Why do some people have religious beliefs?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, if someone tells me that his god is love or the universe or a purple toaster oven, I do of course believe in this individual's god But why call it god at all if what you really mean is an emotion (or the universe or a toaster)? "Love" is a perfectly good word for love, imho.

Atheists don't believe in supernatural, superpowered deities. Not without evidence anyway. The existence of an emotion that we call love is no evidence for such a deity. For me, it is evidence for a cocktail of oxytocin and serotonin (or of phenylethylamine, norepinephrine and dopamine, in case of romantic-addictive love). If somebody's god is not a supernatural deity but a neurochemical concoction / a warm and fuzzy feeling, then he is not talking about the same thing that atheists and the majority of theists think of when they talk about god/s.

In religious debates in other forums, I have often seen people argue that god is love, love is god, and love prove's god's existence. When people admitted that nobody could possibly disagree that love exists, the goalpost shuffle commenced and we learned that love will send everyone to hell who doesn't accept Jesus as their savior.

Not that I think JNathanK would use such a tactic. I'm just saying that things that start out as all-encompassing love can sometimes quickly morph into Yahweh/Jesus. I know why I call myself an atheist, although I'm a naturalist as well (those two positions tend to go hand in hand).

The reason why many have religious beliefs is that they are scared sh*tless of dying.

ruveyn

many people are superstitious. they pay to buy tickets in lotteries, and they pray that they may win.

i think that the superego (an outdated concept) is responsible for the idea that one is a child of some entity or another, and if one has no parents left, or if their parents are considered inadequate, then they look toward an idea of "god" who is all they hoped for and fully satisfies their parental expectations.

"god loves you and god fully understands and god will prevent you from sinking in the sands of time."

"if god made you then you are his, and god will not let you depart from the world of what really is."

one thing is for sure, and that is if god really exists, then it is infinitely better than if god does not.
if god exists and sees your plight then a chance of salvation you have got.

otherwise your whole soul will be extinguished on the date of your death,
and for ever in the future will you not take another breath or see another thing.


i do not know if god exists, but i think that the complexity of the universe is so unbelievably cogent and interfacetory (looks like i coined that word), and it is so devoid of errors that there must be a grand design, and i am able to be humble enough to admit that with all my neurons, i can never unravel it.


i am not sure whether god exists but i think god does exist. i feel a very serious bad feeling when i read atheistic rantings, and i think " if you are wrong you are going to be sorry".

i do not consider myself smart enough to analyze the possibility of god existing, and i do not consider anyone on earth smart enough to come to a conclusion.

things are so incredibly complex that exist in the universe, and the laws that govern the eventuality of all manifestation can not be just a random "pop out" of nothing. why was the universe not nullified in the first trillionth of a second of it's existence by bugs and dead end cul de sacs of possibility? it seems obvious to me that the universe is not random because it would not have evolved if it was. there must be a grand design, and i can not believe that such a grand design is purely a random set.


realize how complex and yet correct the universe is and you have to see that there is a god.

atheists are stupid in thinking that the unfolding of a universe of such vastly complex yet intricately compatible subsets of realities that fuel other realities can be random.

what do atheists propose created the universe? they just say it popped out of nothing. they can not say what the mechanism of it's enduring reality is.

i do not know god and i have never been religious, but one has to visit the concept that there is some grand design that makes all manifestations in the universe relative to each other. else it would be an instantly self annihilating random scramble of unrelated occurrences which would have been damped out of existence within a trillionth of a second.

The website was easily located - unfortunately the information was not.
Maybe I missed it?
http://www.antiquities.org.il/home_eng.asp

To describe natural processes as being either random or as requiring a supernatural being to direct them is a gross oversimplification. A relatively new and exciting area of mathematics and the sciences is that of emergent properties from complex systems.

Complex, seemingly random systems have a tendency for organisational properties to emerge at the macroscopic (larger) level that are not apparent at the microscopic (smaller) level. These random / chaotic systems can have organisational properties that catalyze large scale organisation despite the apparent randomness or chaos of the system. They can form organisational feedback loops.

Simple examples include the formation of regular shaped crystals from a supersaturated solution, the formation of snowflakes and in biology the organisational processes that produce the hormones that cause the various bodily organs to form at various places in relation to each other during embryonic development. It is responsible for the distribution of pigmentation that gives some animals their characteristic striped or patterned skin. Other examples are weather systems, tornados etc. The principles of emergent properties from random, chaotic systems is showing lots of promise for further understanding how the universe formed, and how life evolved from the primordial organic soup.

