Religious discussion without foundation

[JoeSeppe]

I've been a non-believer for most of my life. In those 70 plus years I've read, heard and been involved in a lot of discussion of religious topics. A lot ot it refers to the bible or quran. I now find most of that discussion to be irrelevant without first concluding that there is a God at the core of the topic at hand. Of what significance is discussion of the birth of Jesus or the resurection of Jesus. for example if one has not yet concluded that a God exists? For now my focus is directed at trying to understand WHY people believe there is a God. I feel that most who believe don't know why they believe and will deny some of the obvious reasons which I feel account for most belief. I'm also interested in finding out why anyone in this day and age would believe in the fantasies of creation of the universe, the great flood and Noah's ark, miracle birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary and other such far fetched tales only found in religious folklore.

I'd like to know if you feel that  discussion / debate of Religious topics  before there is conclusion that a God exists has value. Are there reasons for belief that make sense to you?

[brewerb]

I've been a non-believer for most of my life. In those 70 plus years I've read, heard and been involved in a lot of discussion of religious topics. A lot ot it refers to the bible or quran. I now find most of that discussion to be irrelevant without first concluding that there is a God at the core of the topic at hand. Of what significance is discussion of the birth of Jesus or the resurection of Jesus. for example if one has not yet concluded that a God exists? For now my focus is directed at trying to understand WHY people believe there is a God. I feel that most who believe don't know why they believe and will deny some of the obvious reasons which I feel account for most belief. I'm also interested in finding out why anyone in this day and age would believe in the fantasies of creation of the universe, the great flood and Noah's ark, miracle birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary and other such far fetched tales only found in religious folklore.

I'd like to know if you feel that  discussion / debate of Religious topics  before there is conclusion that a God exists has value. Are there reasons for belief that make sense to you?

For the believers their reasons are mostly psychological/sociological. Whether they make sense to me depends on the topic/specifics.

[pattylt]

“ other such far fetched tales only found in religious folklore.”

I’d remove the tales only found in religious folklore….folklore and myths aren’t always religious. I’d agree that many such tales become incorporated into religion but not always.

Anyway…welcome!

One aspect of serious religious believers is a heightened fear level and need for an authoritarian guide to reduce their fears. The leaders of religion tend to be authoritarian and their followers gravitate to his/her certainty. They don’t like “I don’t know”. It’s uncomfortable to their big questions. They often have a need to be told what to think and do. Since atheists don’t have these issues in abundance, we don’t have as high a fear level of unknowns. We dislike answers that are supposed to make us feel better without evidence.

[Paleophyte]

I'd like to know if you feel that  discussion / debate of Religious topics  before there is conclusion that a God exists has value. Are there reasons for belief that make sense to you?

It's an interesting study in anthropology and psychology.

[Rhythmcs]

That's all it would be even if gods were real. Think about it, there's no necessary connection between gods and religions. In the western worlds favorite bedtime story god itself comes down and says "hey, hey, you guys have what I told you all wrong"...and they kill him.

[Cavebear]

I've been a non-believer for most of my life. In those 70 plus years I've read, heard and been involved in a lot of discussion of religious topics. A lot ot it refers to the bible or quran. I now find most of that discussion to be irrelevant without first concluding that there is a God at the core of the topic at hand. Of what significance is discussion of the birth of Jesus or the resurection of Jesus. for example if one has not yet concluded that a God exists? For now my focus is directed at trying to understand WHY people believe there is a God. I feel that most who believe don't know why they believe and will deny some of the obvious reasons which I feel account for most belief. I'm also interested in finding out why anyone in this day and age would believe in the fantasies of creation of the universe, the great flood and Noah's ark, miracle birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary and other such far fetched tales only found in religious folklore.

I'd like to know if you feel that  discussion / debate of Religious topics  before there is conclusion that a God exists has value. Are there reasons for belief that make sense to you?

Welcome to the Forum. I understand what you are saying. Is this your first atheist discussion forum?

[Cavebear]

I'd like to know if you feel that  discussion / debate of Religious topics  before there is conclusion that a God exists has value. Are there reasons for belief that make sense to you?

