A Question for Thesists

[Crossless2.0]

I brought this subject up on a christian site once, suggesting that their 'chosen' religion was a direct result of their birthplace (mainly southern US I think) and parental belief system. I suggested that, if they had been in Yemen, Saudi et al, they would likely be Muslim. Without exception, they refuted this citing cases of christians in those countries as proof they too would have found the 'one true faith'. The cognitive dissonance can be a powerful force as we know.

It requires the theist to apply some introspection that would lead to questions that would lead to doubt and they avoid that at all costs.

I've run into that dodge too.  The funny thing about it is that they are basically saying that the missionary/apologetics efforts taking place in those countries are so good that they -- the Western Christians who never had to overcome such strong cultural conditioning -- would inevitably succumb to the arguments in favor of Christianity (or receive the Holy Spirit ) . . . even as their own missionary/apologetics efforts on online sites in Christian-friendly countries fall laughably flat.

You're right.  It's simply a defense against having to think about how contingent their beliefs really are.

[robvalue]

Indeed, the fact that there are a very small percentage of other religions next to the prevalent local ones doesn't mean anything. If one religion was actually true, you'd expect to see it everywhere. If there was a little bit of truth to each, to the point where it could actually be a matter of opinion, you'd expect to see some sort of uniform spread. But you don't, you see people generally following what they have been indoctrinated into. Big surprise.

100 people can't all be the 2 who would have turned out Christian in a Muslim country, or whatever.

It's a good point about "faith", my personal bugbear. It treats any sort of introspection as "doubt" and shames it. You must be certain! It's so dangerous. Being wrong is part of being human, especially when you've been reliant on others for information.

[Kingpin]

To the theists who frequent this board, I have a question for you.  I haven't been around here long, so apologies if it's already been asked.  My question is simply this.  Why do you believe in god?  Is it a simple matter of continuing the tradition of the way you were raised?  Is it the result of scientific research in which you determined that religion answered your questions about life and the world more accurately than science?  Something else?  I have a difficult time establishing what specifically causes most people to believe.  As a follow-up question, had you been raised atheist, what do you suppose the chances are that you would have found your god and converted to your religion in adulthood?

Good question AA and I actually agree with a lot of people on here that if MOST theists are honest it will be because they were "raised that way".  As a theist, I will answer your question.

I was not raised as a Christian and did not attend any church growing up.  No one in my family had.  My first encounter with the word "God" outside of citing the pledge of allegiance in grade school was by my ill mother.  She told me that God was calling her home.  I was 8.  She died a week later.  She had been diagnosed with M.S. at 24 and died at 27.  I was then raised by my grandparents.  My grandmother grew up Catholic but denounced that when she was 17.  My grandfather was an angry drunk who hated religion because his sisters were Southern Baptist Bible thumpers.  I was angry at this "God" until I was 17.  I struggled through my teen years and left home to be on my own at 17.  I ran in to a friend I hadn't seen in a few years who was drastically different then I remember him being.  He talked to me about Jesus, the Bible, etc and well I didn't want to hear any of it, I could not get over how drastically different he was and toiled with a lot of internal thoughts and feelings of something missing in my life.  During the next four years I considered myself an agnostic atheist, but also could not stop thinking of how my friend has changed and kept going back to my mother's words about God calling her home.  I felt it worth looking in to.  In college I studied a lot of religions and philosophy and the one that really pointed me to a Christian was C.S. Lewis.  His argument from Morality I found to be logically consistent and coherent and honestly irrefutable.  To me it certainly pointed to a deity.  At the age of 21 I became a Christian and found profound change and peace in my own life.  I continue to pursue intelligent reasoning and do not shy away from opposing viewpoints.  I enjoy reading the works of Dawkins, Hitchings, Hawking, and Nietzsche (among others).  So one might say that my reson for believing is purely emotional but I continue to test it intellectually.

I would be curious of the answers if it was posed to the opposing view.  Most atheists I have conversed with indeed started out in religion and walked away from it because of religion itself (hurt by church, find church people fake) or evil and suffering in the world, or find religious atrocities both current historical etc.  These are also emotion based reasons not to believe.  Not saying that is why anyone here does not believe, just that in my personal experiences that is why I find most people claim to be atheist.

[robvalue]

The suffering in the world is not evidence against a god, but it is evidence against a powerful being with our best interests at heart.

Being atheist is easy for me, for one thing I have no clue what a god is so I can't believe in it even if I want to. And the gods of virtually every religion are evil, so I would have no interest in them. Of course, the idea that any of the current God characters in religion would bear the slightest resemblance to any actual creator isn't worthy of serious consideration for me.

But anyhow, whatever "God" may be like, I'm not going to worship it. So it makes no difference to me if it exists or not. It would be degrading to me, and utterly pointless to a being of great power.

[Kingpin]

"The suffering in the world is not evidence against a god, but it is evidence against a powerful being with our best interests at heart."

I go back to moral authority here. When you say there is evil, you must assume there is good. But if there is good and evil there must be a Moral Law to differentiate between the two. If there is a moral law there must be a moral law giver. But if there is no moral law giver (no God), there is no moral law, if there is no moral law, there is no good, if there is no good there is no evil.

Because you see such a thing as suffering and evil there must also be love, compassion and goodness. If a powerful being created a world where there can be no evil and suffering (and also no love, goodness), would that not be equivalent to a world of automatons? A world where we could only follow what was allowed and have no freedom to choose? But you ask why would a God create a world where his creation could disobey his rules and reject and hate Him?

