Convince me that God exists

[WillMc88]

You suggest that people in those kinds of situations get real help. I agree... in a more perfect world. Not everybody has access to all the help they need, especially outside America. Who are we to wave these unavailable options in their faces, and then tell them they can't even soothe themselves with a harmless belief? While I appreciate you not assuming my condescension, there is an air of inconsideration about expect those who've hit their glass ceiling low in life to pull themselves up by their non-existent bootstraps.

I'm not advocating abolishing religion or superstition at all. Nor am I campaigning for atheism in the third world. I'm not expecting anyone to shed their beliefs in a god. What I said was that I do not accept that it's impossible for everyone to cope with life without belief in a god.

Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. If it were, people would have no need to believe in a god to make them feel better. As it stands, theism and religion have an enormous influence on this world. While they do sometimes accomplish things that are beneficial (charities, community, etc), they are also responsible for for some pretty shitty stuff, like attempting to suppress civil rights, filling people with fear of eternal torture, furthering the spread of HIV by condemning contraception (the Catholic Church), etc.

If there was no religion, and everybody kept their personal beliefs and superstitions to themselves, I can tell you that I would not have NEARLY as big of an issue with it as I do. However, it would still affect how they live their lives, and I still think that their lives would be better by using reason and rationality rather than superstition. People can believe whatever they choose though.

I'm not saying humans are not resilient, but why test that resilience? Your mother would live if she shot herself in the foot, but why do that? All the anodyne takes is a believe that you were made by some higher power that loves you. From there, the fallout includes a bunch of extraneous factors that have nothing to do with God or gods or goddesses or w/e.

Shooting yourself is in no way similar to becoming an atheist. That is not an accurate analogy. You're referring to the body's natural healing capabilities, and I'm talking about our ability to assess reality using our intelligence and decide on appropriate actions that will benefit us, as well as mental/emotional endurance.

Mark didn't show you any evidence, now did he? Lol

... Who?

There are plenty of people who believe in god and still try to improve their lives. Many people try to improve their lives BECAUSE of a god. (Alcoholics Anonymous anyone?) While this may not work for everyone, it works for some, and that's good enough for me.

People in AA are there because they have an addiction and want to be free from that. They aren't trying to improve their lives because of a god. I'm not sure if that's what you meant to say.

Btw, you're hot.

Thanks, I know.

 

[altlover85]

It's all very theoretical, but interesting none-the-less.

P.S.: Please no wackjob responses to this post.

Thanks for sharing that. It's interesting.

I'm not advocating abolishing religion or superstition at all. Nor am I campaigning for atheism in the third world. I'm not expecting anyone to shed their beliefs in a god. What I said was that I do not accept that it's impossible for everyone to cope with life without belief in a god.

You may not accept it, but it's hard to prove one way or another.


Shooting yourself is in no way similar to becoming an atheist. That is not an accurate analogy. You're referring to the body's natural healing capabilities, and I'm talking about our ability to assess reality using our intelligence and decide on appropriate actions that will benefit us, as well as mental/emotional endurance.

I think what he is saying is that if believing in god was your only form of support than why take that away from someone?

People in AA are there because they have an addiction and want to be free from that. They aren't trying to improve their lives because of a god. I'm not sure if that's what you meant to say.

I think the AA issue is that people try and fight the addiction through the support of a higher power, which is sometimes god, but doesn't have to be.

 

[WillMc88]

You may not accept it, but it's hard to prove one way or another.

I reject this claim:

"It is impossible for a person to cope with their circumstances without belief in a god."

I think what he is saying is that if believing in god was your only form of support than why take that away from someone?

I got what he was trying to say. The problem was the false analogy.

I think the AA issue is that people try and fight the addiction through the support of a higher power, which is sometimes god, but doesn't have to be.

Mhm.

 

[Jacquemar]

That is all they are, theories that are unproven.

I'd also like to point out that they are theories based on data, and not on mythological tales and paradigms.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

I reject this claim:

"It is impossible for a person to cope with their circumstances without belief in a god."



