It works on my system - We are shaped by our experiences. To someone who had their life turned around by a religious order (or a religious individual), it would make sense to follow their teachings.
Opium of the masses - Life is filled with suffering. It is nice to imagine that there is someone looking out for you. An afterlife free of suffering is even better.
Just following orders - If you want to do something, but don’t think your community will support you, it is easier if you say ‘god told me to do it’. It might also make it easier to justify the action to yourself.
Church of England - You don’t care much either way, but it’s too much of a hassle to leave. Plus meeting your friends and neighbours every week is fun.
Research shows that we have the innate (ie. without being externally influenced) belief that there is a higher power. So we are socialized/influenced into NOT believing in God.
Atheism and secularism are big now but this only started to be so in the recent hundred years.
Personally I find my religion logically making sense more than what atheistic ideologies bring forth and their misuse of science illiteracy.
The scripture is preserved and I had the chance to learn the original language which allows to assess it firsthand.
I’d be willing to bet humans also innately believe the earth is flat (in your day-to-day life it certainly doesn’t look like we’re on a spherical object hurling through space), but that doesn’t make it so.
That part of my reply was to show the that we are indoctrinated OUT of religion. Of course this does not forcibly make it true. Like for the shape of the Earth we must use our intellect and whatever is available to us to arrive to any conclusion.
It sounds like you are firmly entrenched in your religion. I’m glad you enjoy reading Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, but it turns out people tend to skew in one of two directions: those without a propensity for analytical thought tend to skew religious - for example, the children in the study you cite - and those who think critically reject religion. There’s even a paper on this.
If your religion brings you happiness and peace, more power to you. However, I would encourage you to rethink your ideas on logic and science illiteracy. Consider that it might actually be very difficult in a world & countless communities built around religion for someone to break away from that social norm, analyse religion objectively, and reject an idea that cannot be proven.
“The” Bible has been proven by Christian scholars that it was not preserved, so one should not take it as gospel.
I agree that it is hard to break away from what you have been socialized into, be it theism or atheism, both being a religion and a belief.
I honestly invite you to study the Quran objectively, which I did. I lived alone in a western society for the most part of my life and was obviously not subject to any social coersion. I distanced myself from what I was taught and decided to look at it from an external and critical point of view. And I discovered it to bee flawless.
You might be thinking my judgement was clouded or doubt my intellectual abilities :D all the same reason why I invite you to undergo the same experience of rethinking your ideas and to read the Quran for yourself. Hapiness and peace are byproducts and not the goal. The goal must be the search for the truth wherever that might be, even if we dislike it.
Apologies for my assumption of your holy book of choice. You realise the Qur’an is the “sequel” to the Bible, which was itself derivative of the Torah, which was based on more ancient myths, etc etc. All of them passed down verbally for generations before written, all of them changed to suit the storytellers’ needs, and all of them FAR from flawless. Historical and scientific inaccuracies aside, none of them are even internally consistent. I have difficulty believing you have applied objective, critical thought to any religious text.
The Torah is a collection of stories coming from an oral tradition or songs. The earliest manuscripts are the dead see scrolls dating one or two thousand years after Moises, peace be upon him. The Jewish don’t recognise thesemanuscripts attributed to heretics.
The Bible according to scholars is a collection of books from anonymous authors who used the names of disciples as pennames. There is no consensus amongst the different denominations regarding what books are part of “the” Bible. The earliest complete manuscript dates about 400 years after Jesus, peace be upon him, and shows differences with today’s text.
The Qur’an is proven to be preserved, even by western non-muslim orientalists. There are carbon dated manuscripts from the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the book is mass memorised by millions letter by letter with a proven chain tracing back to Muhammad. It is not possible to change the text when millions know it cover to cover by heart. Even the understanding of the meaning is not open to interpretation because there are set rules and relied upon books from the disciples, again with a tracking chain, that tell us how it was explained by the prophet and understood at the time of revelation.
So this was an assessment of the text before delving into what it actually contains.
Now I assume you read the Torah and the Bible, which is why you know about the internal and external contradictions.
This is not the case for Qur’an even when it talks about various things from history to natural phenomena. I really encourage you to go past prejudice and critically study it yourself from reputable sources to actually know what it is and what it says.
The Clear Qur’an is a good English translation. Read it and if you have any question don’t hesitate.
I don’t have to read a religious text to know it’s not true, and though you may have been lucky enough to grow up untainted by society, these books have not. The issue with going to sources so entrenched in studying religious text is that they are already tainted by the need to keep the text alive. Should they cast any doubt at all their livelihood will vanish.