There are no reasons about religious beliefs that make any sense to me. I cannot see any reason to think a deity exists. None is necessary to the existence of the universe. But also, I object to "belief" as opposed to "thought". Belief has never helped humanity to advance and has mostly impeded progress. Thought has led us from caves and spears to medicines and technology.

[SYZ]

G'day Joe, and welcome to the forum.   

I'm an ignostic, so I don't really believe that it's a
worthwhile task—from either "side"—debating
whether or not supernatural entities such as God
or gods exist.   They don't.      End of story.

However, I do get a modicum of enjoyment occasionally
challenging a couple of the dopey theists that pop up
on this forum.

[JoeSeppe]

I've been a non-believer for most of my life. In those 70 plus years I've read, heard and been involved in a lot of discussion of religious topics. A lot ot it refers to the bible or quran. I now find most of that discussion to be irrelevant without first concluding that there is a God at the core of the topic at hand. Of what significance is discussion of the birth of Jesus or the resurection of Jesus. for example if one has not yet concluded that a God exists? For now my focus is directed at trying to understand WHY people believe there is a God. I feel that most who believe don't know why they believe and will deny some of the obvious reasons which I feel account for most belief. I'm also interested in finding out why anyone in this day and age would believe in the fantasies of creation of the universe, the great flood and Noah's ark, miracle birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary and other such far fetched tales only found in religious folklore.

I'd like to know if you feel that  discussion / debate of Religious topics  before there is conclusion that a God exists has value. Are there reasons for belief that make sense to you?

Welcome to the Forum.  I understand what you are saying.  Is this your first atheist discussion forum?

This is not my first discussion forum, but I've only dabbled in a few in the past.

[SYZ]

I now find most of that discussion to be irrelevant without first concluding that there is a God at the core of the topic at hand. Of what significance is discussion of the birth of Jesus or the resurrection of Jesus. for example if one has not yet concluded that a God exists? ...

And this "conclusion" that God or gods exist is based on an
assumption made by theists—without acknowledging that
this is simply begging the question as far as any further
debate is concerned as to the truth of their claim.

(An assumption is something that is accepted as true,
or as certain to happen or exist, but without any proof.)

At any rate...

The analogy of Russell's teapot, formulated by Bertrand Russell
to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a
person making empirically unfalsifiable claims—as opposed to
shifting the burden of disproof to others—is cogent here.

[SteveII]

I've been a non-believer for most of my life. In those 70 plus years I've read, heard and been involved in a lot of discussion of religious topics. A lot ot it refers to the bible or quran. I now find most of that discussion to be irrelevant without first concluding that there is a God at the core of the topic at hand. Of what significance is discussion of the birth of Jesus or the resurection of Jesus. for example if one has not yet concluded that a God exists? For now my focus is directed at trying to understand WHY people believe there is a God. I feel that most who believe don't know why they believe and will deny some of the obvious reasons which I feel account for most belief. I'm also interested in finding out why anyone in this day and age would believe in the fantasies of creation of the universe, the great flood and Noah's ark, miracle birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary and other such far fetched tales only found in religious folklore.

I'd like to know if you feel that  discussion / debate of Religious topics  before there is conclusion that a God exists has value. Are there reasons for belief that make sense to you?

First, welcome.

Yes and yes.

What do you mean by first you have to "conclude" God exists? Billions of people conclude that God exists. Do you mean 'prove'? Isn't why people believe in God part of the answer to whether he exists or not? You want to divide them but they don't seem to be two separate things when you are talking about how we come to know such a thing (epistemology).

I believe, in this day and age, "the fantasies of creation of the universe, [...] miracle birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary and other such far fetched tales." It is interesting that you left off the most-important-by-far miraculous claim in all of Christianity in your list of Christian beliefs. But anyway, I have my own reasons and I know of the 2000 years of reasons other people give. All of which are entirely rational and coherent in my worldview.

I'm curious though. Why would you come to an atheist forum to look for the reasons? Isn't that just a grand exercise in confirmation bias?

Anyway, it would be fun to hear your "obvious reasons which you feel account for most belief."

[SYZ]

Hey there Joe...