I got what he was trying to say. The problem was the false analogy.



Mhm.

I never said impossible, if I did, I didn't mean to. I mean that it is a convenient, readily available form of support for those who may find other options dissatisfactory.

I don't think the analogy is false. Both deal with unnecessary testing of resilience. I see no need for people to push their resilience when an anodyne, harmless in its purest form, is a prayer away.

Mhm? I feel your viewpoint may have tweaked a bit. So are you conceding that a belief in a higher power CAN help SOME people? It'd be... interesting... of you not to make that concession.

My my my, cocky aren't we?

 

[WillMc88]

I don't think the analogy is false. Both deal with unnecessary testing of resilience. I see no need for people to push their resilience when an anodyne, harmless in it's purest form, is a prayer away.

I already explained why the analogy is false. Becoming an atheist is not akin to giving up all hope or ability to cope. It provides alternative ways to deal with life's situations that are more grounded in reality.

Mhm? I feel your viewpoint may have tweaked a bit. So are you conceding that a belief in a higher power CAN help SOME people? It'd be... interesting... of you not to make that concession.

As I said before, a belief in god can provide emotional relief. So can any other pleasant delusion. Belief can even be a very powerful thing, regardless of its truth factor.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

I already explained why the analogy is false. Becoming an atheist is not akin to giving up all hope or ability to cope. It provides alternative ways to deal with life's situations that are more grounded in reality.



As I said before, a belief in god can provide emotional relief. So can any other pleasant delusion. Belief can even be a very powerful thing, regardless of its truth factor.

I never said you are giving up all hope. I merely agree with altlover on this one that having a belief in God is more helpful for some. Why is alternative always better? That's what I hate about today's culture, people try so hard to be better or different from a "norm" that is not that malicious. Maybe sometimes there's a reason why things are popular... because they work.

You still haven't explained (or maybe I haven't seen it) in any fashion why being "grounded in reality" is so much damn better in this case where we have no clear determination of either reality (religion is right vs. atheists were right). I assume (maybe falsely) from your apparent level of education, intelligence (which is a separate entity from education), disposition, access to internet, and white-American-ness that your reality is somewhat bright. This is not true for everyone. Some people's realities suck and will not change. Even if they are not Oscar Winning awful, there are still bad things we can never change (death, unrequited love etc.) We just have to cope where there is no hope. If "false" (we can never know, at least not now) hope works for you, more power to ya.

So if belief, by your own admission, is a powerful anodyne, why should that be given up? I mean, yes, institutionalized religion sucks and people can get lazy, but those are separate issues. There are plenty of lazy atheists as well, it's just that the same money (from their parents) that paid for the privilege that led them to "discover atheism" is the money that will keep them off the streets when they flit about "artistic epiphanies" as careers.

We should probably take this to PM eventually you smug bitch (jk), *smooches*

 

[WillMc88]

I never said you are giving up all hope. I merely agree with altlover on this one that having a belief in God is more helpful for some. Why is alternative always better? That's what I hate about today's culture, people try so hard to be better or different from a "norm" that is not that malicious. Maybe sometimes there's a reason why things are popular... because they work.

You still haven't explained (or maybe I haven't seen it) in any fashion why being "grounded in reality" is so much damn better in this case where we have no clear determination of either reality (religion is right vs. atheists were right). I assume (maybe falsely) from your apparent level of education, intelligence (which is a separate entity from education), disposition, access to internet, and white-American-ness that your reality is somewhat bright. This is not true for everyone. Some people's realities suck and will not change. Even if they are not Oscar Winning awful, there are still bad things we can never change (death, unrequited love etc.) We just have to cope where there is no hope. If "false" (we can never know, at least not now) hope works for you, more power to ya.

So if belief, by your own admission, is a powerful anodyne, why should that be given up? I mean, yes, institutionalized religion sucks and people can get lazy, but those are separate issues. There are plenty of lazy atheists as well, it's just that the same money (from their parents) that paid for the privilege that led them to "discover atheism" is the money that will keep them off the streets when they flit about "artistic epiphanies" as careers.