Why do people have children? Do we not also run the risk of those children rejecting us and disobeying us? We certainly run the risk, but still feel they are worth creating.

[TubbyTubby]

At the age of 21 I became a Christian and found profound change and peace in my own life.  I continue to pursue intelligent reasoning and do not shy away from opposing viewpoints.

With all respect, you 'found' a religion that was most available and familiar to you. Backs up our recent comments completely.

I would be curious of the answers if it was posed to the opposing view.  Most atheists I have conversed with indeed started out in religion and walked away from it because of religion itself (hurt by church, find church people fake) or evil and suffering in the world, or find religious atrocities both current historical etc.  These are also emotion based reasons not to believe.  Not saying that is why anyone here does not believe, just that in my personal experiences that is why I find most people claim to be atheist.

A bit of a mixture really, there are plenty of de-indoctrinated atheists here but a few, like Rob and myself, who never had to go through the pain and torment of childhood brainwashing. The former are advantaged in a deeper understanding of their position unlike myself - I don't have a proper appreciation of the whole process.

Which is the better position depends on your outlook but I would hazard a guess that most deconverts would have preferred not to have gone through the ordeal?

I have no emotional reasons to not believe in any of your gods, it's purely a need for facts instead of myths. Simple as that really.

[Pyrrho]

"The suffering in the world is not evidence against a god, but it is evidence against a powerful being with our best interests at heart."

I go back to moral authority here.  When you say there is evil, you must assume there is good.  But if there is good and evil there must be a Moral Law to differentiate between the two.  If there is a moral law there must be a moral law giver.  But if there is no moral law giver (no God), there is no moral law, if there is no moral law, there is no good, if there is no good there is no evil.  

Because you see such a thing as suffering and evil there must also be love, compassion and goodness.  If a powerful being created a world where there can be no evil and suffering (and also no love, goodness), would that not be equivalent to a world of automatons?  A world where we could only follow what was allowed and have no freedom to choose?  But you ask why would a God create a world where his creation could disobey his rules and reject and hate Him?  

Why do people have children?  Do we not also run the risk of those children rejecting us and disobeying us?  We certainly run the risk, but still feel they are worth creating.

So, you don't believe in heaven, if you keep your story consistent.

[Kingpin]

At the age of 21 I became a Christian and found profound change and peace in my own life.  I continue to pursue intelligent reasoning and do not shy away from opposing viewpoints.

With all respect, you 'found' a religion that was most available and familiar to you. Backs up our recent comments completely.

I would be curious of the answers if it was posed to the opposing view.  Most atheists I have conversed with indeed started out in religion and walked away from it because of religion itself (hurt by church, find church people fake) or evil and suffering in the world, or find religious atrocities both current historical etc.  These are also emotion based reasons not to believe.  Not saying that is why anyone here does not believe, just that in my personal experiences that is why I find most people claim to be atheist.

A bit of a mixture really, there are plenty of de-indoctrinated atheists here but a few, like Rob and myself, who never had to go through the pain and torment of childhood brainwashing. The former are advantaged in a deeper understanding of their position unlike myself - I don't have a proper appreciation of the whole process.

Which is the better position depends on your outlook but I would hazard a guess that most deconverts would have preferred not to have gone through the ordeal?

I have no emotional reasons to not believe in any of your gods, it's purely a  need for facts instead of myths. Simple as that really.

You mention that yourself and Rob did not have to go through the childhood brainwashing.  Can I deduce from this that your parents were also atheists?  Could I logically say then that you are just continuing in the belief that you were raised in?

---

"The suffering in the world is not evidence against a god, but it is evidence against a powerful being with our best interests at heart."

I go back to moral authority here.  When you say there is evil, you must assume there is good.  But if there is good and evil there must be a Moral Law to differentiate between the two.  If there is a moral law there must be a moral law giver.  But if there is no moral law giver (no God), there is no moral law, if there is no moral law, there is no good, if there is no good there is no evil.  

Because you see such a thing as suffering and evil there must also be love, compassion and goodness.  If a powerful being created a world where there can be no evil and suffering (and also no love, goodness), would that not be equivalent to a world of automatons?  A world where we could only follow what was allowed and have no freedom to choose?  But you ask why would a God create a world where his creation could disobey his rules and reject and hate Him?  

Why do people have children?  Do we not also run the risk of those children rejecting us and disobeying us?  We certainly run the risk, but still feel they are worth creating.

So, you don't believe in heaven, if you keep your story consistent.

How do you come to this statement?  I was responding to Rob's comment regarding suffering in the world being evidence of no God with our best interests in mind.

[TubbyTubby]

You mention that yourself and Rob did not have to go through the childhood brainwashing.  Can I deduce from this that your parents were also atheists?  Could I logically say then that you are just continuing in the belief that you were raised in?

I can't speak for Rob in detail, only myself.

As for deducing that my parents were atheists, then the answer is I don't know for certain. I was encouraged to question everything and if they did (do) have beliefs then they remain very private although I guess that my father didn't believe in a god and my mother is still on the fence.

You cannot 'logically say' I am continuing in their beliefs because they never pushed a belief my way and I am grateful for that. Being atheist is NOT a belief for the record.

[Kingpin]

I was under the assumption you believed it.