Why would a reasonable person believe in God?

[DrZoidberg]

Hindus might have super strong opinions on what's religiously right or wrong, but they're not going to stab you over it.

Hinduvta fanatics will infact do just that. In case you did not notice. Christian missionaries are one especial target. Just as one example.

You don't need the help of religion to be a cunt. People, historically, have managed to do that on thier own just fine. Indian nationalists, often called Hindu nationalists have comitted all manner of atrocities in the name of their religion. But correlation does not imply causation. I'd argue that Hindu nationalism is more a product of the subcontinent's real politik than a result of Hindu theology.

A major obstacle Hindu heresiologists need to clear is the fact that Hinduism has no pope or any central authority. If two Hindus disagree on theology there's no religious authority they can turn to to settle it. As is made evident of the very many traditions and schools of Hinduism that seem to cheerfully get along side-by-side within and without India. Or you can follow Advaita Vedanta, ie atheist Hindus. Devout Hindus seem to be cool about them somehow.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hindutva is Hindu extremism. Has been for quite sometime now.

 

[steve_bank]

Religion going back to the first recorded human civilizations has always been a tool of state.

Today
American Christina nationalism. It was there at e founding.
Technically England is a Christian theocratic state.
Hindu nationalism.
Muslim nationalism.
There is a Buddhist state. Bhutan.
Israeli Jewish nationalism.

As Dr Z I think points out, it is not just Christians who are out for national power and perpetrate abuses.

Israel aPears to be headed for an authorterian Jewish nationalist state. One of Netanyahu's appointees wants to expel Arabs even if they are multi-generational Israeli citizens.

 

[TomC]

You don't need the help of religion to be a cunt. People, historically, have managed to do that on thier own just fine.

Religion going back to the first recorded human civilizations has always been a tool of state.

Both of these statements are excruciatingly true.

It's important to point out that until very recently, in historical terms, both were inextricably part of any given culture. Culture, state, and religion weren't particularly distinguishable, for the bulk of the human population. Modern secularism helps draw some boundaries, but people still tend to think that way.

My country, My church, My whatever, it's still easier to mix them up than to think every little thing through completely and honestly.
Tom

ETA ~ Then there's the mutually supportive elites. The priests tell everybody "Obey the King". The king tells everybody "Obey the Priests" ~

 

[DrZoidberg]

I should point out, I was not raised as a Hindu. My parents didn't tell me to believe anything. They were hippies. Beatniks. They wanted me to figure it all out for myself. They tried extremely hard not to force their opinions and beliefs onto me. To the point where up to my father's death I had no idea what he believed. He never told me. He just said that what he believes doesn’t matter. He had read a lot of philosophy and liked to probe my beliefs. But managed somehow never to reveal his biases.

My mother was heavily into New Age. She believed absolutely everything all the time. Especially the dumb stuff. Her religious faith was and still is a bizarre soup of craziness. I don't think she would be able to explain what she believes that would be comprehensible to any mammal.

I was raised to question everything. Even that statement.

I don't want to give the impression I was raised Hindu. But my religious education from home did heavily lean in that direction. But it was a mish mash of all kinds of ideas. Also I did for long stretches live in Hindu or Buddhist hippie communes and/or monasteries. I spent a lot of my childhood around monks. Talking to them. Also Baghavad Gita study groups.

I should just put that out there

 

[Copernicus]

Before we get too deeply into discussing each other's depth of knowledge on Hinduism and how many ashrams we've attended in the past, I'd like to make a couple of points that are quickly being forgotten. First of all, no matter what religious tradition we were raised in or how many other religions we've been exposed to, none of us are experts on what other participants in the discussion know about religions or their religious backgrounds. So that is not really a topic for debate. I objected to DrZoidberg lecturing me or atrib on what we know or believe about Eastern religions, because he simply lacks expertise in that subject.

I still stand by my original claim that dharma is divinely-inspired law--that it is essentially an authoritarian-based moral code rather than one based on some philosophical position such as utilitarianism. Personally, I reject it as much as I reject Abrahamic authoritarian morality (sometimes called "objective morality" by those who like to believe that morality can be grounded in anything but subjective experience and instinct). My original point was only that human beings invariably learn moral behavior--the distinction between good and bad--from adult authority, and religious authority is grounded in that. Moreover, belief in deities is ubiquitous in the world today, because parents, siblings, and other role models serve as prototypes for religious authorities when they get older. (Christians still use the label "father" not only for God, but sometimes also for priests.) That is, human beings learn about the world from personal experience, and their religious beliefs grow out of that experience. Therefore, those who reject religious authority when it comes to morality, even if it is the rejection of a religious authority they were not raised in, will tend to be perceived as something of a threat. Atheists will tend to be perceived as people who lack a basis for moral behavior. Note that I said "tend to be perceived" and not "will always be perceived". Note, also, that I did not say it is right or justified for them to be perceived that way.

