Why Do YOU Think People Believe in God?

[Miles]

.

.... Any god!

"Why do people believe in God? For most people in the world, the answer seems obvious: Because it’s self-evident that God exists. From the point of view of the believer, the really puzzling question is how anyone could not believe.

And yet, as University of California at Irvine psychologist Brett Mercier and his colleagues point out in a recent article, there was once a time in the prehistory of our species when nobody believed in a god of any sort. Our evolutionary ancestors were all atheists, but somewhere along the way they found religion. So we’re back to our original question: Why do people believe in God?"
source

So, why do you think people believe in god?


.

[Miles]

.

.... Any god!


So, why do you think people believe in god?


.

The reason is many fold. One is that they perceive that a God must exist. The second is the spiritual realm is active as someone (angelic beings) casts influence onto humans, thus subconsciously humans perceive the existence of such a realm.

Curious. Do you believe such a spiritual realm with angelic beings exists?

,

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

Most people believe whatever they believe because it works for them. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, or in psychics, or if he lacks belief in any spiritual reality, then it is because that worldview works for him. It provides a coherent structure to understand and live in the world.

As a side note, Mercier’s claim that there was a time when our species had no religious belief appears to be an assumption based on his own bias.

Assuming you have evidence for this appearance, what is it?

I’m not saying that’s bad, just that there is no evidence it is true outside of wanting it to be true.

And you know there's no such evidence because . . . . . . .

.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

Most people believe whatever they believe because it works for them. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, or in psychics, or if he lacks belief in any spiritual reality, then it is because that worldview works for him. It provides a coherent structure to understand and live in the world.

As a side note, Mercier’s claim that there was a time when our species had no religious belief appears to be an assumption based on his own bias.

Assuming you have evidence for this appearance, what is it?

I’m not saying that’s bad, just that there is no evidence it is true outside of wanting it to be true.

And you know there's no such evidence because . . . . . . .

.

….it’s prehistoric, which means there are no records from that time. The earliest writings, and even earlier paintings, suggest religious belief. So as far back as we have records of any kind of human, there was religious belief of some kind. There is nothing other than assumption that there as a time when humans lacked religious belief.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, you know, from the start we can assume the earliest humans has a sort of method of communication and primitive tool -using. They also had some kind of superstitious fear such as fear of the unknown threats and an instinctive fear of death. These things evolved into language, technology and religion. And like language,art and music,common basics were there in religion and yet each adapted to the local culture and not reflecting any outside reality.

Religion, yes, a particular god or gods, no.

[1213]

we have the Bible and things go as told in the Bible.

So you believe in "Bible God" because of the yarns the Bible tells? Yarns such as the Exodus and the story of the ark? I ask because outside the Bible, there's not a single report of there ever having been an Exodus from Egypt. In fact:

"The Exodus (Hebrew: יציאת מצרים, Yeẓi’at Miẓrayim: lit. 'Departure from Egypt') is the founding myth of the Israelites"
[my emphasis] source: Wikipedia.

Why should I believe anything Wikipedia says? By what I see, it is communistic propaganda outlet that has not much to do with truth.

I believe Exodus happened, because it is more reasonable explanation for many things than that it would be just a made up story.

But, I was not speaking of that previously, but for example about how Jews were scattered and now they are gathered back, as it was told in the Bible. I think things go also today as told in the Bible, not just in ancient times.

Then there's the story about an ark which supposedly housed and fed some 22 million individuals [1 male and 1 female of most of the 11.3 million species on Earth*] for what, a whole year??? Get real Bible people.

.

No intelligent reason to assume there should have been millions of animals. There was probably less than 4000 animals. And many of those could have been not yet fully grown. This means for example that there was one pair of bears and all modern bear "species" are offspring of those. Similarly as all modern humans are offspring of the 8 people in the ark.

[Miles]

we have the Bible and things go as told in the Bible.

So you believe in "Bible God" because of the yarns the Bible tells? Yarns such as the Exodus and the story of the ark? I ask because outside the Bible, there's not a single report of there ever having been an Exodus from Egypt. In fact:

"The Exodus (Hebrew: יציאת מצרים, Yeẓi’at Miẓrayim: lit. 'Departure from Egypt') is the founding myth of the Israelites"
[my emphasis] source: Wikipedia.

Why should I believe anything Wikipedia says? By what I see, it is communistic propaganda outlet that has not much to do with truth.