No religion has ever offered verifiable proof of any supernatural claim. Once they do I will pay attention.
I don’t have to read a religious text to know it’s not true
How can you give an opinion or hold a position on something you refuse to assess?
The issue with going to sources so entrenched in studying religious text is that they are already tainted by the need to keep the text alive
Here you are making assumptions about the sources maybe because of Christianity and Judaism. The sources like I said are the contemporary ones and there is no room for reinterpretation in the exegesis to twist it in a way or the other due to conflicts that arised later on.
No religion has ever offered verifiable proof of any supernatural claim
Same can be applied to atheism which is positing that God does not exist. I assume you hold that position. If so you are not consistent in your approach.
Should one not objectively scrutinize the claims of both sides before holding a position?
Atheism is the rejection of an assertion that there is a god or gods. If any theists were able to prove the existence of a god, an atheist would (hopefully) change their mind. Rejecting all gods until their existence can be proven is hardly inconsistent.
I reject as true books that say the X-Men exist. Those are first hand sources, but that does not mean the stories they contain are true, even though they are more morally consistent than most popular religious texts. I have not read the X-Men but that is no reason to assume they are true.
Extraordinary assertions such as a devine being existing require extraordinary proof. No religions have managed to provide more than heresay, anecdotal evidence, and assumption to support their claoms. Religious reasoning is as best motivated, and hardly consistent itself.
My opinion is based on how world religions are used by their followers and those in power. All I see is religion used as a tools to control, intimidate, otherise, and war with any group considered “not us” - no matter the religion. I have read summaries of the Bible, Quaran, and Book of Mormon. There is nothing of note in any of them. Any possible good advice or dictate has long since been rephrased, refined, and adopted by society. The beauty of a thing is in its utility, and the use I see religion put to buy those in power is ugly. I want nothing to do with poisonous dogma, and instead choose to try making life better for those around me by direct action. Not by wishing for a god to do so, or wasting this precious life gambling that their might be something better after it ends.
Because they’re convinced it’s true. Given that billions of people in the world ( I strongly expect it’s the majority) would claim to be religious - perhaps the better question is: “why does anyone not believe in religion?”
Simple, if any religion was true and objectively based in reality, why the fuck do they need missionaries to spread it?
If any religion was true, it would have measurable, verifiable, and predictable traits that would be discovered in isolated societies. If all of mankind’s knowledge was erased, we would eventually rebuild our understandings of physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics as they are today. If all knowledge of religions were erased, we would never get the same religions back.
Because they have enough evidence to satisfy them that they should, if they’re rational; because they were taught to and never questioned it through self-examination, if they’re not.
Note that evidence is not the same as proof; other users have pointed out examples of evidence such as ‘testimony from trusted authorities such as parents’ and ‘personal spiritual experiences’ and since those answers were very detailed I won’t repeat them here.
Atheists religiously repeating the word “science” long enough that they trick themselves into believing they have explained the origins of the universe. And thus there is no reason for anyone to believe in God.
Certainly science has achieved a lot. However we are no closer to explaining the origins of the universe as before. As the origin has not been explained why is everyone somehow so confident in the falsehood of a creator?
Agnosticism (not being sure about a creator) is totally fine. However Atheists have a weird obsession about being absolutely certain of something they cannot prove an their alternative for. Atheism runs on pure faith that “science will figure it out in the future”. It is a religion in itself.
The “largest minds” of Atheism are all too often based on pure emotion. As we find with Richard Dawkins, the man so smart that he can explain the universe away… and also believes Israel is not committing Genocide in Gaza.
Your explanation reveals a misunderstanding of the terms, both of science and atheism.
If I may, could I suggest you would be better served by learning about what science is, and also, particularly in this case, just asking atheists what they think and what they mean by the terms they use.
This isn’t a put down, I genuinely think you would be better served by doing so.
Atheism is certainty of the nonexistence of a creator.
As clearly demonstrated in this thread by people certain of their atheism so much you would be hard pressed to find a religious person so arrogant in their beliefs.
It’s difficult to dismantle an argument that does not exist. I suppose if your explanation is non existent you always win the discussion. Le epic Atheist wins again.
Atheism is certainty of the nonexistence of a creator.
This is wrong. The only thing required to be an atheist is lacking a belief in theistic claims. You don’t need to make the claim that God doesn’t exist, and most atheists don’t.
The only thing we’re certain of (not absolutely, but fairly certain) is that theists haven’t met their burden of proof.
You highlighted the A without any understanding of what the prefix a- means. It means not, or without.
I’m not a theist because they haven’t convinced me of any theistic claims. I don’t claim no gods exist. I just don’t know of any gods that exist, therefore I am without theism. A-theism.