 

[steve_bank]

All religions have the same spectrum. They range from lo liberal to moderate to conservatve to wacky extremes.

There have been young Hindu male 'morality police, walking around beating people who they think violate Himdu morality.

In an interview the Dali Lama wa asled bout weternrrs converting to Buddhism. He said 'Why not practcee the one yuiu have?
.

Relgions are all the priduct of human barins. Relgion is a s sacred as yiu belie it to be, the individual creates the religious experience.

There has always been a wetern fascination with the mysterious east. You can see it in the old movies. Lost Horizos was a good one. Shagi La a hidden traquil valley in the Himalayas.

In the 60s 70s people reJecting mainstream culture glomed oNto Bhuddism amd Himduism.

In my Hartford Ct 70s neighborhood tHere was an American Sikh convert ashram. 3HO happy healthy holy was their cliche.

Families and individual lived in two houses. They had a landscaping business. Men grew lomh beards, wore turbans, and had ceremonial daggers. They all took Sikh namess. At the head was 'guru' in India.

For a few weeks I got up early in the morning and did their morning yoga and rituals with them. In one you sit on the floor and say sa-ta-na-ma while touching thumb to finger tips. Turned out to be a cult. The guru decided who married who.

In the day I drifted through different things. I am no expert, but I certainly understand religious phenomena and how people turn to it.

The American Hindu church was charged with child abuse in their schools.


Hindu scrpture makes you feel holy, so does Chistian, Buddhist, Muslim, and Jewish scrpture to the believers.

 

[SIB]

I think religion and the belief of God comes from two things...

Mostly the fear of death. What happens if anything after death? Many people fear death even if they deny it. I fear death. I cant imagine myself not existing after existing. All religions provide an answer to what happens after physical death, to either be reincarnated as something else, to going to Heaven (or Hell) or into another state of consciousness. It provides some measure of comfort to those old or terminally ill. This is not the end, I am going somewhere else to start a new life. It is very difficult to grasp the concept of non-existance.

Second, just a belief that there is a Supreme Being who created everything and we humans here need to please the Supreme Being. Harkens to the first paragraph of life after death and going somewhere.

I believe in that something created everything. I dont believe it happened by chance or accident. I keep my views to myself because they are my personal beliefs on the subject and everyone has an opinion. This is why under my name I chose "agnostic" which means to me not believing in a God from faith, but not closing the door on the fact that a being or a host of beings exist or existed who made everything.

yup.

Its real simple. "Not by chance" can fit many ideas besides a deity going "poof there it is." To me, more atheist need to stand up and say believing in something more, based on data, is more reliable than the reverse. The only place I have every bumbled into resistance against that notion is on the internet.

There is no need to keep the discussion solely (hyper if you will) focused on no deity. There aint one. But there is something more. List the ideas that people have and see which ones match what we see around us the best. For me, avoiding the notion that we are part of a larger more complex system and deity are the least reliable. They do not match observation.

 

[steve_bank]

To me agnostic is sitting on a fence.

If you die and there s noting then you loose nothing.

If yi8 die and end up at the Pearly Gatesyiu can argue that you sort of believed.

When I first joined the forum way way back I identified as agnostic.

I thought it was a balanced position. I don't see any proof or evidence, but a god might exist.

I came to see that as a weak safe position. Not really atheist and not really theist.

Then there is the metaphysical nonsense. Categories of agnostic like agnostic-atheist.

 

[SIB]

I guess we have to decide what answers we are looking for. To me, what happens after death is not weighted very high. We are trying to describe the system we are in (well, you know what I mean) to the best of our ability. What I need after death, or more precisely, what I need to get me through this life is less important than "How the universe works". But that's just me.

Purely objective.

The claim that we are part of a larger more complex system is more reliable than the reverse. I have no emotional connection to that position. I do have a emotional connection to "intellectual dishonesty to stop religion" and "because a deity said so". Both positions are dangerous to freedom and liberty of the people around them.

"not by chance" There is a host of "hypothesis" that try describe that. For me "Homeostasis" fits the bill. The more we learn the more we realize that "all those coincidences" are better explained by "homeostasis" than those physco-babble rants using looking for patterns that are not there based on a statement of belief about god. In many cases they are, "my god only"/"anti-god" for pollical reasons over the best truths we can have.

They actively avoid listing the beliefs side by side and comparing them to the observations we have. Openly and honestly. To bad most people are not confident enough to challenge these people that are stuck in endless loops of stupid.

