Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
TheDarkEnergy

To theists: Why should we believe in gods?

70 posts in this topic

Because the act of believing has been proven, empirically, to be good for your psychological and physical health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything has to have been created by something, as you stated, yourself. "Gods" are no exception.

Unless we define a god as something with no beginning or ending. Remember, nobody knows anything about gods really. Our definitions are entirely personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless we define a god as something with no beginning or ending. Remember, nobody knows anything about gods really. Our definitions are entirely personal.

Your definitions are entirely personal, of course; and you are more than welcome to believe in whatever you like. I can concoct absolutely anything in my mind, and convince myself that it is true.... however, that does not indicate that it is true. Just don't include your illogical beliefs in the realm of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the act of believing has been proven, empirically, to be good for your psychological and physical health.

Sources? Data? I have data that suggests that prayer is detrimental for your health.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16569567

http://www.templeton...7STEP_paper.pdf

RESULTS:

In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer' date=' complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups.[/quote']

Next time you pray for somebody, you may not want to tell them that they are being prayed for. IT MIGHT NOT WORK IF YOU DO.

Edited by Alienated Being
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the act of believing has been proven, empirically, to be good for your psychological and physical health.

Well, as recently posted, faith healers have been proven to be really bad for psychological and physical health.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your definitions are entirely personal, of course; and you are more than welcome to believe in whatever you like. I can concoct absolutely anything in my mind, and convince myself that it is true.... however, that does not indicate that it is true. Just don't include your illogical beliefs in the realm of science.

In what way is the uncaused cause idea illogical? Or do you just mean you don't understand it or it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions?

I'll include what I like, where I like. Where all science can offer is 'I don't know', anything can be put forward. Please don't presume to be the ultimate authority on science and what may or may not be included. It comes across as arrogant in the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole process of formation of life and religion can be described in the below steps:

How Life formed in earth

1. In the earlier days of solar system, earth had the optimal distance from the sun to support the temparature needed to support life billions of years later.

2. As earth cooled down, the surface got rigid and atmosphere formed with hot gasses which was hold tightly to the planet by gravity.

3. Solar activity and volcanism caused disturbances in the dense atmosphere and crust of early earth as a result frequent electrical storms and heat combined elementary gasses and metals to form compund gasses and other minerals needed to support life.

4. The comets from outer space bombarded the early earth with ice which was melted to water by hot surface temparature and thus oceans formed.

5. The oceans could hold their water content unlike any other planet due to the optimum surface temparature and thick atmosphere.

6. the ocean water allowed minerals to dissolve and mix with each other and form complex compounds.

7. millions of years later complex inorganic componds bonded with each other in a earth full with volcanic and electrical activity and formed elementary organic compunds.

8. Billions of years later more chemical reactions created the simple organic compounds to bond together to create amino acids, the building block of life.

9. From the amino acids, simple one cell organisms formed years after, the first chemical object which can be considered as 'Alive'.

10. After this eventually evolution created more complex life form, and after millions of years later, created us, the humans from apes.

How religions formed in earth

11. In the earlier days humans were scared of natural disasters like thunderstorms, earthquakes and foreast fire. they started to believe that those events are created by some invisible supreme being whom they can not see.

12. Wild animals used to hunt people by night and during daytime the animals used to hide in the forest. and thats why sun was considered to be a watchful protector.

13. When humans learned to use fire as a protection, they believed that it's a part of the sun god which protects them, because both causes heat and light. thats how worshipping the gods began.

14. When thunderstorms, solar eclipses and earthqulakes used to happen, people used to cry out for help to the invisible gods, and naturally after some time the storms/quakes used to stop obviously. people believed that the gods are responding to their prayers.

15. When worshipping became an integral part of human life, it became necessary to teach the young children to worship the gods. thats why myths and legends about the gods began.

16. since no two person thinks alike, gradually the myths started to differ from each other and every myth got their own gods and their own stories. thats how different religions formed.

17. As ages passed by, the myths and legends found their places in written texts, over the years imaginative human minds, blind faith and fear of god allowed the glory of the so called gods to find its place into deep roots of human minds.

So my question to theists are, if all the religions were started by humans, then why do you believe in gods? do you believe in the below points?.

1. You find "God created life and universe" theory more acceptable than evolution and scientific theories about creation of universe which has been experimentally proven.

2. You have experienced miracles in life which forces you to believe that God exists. When a bus collides with a wall, only 3 things can possibly happen. [A] you are safe. you get injured [C] you die.

the problem is when you are safe you think god saved you, when you get injured you think god saved you from death, only when you die, you realize the truth that god is not there. but again you are dead already hence you are unable to get the truth.