We should probably take this to PM eventually you smug bitch (jk), *smooches*

I already said at the outset that I like to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. If someone doesn't care if their beliefs are true or even likely to be true, then that's fine and we have nothing more to discuss.

I also already said this:

And because of the fact that our beliefs inform our actions, it would be the most beneficial for our beliefs to accurately reflect reality.

It's so damn better because there's not a shred of demonstrable evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. Belief in anything supernatural will affect how a person lives out his or her life and the person will inevitably make decisions based on these beliefs. In most all cases, it will be better to make a decision based on things that we can demonstrate are real as opposed to a decision based on fantasy.

And you'd do well not to assume anything about me, as who I am has nothing to do the points I'm positing. I could easily do the same by calling you out on your seeming disdain for atheists. That's an incredibly ignorant statement to say that atheists are more privileged than anyone else.

 

[altlover85]

In most all cases, it will be better to make a decision based on things that we can demonstrate are real as opposed to a decision based on fantasy.

How do you know that? Where is your proof for that?

 

[altlover85]

I reject this claim:
"It is impossible for a person to cope with their circumstances without belief in a god."

You can reject that claim, but where does that rejection come from?

 

[zoltanspawn]

It's so damn better because there's not a shred of demonstrable evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. Belief in anything supernatural will affect how a person lives out his or her life and the person will inevitably make decisions based on these beliefs. In most all cases, it will be better to make a decision based on things that we can demonstrate are real as opposed to a decision based on fantasy.

I listened to a story on NPR recently in which a psychologist who studied supernatural beliefs speculated that humans benefitted evolutionarily from supernaturalism because it tends to increase cooperation. Less selfish interest, more social interest.

He thinks that all humans have a tendency toward supernatural thinking, whether or not they accept the idea intellectually. This seems sensible to me, and I admit somewhat delights me; I imagine the irritation some atheists must experience when irrepressible, unwanted supernatural thoughts arise like shameful teenage boners at the chalkboard.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

I already said at the outset that I like to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. If someone doesn't care if their beliefs are true or even likely to be true, then that's fine and we have nothing more to discuss.

I also already said this:



It's so damn better because there's not a shred of demonstrable evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. Belief in anything supernatural will affect how a person lives out his or her life and the person will inevitably make decisions based on these beliefs. In most all cases, it will be better to make a decision based on things that we can demonstrate are real as opposed to a decision based on fantasy.

And you'd do well not to assume anything about me, as who I am has nothing to do the points I'm positing. I could easily do the same by calling you out on your seeming disdain for atheists. That's an incredibly ignorant statement to say that atheists are more privileged than anyone else.

Ok, since you are butt hurt (jk) over the "assumptions" I made (and qualified with "maybe falsely"), let me address those first so we can make nice nice.

Inevitably in fields like this, which I hate, our backgrounds influence our standpoints and arguments... so yes... you have something to do with the points you are posting. You are arguing the views of an atheist (or less likely agnostic) because why? You are probably one of those. Is that such a horrid assumption?

Also, the thing about atheist being more privileged is not just me. There are plenty of studies that strongly correlate a large part of the atheist population with higher levels of education. Higher levels of education are correlated with financial privilege and so on... I mean, feel free to prove me wrong about you in particular, but the statistics are on my side here. It's not like I'm making negative assumptions about you, there is nothing inherently wrong about privilege, education, and whiteness.

However, you wrongly assume that I hate atheists. I hate atheists and religious fanatics that impose their beliefs or "lack thereof" upon others. As we argue, I've been having a nice convo about all this with the OP.

As for belief impeding making realistic decisions, yes, even as we speak I know a pre-med Xtian who refuses to seriously study Darwin for bio. I shake my head at that, but there are plenty of Xtians whose interface with reality is not affected poorly by religion.