"religion-ist" type people. To me, They need a statement of belief about god to determine how the universe works. They are what they are.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Before we get too deeply into discussing each other's depth of knowledge on Hinduism and how many ashrams we've attended in the past, I'd like to make a couple of points that are quickly being forgotten. First of all, no matter what religious tradition we were raised in or how many other religions we've been exposed to, none of us are experts on what other participants in the discussion know about religions or their religious backgrounds. So that is not really a topic for debate. I objected to DrZoidberg lecturing me or atrib on what we know or believe about Eastern religions, because he simply lacks expertise in that subject.

I still stand by my original claim that dharma is divinely-inspired law--that it is essentially an authoritarian-based moral code rather than one based on some philosophical position such as utilitarianism. Personally, I reject it as much as I reject Abrahamic authoritarian morality (sometimes called "objective morality" by those who like to believe that morality can be grounded in anything but subjective experience and instinct). My original point was only that human beings invariably learn moral behavior--the distinction between good and bad--from adult authority, and religious authority is grounded in that. Moreover, belief in deities is ubiquitous in the world today, because parents, siblings, and other role models serve as prototypes for religious authorities when they get older. (Christians still use the label "father" not only for God, but sometimes also for priests.) That is, human beings learn about the world from personal experience, and their religious beliefs grow out of that experience. Therefore, those who reject religious authority when it comes to morality, even if it is the rejection of a religious authority they were not raised in, will tend to be perceived as something of a threat. Atheists will tend to be perceived as people who lack a basis for moral behavior. Note that I said "tend to be perceived" and not "will always be perceived". Note, also, that I did not say it is right or justified for them to be perceived that way.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. At this point I can only repeat what I have said already. My arguments will be the same.

 

[DrZoidberg]

To me agnostic is sitting on a fence.

If you die and there s noting then you loose nothing.

If yi8 die and end up at the Pearly Gatesyiu can argue that you sort of believed.

When I first joined the forum way way back I identified as agnostic.

I thought it was a balanced position. I don't see any proof or evidence, but a god might exist.

I came to see that as a weak safe position. Not really atheist and not really theist.

Then there is the metaphysical nonsense. Categories of agnostic like agnostic-atheist.

The theist/agnostic/atheist divide makes no sense. It was a system divised in France during the enlightenment to establish how Catholic someone was. Outside that dichotomy the terms are impossibly vague. And if you throw in other religions or infinite variety the system breaks down completely.

Add to that basic human psychology. Ie epistemology. What does it mean to believe anything?

If someone asks me whether I am atheist, agnostic or theist I can truthfully answer yes to all questions. As can most people.

In Hinduism whether or not the gods exist isn't the most important question. It's whether you are living a good life. It's not about the gods. It's about your community. The worship of the gods is just the glue.

 

[steve_bank]

In an old obscenity case the judge said 'I may nt be ble to define what onscenity is, but I know it when I see it'.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In an old obscenity case the judge said 'I may nt be ble to define what onscenity is, but I know it when I see it'.

I always liked Richard Feynman's take. He basically said that a person can understand how to apply the labels, the words, in a discussion but not really understand what's behind the words. Likewise, he said a person can be ignorant of how to use those same labels in a discussion but still better understand the phenomenon better than "experts."

We're discussing religious behavior and we're using lots of labels. Sometimes I think we're missing some larger understanding that goes beyond emotions and our puny level of knowledge.

 

[steve_bank]

I think Dr Z is right. It all comes under the heading of epistemology, of which I have a shallow overview.

I think it applies to science and engineering. One can learn to effectively apply theories without in depth knowldge.

A cosmology can be developed that appears to model reality without knowing what reality 'is'.

Philisophcaly I do not se a diffnce between relgion nd scince, the excptio being science has a set of physical definitions on which it is based.

I don't need to know what mass, seconds, and meters are to apply Newton's Laws.

We on the forum have an imahe of what belifs are without having to define the term. If each of us try to define it in our own words we may not all agree in the etails.

 

[Tigers!]

To me agnostic is sitting on a fence.

Are you sure there is a fence to sit upon?

 

[steve_bank]

To me agnostic is sitting on a fence.

Are you sure there is a fence to sit upon?

What is a fence?

 

[Tigers!]

To me agnostic is sitting on a fence.

Are you sure there is a fence to sit upon?

What is a fence?

In your post 489 you mentioned a fence. What did you mean by it?

 

[bilby]

To me agnostic is sitting on a fence.

Are you sure there is a fence to sit upon?

What is a fence?

In your post 489 you mentioned a fence. What did you mean by it?

A fence is a person who trades in stolen goods.

 

[steve_bank]

To me agnostic is sitting on a fence.

Are you sure there is a fence to sit upon?

What is a fence?

In your post 489 you mentioned a fence. What did you mean by it?

I did't define it, I used it.

Is the issue whether a fence exists or not in physical reality?

The question again, what is a fence? Answer that and we can proceed.

Were fencing over a fence. On guard!