and can form a genuine belief?

If they do mean the latter option, this is not something infants are capable of, so please stop assigning capabilities to people who don't have them. Infants aren't even "people" yet, are they people?

Very few people understand God. If you have an idea of God you should have faith in him.

 

[arfa brane]

IF atheism = a lack of belief in god. (As oppsed to a belief that there is no god.) THEN infants obviously lack a belief in god (option 4 above).

And IF a lack of belief in anything = a lack of belief in atheism THEN infants lack a belief in the nonexistence of god. They also lack a belief in the existence of movie stars, I would wager. Hell, infants probably lack belief in anything you can think of, so the existence of a god has to be one of the things they spend zero time thinking about, because they can't think either.

If it's true that infants don't believe anything, because they can't, then it's facile, probably vacuous too, to try to assign any meaning whatsoever to an inability to believe anything due to a lack of the ability to think or form an opinion.

Cats don't believe anything either, I imagine. I don't know that it's true, but if human infants lack belief, why can't cats too? What does it have to do wiith the topic of this thread though? Wait, let me guess--is it "absolutely nothing"?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I see. So an atheist only has to be unable to understand the adult concept of god, so they lack belief in a concept they can't understand?

Please read.
SOMETIMES a lack of belief is simply a lack of belief.

Infants don't have any belief. If that statement is true, how can they believe god doesn't exist? If they don't believe god doesn't exist instead, does that mean infants are natural theists?
Therefore: . . . is a false analogy, a strawman argument.

Ah yes, strawman.
Who said "believe god doesn't exist"?
If you're having to resort to this sort of dishonesty...

 

[arfa brane]

SOMETIMES a lack of belief is simply a lack of belief.

There's nothing "simply" about belief. For instance you can have an opinion which corresponds to neither believing something exists, nor disbelieving it. That is, you aren't "required" to believe things.

But if you know something exists (let's say you know gravity exists) then necessarily you believe it exists too. Try disbelieving in the existence of gravity, and see if you start floating. It doesn't work, does it?

Likewise if you believe god exists, it could be because it's as obvious as gravity.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There's nothing "simply" about belief. For instance you can have an opinion which corresponds to neither believing something exists, nor disbelieving it. That is, you aren't "required" to believe things.

But if you know something exists (let's say you know gravity exists) then necessarily you believe it exists too. Try disbelieving in the existence of gravity, and see if you start floating. It doesn't work, does it?

Likewise if you believe god exists, it could be because it's as obvious as gravity.

Nice attempt at diversion while completely ignoring the fact that you:
A) twisted my words in your previous post, and
B) introduced a strawman while accusing me of of doing so.

I can see there's no point continuing this if you're going to be dishonest.
Maybe you and Jan Ardena should get together, he does that too.

 

[Billy T]

... But if you know something exists (let's say you know gravity exists) then necessarily you believe it exists too. ...

Most of the time, yes; but there is a difference between knowledge and belief.

For example I have knowledge about the square root of minus one. Find it useful in analysis of AC circuits, know how to add and multiply imaginary numbers, etc. but it seems like a man-made construct, not really something I believe in as existing independent of man's construction. Not something that exist, like the real integers do.

Likewise you can have great deal of knowledge about the characteristic of the Christina's God but don't need to believe in her/him

 

[arauca]

I don't know if your mocking religion as a whole or just yourself lol.

Taken your add meds this week?

Answer to the opening post .

I believe in God , This is my business , If you don't believe , that is your business.

And who the hell are you to question, why people believe.

 

[Dywyddyr]

And who the hell are you to question, why people believe.

Who the hell are you to question what people can or cannot ask?

 

[gmilam]

And IF a lack of belief in anything = a lack of belief in atheism THEN infants lack a belief in the nonexistence of god. They also lack a belief in the existence of movie stars, I would wager. Hell, infants probably lack belief in anything you can think of, so the existence of a god has to be one of the things they spend zero time thinking about, because they can't think either.