A lot of people say that life or the universe as it is today could not appear by random chance. They are half right, but generally for the wrong reason. Organisational properties emerge from within those chaotic and random systems that drive larger scale multi-faceted organisation. Note that these emergent properties are not mystical in origin; they can be described using mathematics, physics and chemistry. For example involving the way groups of molecules arrange themselves into 3-dimensional structures due to electrostatic attraction and repulsion between parts of their molecular chains.

Emergent organisational properties typically involve the formation of positive feedback loops in one form or another: a tiny bit of random organisation triggers more organisation, and so on in a chain reaction. It causes matter to clump together into planets and galaxies through gravity. It causes certain molecules to duplicate themselves when in an organic soup (precursors to RNA and life itself). It causes loudspeakers to howl at a particular frequency when the microphone is exposed to the smallest random sound when it is too close to the speakers or the gain set too high. It causes TV screens to show a moving kaleidoscope of images if the TV camera is pointed at the TV screen. We see it in the organisation of fern leaves and other structures in nature. Fractals in mathematics show another aspect of emergent organisational properties with well known structures like the Mandelbrot set forming from a simple fractal equation in a feedback loop.

The principles of emergent organisational properties also apply to the behaviour of crowds of people, shoals of fishes moving as though as single organism, birds flying in V formation, grouping and collaboration of bacteria and fungi, the organisation and coordination of cells and their functions within living creatures. There is hardly an area of the physical or life sciences where emergent organisational properties don’t play a significant role; simple principles of feedback loops at work, sometimes giving spectacular and beautiful results.

So the claim by many believers that life and the universe cannot appear by random chance is fundamentally flawed. Yes, it can and it does! Just because they don’t understand the science and mathematics of the principles is no reason to attribute them to supernatural, mystical forces. It is like the Vikings attributing thunder and lightning to the god Thor being in a bad mood because they had no conception of the underlying science.

A couple more reasons I could add:

First, the way some people just feel the world. We're not all the same emotionally, some are just naturally more epic-headed than others, and when your thoughts and imaginations tend epic you feel not only out of place but you feel a need to connect it to something or give it relevancy rather than feel like you're just flat out wrong as a human being for not conforming or being shallow enough.

Second, I suppose people who've tried LSD or mushrooms have had a taste of what the first group I mentioned has experienced. Clearly if they were firm atheists previous to the experience they may not buy into it, if they were on the fence though they may start wondering.

In either case though, when everything in you emotionally is telling you that there's something much bigger to your reality or your 'I' experience than the typical state - whether its a general frame of reference or a substance that's dredging up your subconscious to an unusual degree - you tend to believe what you feel. Especially when what you feel isn't necessarily illogical or not making sense; that's one of the pitfalls with this world and this experience - not only is reality itself a bit vacuous but there are many logical trains of thought you can follow and when you get to a certain point along that path they simply unravel into thin air; this is a good example.

I love that. Thank you.

The spontaneous and uncaused appearance of subatomic particles is routinely being observed in particle accelerators. But I don't claim to understand the how and why. This atheist doesn't propose that anything created the universe. Instead, I propose that none of us were there and nobody knows exactly what happened.

Therefore, I know for a fact that people who tell me "god did it!" are either deluded or blatant liars. My answer to the question "what created the universe" is "I don't know, and neither do you. We do know that matter can appear out of nowhere, but neither you nor I have any idea why. Let the brainy experts figure it out with their high-tech equipment and get back to us".

"I don't know" is a perfectly good answer. It is also very honest. Much unlike "my invisible friend did it", which is easy to spot as made-up nonsense.



You project yourself onto others. Don't do that. You have to consider the possibility that some people are vastly more intelligent and educated than you (and me, for that matter).

i believe in god because i experience the world around me god is everything and nothing i am a part of him and he is a part of me

We are all decaying flesh (spoiling meat). That is quite a statement.

ruveyn

you said "seemingly random", and that is what it is. merely "seemingly". everything would seem random to the simplest of minds. i propose that there is no such thing as "randomness"


that is obvious. the effects of the microcosm dictate the semblance of the macrocosm in all circumstances.

