why we still believe in a god

[Itoero]

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We especially believe things we are told by people we have strong emotional connections to. It isn't complicated. 

Very true.And parents are generally those people. To answer the OP: "why we still believe in a god?" => 'because we listen to our parents. '

 

[ScientistAlexandrus]

Complex reasons. I would say the first is the knowledge that there is a lot unknown which is mostly subconscious knowledge in Staunch Theists. Then is the security that comes from all your friends and family believing with you. Second one is mostly only a small part. The third one which could be a strong factor is that there is so much evil in the Whole World for which feeling incomprehensible and helpless would be affecting almost everyone except a few. 

I believe in some kind of Deistic God entity without any Organized religion and my factors are mostly #1 that there is so much we need to seek to know.

Edited February 24, 2019 by ScientistAlexandrus

[SurpriseMan]

Is there God? No one has seen him, but can you feel his effect? Everyone does because everyone dies. All humans die someday because all humans are evil sinners. The wages of sin is death.

Good is stronger than evil. God has ultimate power because he is truly good. He hates all evil, that’s why he kills off evil. The reason humanity still exists today is because evil actually has enough power to prevent its immediate death. Goodness will only vanquish all evil after striking sufficient killer blows.

Killing off evil is like cooking a meal; it’s only ready after sometime with the fire and not immediately. One day humanity will no longer exist as all evil would be deleted. Then it would be clear that God exists.

 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, SurpriseMan said:

No one has seen him, but can you feel his effect?

No.

2 hours ago, SurpriseMan said:

Everyone does because everyone dies.

Everyone dies. That says nothing about the existence of gods.

2 hours ago, SurpriseMan said:

All humans die someday because all humans are evil sinners.

Only Christians are silly enough to believe that. 

2 hours ago, SurpriseMan said:

One day humanity will no longer exist as all evil would be deleted. Then it would be clear that God exists.

If humans no longer exist, how will it be clear to them that gods exist? Presumably only those gods will know that they exist; but they would know that already, if they exist.

You are not making much sense. Try thinking instead of preaching. (Reported)

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, SurpriseMan said:

One day humanity will no longer exist as all evil would be deleted. Then it would be clear that God exists.

Ugh, I hate perspectives like this the most.

Humans are evil, sin offends god, the universe is better off without the people god created, and that would leave only god in his perfection. That's the stupidest creator I've ever heard of, making something evil so he can delete it. That sounds like the kind of god who could torment people forever for being his creations.

Why do people still believe in gods like that?! God seems to love you to fear him.

And btw, if it was all about being clear that God exists, why not simply grow the leg back on an amputee?

[RussoNorsk]

I am religious and I don't see it that we need to believe that there is someone above watching over us but I do believe that we should continue to follow religions for the moral side of life. The morals that the religions set out are very important and I think we should try and follow them. I don't think everyone who follows religion believes in god but it's nice to see people having proper faith in the beliefs. According to legend, when the pagan slavs attacked Byzantine, they were very successful and the greeks couldn't stand a chance against them but during the night they prayed (they were and still are Orthodox) and by morning the slavs were wiped out. That is what started the slavic interest in Orthodoxy, the divine power that struck them down with such ease. I believe in god because there are signs and things that we cannot explain happening for good and/or righteous reason. This all may sound like nonsense to everyone else but it means a lot to me. 

[John Cuthber]

42 minutes ago, RussoNorsk said:

t I do believe that we should continue to follow religions for the moral side of life.

I don't think that religions are a guide to morality. 

A book that tells you where to get your slaves and how to treat them is not a guide to good behaviour.

You can look at the past where churches opposed the equality of women  and promoted homophobia.
Or you can look at the modern world
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51701039

 and see that religion is not the "force for good" that most adherents claim.

[dimreepr]

36 minutes ago, RussoNorsk said:

That is what started the slavic interest in Orthodoxy, the divine power that struck them down with such ease. I believe in god because there are signs and things that we cannot explain happening for good and/or righteous reason. This all may sound like nonsense to everyone else but it means a lot to me. 

The problem's are orthodox, just believe the bits that enhance your moral code; which, if you truly believed would include all the bad shit...

If karma teaches us anything, its that belief in karma is key to the function; for instance, if you believe the bad guy will sufer without your intervention, your free of suffering... 

[RussoNorsk]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I don't think that religions are a guide to morality. 

A book that tells you where to get your slaves and how to treat them is not a guide to good behaviour.

You can look at the past where churches opposed the equality of women  and promoted homophobia.
Or you can look at the modern world
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51701039

 and see that religion is not the "force for good" that most adherents claim.

Ok, I see your point. Surely, we should still at least follow the good examples that are promoted rather than the negatives. I don't follow the bible word for word and I know how devastating some of the religious wars have been, it's sad that what should've promoted good was twisted into forcing the beliefs of powerful people. 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

The problem's are orthodox, just believe the bits that enhance your moral code; which, if you truly believed would include all the bad shit...

If karma teaches us anything, its that belief in karma is key to the function; for instance, if you believe the bad guy will sufer without your intervention, your free of suffering... 

I prefer to try and give up to people that be their equal. Karma is nice but I don't want my enemy to suffer I just want them to accept my apologies even if it isn't my fault.

I'll stop now. Sorry for my input here.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, RussoNorsk said:

Ok, I see your point. Surely, we should still at least follow the good examples that are promoted rather than the negatives.

