Why would a reasonable person believe in God?

[DrZoidberg]

No I didn't I pointed out that despite what was posted previously many Jews excel in the science field and not just engineering.

Also, religions differ in the way their adherents are required to accept dogma to remain part of the group.

Not really. All religions require some level of obedience and logical blindness.

No they don't. Judaism does not have a creed. There are many Jews who are atheist.

If they are atheists, they aren't theists.

You seem to have trouble grasping the fact that there exists such a thing as atheistic religions, and an atheistic religious practice. The fact that you might not understand it, doesn't really alter the fact that this is a real thing and not even all that uncommon. There can be lots of reasons to be religious other than just belief in God. As I mentioned earlier in this thread. Religion is more than just an exercise in figuring out whether or not God exists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No I didn't I pointed out that despite what was posted previously many Jews excel in the science field and not just engineering.

Also, religions differ in the way their adherents are required to accept dogma to remain part of the group.

Not really. All religions require some level of obedience and logical blindness.

No they don't. Judaism does not have a creed. There are many Jews who are atheist.

If they are atheists, they aren't theists.

You seem to have trouble grasping the fact that there exists such a thing as atheistic religions, and an atheistic religious practice. The fact that you might not understand it, doesn't really alter the fact that this is a real thing and not even all that uncommon. There can be lots of reasons to be religious other than just belief in God. As I mentioned earlier in this thread. Religion is more than just an exercise in figuring out whether or not God exists.

Hush! Some fundy loon in our government is gonna push that line on the floor. Pretty soon more religious crackheads like Scalia will be arguing that not being religious constitutes a religion and that therefore we non-religious folks are getting the government nod. Clever brainless idiocy like that passes as intellect in the U.S.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No I didn't I pointed out that despite what was posted previously many Jews excel in the science field and not just engineering.

Also, religions differ in the way their adherents are required to accept dogma to remain part of the group.

Not really. All religions require some level of obedience and logical blindness.

No they don't. Judaism does not have a creed. There are many Jews who are atheist.

If they are atheists, they aren't theists.

You seem to have trouble grasping the fact that there exists such a thing as atheistic religions, and an atheistic religious practice. The fact that you might not understand it, doesn't really alter the fact that this is a real thing and not even all that uncommon. There can be lots of reasons to be religious other than just belief in God. As I mentioned earlier in this thread. Religion is more than just an exercise in figuring out whether or not God exists.

Hush! Some fundy loon in our government is gonna push that line on the floor. Pretty soon more religious crackheads like Scalia will be arguing that not being religious constitutes a religion and that therefore we non-religious folks are getting the government nod. Clever brainless idiocy like that passes as intellect in the U.S.

No matter how much you're poking fun at it, it's still very much a thing. Obviously atheism as such is not a religion or a faith. But you can do the whole religion thing without having to believe in God. Or any god. God isn't actually necessary for having religions. Here's a short list.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/AtheistReligion.htm

And then there's things like Sunday Assembly. A bunch of atheist feel-good sermons talking about how awesome and fantastic the world is. It's got many of the trappings of religion. Is it a religion? That's a matter of opinion. But they are certainly registered as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Assembly

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But it is a necessary 1st step.

For the rest, can't God do at least some of the work? Surely He knows your limits, and steps in where more is needed, right?

So child abuse simply cannot occur. Not with God helping you out. Surely?

We are getting close to the free will discussion.

That discussion is a necessary component of the reasonableness of believing in God - if the god being posited is an omni one, as it is here.

If you know that someone had the means and ability to stop a child getting raped and yet chose to sit back and do nothing and then another person made the claim that this someone was a good person despite this, it's not reasonable to believe that other person's claim. Good people step in to prevent child rape when they see it happening.

God knows every time a child gets raped and has the ability to prevent that rape. There are people who are praying for an end to child rape, so it's not like there's some kind of non-interference policy in force which stops him from taking a hand. Why would it be more reasonable to assume that there's this epitome of goodness out there allowing this to happen as opposed to assuming that that guy just isn't there?

 

[bilby]

But it is a necessary 1st step.


We are getting close to the free will discussion.

That discussion is a necessary component of the reasonableness of believing in God - if the god being posited is an omni one, as it is here.

If you know that someone had the means and ability to stop a child getting raped and yet chose to sit back and do nothing and then another person made the claim that this someone was a good person despite this, it's not reasonable to believe that other person's claim. Good people step in to prevent child rape when they see it happening.