If it's true that infants don't believe anything, because they can't, then it's facile, probably vacuous too, to try to assign any meaning whatsoever to an inability to believe anything due to a lack of the ability to think or form an opinion.

Cats don't believe anything either, I imagine. I don't know that it's true, but if human infants lack belief, why can't cats too? What does it have to do wiith the topic of this thread though? Wait, let me guess--is it "absolutely nothing"?

No offense, but you're getting rather incoherent. This isn't hard to understand. It's a simple definition of a word. Followed by simple logic. You can't believe in something you've never heard of. You treat the word atheist as if it's a disease to be shunned. It's simply a lack of belief.

 

[kx000]

Who the hell are you to question what people can or cannot ask?

You can ask what you want, you are your own man. As you judge my faith, God will judge yours.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You can ask what you want, you are your own man.

Don't tell me, tell Arauca. He's the one that queried someone else's right to ask questions.

As you judge my faith, God will judge yours.

Oops, two assumptions.

 

[arfa brane]

You can't believe in something you've never heard of.

Yeah, that's what I thought too. Actually I thought it so much I even posted much the same statement.

But wait, there's more? You're going to say you don't believe in god because you haven't ever heard of it, like an infant who not only lacks belief as we know it, but the ability to think, right?

This is the ridiculous argument I'm saying is being made here. You either form a belief or you don't, you don't "lack" belief because you don't know about something. You lack information, or understanding, but belief isn't something you "lack" unless you're too young to know how to believe anything. This whole "atheists lack belief" is a load of bullshit. I mean, you seem to believe it works, although that may be (actually IT IS) a false belief. How can you lack belief and believe at the same time that you "lack belief". That's some fucked up shit, bro.

Nice attempt at diversion while completely ignoring the fact that you:
A) twisted my words in your previous post, and
B) introduced a strawman while accusing me of of doing so.

Well, it's pretty easy to ignore people who say nothing much of any consequence. What strawman did I introduce? Are you a strawman or do you just like making arguments out of straw?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well, it's pretty easy to ignore people who say nothing much of any consequence.

Yup.

What strawman did I introduce?

This one:

how can they believe god doesn't exist?

At no point has this been claimed.

Are you a strawman or do you just like making arguments out of straw?

 

[arfa brane]

Maybe this thread should be titled "What do atheists believe?".

Some of them apparently believe they lack belief, although this belief doesn't really make sense to anyone else. They are apparently unable to believe in the existence of a god, which translates as "lacking belief in god", and they believe this lack of belief is some kind of strategic point of view, rather than a misuse of language.

The misuse and misdirection becomes apparent when the subject of infants, who presumably lack the ability to have beliefs at all, is presented as some kind of supporting argument for their belief in their lack of belief.

Or maybe the people who think they're atheists and not just people who disgree with religious teaching, for all the "right" reasons, can fill in the blanks.
And of course, all you need to do to understand the subject is read the Bible, right?
No need to question the possibility that the "lack" is of understanding of the subject. Everyone who claims they're an atheist knows all about the subject they find they can only form a "lack" of belief in, and so they have something to believe.

I believe what they mean to say is: they lack information about the subject of the existence of a god, therefore they are unable to form a definite belief or opinion except for the one about believing firmly in their lack of belief. They also, being mostly westerners, believe that a subject has to be believed "in", but that doesn't really stand up either. I don't believe in gravity, I believe gravity exists. I have no real concept of belief "in" gravity, because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It isn't like joining a club whose members believe "in" this or that and congratulate each other for making the right choice, for god's sake.

But, let's believe things.

 

[gmilam]

Maybe this thread should be titled "What do atheists believe?".

OK - you tell me. What do atheists believe?

 

[wynn]

And who the hell are you to question, why people believe.

It's a discussion forum that we're at.

Not a family dinner, watercooler conversation or some such.