Mazer9

I think the belief in a "God" springs from the necessity of humans to deal with the one thing which is truly known about life...the inevitability of death.

Before converting to Atheism it seemed as if I were a Christian more out of desire for "something better"; it was hard to imagine that this short existence (relatively speaking) was all I had to look forward to. I remember being told of how a Christian was to live his/her life if they were to gain admittance to the "Kingdom" of Heaven. However, it seemed that at every funeral that I attended, regardless of how the person lived, everyone seemed almost certain that the dead was in transit to Heaven. I mean, although a Christian is quick to threaten you with it, who can damn anyone that they truly love to hell? I truly believe that if I were to die tomorrow, my parents would swear I was sitting on the right hand side of Jesus in a sparkling robe and wings.

It wasn't until I realized that my life can have meaning here on Earth, and that I can live (in some ways) through my offspring, that I seemed content with giving up on the nonsense that is God. At the same time, it is awfully lonely (I lost an imaginary friend). It is also very difficult to come to grips with the fact that life is indeed finite (I deal with this reality everyday). I think that is why it is hard for anyone to give up on faith in God, irregardless of how little sense it makes.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

There is no innate human need for 'God'. Even if every other human being who ever existed, exists, or will exist other than myself has a 'need' for 'God', the fact that I am human and have never had a need for 'God' would inavlidate that premise.

As a child, I was told that I should believe, and trusting those around me, I tried to believe (even really wanted to believe to 'fit in'), but I found that I could not believe without significant evidence and proof.

Since that evidence and proof was not forthcoming, and no one (and I have talked extensively with priests, ministers, pastors, rabbis, and clergy from numerous other religions and denominations), I found that I was unable (and unwilling) to believe something that was so utterly lacking in factual support.

So, I realized that I had no 'need' of 'God'.

I think people become theists, as you suggest, because they want to--not because they have some innate, a priori hard-wired physical or psychological, beyond their conscious control or awareness, 'need'.

Keith.

Jobar

Hi Mazer9- welcome to II.

I'm glad you brought up this, as it has been on my mind lately. One of the early posters on this board, Earl, commented recently that there must be some fairly powerful evolutionary pressure for humans to have some type of god-belief, from the simple fact that an overwhelming majority of humans that have lived so far have held such beliefs.

My own best take on this is that children are genetically predisposed to copy their parents and elders in all things, both the wise and the stupid. In our pre-civilized past, this tendency to copy was selected for (due to the fact that kids who ignored the advice and example of the adults around them were less likely to survive, for numerous reasons.)

We see clearly that children overwhelmingly grow up to believe their parents' religion. I might say that the real mystery is why some of us, who grew up in a religious environment, were able to shrug it off. Intelligence? Sheer orneriness? Some genetic signal not working properly?

We've discussed this a lot on these forums, and I still am unsure.

Mazer9

I didn't intend on suggesting that it was a "hard-wired" need. I only wanted to point out why it is so easy for someone to believe in what you and I think is nonsense. I do agree with Jobar that it is passed down the line (just like political preferences). I really think it takes a strong person mentally to go against that tradition and deny that a God exists. Most Christians are too afraid to even ponder the possibility. And again I think it is because they fear the reality of a life without God.

GeoTheo

Some Christians don't really understand worship or ever really engage in it. I suspect it is from this pool of people that arise atheists that "used to be a Christian".
Before you jump all over me and accuse me of comitting the "no true Scotsman" fallacy explain to me how you do not employ it also when discussing atheists that convert to Christianity.
Then once we get past that perhaps we can engage in a conversation.

I really do think worship is at the crux of this issue. Many Christians main expression of Christianity is merely the adherance to an ideology. Worship adds a whole other dimension.
Ideologies can change, but worship is an experiential element that is very powerful in its own right. I see all kinds of arguements explaining away the creation of the universe but not many explaining away worship.

Autonemesis

I do not employ it when discussing either one. I have never worshipped because it is hypocritical for me to do so. I have in my youth pretended to worship, but that was to please parents and peers, and because the parents required me to do so. Now that I am an adult, I refuse to pretend to worship anymore, and I tell family and peers the reason why.

So now that I have cleared myself, can we have a discussion? I can't speak for the other infidels, though, so you will have to obtain disclaimers individually from each of them before you can proceed.

By the way, you are committing the "no true scottsman" fallacy.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I was unaware that a definition of 'worship' had been agreed upon.

Apparently, one has.

Could someone fill me in on the meaning of that word, please?

Keith.

Philosoft

'Atheist' is objectively defined as the lack of belief in gods. That's it. If someone said atheism necessarily entails metaphysical naturalism, that person would be committing the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. When we say someone who claims to have been an atheist was not actually an atheist, we are accusing him of having believed in god(s) the whole time. To say this is a "No true Scotsman" fallacy is to say it is possible to believe in god(s) and still be an atheist, as we cannot thus claim that believers are not atheists.

<strong> I just saw those goalposts, now where did they go? Why would we need to "explain away worship"?

GeoTheo

Bud, you just said you "pretended" to worship.
You have 2 coices here:
1. Either agree this means you were never a "true Christian" or
2. Assume "pretending" is all anyone does and if they tell you otherwise they are lying.

doubtingt

Your assertion is an empirical question that needs
support, but if you are correct it only
supports the original posters assertion.
People who become atheists never really felt a strong enough emotional need to truly believe.
They were just going through the motions b/c of
external social pressure. Only those with a
strong enough emotional need to believe can maintain such a belief that has clear signs of being a psychological projection and cannot be supported via reason.

BTW: I myself think the "no true scottsman" argument is largely bogus. Labels have little or nothing to do with what a person actually believes or is. Pointing out that a persons actual beliefs are inconsistent with the implications of the label is a perfectly valid and
often important point to make.