Our theists of all labels please answer....

[drfuzzy]

Ok, re: OP . . . I'm an ex-theist.  And please forgive if someone has already replied with a similar response, because I'm really short of time at the moment, so I haven't read it all!   

I think that most theists cling to their "club" and their "belief" because they were raised in it.  They have been conditioned from birth that THIS is the only true belief, and that they really shouldn't question it.  Not only that, but they are surrounded by like-minded people.  And they have not had enough contact with people who hold different beliefs to be curious about those beliefs - in fact, they are trained to dismiss those beliefs as wrong.  (I once worked with a devout Christian who worked with a Buddhist, a Muslim, an Agnostic, and a Hindu.  She claimed to love every one of them - "what a great team! We have such great people!".  When I told her about a comparative religion discussion I had with a co-worker from Bangladesh, however, she was horrified. "You shouldn't talk about religion! He's not a Christian, he's not saved! It might make you curious about his beliefs, and he's deluded!".  Wowza.)  Just reading about "other" beliefs, for some of these people, is a dangerous path.  It's a slippery slope.  They might find other religions interesting, and that CANNOT HAPPEN.  They'll go to hell.

--Fuzz

[RoadRunner79]

[Jackie]

Ok, re: OP . . . I'm an ex-theist.  And please forgive if someone has already replied with a similar response, because I'm really short of time at the moment, so I haven't read it all!   

I think that most theists cling to their "club" and their "belief" because they were raised in it.  They have been conditioned from birth that THIS is the only true belief, and that they really shouldn't question it.  Not only that, but they are surrounded by like-minded people.  And they have not had enough contact with people who hold different beliefs to be curious about those beliefs - in fact, they are trained to dismiss those beliefs as wrong.  (I once worked with a devout Christian who worked with a Buddhist, a Muslim, an Agnostic, and a Hindu.  She claimed to love every one of them - "what a great team! We have such great people!".  When I told her about a comparative religion discussion I had with a co-worker from Bangladesh, however, she was horrified. "You shouldn't talk about religion! He's not a Christian, he's not saved! It might make you curious about his beliefs, and he's deluded!".  Wowza.)  Just reading about "other" beliefs, for some of these people, is a dangerous path.  It's a slippery slope.  They might find other religions interesting, and that CANNOT HAPPEN.  They'll go to hell.

--Fuzz

Yes, most of the world's population simply buy the club because their parents sold it to them at a young age before they could formulate adult critical thinking skills.

But even for someone who might not get raised in one but adapts one as an adult might simply have liberal parents but also not taught critical thinking skills. "Find your own path" sounds nice, but you don't simply say "sample it all", you still have to have a neutral method to apply everything you might look at.

I said in my prior post, you can be intelligent and wrong at the same time. You can be intelligent and fall for very complex arguments that are still nothing more than an elaborate apology.

In the end anything you might want to claim, if it is going to be universally accepted beyond your own personal bias has to be subject to both an accepted method and neutral independent peer review. 

There is no such thing as Buddhist science even if their are Buddhists with science degrees. There is no such thing as Christian science even if there are Christians with science degrees. There is no such thing as Muslim science, even if there are Muslims with science degrees. There is no such thing as Jewish science even if there are Jews with science degrees. There is no such thing as Hindu science even if there are Hindus with science degrees.

There is only one neutral concept of scientific method that all scientists use beyond their own personal beliefs.

[LadyForCamus]

The need is out of purpose called "Love".

True loved searches for truly what out to be loved and sees what ought to be loved with the highest form of love.

The name of God is that connection of fabrics of love through the channels of his love.

I would elaborate, but you guys been witnessing when I became Deist to when I became inclined to be Muslim to when became Deist again, then Atheist, then Deist, then Muslim.

You are not interested in knowing why I believe, you are simply interested in dismissing my reasons and mocking it.

None of the things you just said are reasons, MK. Do you just make this shit up as you go along?

[Valyza1]

Do theists really need to be able to articulate *why* they believe in God in order to be justified in believing? People kept breathing long before they were able to figure out why it's necessary. But even if we never figured it out, we'd still be justified in actually breathing. Likewise, it may be that some religious people are never able to answer the question of why they believe. Still doesn't mean they aren't justified in doing so.

[LadyForCamus]

[Jackie]

Do theists really need to be able to articulate *why* they believe in God in order to be justified in believing?  People kept breathing long before they were able to figure out why it's necessary.   But even if we never figured it out, we'd still be justified in actually breathing.  Likewise, it may be that some religious people never are able to assert the question of why they believe.  Still doesn't mean they aren't justified in doing so.

Not in any human rights or legal context no. Their right to believe in that context is not in danger. But if one really wants to know if they are on the right track, that is a very important question to know if it is more than your own personal bias. When something is really beyond your own personal bias, it can be tested and falsified and then that data and method can be handed over to others and they will be able to come to the same conclusions you did.

If you are not willing to ask yourself why you feel the need to cling to a position, then you unwittingly or deliberately corner yourself into a box and that will not ever become a fact universally accepted.

Yes we knew breathing was a requirement long before scientific method found out the scientific biological explanation as to why. As a result of now knowing why, we have lung doctors and even environmental regulations that require the air we breath to be clean. Or, I should say, regulations that should be used and put first before profit.

Not everyone has to be a PHD scientist no, but the more humans have the basics the better they can view the world. I cant do a fraction to save my life. But I accept science because I use it every day. Much like I understand how to drive a car but can't build one from scratch. I also know the basic concept of how a combustion engine works, and still cant build a car from scratch.

I cant write computer code in machine language, but I do know what a bite is. I do know and accept that all machine language are based on 0s and 1s and positive and negative charges.

[Harry Nevis]

Do theists really need to be able to articulate *why* they believe in God in order to be justified in believing?  People kept breathing long before they were able to figure out why it's necessary.   But even if we never figured it out, we'd still be justified in actually breathing.  Likewise, it may be that some religious people are never able to answer the question of why they believe.  Still doesn't mean they aren't justified in doing so.

If they can't express why they believe in it, they should stop claiming their beliefs are the truth and stop trying to convince others to believe.  And breathing isn't a belief.

[Cyberman]

You certainly can be intelligent AND WRONG. Bernie Madoff scammed rich people and college educated people out of lots of money. Every religion has followers who either fall for or create and sell elaborate apologies.

[Jackie]

Do theists really need to be able to articulate *why* they believe in God in order to be justified in believing?  People kept breathing long before they were able to figure out why it's necessary.   But even if we never figured it out, we'd still be justified in actually breathing.  Likewise, it may be that some religious people are never able to answer the question of why they believe.  Still doesn't mean they aren't justified in doing so.

If they can't express why they believe in it, they should stop claiming their beliefs are the truth and stop trying to convince others to believe.  And breathing isn't a belief.

Agreed.

Breathing isn't something you have to "believe" in, it is demonstrably provable and observable. If you stop breathing long enough you die, no belief required in that. We constantly observe what happens when people stop breathing long enough.

I don't think anyone can legally stop anyone from making absurd claims no, nor do I think you can or should force any religion out of existence. But again, I would say that if you are not willing to ask yourself that question, then you are not being objective.