and that is because there is no greater possibility for existential evolution. i believe that there is another dimension of phenomenal reality which is "probability". there is energy, and there is space in which energy exists, and there is time in which energy exists, but there is also a whole universal dimension of nothing but "probability" that governs all existence. it is like the fundamental plan of all existence.
nothing is infinitely improbable (which is why "nothing" is non existent), and so the most improbable (yet still astronomically remotely possible) circumstances will come to occur.

the least possible thing that can happen (which is one infinitesimal point away from impossible) will happen given enough time and enough chances. but the most possible things happen most of the time (obviously), and that is why on a macroscopic scale, things seem to make sense according to the repeated scenarios we see. no one is in the right place at the right time to see the most improbable things happen, but even so, they do happen in the universe.

things that seem improbable, seem improbable due to one's lack of understanding of the miniscule probability of it happening, and they call it "random".

but how is the microcosmic reality related to the macroscopic reality? it surely does not know that it must act a certain way so as that higher levels of actuality can be based on it's foundations.

it seems miraculous almost to me that the reality in a subatomic world gives rise to life ((and other complex realities) in such an inevitable yet unplanned way (microcosm is blind to macrocosm)) far beyond it's field of local effect. it is almost like the macroscopic reality is governing the microcosm to eventuate in it's reality. order from the "top down" so to speak, rather than from the "bottom up".

i am not implying a deity or anything. i have just arrived at that point by pure reasoning with my own little brain.



that is simple evolution. natural selection will render the more conspicuous as well as the less "environmentally apt" to extinction which is a simple thought to behold.



weather systems are not very complicated compared to quantum occurrences that we have never observed. there are not enough data collection sensors placed around the world to be able to derive a completely cogent formula for predicting the weather. one would have to calculate the state of affairs for every molecule of air, as well as understand the inevitable properties of every situation that molecule is involved in to predict the weather, and no supercomputer we have could consider it in real time, but it is vastly simpler than calculating the possibility of every atom in my body suddenly being relocated to a distant galactic planet.

the chance of one of my atoms being suddenly relocated to a distant place for no apparent reason is astronomically small. the chance that every atom in my body being relocated there and arriving assembled in the same way as i currently am is astronomically smaller that that, but it is still possible.

the weather is easy compared to that, but we can not even calculate the weather. humans have not the intelligence to consider god like principles.




it is inevitable that that is the only path that is most probable. i understand that organizational
structures are inevitable, but why? the mathematics that prove that they do is not sufficient to tell me why.



i will never believe that anything is random. nothing happens randomly. that would be an undirected miracle of interference.




i am not a superstitious person, and i have reasoned everything i think to my satisfaction.

People have religious beliefs because it is easier to believe a convoluted lie than a complex truth.

That and add that the complex truth is one that comes with its own problems and leaves those who need a life script to follow completely in the wilderness. Its rather ironic in a dark sort of way that people quite often do fuction better on a lie than the truth and its largely because of what that truth is.

maybe they were not spontaneous and uncaused. i should have wrapped that statement in quotes.

so you choose to abdicate your throne of consideration and you expect me to do so as well? sorry. i am curious, although i do know my limitations (i have a feeling you will capitalize on that sentence)


i did not say "god did it".


only you "know" that. i do not think as you do.



how lazy are you? you are not only lazy, but you are also self annulling if you do not want to consider the matter yourself. do you think so little of yourself that you will not consider the matter because you think you are too stupid to do so? i am well aware that there are smarter people than me who are also considering the situation, but they can not stop me from considering it myself.

i am not embarrassed if i am trumped by someone who tells me my ideas are stupid. at least i considered the matter and you advise me to just hibernate and wait for answers? i do not respect your attitude i must say.


i am not sure i understand what you said in that senttence, but i am not implying that a mysterious "god" made everything happen. i have not finished thinking about the matter and i may one day work it out.

"i don't know" is an answer by someone who is tired of speculating, and maybe has a lazy brain. who knows?. i will not stop thinking about it despite your recommendations to do so. i am not as mentally lazy as you it seems.


i do not see how i projected myself onto others. i said that i am not smart enough to reason the existence of god and prove it. i think i am correct in saying that no one else has ever proven the existence of god either

I'm epic -headed enough and have done my fair bit of neural tinkering. I still don't believe in God. I used to. Funnily enough, after using psychedelics, I'm less inclined to.

Reality itself is only vacuous on the surface. I find the idea of 'God did it' rather shallow, tbh. Traditional religions don't do justice to the true epic nature of reality.