God knows every time a child gets raped and has the ability to prevent that rape. There are people who are praying for an end to child rape, so it's not like there's some kind of non-interference policy in force which stops him from taking a hand. Why would it be more reasonable to assume that there's this epitome of goodness out there allowing this to happen as opposed to assuming that that guy just isn't there?

Quite.

I am not (despite appearances) a God; but if I saw a guy raping a child, I wouldn't just shrug and say "Well, I'd do something, but I don't like to infringe on his free will".

Indeed, I wouldn't have anything nice to say about someone who did say such a thing - and I sure as shit wouldn't worship him or suggest to anyone else how wonderful and glorious he was.

Free will is a massive cop-out.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No matter how much you're poking fun at it, it's still very much a thing. Obviously atheism as such is not a religion or a faith. But you can do the whole religion thing without having to believe in God. Or any god. God isn't actually necessary for having religions. Here's a short list.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/AtheistReligion.htm

And then there's things like Sunday Assembly. A bunch of atheist feel-good sermons talking about how awesome and fantastic the world is. It's got many of the trappings of religion. Is it a religion? That's a matter of opinion. But they are certainly registered as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Assembly

So if I said to you, "I'm not religious," does that make me religious?

Also, speaking as a U.S. citizen, to call those behaviors "religions" would constitute an anachronism with regards to our establishment clause. Only a fundy loon would try to pick it up and run with it in that sense, and some do of course. It's similar to some christians I know who contend their christianity is not a religion, but a "relationship." You can imagine how impressed I am with such claims. But we digress.

 

[angelo]

Isn't it the same as in islam? It's a religion yes but also a way of life. I guess that there are very few atheist among Mohammedans.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No matter how much you're poking fun at it, it's still very much a thing. Obviously atheism as such is not a religion or a faith. But you can do the whole religion thing without having to believe in God. Or any god. God isn't actually necessary for having religions. Here's a short list.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/AtheistReligion.htm

And then there's things like Sunday Assembly. A bunch of atheist feel-good sermons talking about how awesome and fantastic the world is. It's got many of the trappings of religion. Is it a religion? That's a matter of opinion. But they are certainly registered as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Assembly

So if I said to you, "I'm not religious," does that make me religious?

Of course not. If you say you are not religious, it means just like that. Remember that being religious is being part of an organisation of some sense, or having your faith organized. You can believe in God without being religious. A person like John Cleese springs to mind. He says he believes in "the divine" (whatever that means) but hates all religion. He really fucking hates it. The entire film Life of Brian is basically just his one long tirade about how fucking much he hates religion.

Also, speaking as a U.S. citizen, to call those behaviors "religions" would constitute an anachronism with regards to our establishment clause. Only a fundy loon would try to pick it up and run with it in that sense, and some do of course. It's similar to some christians I know who contend their christianity is not a religion, but a "relationship." You can imagine how impressed I am with such claims. But we digress.

I didn't know what the "establishment clause" was so I had to google it. Way too much text. So if you'd like to explain it succinctly and how it is relevant I'd be very grateful. I do find it somewhat amusing that Americans tend to treat the US constitution as a holy text. Granted that it is surprisingly well written for being such an early example of an enlightenment constitution. But there are many countries that have constitutions based on the enlightenment. Much more modern, better written and better worded constitutions. So the American one really isn't special any longer. It just cracks me up how Americans talk about it.

Bottom line, who the fuck cares what the US constitution has to say about anything on this matter? These are much bigger concepts than just a legal document in one single country.

In Sweden a religion does not have tax exempt status. So there is no legal need to define it. So we don't. This has taken all the wind out of any debate on what constitutes a religion. It is a non-issue and it has always been a non-issue. Yes, Sweden too has church/state separation. Just like USA.

 

[Dutch_labrat]

Isn't it the same as in islam? It's a religion yes but also a way of life. I guess that there are very few atheist among Mohammedans.

You would guess wrong. Like with Judaism it is not unusual for an educated Muslim to keep halal and follow the proscribed rituals while being a philosophical agnost/atheist. Of course this was much more common in the past during the Islamic enlightenment (=European middle ages). You will not find them out in the open in the current Middle East for obvious reasons.

 

[Rhea]

I didn't know what the "establishment clause" was so I had to google it. Way too much text. So if you'd like to explain it succinctly and how it is relevant I'd be very grateful.

