why not believe?

Hi, BoGoWo. Long time no see.


Axl Roses Wife, you wrote: "Yes, i know its hard, but its our choice. we wanted to stop believeing.".
I find it hard to believe that one can choose to truly believe or to stop truly believing. People can choose to act as if they believed (something without empirical evidence) and they can choose to act as if they did not believe. But actual belief and disbelief HAPPENS TO the individual as a result of solid evidence, not just choice. I wish I could enter the heads of religious believers. I very strongly suspect most often that their "faith" is mixed with a strong and continually repressed sense of doubt. Their "faith" is something they are continuously fabricating (with the help of fellow "believers")--an artifact of effort rather than experience.

Life is the "incommensurate" which bulldozes through uncertainties until it arrives at the one thing it has always been certain of. The "intervening" are the variables of philosophy and choice and not merely your own because you may have been programmed into your belief through someone else's experience.

Regardless of actual objective "truth" , religions are psychologically valid, and can give their followers a sense of purpose and meaning. I don't see a problem with that, regardless of how self-righteous and irritating (non- violent) fundamentalists they can be. I find people talking about religions less boring than people talking about diets.




Sometimes religion can be harmful. For example, religious terrorism and disallowing birth control. On other occasions it can motivates people to act in extremely selfless ways and benefit societies in ways that they ordinarily wouldn't.

Extremely spiritual people live longer, and are less anxious. I don't see this as negative, or negatively affecting others. In fact, it could work to the benefit of society. Religion could also stress the believer, if they worry about themselves or others (although i don't know many religious types that do this).

Determining whether religions unbased on fact is a matter of balancing the positive and negative results of fervent belief.

However, ultimately, disallowing or severely discouraging religion could only happen through extreme social control ( use of propaganda and force) at least to the extent that Stalin used them, although you might find a more peaceful way to do it. The solution would be a lot worse than the original problem. Let people have their delusions, i say!! If believing that a purple goat living in Slovenia will protect you makes you feel safe, go ahead and believe in him!

Re: yes but



It all depends on what you do.Probably to a lesser extent than having delusional schizophrenia could be. Most sufferers of schizophrenia aren't violent or dangerous, regardless of popular opinion. They do, however, put their families under a lot of stress. I'd expect solopsism would be the same

Slovenian Purple Goatists have not been responsible for highly educational IMAX films being dropped because of their wrongly perceived anti-Slovenian Purple Goatist ideas.

Odd, socks, well done. I completely agree with you.
It may be frustrating for us to see people wasting their lives praying to a god that doesnt exist, but its their choice, and in my opinion, lets let them belive, if thats what makes them happy, then we shouldn't try and change them.

Yes religion can be dangerous, it can damage people, just as you said, but the bottom line is that it is people decisions, and if some people werent muslim extremists they'd probably just be drug dealers or murderers or political extemeists.

I do think my origional statement, that if religion makes you happy them you should believe in it even if you know that it isnt true is a load of crap because it doesnt make sense. ooooops!!!
it is obvious that you cant believe in something and not believe in it, unless you are a pagan or wiccan like me. However, I needed to be sure.

Nobody

Belief as a result of solid evidence?
But, Nobody, what solid evidence could any religion give?
I think it was Tertulianus who said: "I believe because it is impossible".
Religious faith is the belief in the mystery, the no named, no described (some, like Val, would say, belief in NOTHING).

Religious people believe because they have to believe in something. They have to believe that death is not the end, that a prayer will cure the sick child, that there is a better world than this. And that there is a worst world (if possible) than this for people like me, who don't believe.

The secret of all sincere belief is in pain, despair, weakness. Here I agree with Nietzsche.

To answer a question from page one:

How is your belief unethical? Because you spread it. All theists and Athiests do.

If that belief is poorly founded - you have passed this belief out in the world and done something unethical.

Case in point. If I have no good reason to think that my car is safe enough for you to drive but I force myself to have faith that it is - you might die.

In the case of religion and you have no good reason to believe that, say, Christianity is right, and you spread that belief - and say the Muslims are right. You and your pooly founded belief have not only damned yourself to hell - but the people you talked to and convinced.

It is the bitch of evangalizing. If you are right you have done them the eternal favor - if you are wrong - you have done them an eternal disservice. Fidism is a bad reason to embark when the stakes are that high.