If this is what you see then it's apparent you have no grasp of communistic propaganda. In any case, here's a run down on some of Wikipedia's strong points.

• Wikipedia is by far the world's largest encyclopedia; it is the largest, most comprehensive, and most accessible compilation of knowledge to exist in the history of the human race.

• Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy makes it an excellent place to gain a quick understanding of controversial topics.

• Articles steadily become more polished as they develop, particularly if one person is working on an article with reasonable regularity (inclining others to help the original author).

• Wikipedia attracts highly intelligent, articulate people (except for repeat vandals)

• Wikipedia, having contributors from many areas of the world, provides its readers with a "world view" that could not be provided simply by a few contributors from a limited region.

• To use an extended metaphor, Wikipedia is very fertile soil for knowledge

• The sheer amount of information in one search on Wikipedia compared to other search engines, which often provide little useful knowledge on each of hundreds, if not thousands, of results, can be found more concisely (and perhaps safely) than through traditional means

• Errors to Wikipedia can be corrected within seconds, rather than within months as with a paper encyclopedia. When someone sees something wrong in an article, they can simply fix it themselves. If they cannot correct it, they can "tag" the problem to attract the attention of other editors and warn readers to be on their guard as to what they are reading.

I believe Exodus happened, because it is more reasonable explanation for many things than that it would be just a made up story.

Like what "many things? <Plural>

Then there's the story about an ark which supposedly housed and fed some 22 million individuals [1 male and 1 female of most of the 11.3 million species on Earth*] for what, a whole year??? Get real Bible people.

No intelligent reason to assume there should have been millions of animals.

Why not? If there can be 7,770,000 million animal species today why couldn't there have been 7,770,000 animal species three thousand years ago before the flood?

There was probably less than 4000 animals.

And just where did you pluck this figure from, some pseudo-scientific creationist web site? But for the sake of argument say there were only 2,000 species (accounting for the necessary males and females needed for reproduction) one still has to figure in all the plant species that needed saving. THEN one has to figure in all the food required to keep them alive for a year---An adult elephant can eat 4-5 bales of hay each day, or 8-10 bales for each breading pair. Multiply this by the 365 days they were aboard the ark and you're looking at 2,920 to 3,650 bales to see just two animals through the year.---think the ark had room to for the 3,000+ bales of hay? Plus, of course, the needed 50 -100 gallons of fresh water each day. To say nothing of all the food necessary to support all the animals while vegetation replanted itself and grew to harvesting size after the animals got off the boat. And what are you going to do with the carnivores aboard the boat? Open a can or two of cat food? Nope, the Noah story is simply too ludicrous.

And many of those could have been not yet fully grown. This means for example that there was one pair of bears and all modern bear "species" are offspring of those. Similarly as all modern humans are offspring of the 8 people in the ark.

All eight of them? Or take rodents. Think all 2,600 species of rats, mice, and so forth simply what, evolved in three thousand years from one pair of mice or rats aboard the ark? Get real.

.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Miles in post #16]
What does this (above) have to do with believing there is a God? If we throw out the ark story there is still abundant reason to believe in God.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #16]
What does this (above) have to do with believing there is a God? If we throw out the ark story there is still abundant reason to believe in God.

It all started back in post 5 where 1213 said: "My reasons to believe in Bible God is that life exists, we have the Bible and things go as told in the Bible." and then evolved through posts 10, 15, and currently 16. The discussion just got derailed a bit . . . . . or a lot.

.

[bjs1]

Well, you know, from the start we can assume the earliest humans...

Wasn’t that sort of my point? We can assume all kinds of things about per-historic people, but we know very little. Such assumptions are not inherently wrong, but drawing conclusions from our un-evidenced assumptions is, at best, confirmation bias.

However, this was only ever a side note. Even if we could answer the question conclusively, it would not be a significant reason why people do or do not believe in God.

[JoeyKnothead]

….it’s prehistoric, which means there are no records from that time. The earliest writings, and even earlier paintings, suggest religious belief. So as far back as we have records of any kind of human, there was religious belief of some kind. There is nothing other than assumption that there as a time when humans lacked religious belief.

We've got to be careful when examining artifacts for which nobody who made them is here to discuss them.

History is full of folks hypothesizing based on the cultural or, let's say anthropomorphological, understandings of their own eras.

In light of the hold religion has on so many folks today, it's not beyond possible they'd look at stuff through a, or their own, religious lens.

With that in mind, we can certainly consider that until our lineage was able to think "god", they weren't them too religious a bunch.