Please don't take any notice of what our resident
theistic forum village idiot has to say (above).  And
you might like to have a look at the virtual tsunami
of religious bullshit he's posted across this forum
before you're tempted to respond to him.

Steve has a well-earned reputation of using all sorts
of linguistic mumbo-jumbo and quasi-philosophical tricks
in order to flog the product—as it were.

At the end of the day though, he's as thick as two short planks LOL.

[brewerb]

Steve just wants god (and all things related) to be something more than psychological. Unfortunately god is only a concept, not all that different from Superman.

[Cavebear]

I now find most of that discussion to be irrelevant without first concluding that there is a God at the core of the topic at hand. Of what significance is discussion of the birth of Jesus or the resurrection of Jesus. for example if one has not yet concluded that a God exists? ...

And this "conclusion" that God or gods exist is based on an
assumption made by theists—without acknowledging that
this is simply begging the question as far as any further
debate is concerned as to the truth of their claim.

(An assumption is something that is accepted as true,
or as certain to happen or exist, but without any proof.)

At any rate...

The analogy of Russell's teapot, formulated by Bertrand Russell
to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a
person making empirically unfalsifiable claims—as opposed to
shifting the burden of disproof to others—is cogent here.

I had to look up Russell's Teapot on Wiki and read it a couple times.  I just wasn't familiar with it.  Made perfect sense afterwards and accorded with my thoughts about proofs.

Those who make a claim are burdened with providing proof of the claim.  No one else has to prove them wrong.  And it is, of course, the theists making a claim.

[SYZ]

And this "conclusion" that God or gods exist is based on an
assumption made by theists—without acknowledging that
this is simply begging the question as far as any further
debate is concerned as to the truth of their claim.

(An assumption is something that is accepted as true,
or as certain to happen or exist, but without any proof.)

At any rate...

The analogy of Russell's teapot, formulated by Bertrand Russell
to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a
person making empirically unfalsifiable claims—as opposed to
shifting the burden of disproof to others—is cogent here.

I had to look up Russell's Teapot on Wiki and read it a couple times.  I just wasn't familiar with it.  Made perfect sense afterwards and accorded with my thoughts about proofs.

Those who make a claim are burdened with providing proof of the claim.  No one else has to prove them wrong.  And it is, of course, the theists making a claim.

And this is where Steve doggedly refuses to provide any
empirical evidence for the purported existence of his god
(or any other gods in fact).  He constantly skirts around
this issue by utilising religiophilosophical circumlocution
as a deflection—in order to avoid answering simple, base
questions with simple answers.

[polymath257]

I had to look up Russell's Teapot on Wiki and read it a couple times.  I just wasn't familiar with it.  Made perfect sense afterwards and accorded with my thoughts about proofs.

Those who make a claim are burdened with providing proof of the claim.  No one else has to prove them wrong.  And it is, of course, the theists making a claim.

And this is where Steve doggedly refuses to provide any
empirical evidence for the purported existence of his god
(or any other gods in fact).  He constantly skirts around
this issue by utilising religiophilosophical circumlocution
as a deflection—in order to avoid answering simple, base
questions with simple answers.

To be (overly) fair, Steve does come from a long tradition of exactly such circumlocutions. That his philosophical system hasn't been updated since Aquinas is, to him, a benefit, not a problem.

[Rhythmcs]

But anyway, I have my own reasons and I know of the 2000 years of reasons other people give. All of which are entirely rational and coherent in my worldview.

The term for things which make sense from some particular individual worldview is subjective, reducing "reason" and "rational" and "coherent" to terms of art.  Case in point, the reasons you've given for your beliefs and how you evaluate beliefs are neither rational nor coherent, falling well short of the bar of reason.....and that's just what little we know of it from what little you share.  There's no chance that the greater mass of tangled superstitions and rationalizations is more rational or coherent than that select bunch.  

The op, you, and plenty of other people think that these conversations couldn't even begin or proceed in earnest without first demonstrating a god - but the real head scratcher, imo, is how they could begin or proceed even if there were a god or a god could be demonstrated when we can't do word good and stuff.  When we hold a belief set that makes demands on language which prevent people who do or do not share exactly those beliefs from so much as communicating their agreement or disagreement.