Read the book of James if you are so inclined. Teachers are always judged more harshly.

TTF

Val, I said the phrase "belief based on solid evidence" with reference to REAL belief. For example, I believe in the existence of my house because I have empirical or solid evidence of it. I said, also, that I suspect that religious "belief" is little more than an "effort to believe" or "the acting AS IF one believed". In other words, I am skeptical about "faith" claims based on "religious evidence." But that's just my perspective.

JLN - Would you say that the majority of faith is actually hope. Hope that there is a God?

My question is - if you have noting to belief in (i.e. For instance God has not appeared to you) what else can you do?

Suspend belief and not act - or act as if you had knowledge and hope? My point is - even if others call thier hope, faith - what else would you have them do?

TTF

Good questions, ThinkFactory. I would agree with the notion that most faith is fundamentally an expression of hope. If there is no "solid" or first-hand experiential evidence of a supernatural Being, Creator, Punisher/Rewarder, or a metaphysical reality, why not focus one's religious impulse on Life as we DO experience it? To me each moment with all its moving content IS divine, in the value I place on it. To me--and I would not impose this on anyone else--the fundamental nature of the Cosmos (at all its macro and micro levels)--including this moment of immediate experience--is my true being, or at least the ground of my being. As far as I'm concerned, this intuition is based on experience, not inherited doctrine.

Bravo! Glad to see you're still here, J.L.

Thanks, Coluber. I wondered what happened to you. But now that I check your "history" I see that we've participated in different forums. I've been avoiding most of the Spirituality and Religion threads. Boring, all that pugnatious and intolerant piety. I certainly hope I do not come off like that. Anyway, I'm also glad to see you're still here.

Good run JL.

I think a lot a like actually. I tend to believe the Stoics notion that God is the divine 'stuff' that is in us all and gives me movement. I am not sure if it is mine or I am borrowing it - but I am also not sure if that matters.

I can only believe in a rational God - a God that I can experience and make sense. An punishing, Catholic, guilt inducing, God that has formed the majority of the Christian dogma (despite what the various sects of Lutheranism think) makes no sense to me.

I think when Jesus was asked what commandment is the greatest (of the Deuteromic laws) and he said to that Loving God is 'similar' or the 'same' as loving your neighbor as yourself prooves this sort of divine nature inherent in others. Meaning that the only way to love God, is to love eachother.

TTF

So, the think factory are u a christain or did I read that wrong? Do you believe those beliefs of do you just think they are the most logical form of a god if one did, in fact, exist?

I used to be religious but recently strayed. But one thing i always liked to think about for a reason why to believe is that even if there is no god, no heaven, no dreaded hell to some they do not want to put their faith in something that might not be real. But think about it this way if you spent your entire life devoting yourself to a system which guarantess you eternal life and you are faithful that as you come to your dying days you will die a happy and peaceful man. THe pope for example. Either you go to eternal heaven or when you die your dead in which case you wouldn't be feeling like you wasted your life away. So try that extra stretch to find something in religion that you can base your faith on. In the case that what the bible teaches turns out to be false at least you won't be punished for believing in it. Because i am pretty sure that christianity is the only religion along with Judism that teaches you to belive in only one god. So you ve got that going for yah

Discreet, don't forget that other Abrahamic religion: Islam.

I think it's hard to say that "religions" are there to make people happy. i believe that some people rely on religion as a way to help them through hard times. Something to lean on. in that sense, it's not trying to make them happy, but maybe they have nothing left but their faith. And faith is something that may be to complex for us to understand. In an article i had to read for religion class, this guy mentioned that religion mirrors its culture. so it's not necessarily that we can just have faith in some religion for happiness. if we grow up in a culture where religion is more a way of life than something to lean on, then it's a very different situation. it is also hard to use the word "believe", because usually that word applies to something thats tangible. religion can hardly be called tangible because it is so broad and there is so much depth to it. so it's unfair to say that having faith is just a way of making us happy, because there is more to it than meets the eye.

So religion is a crutch to help people that are struggling?

I agree with you why do you think so many inmates suddenly become saved when they are in prison.

Re: why not believe?


I think that anyone capable of constructing such a chain of rationalization would not long fool him- or herself.