You always think in such black and white concepts......you sound like a robot. I have noticed that many atheist seek to do that, be all head, facts (often not true).

doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You always think in such black and white concepts......you sound like a robot. I have noticed that many atheist seek to do that, be all head, facts (often not true).

doug

Truth is always black and white. Truth has no shades of grey. Edited by TheDarkEnergy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way is the uncaused cause idea illogical? Or do you just mean you don't understand it or it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions?

Oh, I understand what you are getting at, alright.

I'll include what I like, where I like. Where all science can offer is 'I don't know', anything can be put forward. Please don't presume to be the ultimate authority on science and what may or may not be included. It comes across as arrogant in the extreme.

You may, but to accept such a fantastical idea until it is proven wrong is nothing short of illogical. Science is about testing, observing, asking questions and finding answers... not accepting an idea that really has no foundation whatsoever (other than your misinterpreted personal experience, which somehow lead you to believe that there is a god).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I understand what you are getting at, alright.

So you can't explain why the uncaused cause idea is illogical. You've just decided it is. Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

You may, but to accept such a fantastical idea until it is proven wrong is nothing short of illogical. Science is about testing, observing, asking questions and finding answers... not accepting an idea that really has no foundation whatsoever (other than your misinterpreted personal experience, which somehow lead you to believe that there is a god).

Oh so now, without knowing anything about me or my experience you can say, with absolute certainty, that I misinterpreted it. So now who's being unscientific? Dismissing something without considering the evidence is a pretty big no-no in science. And before you ask, no, I'm not going to share my experiences with you because, hard though it may be for you to understand, I have no wish to convince others I am right and am well aware that personal experiences would not do so. I certainly have no wish to discuss it with an anti-theist such as yourself.

Suffice to say, I am happy with my life and won't interfere if someone is happy with theirs. If you could extend others that courtesy, it would be much appreciated. Remember, if you try to force atheism down people's throats, you're no better than those who force religion on people.

The OP asked a question. I answered. If you don't like my answer, find someone who cares and you can have a nice chat about why we're all crazy :sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize all theist did not even bother to click on the thread? Don't think they are unaware of this. If they been on the internet they seen this thread before.

Its not about logic. You should know that by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize all theist did not even bother to click on the thread? Don't think they are unaware of this. If they been on the internet they seen this thread before.

Its not about logic. You should know that by now.

Did you actually read the thread? Or have anything useful to contribute? If you had read it, you would see that at least half a dozen theists have already answered.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so now, without knowing anything about me or my experience you can say, with absolute certainty, that I misinterpreted it.

Well, yes; I most certainly can. The concept of gods is very unscientific. You have already stated that you believe that it is god, and that a belief in "gods" is the only thing that makes sense at this point. You have concluded that.

So now who's being unscientific? Dismissing something without considering the evidence is a pretty big no-no in science.

Well, considering we have literally no empirical evidence in reinforcement of a deity, I would say that you are the one who is being unscientific, in asserting that because you had an unexplained experienced, it must be the work of a deity, and that it is the only explanation that makes sense. That is unscientific.

And before you ask, no, I'm not going to share my experiences with you because, hard though it may be for you to understand, I have no wish to convince others I am right and am well aware that personal experiences would not do so. I certainly have no wish to discuss it with an anti-theist such as yourself.

Of course you don't. Even if you did wish to do so, the only individuals whom you could convince are those as fickle as yourself.

The OP asked a question. I answered. If you don't like my answer, find someone who cares and you can have a nice chat about why we're all crazy :sleepy:

Well, I care. That's one person. I am sure that there are others.

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sources? Data? I have data that suggests that prayer is detrimental for your health.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16569567

http://www.templeton...7STEP_paper.pdf

Next time you pray for somebody, you may not want to tell them that they are being prayed for. IT MIGHT NOT WORK IF YOU DO.

I've provided sources/ scientific evidences for all my points many times before. They exist. If you dont believe me, you look them up, or otherwise maintain a false belief. No skin off my nose. No prayer is required for physical effects of belief/faith to manifest, only the belief /faith itself.

I don't pray for peoplee unless they specifically ask me to The connection between god and a person is individual god doesnt necesarly respond to my prayer for another. God does what is best for that individual given any relationship between the person and god. But faith, and the effect of faith, is not dpenedent on the reality of god. It may well be an effect purely of faith itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes; I most certainly can. The concept of gods is very unscientific. You have already stated that you believe that it is god, and that a belief in "gods" is the only thing that makes sense at this point. You have concluded that.

I actually said it's the only explanation I've heard that fits. And without knowing my experiences, you cannot, as a 'scientist' dismiss them as misinterpretation.

Well, considering we have literally no empirical evidence in reinforcement of a deity, I would say that you are the one who is being unscientific, in asserting that because you had an unexplained experienced, it must be the work of a deity, and that it is the only explanation that makes sense. That is unscientific.