I worked at NIH over the summer, the forefront of medical advances, but the head of it all is Xtian. They even have chapels there. They argue, convincingly, that religion and science need not be mutually exclusive. Sure, more traditional beliefs around God can impede progress, but that's not a matter of belief itself. That's a matter of believer culture, which is merely a reaffirmed version of a culture that would persist anyways. If you have a problem with various aspects of believer culture, join the club. I think if I had to pick a poison between religious fools and atheist fools, I'd pick the atheist fools any day.

The point I make with Xtian scientists is many religious people only let their beliefs affect them where their beliefs are concerned. Quite frankly, how often in science/logic/medicine/other matters of reality is it important whether or not you believe in a higher power? It doesn't (inherently) stop you from looking both ways when you cross the street. It doesn't keep you from learning 1 + 1 = 2. It doesn't... you get the point. The only thing faith inherently keeps you from doing is being "realistic" about the existence of a higher power. How much does that even matter on a day to day basis? It's stuff of philosophy. When's the last time philosophy fixed a drought, cured a disease, or did anything of material? Sorry, philosophy majors... I'm bitter.

Anyways, I should be the one butt hurt here. Having disdain is soooo much more negative than statistically correlated privilege!

Yes, it's fine, as long as atheists and others are "kind" enough to not get all hot and bothered about whether or not other people's beliefs are true. You seem the kind, from what you've said, that may get bothered over somebody's inability to deal with this small, negligible part of "reality".

 

[bankside]

In this thread people keep citing examples of what they (mis)take to be divine intervention in moments of distress.

What about the satanist who recovers from a heart attack? What about the pagan who is comforted in a time of great personal loss without once thinking of Mary? What about the atheist who sees shadows in the dark growing up, and never prays, but just stops seeing childhood phantasms when the visual pattern recognition parts of his brain just mature and he learns to see what is there? What happens when someone obtains the same outcome by having confidence in a deity which is in every way contradictory and incompatible with the one you happen to believe in?

Sorry for being "debatey" but trying to respectfully indicate why the forgoing posters are unconvincing.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

In this thread people keep citing examples of what they (mis)take to be divine intervention in moments of distress.

What about the satanist who recovers from a heart attack? What about the pagan who is comforted in a time of great personal loss without once thinking of Mary? What about the atheist who sees shadows in the dark growing up, and never prays, but just stops seeing childhood phantasms when the visual pattern recognition parts of his brain just mature and he learns to see what is there? What happens when someone obtains the same outcome by having confidence in a deity which is in every way contradictory and incompatible with the one you happen to believe in?

Sorry for being "debatey" but trying to respectfully indicate why the forgoing posters are unconvincing.

I see your point. I agree with many parts of it. Same as woofy's.

However, while these effects of faith may be placebo, we have no definitive way of affirming or defeating that claim. I don't believe in my lifetime, or anyone else's, we'll have a definitive answer either way.

I think the under-appreciated value in this anecdotal evidence is that something is real to THEM. I don't know about y'all, but I like to read all sides of a story before I close a book. (Except in English class, god I hate humanities. Why am I here?)

I think different strokes for different folks. I think even if this is placebo, there are multiple roots to that placebo.

 

[WillMc88]

I listened to a story on NPR recently in which a psychologist who studied supernatural beliefs speculated that humans benefitted evolutionarily from supernaturalism because it tends to increase cooperation. Less selfish interest, more social interest.

He thinks that all humans have a tendency toward supernatural thinking, whether or not they accept the idea intellectually. This seems sensible to me, and I admit somewhat delights me; I imagine the irritation some atheists must experience when irrepressible, unwanted supernatural thoughts arise like shameful teenage boners at the chalkboard.

I can see how that's true, and I've actually heard that before. I think that as a society and species, we have evolved to a point where superstition is no longer necessary.

 

[WillMc88]

How do you know that? Where is your proof for that?

