Motivation for Belief

[Diogenes]

On this forum we frequently see claims that "atheists hate God" or otherwise have some kind of self interest in their lack of belief. We hear things like 'There are no atheists in foxholes' and many similar claims that describe personal motivations for belief or lack of belief.

Four years ago I lost my best friend to cancer, 'a man of infinite wit.' R______ was a friend, perhaps the only friend I could share certain personal thoughts and types of humor with. He made me laugh. We brought out the creative best in each other. I would dearly love to know there is a heaven where we would be reunited.

More recently I lost a close relative [not ready to disclose]. His death at age 48 seems impossible. I understand now why a first reaction to a loved one's death is denial. Our memories are so vivid, so real, the death seems wrong... unbelievable. My reaction, anyone's reaction, is to want to reverse that death or to see that person again, to see them in heaven. You get together with other loved ones and, over and over you all say, "I wish D_____ could be here (or be in heaven) to see how loved he was... deeply loved."

The atheist, the naturalist, the nonbeliever loves his friends, his children, his wife as much as anyone else does. When that person is lost in death, the last thing anyone wants to believe is that they are irrevocably gone, gone forever. I submit that the naturalist, atheist, nonbeliever wants desperately to believe he will be reunited, that the one lost will be returned or at least that they know how much they are loved.

The question for debate is: What motives or self interest are involved in either following a religious belief or in not believing in a god or in the supernatural?

[otseng]

My list included major doctrinal issues with the Christian doctrine.

They are not related, unless one assumes the Bible is inerrant, which I do not hold to.

I don't think that Jesus ever came back from any death, but he may not even have died that day........ now that's a major doctrinal issue with Christianity. If you want to see a list of important minds that also think this, then why don't you just answer this my post? Many millions of people don't think that Jesus died 'that day' nor that he ever was brought back from death...... so the links would be vast.

This I agree with is a major doctrine. I'm debating this now in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. Please read through what I've posted so far and feel free to debate me there.

[oldbadger]

My list included major doctrinal issues with the Christian doctrine.

They are not related, unless one assumes the Bible is inerrant, which I do not hold to.

I don't think that Jesus ever came back from any death, but he may not even have died that day........ now that's a major doctrinal issue with Christianity. If you want to see a list of important minds that also think this, then why don't you just answer this my post? Many millions of people don't think that Jesus died 'that day' nor that he ever was brought back from death...... so the links would be vast.

This I agree with is a major doctrine. I'm debating this now in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. Please read through what I've posted so far and feel free to debate me there.

I'll look at that thread, but as you have written (above) both you and I do not hold that the bible is inerrant.
One big problem with Christian doctrine (imo) is that the words and actions (apart from that meal) of Jesus were not required for the building of Christianity..... For instance, Paul never needed to recount a single incident or speech.

This example might fit here on this thread.
Christian doctrine tells that Jesus was brought back to life..... but folks like me feel sure that he never died, after all, his friends all saw him alive and well by Gennesaret; maybe he was travelling North to the trading ports of Tyre or Sidon. The Cornish people have a tradition that he landed there with the Jewish merchant Joseph of A, and vessels from those Phoenician ports were trading for tin at Cornish ports for a long time before Jesus.

That would punch Christian doctrine pretty hard, I think. Anyway, I'm off to 'How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?'

[TRANSPONDER]

My list included major doctrinal issues with the Christian doctrine.

They are not related, unless one assumes the Bible is inerrant, which I do not hold to.

I don't think that Jesus ever came back from any death, but he may not even have died that day........ now that's a major doctrinal issue with Christianity. If you want to see a list of important minds that also think this, then why don't you just answer this my post? Many millions of people don't think that Jesus died 'that day' nor that he ever was brought back from death...... so the links would be vast.

This I agree with is a major doctrine. I'm debating this now in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. Please read through what I've posted so far and feel free to debate me there.

But on that thread you're declining the resurrection debate on the grounds that we'd already done it. I might suggest that you confine yourself to that thread (which is pretty much your own) and debate or discuss what subjects you like and let us counter claims (motivations for belief) that are put, even if they are being raised elsewhere, as is often the case.

[otseng]

But on that thread you're declining the resurrection debate on the grounds that we'd already done it.

We discussed many times the incidental discrepancies surrounding the resurrection, but not actually anything directly related to the resurrection. I posted:

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #1942]

We've covered this many times before as testified by you:

I'm sure we have done this before - more than once, perhaps. The terminal contradictions in the story do for it.

But I'll tell you what, we can debate this more about the resurrection accounts after the I present all the evidence for the TS.

I might suggest that you confine yourself to that thread (which is pretty much your own) and debate or discuss what subjects you like and let us counter claims (motivations for belief) that are put, even if they are being raised elsewhere, as is often the case.

This is a pretty ridiculous statement. Anybody is free to debate anywhere they want on the forum. Also remember that it is the entire forum that I own.

[TRANSPONDER]

But on that thread you're declining the resurrection debate on the grounds that we'd already done it.

We discussed many times the incidental discrepancies surrounding the resurrection, but not actually anything directly related to the resurrection. I posted:

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #1942]

We've covered this many times before as testified by you:

I'm sure we have done this before - more than once, perhaps. The terminal contradictions in the story do for it.

But I'll tell you what, we can debate this more about the resurrection accounts after the I present all the evidence for the TS.

I might suggest that you confine yourself to that thread (which is pretty much your own) and debate or discuss what subjects you like and let us counter claims (motivations for belief) that are put, even if they are being raised elsewhere, as is often the case.

This is a pretty ridiculous statement. Anybody is free to debate anywhere they want on the forum. Also remember that it is the entire forum that I own.