That is not what I have asserted. I have said that it is the explanation I have been offered that makes most sense. Which is what science is all about. You consider evidence available and make a conclusion based on your observations. The only difference here is that my evidence cannot be reproduced. That is why I would not present it to others or as scientific fact. It is a belief. With as much or little validity as your belief that there cannot be a god.

Well, I care. That's one person. I am sure that there are others.

So go and talk to yourself about how crazy us believers are.

I notice you have still given nothing to support your statement that the uncaused cause idea is illogical. And yet you have the nerve to call me fickle. At least I will always stand by what I say and support it rather than avoiding difficult questions. This is the last time I'm asking. If you won't back up your statements, I will have to assume you are only here to bash others ideas and not answer comments on your own. In which case, we have nothing more to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the act of believing has been proven, empirically, to be good for your psychological and physical health.

No, it hasn't. You can keep on claiming this but it doesn't make it true.

A review of the literature shows that people who are actively involved with a religious institution will generally live longer. Incidentally, this also applies to atheists who attend church regularly, for example (unlikely sounding, I know, but there are those that go regularly if their partner is religious). So it's pretty clear from this that the important factor here is not faith in itself, but going to church.

What has been shown is that faith and member of a religion can be associated with a reduced incidence of depression and anxiety-related disorders. There are modest associations with some other disorders too.

Basically, the evidence suggests that religious affiliation and belief may have some effect on health related issues - but that this is far from being "proof". For example, if you attend a church then statistically you're less likely to smoke (as well as other health threatening behaviours). It's very difficult to pick out if faith in itself is the important variable, or whether faith is simply associated with a healthier lifestyle.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it hasn't. You can keep on claiming this but it doesn't make it true.

A review of the literature shows that people who are actively involved with a religious institution will generally live longer. Incidentally, this also applies to atheists who attend church regularly, for example (unlikely sounding, I know, but there are those that go regularly if their partner is religious). So it's pretty clear from this that the important factor here is not faith in itself, but going to church.

What has been shown is that faith and member of a religion can be associated with a reduced incidence of depression and anxiety-related disorders. There are modest associations with some other disorders too.

Basically, the evidence suggests that religious affiliation and belief may have some effect on health related issues - but that this is far from being "proof". For example, if you attend a church then statistically you're less likely to smoke (as well as other health threatening behaviours). It's very difficult to pick out if faith in itself is the important variable, or whether faith is simply associated with a healthier lifestyle.

Probably due to the myth god will provide that eases some stress on the death process. Believers have less to worry about leaving behind loved ones.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you actually read the thread? Or have anything useful to contribute? If you had read it, you would see that at least half a dozen theists have already answered.

And thats barely any at compared to the amount on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes; I most certainly can. The concept of gods is very unscientific. You have already stated that you believe that it is god, and that a belief in "gods" is the only thing that makes sense at this point. You have concluded that.

Well, considering we have literally no empirical evidence in reinforcement of a deity, I would say that you are the one who is being unscientific, in asserting that because you had an unexplained experienced, it must be the work of a deity, and that it is the only explanation that makes sense. That is unscientific.

Where is the "evidence" that science is the only portal to knowledge ? That is just an assumption on your part, and one I am satisfied is wrong. But I don't expect you to believe that, nor should you. And neither should you expect that others submit to your insistence on science as the "one true way". That is just dogma.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way is the uncaused cause idea illogical? Or do you just mean you don't understand it or it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions?

I'll include what I like, where I like. Where all science can offer is 'I don't know', anything can be put forward. Please don't presume to be the ultimate authority on science and what may or may not be included. It comes across as arrogant in the extreme.

Anyway "I don't know" is a better answer then making up a story. I could say our world was created by a giant hamster. I had a personal experience with this giant hamster and I do infact believe he is real. This giant hamster makes more sense to me then scientific data.

I'm sure whatever "phenomenon" you faced could be explain threw science.

You saying that you have a person experience with god while NO ONE ELSE did is not arrogance? Sounds a lot more arrogance then science....

I honestly wanted to let you continue with your delusion at first....But then I had to say something useful.

Edited by Kazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the "evidence" that science is the only portal to knowledge ? That is just an assumption on your part, and one I am satisfied is wrong. But I don't expect you to believe that, nor should you. And neither should you expect that others submit to your insistence on science as the "one true way". That is just dogma.

Can you post something that science has not touched on that could possibly leed to a god figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a couple of pointless hecklers have entered the thread.

There is a point made about believing in God until proven wrong.