The establisment clause is a section that determines it is unconstitutional for the government to have anything to do with getting behind a religion of any kind. That it's illegal for the government to "establish" a religion as something having legal promotion or preference in any public way.

I do find it somewhat amusing that Americans tend to treat the US constitution as a holy text. Granted that it is surprisingly well written for being such an early example of an enlightenment constitution. But there are many countries that have constitutions based on the enlightenment. Much more modern, better written and better worded constitutions. So the American one really isn't special any longer. It just cracks me up how Americans talk about it.

I love this paragraph. Not only is it a nice reminder to avoid being too hidebound, arrogant or exceptionalist; but it is kind of freeing to be reminded that it doesn't have to be a dead document.

 

[Rhea]

In Sweden a religion does not have tax exempt status. So there is no legal need to define it. So we don't. This has taken all the wind out of any debate on what constitutes a religion. It is a non-issue and it has always been a non-issue. Yes, Sweden too has church/state separation. Just like USA.

I just started a spinoff conversation about tax-free status in the Politics forum

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In Sweden a religion does not have tax exempt status. So there is no legal need to define it. So we don't. This has taken all the wind out of any debate on what constitutes a religion. It is a non-issue and it has always been a non-issue. Yes, Sweden too has church/state separation. Just like USA.

I just started a spinoff conversation about tax-free status in the Politics forum

A much better arrangement I might add.

LOL. Sounds like I was saying the spinoff is a better arrangement. It is, but I meant that religious institutions don't get government handouts.

 

[angelo]

Isn't it the same as in islam? It's a religion yes but also a way of life. I guess that there are very few atheist among Mohammedans.

You would guess wrong. Like with Judaism it is not unusual for an educated Muslim to keep halal and follow the proscribed rituals while being a philosophical agnost/atheist. Of course this was much more common in the past during the Islamic enlightenment (=European middle ages). You will not find them out in the open in the current Middle East for obvious reasons.

In America at the present time, a country that has the greater number of fundamentalist than anywhere else, atheist-ism still numbers in the high 20%. In any islamic country the number of atheists is negligible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No I didn't I pointed out that despite what was posted previously many Jews excel in the science field and not just engineering.

Also, religions differ in the way their adherents are required to accept dogma to remain part of the group.

Not really. All religions require some level of obedience and logical blindness.

No they don't. Judaism does not have a creed. There are many Jews who are atheist.

If they are atheists, they aren't theists.

You seem to have trouble grasping the fact that there exists such a thing as atheistic religions.

There is a god in Judaism. If you follow Judaism, you must follow a god. Being Jewish doesn't mean you are a follower of the Judaic faith.

There can be lots of reasons to be religious other than just belief in God.

What does it mean to be "religious"? Are you expanding the scope of the term to cover stuff that is outside the realm of religion? Religions rely on a higher authority for the basis of their moral code. That basis is rarely negotiable.

Moral codes outside of religion and much more adaptable and are not based as much on ancient arbitrary judgements.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a god in Judaism. If you follow Judaism, you must follow a god. Being Jewish doesn't mean you are a follower of the Judaic faith.

I maintain that you're letting the Christian concept of God get to represent all religion's concept of God. God is an exceedingly complex, as well as deep, subject. There's many variations out there. Buddhism has gods. But gods are more facets of human behaviour. You worship the god of silence if your goal is to be silent. That worship and devotion is intended to give you the power and strength to maintain it. The god of silence is the embodiment of silence. The Buddhist gods they perfectly straddle pure symbolism (ie they don't really exist) or magical powers (ie they do exist). The various Buddhist texts keep sliding between these interpretations all the time. It's impossible to know what is meant.

Judaism is a part monotheistic religion (Christianity, Islam) and part Pagan religion. Pagan gods are more along the Buddhist tradition. The gods are embodiments of various phenomena. What makes Judaism special is that it has taken all the various Pagan gods and one-by-one incorporated it into Jehova. This evolution can actually be traced in the Torah itself. It happened over a 500 year period during which time the Torah was written.

Pagan gods don't give a shit whether you believe in them or not. None of the Pagan religions emphasize this. The ONLY thing they care about is that the proper rituals and sacrifices are carried out. As long as you do them, you can go on your merry way, and do what the fuck you like. This is Judaism.