Very good.Then the old Badger can discuss the resurrection here if he wants to or on the inerrancy thread. As he wishes.see #31
3 above.

[oldbadger]

Very good.Then the old Badger can discuss the resurrection here if he wants to or on the inerrancy thread. As he wishes.see #31
3 above.

Huh? Somebody mentioned my name? ..... Resurrection?
Now I am half awake, let me tell you that I need to resurrect such a thread, because I want to know where Christianity dreamed up those three days from.

[boatsnguitars]

On this forum we frequently see claims that "atheists hate God" or otherwise have some kind of self interest in their lack of belief. We hear things like 'There are no atheists in foxholes' and many similar claims that describe personal motivations for belief or lack of belief.

Four years ago I lost my best friend to cancer, 'a man of infinite wit.' R______ was a friend, perhaps the only friend I could share certain personal thoughts and types of humor with. He made me laugh. We brought out the creative best in each other. I would dearly love to know there is a heaven where we would be reunited.

More recently I lost a close relative [not ready to disclose]. His death at age 48 seems impossible. I understand now why a first reaction to a loved one's death is denial. Our memories are so vivid, so real, the death seems wrong... unbelievable. My reaction, anyone's reaction, is to want to reverse that death or to see that person again, to see them in heaven. You get together with other loved ones and, over and over you all say, "I wish D_____ could be here (or be in heaven) to see how loved he was... deeply loved."

The atheist, the naturalist, the nonbeliever loves his friends, his children, his wife as much as anyone else does. When that person is lost in death, the last thing anyone wants to believe is that they are irrevocably gone, gone forever. I submit that the naturalist, atheist, nonbeliever wants desperately to believe he will be reunited, that the one lost will be returned or at least that they know how much they are loved.

The question for debate is: What motives or self interest are involved in either following a religious belief or in not believing in a god or in the supernatural?

My sympathies.

I might start a different thread, but wanted to say something about this.

I think we don't talk enough about the psychology of belief. In fact, it seems Christians are highly motivated to avoid the psychological traits that lead one to believe certain things. It seems to be taboo, but to me, nothing could be closer to the truth: that religious beliefs are solely psychological and not because there is a God.

For example:
Brain Networks Shaping Religious Belief

Abstract
We previously demonstrated with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that religious belief depends upon three cognitive dimensions, which can be mapped to specific brain regions. In the present study, we considered these co-activated regions as nodes of three networks each one corresponding to a particular dimension, corresponding to each dimension and examined the causal flow within and between these networks to address two important hypotheses that remained untested in our previous work.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3929007/

It seems we need to rule out a psychological leaning to believe in God before we start suggesting there is, in fact, a God.

[TRANSPONDER]

Very good.Then the old Badger can discuss the resurrection here if he wants to or on the inerrancy thread. As he wishes.see #31
3 above.

Huh? Somebody mentioned my name? ..... Resurrection?
Now I am half awake, let me tell you that I need to resurrect such a thread, because I want to know where Christianity dreamed up those three days from.

Apologies, I had the shroud debate in mind. But I'm leaving that particular debate to others, for the moment, and while I'm up for the resurrection debate,I'm staying clear of the Inerrancy thread,for obvious reasons.

However, as to the three days, at first sight it is because that's how long it took, except that it didn't. Apart from Luke implying that Jesus rose (taking the penitent thief with him) before the saturday evening started, Jesus was in the tomb only the full saturday sabbath (1) and half of sunday evening until dawn.That with the last knockings of Friday is way short of three days, but works as the 'third day'including the last of Friday.

But I suspect that the idea of three days comes from the symbolism of Jonah, three days in the whale. I believe it is the Talpiot tomb that has an ossuary (bone box) with a representation of Jonah emerging from the whale as a symbol of resurrection. If so, the idea of a three -day resurrection was already in the Jewish mindset.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/finder- ... e-of-jonah

(1) I still have the keyboard with sticking capos.I'll try to get a new keyboard tomorrow.

[oldbadger]

Apologies, I had the shroud debate in mind. But I'm leaving that particular debate to others, for the moment, and while I'm up for the resurrection debate,I'm staying clear of the Inerrancy thread,for obvious reasons.

However, as to the three days, at first sight it is because that's how long it took, except that it didn't. Apart from Luke implying that Jesus rose (taking the penitent thief with him) before the saturday evening started, Jesus was in the tomb only the full saturday sabbath (1) and half of sunday evening until dawn.That with the last knockings of Friday is way short of three days, but works as the 'third day'including the last of Friday.

But I suspect that the idea of three days comes from the symbolism of Jonah, three days in the whale. I believe it is the Talpiot tomb that has an ossuary (bone box) with a representation of Jonah emerging from the whale as a symbol of resurrection. If so, the idea of a three -day resurrection was already in the Jewish mindset.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/finder- ... e-of-jonah

(1) I still have the keyboard with sticking capos.I'll try to get a new keyboard tomorrow.

The shroud........ I haven't met anybody who has mentioned any belief in 'the shroud'....most folks around here are secular and put their trust in better fridges, or whatever. But if anybody did want to tell me about the shroud I would ask them if they believe in the tomb of Jesus in Kashmir. If not, why not? How folks cherry-pick their beliefs can be of passing interest.

The three days version, and Luke's one-day version....... Mark's 1.5 day version....... Since this resurrection and the last meal are the only paerts of Jesus's life, actions and words that Paul needed, you'd think that Christianity would get this time correct?

Fox News? Isn't Murdoch now admitting that he knew of masses and masses of junk being printed by Fox? But Fopx did sell 'news'...oh yes! Very successful at that. And did someb foklks rush to buy it?