That wasn't what was being put forward.What was put forward was that personal experiences needed answers, and God became the best working model to reconcile those personal experiences. I can relate to what Setton is saying. I have written a book about one year of my personal experiences when I was 18 years old. For me, the events I experienced were utterly mind blowing and I had no answers from anyone about what was taking place. But God came unto my awareness and I also resorted to the Bible. It was the answer, and I found the Bible itslef was the only source which described in detail the exact same things I was experiencing. The certainty that God was the HIT to answer my experiences is unquestionable. It was God. My knowledge of God has great basis in personal experiences and there really is nothing which refutes my knowledge oreven comes close. As a working paradigm, it is safe to say it is proven. That is reasonable altogether.

Now that I have had proof of God, the crux of the problem is that others haven't had the benefit of such proofs as I have had. But it is inane for the atheist to assert that belief is baseless. it is also inane for the atheist to assert there is "no proof". All he is stating is that he is personally ignorant of proofs, rather than that proofs don't exist.

Indeed there are many forms of proof of God, some of which are even apprehendable to the spiritually challenged atheist. One of the best is the examination of prophecy (stated intention) vis a vis known history. If the atheist were to study this form of evidence he would find premeditated statements of a God, along with the outcomes of history. Such a proof would be sufficient in a court of law to get a criminal convicted of being the perpetraitor of some events. It is also a proof of God which even the atheist could understand if he had the initiative to learn about such things.

But the usual response fromthe atheist is to say prophecy is ambiguous and he won't even try to learn about it. Arguement from intellectual laziness and ignorance is the fallacy of the atheist when he starts complaining about proofs of God which are offered. My experience with atheist is that at some point the close their eyes, cover their ears, and scream to not allow evidence to come into their awareness. It is a psychological break point for many atheist, because they actually have such a revulsion to God that they can't endure proofs. And that is a deeper personal issue manifesting, when you encounter this kind of atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post something that science has not touched on that could possibly leed to a god figure.

No, I can't post the "evidence". But it is seared into my memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a couple of pointless hecklers have entered the thread.

There is a point made about believing in God until proven wrong.

That wasn't what was being put forward.What was put forward was that personal experiences needed answers, and God became the best working model to reconcile those personal experiences. I can relate to what Setton is saying. I have written a book about one year of my personal experiences when I was 18 years old. For me, the events I experienced were utterly mind blowing and I had no answers from anyone about what was taking place. But God came unto my awareness and I also resorted to the Bible. It was the answer, and I found the Bible itslef was the only source which described in detail the exact same things I was experiencing. The certainty that God was the HIT to answer my experiences is unquestionable. It was God. My knowledge of God has great basis in personal experiences and there really is nothing which refutes my knowledge oreven comes close. As a working paradigm, it is safe to say it is proven. That is reasonable altogether.

Now that I have had proof of God, the crux of the problem is that others haven't had the benefit of such proofs as I have had. But it is inane for the atheist to assert that belief is baseless. it is also inane for the atheist to assert there is "no proof". All he is stating is that he is personally ignorant of proofs, rather than that proofs don't exist.

Indeed there are many forms of proof of God, some of which are even apprehendable to the spiritually challenged atheist. One of the best is the examination of prophecy (stated intention) vis a vis known history. If the atheist were to study this form of evidence he would find premeditated statements of a God, along with the outcomes of history. Such a proof would be sufficient in a court of law to get a criminal convicted of being the perpetraitor of some events. It is also a proof of God which even the atheist could understand if he had the initiative to learn about such things.

But the usual response fromthe atheist is to say prophecy is ambiguous and he won't even try to learn about it. Arguement from intellectual laziness and ignorance is the fallacy of the atheist when he starts complaining about proofs of God which are offered. My experience with atheist is that at some point the close their eyes, cover their ears, and scream to not allow evidence to come into their awareness. It is a psychological break point for many atheist, because they actually have such a revulsion to God that they can't endure proofs. And that is a deeper personal issue manifesting, when you encounter this kind of atheist.

Must feel pretty good to have god give you personal proof but negleglected the rest. Remember most of the planet does not believe in your god so what does that say. If there was one true god and he was a jelouse god why 7 billion people and yet, it , god can not get more then 1 quarter to follow his one true self.

Did Jesus not promise his return within the lifetime of the people he told that to. Prophecy really or just really holding out.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one universal truth is that no one knows. Everyone finds what comfort they can in their own minds and this is all that really matters. I've seen discussions on this here that have gone page after endless page and it always amounts to the same truth. We live, we die and no one's talking from the "other side". Every religion says it has the answers but as far as I know only one can be proven through it's predictive writings. But only those willing to submit to the constraints of that religion are willing to admit these prophecies are true. Everyone else finds some flaw that releases them from any dissonance about belief. To believe means to be responsible to something other than the god of self and THAT is something most here on this globe can never do. Abraham believed God - and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

abraham believed in god and then he got a face full of lead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.