Given the correct context, the negatives are just as important (Ying/Yang)

8 minutes ago, RussoNorsk said:

I prefer to try and give up to people that be their equal. Karma is nice but I don't want my enemy to suffer I just want them to accept my apologies even if it isn't my fault.

Wouldn't you prefer the devils didn't exist?

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, RussoNorsk said:

Surely, we should still at least follow the good examples that are promoted rather than the negatives. I don't follow the bible word for word

If religion is a good source of morals, then how do you know which parts to accept and which to ignore? Surely our morals come from elsewhere, otherwise we’d have no way of knowing what texts in the Bible are despicable and should be ignored.

Instead, our morals come from local social expectations in our tribal culture. We adhere to norms set by those around us so we don’t become isolated, ostracized, and prevented from sharing in resources or finding potential mates. 

The Bible just happens to overlap and repeat SOME of those social expectations, but cannot be their source. If it were the source, then we’d have no valid reference points to know which parts of it we should ignore. 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

The Bible just happens to overlap and repeat SOME of those social expectations, but cannot be their source. If it were the source, then we’d have no valid reference points to know which parts of it we should ignore. 

There are a number of manuals on the subject and while the adherents mostly claim them to be the source; I'm not convinced they were written with that intent; and TBF we have yet to pen the latest iteration... 

[John Cuthber]

27 minutes ago, RussoNorsk said:

Ok, I see your point. Surely, we should still at least follow the good examples that are promoted rather than the negatives

Sure, but to do that we need to know what's good and what's bad.
If we know that already, what does the Book add?

28 minutes ago, RussoNorsk said:

it's sad that what should've promoted good was twisted into forcing the beliefs of powerful people. 

There's a depressingly good argument that  twisting people's minds to the benefit of the powerful is exactly what religion is for.

30 minutes ago, RussoNorsk said:

I'll stop now. Sorry for my input here.

You shouldn't be sorry for learning.
 

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Sure, but to do that we need to know what's good and what's bad.
If we know that already, what does the Book add?

If we already know stuff, what's the point of books?

[iNow]

Just now, dimreepr said:

If we already know stuff, what's the point of books?

No, that’s not what’s being suggested.

Books are good. Claiming one of them to be the source of truth when it’s so clearly often wrong is not.

Likely unintentionally, but you’re arguing a strawman, or at the very least shifting the goalposts away from the actual point being made. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Books are good.

Indeed, they were often written to teach.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Claiming one of them to be the source of truth when it’s so clearly often wrong is not.

That's not what I claimed.

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There are a number of manuals on the subject and while the adherents mostly claim them to be the source; I'm not convinced they were written with that intent; and TBF we have yet to pen the latest iteration... 

 

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's not what I claimed.

Never suggested YOU had

[Prometheus]

Morality isn't a static thing - it's a living, breathing phenomenon - evidenced by the fact we now frown upon many practices considered tolerable many moons ago. But it only develops where there is a dialogue.

Religious books are an important part of that dialogue, perhaps more so in the past. An eye for an eye might make the world blind, but at the time it was improvement on 'your families life for an eye.' 

The problem with religious books is that they can become a monologue when they insist upon themselves as the only valid authority. The minute you think any text is the definitive version morality dies.

The problem with ignoring the fact that religious books are still part of the dialogue is that you ignore the historical and cultural processes that led us to our current understanding, and, perhaps more importantly, you exclude billions of voices from the dialogue.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Never suggested YOU had

My mistake...

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

Likely unintentionally, but you’re arguing a strawman, or at the very least shifting the goalposts away from the actual point being made. 

But the point being made is, we know before we learn...

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

the point being made is, we know before we learn...

Nope. That’s not it. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

our morals come from elsewhere, otherwise we’d have no way of knowing what texts in the Bible are despicable and should be ignored.

 

59 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

to do that we need to know what's good and what's bad.
If we know that already, what does the Book add?

 

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nope. That’s not it. 

I have learned that you're capable of a much better explanation.

[iNow]

I shared that the Bible cannot be the source of morality since our existing morals allow us to pick and choose which parts of it are right and which parts are wrong. John reinforced this point in his own way. 

You suggested we were saying “what’s the point of books if we already know stuff.”

I corrected you. That wasn’t the point. Our point was specific to the assertion that morals come from the Bible. 

You then made yet another different point, that we know before we learn. Sounds fancy, but is obviously both nonsense AND not what was being suggested by me or John. 

You told me I could explain better, so voila... see above.

Hope this helps and hope we can now please for the love of Thor get back on topic instead of chasing fortune cookie one-liners from an unsober but otherwise easy going and enjoyable poster. ✌️

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

I shared that the Bible cannot be the source of morality since our existing morals allow us to pick and choose which parts of it are right and which parts are wrong. John reinforced this point in his own way. 

Who taught you morality? 

We're not born with a prejudice... 

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Who taught you morality? 

I’ve answered this already, both here and multiple times elsewhere. From just a short while ago:

2 hours ago, iNow said:

our morals come from local social expectations in our tribal culture. We adhere to norms set by those around us so we don’t become isolated, ostracized, and prevented from sharing in resources or finding potential mates. 

Now, this is NOT a thread on morality’s source. It’s about what made people stop believing in god. One good answer is: The immoralities which are so common in the Bible. People often stop believing once they actually read the Bible for themselves. 

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If we already know stuff, what's the point of books?

Why misrepresent what I said?