There is a key distinction between these terms. An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or divine being. The word atheist originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
In contrast, the word agnostic refers to a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it’s impossible to know how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.
Sure. And nobody claimed “God doesn’t exist.” Two people now have told you that you’re mistaken, but you insist.
From our perspective it seems like you’re imposing a baseless claim onto us so you can feel better about your own baseless claims. Only theists say atheism is a claim.
There is no baseless claim it is the only reasonable claim from our current understanding of physics.
Claiming that the universe magically came out of nothing is not an answer to some. It contradicts all of science especially the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Nonetheless you are still conflating Atheism and Agnosticism. These words exist for a reason they mean different things.
These words exist for a reason they mean different things.
Correct, and you’re still misusing them according to the people who actually identify with these labels. Atheism is the answer to what you believe, and agnosticism is the answer to what you know.
I don’t believe God exists and I don’t know if God exists, so I’m an agnostic atheist. For you to assume atheists are gnostic by default is like me assuming Christians are Mormons by default. It’d be even more ridiculous for me to go on and argue with Christians that “Christian” means “Mormon.”
For me its a combination of learning it since childhood and experiencing minor things that i can’t explain differently.
For example once i had a thought in my mind that i should go home that evening when i see the clouds. Later at the bbq i remembered that and looked into the sky and saw some clouds in the distance and just knew that these were the clouds. But it didn’t looked like it should rain, and the weather forecast was also clear. So i stayed. Later when i went to the train, a huge number of people from a heavy metal concert that just finished came, and enough people wanted to take the last train that day that some didn’t make it inside. If i had gone home when i saw the clouds, i wouldn’t have been in that overcrowded train.
Also for me my faith looks consistent internally and with other stuff that i see.
Religion is an old form of it is what is, hope, direction, tradition, and community.
Can’t explain a thing or understand it God’s will or only God knows. Can’t do anything to help a person because they are in surgery pray or talk to God to wish for good outcomes.
Don’t feel loved or know what to do or wanted. God loves you, will show you the way, and wants you.
Most traditions and communities in the west were founded on a religion so you have hundreds of people to connect with at a church and maybe millions world wide that will help. Those raised on books of wisdom or what is right and wrong still tend to keep the values even after they move away from the religion but realize they can have values without divine beings
Lastly control. Just like businesses it is easier to control people under a religion so if you can get people indebted, traditionalized, and ostracized otherwise. You can control people easily. Lots of people don’t know what to do and why trust another human being but if a human being says wisely God said this it is easier to accept and gain a direction
In vsauses video “The Future of Reason” he talks about how logic is a best seen in a group context, (a group consensus). So if a group of people agree on something, that is how it is. You can also put in some “if its not important to change the consensus for the group, don’t change it” as to why belief in groups doesn’t change very fast. Also the social and economic aspect, groups have people, people need people, you can also more easily find skilled people in a group.
(both religious and secular groups). Examples of belief, god cannot be observed directly, but religious people still believe : scientists can’t find dark matter, but they still believe that it exists. The most important reason is that groups in general serve the people that are in them. Religions keep together well because the majority of people believe in the group consensus (e.g. god), and get to contribute and gain the benefits of the group. Universities are a good example aswell, as they provide employment, teach skills, and foster community and independence.
First of all, I want to make it clear that I’m glad to answer genuine questions made in good faith (no pun intended), but I won’t argue with anyone.
I’m a practicing Hellenic Polytheist and this is my personal experience. I do not only worship deities with names and myths, but also the twinkling of stars, the waves of the ocean, the colors of a sunset, the kindling of a fire on a cold winter day, and the rustling of leaves in the treetops. Sometimes I look at the sky and see stars so far away that we will (probably) never reach them, and that feels divine to me. There’s something that can’t be described with words that is too great for a human to understand, and I find that something so beautiful that I will worship it.
Got a bit poetic there, but I also think that my relationship with religion has also been influenced by the good old autism a lot. I find the psychology behind religion very fascinating, and I think that for some people, especially those who have been raised in a certain faith, it is a “home” that provides comfort in difficult situations. For some people, the thought that a recently deceased loved one is now in Heaven or has been reincarnated as someone/something else is probably a lot easier to accept than that they don’t exist anymore in any shape or form.
That being said, I also want to state that I always try to maintain a healthy sense of scepticism with my beliefs, whether they be religious, moral, or political, because blind belief never leads to anything good. I think that sadly the darker aspects of religion, such as cults and using religion to justify unjust power structures (the patriarchy or the divine right of kings for example) are hard to get rid of.