Pagan religion (and Judaism) is based around social control. The Torah and commandments are manuals for life. The important thing isn't that every Jew believes in God, as long as they follow the rules. The Torah even explains this. The Torah is full of all manner of gods. It doesn't deny their existence. It just emphasizes that Jews aren't allowed to worship them. That's what the covenant is about. It's the job of Jews to keep other Jews on the straight and narrow. The Jews are God's chosen people whether they want it or not. You can't control what other people believe. But you can control what they do. This is Judaism.

There's even a song about it in the most Jewish film ever made. And the title of the main theme song explains it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

That's one of the reasons that Judaism doesn't have confessionals. Jehova doesn't give a rats ass whether you're truly sorry or regret what you did. It doesn't even care whether you let... Moses... into your heart. There's even an awesome scene about it in the beginning of Angels in America. Where the boyfriend comes to the Rabbi and regrets what he has done. The Rabbi answers. "We are Jews. We don't have forgiveness. We have guilt"

Bottom line. A Jew needs to follow the rules because that is what it means to be Jewish. Whether or not God exists is of secondary importance. That is why atheist and theist Jews get on like a house on fire. They don't care that they don't agree on theology.

Judaism (and Paganism) is actually a more civilised religion than Christianity (and Islam). Judaism doesn't have intolerance of other religions built into it's creed.

What does it mean to be "religious"? Are you expanding the scope of the term to cover stuff that is outside the realm of religion? Religions rely on a higher authority for the basis of their moral code. That basis is rarely negotiable.

Moral codes outside of religion and much more adaptable and are not based as much on ancient arbitrary judgements.

I've shown you a list of atheistic religion. Their followers obviously don't agree with your narrow definition of religion. They also don't care about your opinion on the matter. They're religious and atheist and exist. You can obviously pretend they're not there.... if you like. I don't understand your apparent need for denying reality? Isn't that what's wrong with theism?

Moral codes within theist religion are obviously just as open to change as any other moral codes. They had to have been created (by humans) at some point. Right? Obviously God didn't do it. History is full of changes in Christian moral re-interpretation. One of the highest virtues of Christianity used to be to remain chaste your entire life. At some point a Roman Emperor put an end to the worship of Thecla (one of early Christianity's three main saints) and that was the end of that. Since then it was "go forth and multiply". My point is that your idea around the permanence of religious moral codes is ONLY based upon the myth that they are. Most people are conservatives who hate change. That's why they find it attractive to cling to the illusion of eternal morals given to us from God. But they're not. They never have been. Christian morals have been evolving alongside the rest of the society for ever. At no point have Christian morals been static.

 

[No Robots]

There is a case to be made that at its core Judaism is what could be called spiritual atheism. In this interpretation, the word Jahveh signifies the verb "to be" in indeterminate mode. This line of thought is mentioned by Maimonides. It gets its full development in Spinoza. In the early twentieth century, many Reform Jews embraced this view. Nowadays, there is still some interest.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a case to be made that at its core Judaism is what could be called spiritual atheism. In this interpretation, the word Jahveh signifies the verb "to be" in indeterminate mode. This line of thought is mentioned by Maimonides. It gets its full development in Spinoza. In the early twentieth century, many Reform Jews embraced this view. Nowadays, there is still some interest.

I'd argue that real atheism wasn't possible until the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment. There was simply not a good enough definition of what was considered natural for the supernatural to be a meaningful concept. You need to have a good definition of the natural to be able to postulate what isn't natural.

So I think it's beyond question that any pre-Enlightenment religion was by definition theist. That goes for all people to. There could not exist an atheistic person. So seeing an atheistic core of any ancient religion I think is trying to see things that aren't there.

That of course doesn't mean that atheists today can't re-interpret old religions as atheistic religions. Like I touched on earlier, the concept of God/gods in religions are often quite complex, fascinating and deep. A lot deeper than what it looks at first glance. In all religion the concept of gods seems to operate on many levels at once.

There's a tendency within religions that I don't like, that the age of a belief makes it better somehow. As if it can be found in Judaism that it's creators were atheists all along, then that makes it ok to believe... or something. I don't get it. Old ideas tend to be worse, not better.

 

[No Robots]

Atheism was well understood in the Greco-Roman world. The Jews in fact were accused of atheism by the Romans.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Atheism was well understood in the Greco-Roman world. The Jews in fact were accused of atheism by the Romans.

Everyone's always accusing the Jews of stuff. According to my uncle, they're the reason he's been on welfare for the past six years.

 

[No Robots]

The Germanic peoples have spent 2000 years misunderstanding Judaism, and are only now coming to the intellectual/spiritual level that Judaism attained many thousands of years ago.