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?

[TRANSPONDER]

Ah I see.Yes I know that the video had the child mishearing 'Jesus'. Why have a go at me about it? You should be less touchy. We atheists have had to develop pretty thick skins. It does not make you look good to try to play the 'Oh you atheists are so rude' card.

Uh, how was I touchy or even rude? I was simply stating that you evidently did not watch the video because you did not recognize the "Chesus" reference.

I think that you must honestly concede that I gave as good as I got, even though I was bullied out of the discussion when I pointed up problems in your arguments. I can see this going the same way. But it's you began pointing the accusing finger.

Another example of a fallacious argument. I did not bully you out of the discussion. If need be, I can provide all the posts where it is actually you that made personal attacks and by your own admission you bowed out of the debate.

I said that I did recognise the 'Chesus' reference. I did not credit that was what you were having a go at me about. I thought I must have done a misstype. The video makes it clear that the child misheard the name.I can see why you might see the maker of the video as having a dig at Jesus but to me, I still say 'don't be so touchy'. To which I'd add,make a proper case; don't try to score cheap points by playing the ';rude atheist' card. It is not a good look.

As I recall, I pointed out some fallacious arguments in the Egypt debate (you were trying to relate Egyptian mythology to Bible passages in a pretty pointless way), and in the Shroud debate, following debunking the 'mercator projection' excuse for distortions in the image. Though I said 'bowed out' to try to deodorize the atmosphere, you sicked another mod onto me in a very disreputable (excusing with prejudice my supposed newbiesess with implied threats, indeed) way instead of rebutting the problems I pointed out in your arguments.

And I see that you are goading me into having to do it again, rather than actually address the arguments I made here.

[brunumb]

Uh, how was I touchy or even rude? I was simply stating that you [TRANSPONDER] evidently did not watch the video because you did not recognize the "Chesus" reference.

I was confused at first because my iitial impression was that you were accusing TRANSPONDER of using the word Chesus. In the video, the narrator was simply giving an account of how he heard the word Jesus as a child and he did not use it it any disparaging way. I know there are others who deliberately use terms like Jeebus and it does nothing to advance their case.

By the way, I found the video to be one of the best of its type I have seen. Did you at least see how he had good cause to ditch his belief in the end? I certainly did.

[oldbadger]

After all these years, I've still been waiting for any good logical argument against Christianity. Please point to where anyone has done this. Note, I'm not talking about non-doctrinal issues (which atheists love to bring up), but major doctrinal issues.

Your wrote the above to another, but please let me answer......

Major doctrinal issues:-
Jesus was not a Christian.
Jesus never heard the word 'Christian'
Jesus never spoke Greek.
Jesus was set to oppose Temple and Priesthood greed, corruption and hypocrisy, first and foremost.
Those such as Saul/Paul changed the 'doctrine'.
Paul never wrote a line about anything that Jesus actually said or did (apart from about that last meal) so anybody can see all this.

There are more logical arguments, but that could do for a start.

[otseng]

I said that I did recognise the 'Chesus' reference. I did not credit that was what you were having a go at me about. I thought I must have done a misstype. The video makes it clear that the child misheard the name.I can see why you might see the maker of the video as having a dig at Jesus but to me, I still say 'don't be so touchy'. To which I'd add,make a proper case; don't try to score cheap points by playing the ';rude atheist' card. It is not a good look.

No, you did not recognize the "Chesus" reference, because you stated:

Did I write Chesus? It was not intentional.

There is no mention of the video until after I told you it was from the video.

Though I said 'bowed out' to try to deodorize the atmosphere, you sicked another mod onto me in a very disreputable (excusing with prejudice my supposed newbiesess with implied threats, indeed) way instead of rebutting the problems I pointed out in your arguments.

I did not "sick" a moderator at you. Please provide evidence of this, otherwise it's another of your baseless claims.

And I see that you are goading me into having to do it again, rather than actually address the arguments I made here.

No, I'm not trying to goad you into anything. I'm simply exposing all the fallacious statements that you make.

[otseng]

By the way, I found the video to be one of the best of its type I have seen. Did you at least see how he had good cause to ditch his belief in the end? I certainly did.

I am sympathetic because of all the dumb answers that were given to his questions. But, just because dumb answers are given does not mean there are no good answers. I can as well go to a first grader and ask questions about evolution and believe evolution is false because all the answers are dumb.

[otseng]

Major doctrinal issues:-
Jesus was not a Christian.
Jesus never heard the word 'Christian'
Jesus never spoke Greek.
Jesus was set to oppose Temple and Priesthood greed, corruption and hypocrisy, first and foremost.
Those such as Saul/Paul changed the 'doctrine'.
Paul never wrote a line about anything that Jesus actually said or did (apart from about that last meal) so anybody can see all this.

There are more logical arguments, but that could do for a start.

Please provide a link that says any of these are major doctrines.

[brunumb]

By the way, I found the video to be one of the best of its type I have seen. Did you at least see how he had good cause to ditch his belief in the end? I certainly did.

I am sympathetic because of all the dumb answers that were given to his questions. But, just because dumb answers are given does not mean there are no good answers. I can as well go to a first grader and ask questions about evolution and believe evolution is false because all the answers are dumb.

The people giving answers in the video clip cannot be compared with first graders being asked about evolution. The latter would not be expected to have the kind of knowledge being sought. They would probably just respond with "I don't know". As I see it, the problem is that all of the answers are essentially dumb. The behaviour of Yahweh/Jehovah/God, the ultimate in intelligent beings, as described in the Bible is just plain...... dumb. You have to approach it all from within the well of belief in order to start the process of spinning it into some sort of sense. From the outside, it just doesn't work.

[Purple Knight]

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?

I've admitted before that I do not believe ad hominem is a fallacy.

However, how many atheists there are in foxholes is an absolutely illegitimate motivation-based objection. If anything, that points the other way, indicating that people praying in foxholes are doing so insincerely.

Where there is a legitimate attack on motivation, because I do stand a lot to gain from being atheist, is that I don't have to give money to collection plates or follow moral rules I find ridiculous.

[oldbadger]

Major doctrinal issues:-
Jesus was not a Christian.
Jesus never heard the word 'Christian'
Jesus never spoke Greek.
Jesus was set to oppose Temple and Priesthood greed, corruption and hypocrisy, first and foremost.
Those such as Saul/Paul changed the 'doctrine'.
Paul never wrote a line about anything that Jesus actually said or did (apart from about that last meal) so anybody can see all this.

There are more logical arguments, but that could do for a start.

Please provide a link that says any of these are major doctrines.

My list included major doctrinal issues with the Christian doctrine.

More?.....
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.

[otseng]

The people giving answers in the video clip cannot be compared with first graders being asked about evolution.

My point is asking questions to someone who do not have the background and training to answer the questions, not specifically what grade they are in. They could be in middle school, high school, or even post-graduate school.

The behaviour of Yahweh/Jehovah/God, the ultimate in intelligent beings, as described in the Bible is just plain...... dumb. You have to approach it all from within the well of belief in order to start the process of spinning it into some sort of sense. From the outside, it just doesn't work.

I'm sympathetic to that view as well and understand why people would think that way. But, after years of research and debating this, I'm even more convinced everything else is dumb and the Bible and Christianity is true.