[SYZ]

And this is where Steve doggedly refuses to provide any
empirical evidence for the purported existence of his god
(or any other gods in fact).  He constantly skirts around
this issue by utilising religiophilosophical circumlocution
as a deflection—in order to avoid answering simple, base
questions with simple answers.

To be (overly) fair, Steve does come from a long tradition of exactly such circumlocutions. That his philosophical system hasn't been updated since Aquinas is, to him, a benefit, not a problem.

LOL... Steve in his ignorance says:  "But anyway, I have my own reasons and
I know of the 2000 years of reasons other people give. All of which are entirely
rational(!) and coherent(!) in my worldview".

Seriously?  2,000 years of rational and coherent reason?
Religious belief is one of the most absurd eventualities of
the ignorant thought processes of ill-educated, primitive
men who were literally afraid of the dark.

That Steve still has faith [sic] in the fatuous drivel from
a millennia-old fairy story is all the evidence one needs to
totally ignore his dark ages, self-described world-view.

[1Sam15]

Booom!

[JoeSeppe]

I've been a non-believer for most of my life. In those 70 plus years I've read, heard and been involved in a lot of discussion of religious topics. A lot ot it refers to the bible or quran. I now find most of that discussion to be irrelevant without first concluding that there is a God at the core of the topic at hand. Of what significance is discussion of the birth of Jesus or the resurection of Jesus. for example if one has not yet concluded that a God exists? For now my focus is directed at trying to understand WHY people believe there is a God. I feel that most who believe don't know why they believe and will deny some of the obvious reasons which I feel account for most belief. I'm also interested in finding out why anyone in this day and age would believe in the fantasies of creation of the universe, the great flood and Noah's ark, miracle birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary and other such far fetched tales only found in religious folklore.

I'd like to know if you feel that  discussion / debate of Religious topics  before there is conclusion that a God exists has value. Are there reasons for belief that make sense to you?

First, welcome.

Yes and yes.

What do you mean by first you have to "conclude" God exists? Billions of people conclude that God exists. Do you mean 'prove'? Isn't why people believe in God part of the answer to whether he exists or not? You want to divide them but they don't seem to be two separate things when you are talking about how we come to know such a thing (epistemology).

I believe, in this day and age, "the fantasies of creation of the universe, [...] miracle birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary and other such far fetched tales." It is interesting that you left off the most-important-by-far miraculous claim in all of Christianity in your list of Christian beliefs. But anyway, I have my own reasons and I know of the 2000 years of reasons other people give. All of which are entirely rational and coherent in my worldview.

I'm curious though. Why would you come to an atheist forum to look for the reasons? Isn't that just a grand exercise in confirmation bias?

Anyway, it would be fun to hear your "obvious reasons which you feel account for most belief."

"Conclude" was a poor choice. I see little value in debating or even discussing anything beyond God's existence unless both sides are in agreement that a god exists. Why would two non believers discuss creation or bible verse?

Your definition of rational and coherent must be different than mine.  2000 years of belief does not make something rational in my opinion.

I would agree with wondering why I would come to an atheist forum to look for reasons. I wonder that myself, but I don't know where else to go to look for reasons. 

I think that most belief stems from either fear (fear of not believing), the need to fit in with others who believe, or the need to feel accepted, secure and supported emotionally. My theory is that man created God. I would love to see what a Christian believer would do if they were suddenly placed in an environment where ALL were Muslims worshiping Allah. Would they adhere to their Christian God or would they convert?

[SteveII]

First, welcome.

Yes and yes.

What do you mean by first you have to "conclude" God exists? Billions of people conclude that God exists. Do you mean 'prove'? Isn't why people believe in God part of the answer to whether he exists or not? You want to divide them but they don't seem to be two separate things when you are talking about how we come to know such a thing (epistemology).

I believe, in this day and age, "the fantasies of creation of the universe, [...] miracle birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary and other such far fetched tales." It is interesting that you left off the most-important-by-far miraculous claim in all of Christianity in your list of Christian beliefs. But anyway, I have my own reasons and I know of the 2000 years of reasons other people give. All of which are entirely rational and coherent in my worldview.