I would say it's self-evident. Here are two examples:

1. When sick, it is better to seek real medical help rather than pray for a cure.

2. When creating legislation, it is better to make laws that provide real benefit to people as opposed to basing them on superstitious/religious ideas of what is wrong.

I mention these because I see them happening in this country far too often.

 

[WillMc88]

You can reject that claim, but where does that rejection come from?

My rejection comes from the fact that I'm not buying it.

 

[WillMc88]

Ok, since you are butt hurt (jk) over the "assumptions" I made (and qualified with "maybe falsely"), let me address those first so we can make nice nice.

Inevitably in fields like this, which I hate, our backgrounds influence our standpoints and arguments... so yes... you have something to do with the points you are posting. You are arguing the views of an atheist (or less likely agnostic) because why? You are probably one of those. Is that such a horrid assumption?

Also, the thing about atheist being more privileged is not just me. There are plenty of studies that strongly correlate a large part of the atheist population with higher levels of education. Higher levels of education are correlated with financial privilege and so on... I mean, feel free to prove me wrong about you in particular, but the statistics are on my side here. It's not like I'm making negative assumptions about you, there is nothing inherently wrong about privilege, education, and whiteness.

However, you wrongly assume that I hate atheists. I hate atheists and religious fanatics that impose their beliefs or "lack thereof" upon others. As we argue, I've been having a nice convo about all this with the OP.

As for belief impeding making realistic decisions, yes, even as we speak I know a pre-med Xtian who refuses to seriously study Darwin for bio. I shake my head at that, but there are plenty of Xtians whose interface with reality is not affected poorly by religion.

I worked at NIH over the summer, the forefront of medical advances, but the head of it all is Xtian. They even have chapels there. They argue, convincingly, that religion and science need not be mutually exclusive. Sure, more traditional beliefs around God can impede progress, but that's not a matter of belief itself. That's a matter of believer culture, which is merely a reaffirmed version of a culture that would persist anyways. If you have a problem with various aspects of believer culture, join the club. I think if I had to pick a poison between religious fools and atheist fools, I'd pick the atheist fools any day.

The point I make with Xtian scientists is many religious people only let their beliefs affect them where their beliefs are concerned. Quite frankly, how often in science/logic/medicine/other matters of reality is it important whether or not you believe in a higher power? It doesn't (inherently) stop you from looking both ways when you cross the street. It doesn't keep you from learning 1 + 1 = 2. It doesn't... you get the point. The only thing faith inherently keeps you from doing is being "realistic" about the existence of a higher power. How much does that even matter on a day to day basis? It's stuff of philosophy. When's the last time philosophy fixed a drought, cured a disease, or did anything of material? Sorry, philosophy majors... I'm bitter.

Anyways, I should be the one butt hurt here. Having disdain is soooo much more negative than statistically correlated privilege!

Yes, it's fine, as long as atheists and others are "kind" enough to not get all hot and bothered about whether or not other people's beliefs are true. You seem the kind, from what you've said, that may get bothered over somebody's inability to deal with this small, negligible part of "reality".

I could call Paris Hilton a spoiled rich bitch who lives off her parents' fortune. But I'm not gonna pretend that's a compliment just because it's actually a good thing for her. The way you approached the 'privileged atheist' comment is what made it seem offensive.

But yes, there is a positive correlation between education and atheism. If you must know, I realized I was an atheist by doing my own independent investigation into my beliefs, not because of my divorced, lower-class father's money.

Again though, if someone doesn't care if their beliefs are true, OK then! I'm saying that it can have harmful effects, and have provided examples. You're saying that this doesn't apply to everyone who believes in a god or higher power, and that is true as well. The examples I provided do not apply to everyone.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

I can see how that's true, and I've actually heard that before. I think that as a society and species, we have evolved to a point where superstition is no longer necessary.

Necessary is relative. But there's no arguing that it serves some people well.

 

[WillMc88]

Necessary is relative. But there's no arguing that it serves some people well.

I can see how that's true, and I've actually heard that before. I think that as a society and species, we have evolved to a point where superstition is no longer necessary.