I'm curious though. Why would you come to an atheist forum to look for the reasons? Isn't that just a grand exercise in confirmation bias?

Anyway, it would be fun to hear your "obvious reasons which you feel account for most belief."

"Conclude" was a poor choice. I see little value in debating or even discussing anything beyond God's existence unless both sides are in agreement that a god exists. Why would two non believers discuss creation or bible verse?

I understand your point, you see Christianity as built on a simple set of discrete claims about reality--let's talk only about them. But that is far too simplistic of an epistemic framework (how we come to know something) to evaluate an entire worldview of interconnected and mutually supporting beliefs. When one does not actually understand the Christian worldview, you have no way of knowing how the concepts relate to each other and to the claims. For example, your question "of what significance is discussion of the birth of Jesus or the resurrection of Jesus?" --an immense amount!

Your definition of rational and coherent must be different than mine.  2000 years of belief does not make something rational in my opinion.

I didn't say that time make something rational. I said there was 2000 years of rational thought that can be examined. Anyway, you might want to read this post I created not too long ago on the topic--specifically the section: HOW TO EVALUATE RELIGIOUS WORLDVIEWS. You are using the wrong set of tools for the job you laid out ahead of yourself.

I would agree with wondering why I would come to an atheist forum to look for reasons. I wonder that myself, but I don't know where else to go to look for reasons. 

The aptly named Reasonable Faith website comes to mind.

I think that most belief stems from either fear (fear of not believing), the need to fit in with others who believe, or the need to feel accepted, secure and supported emotionally. My theory is that man created God. I would love to see what a Christian believer would do if they were suddenly placed in an environment where ALL were Muslims worshiping Allah. Would they adhere to their Christian God or would they convert?

You list a bunch of sociological or psychological reasons. Not one of those things is found in the NT. ...and I guess that brings us back in a full circle to my first point. Your quest for reasons has got to start with understanding what a Christian worldview is (what they claim exactly and why).

[SYZ]

...I think that most belief stems from either fear (fear of not believing), the need to fit in with others who believe, or the need to feel accepted, secure and supported emotionally. My theory is that man created God.

Exactly.  Nailed it in one.

Christians are still, even today, driven by fears of the unknown—fuelled by
mythology, superstition, antiquated godlore, hearsay, and blatant untruths.

 See my sig LOL.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your quest for reasons has got to start with understanding what a Christian worldview is (what they claim exactly and why).

And the obverse is true as well. If you want to understand why I think your god is horseshit, you need to understand my worldview. But in this instance, you can't, because while I spent some of my life as a Christian, you haven't spent any of your life as an atheist.

It follows that my rejection of your belief is grounded more than yours of mine.

[SteveII]

Your quest for reasons has got to start with understanding what a Christian worldview is (what they claim exactly and why).

And the obverse is true as well. If you want to understand why I think your god is horseshit, you need to understand my worldview. But in this instance, you can't, because while I spent some of my life as a Christian, you haven't spent any of your life as an atheist.

It follows that my rejection of your belief is grounded more than yours of mine.

I don't think the obverse is true. Why you think god is horseshit is a product or expression of your worldview, not your worldview. Worldviews are describable, fundamental assumptions about reality: what exists (metaphysics), how we know (epistemology), what is right (ethics), questions of meaning or value, and a few others. I understand the range of basic naturalistic worldviews even having never been an atheist (it is not that complicated). Your experiences may shape your worldview, they are not the same as your worldview.

[Paleophyte]

And the obverse is true as well. If you want to understand why I think your god is horseshit, you need to understand my worldview. But in this instance, you can't, because while I spent some of my life as a Christian, you haven't spent any of your life as an atheist.

It follows that my rejection of your belief is grounded more than yours of mine.

I don't think the obverse is true. Why you think god is horseshit is a product or expression of your worldview, not your worldview. Worldviews are describable, fundamental assumptions about reality: what exists (metaphysics)...

Emphasis mine. Thump's pretty clearly speaking to what exists, and doesn't, so even by your definition that's worldview.

On a related note, have you tried being less reflexively dismissive? It's not that complicated.