I think I have found out why people beleive in god

[mick1le2pick]

"There's even a third category of imaginary friend recognition: when the child doesn't see the imaginary friend at all, but can only feel his/her presence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_friend
I'm gonna look into this.

 

[Inferno]

So what you're saying is...
...they haven't outgrown that stage?
...they're mentally ill?
...what?

 

[australopithecus]

What Inferno said. I get the concept of an imaginary friend and how that can be equated with theistic belief but that doesn't answer why people believe. To be honest I doubt there's one single reason anyway.

 

[RedYellow]

There's no one reason people believe in god, it's got to be a rich tapestry of things, by-products of being human. Superstition, agency projection, awareness and fear of mortality, desire for leadership, desire for group solidarity, guilt complex. The real question would be how humans have become able to not believe in god, because I do believe we are to an extent, naturally predicated to belief.

 

[mick1le2pick]

So what you're saying is...
...they haven't outgrown that stage?
...they're mentally ill?
...what?

My point is, I think it is a similar physiological condition, not an illness necessarily. I also think people who have such an imaginary friend, may also think it is god.

What Inferno said. I get the concept of an imaginary friend and how that can be equated with theistic belief but that doesn't answer why people believe. To be honest I doubt there's one single reason anyway.

Probably not, but I think it is one possible reason, as I said I'll look into it.

 

[Laurens]

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but I will posit that I don't think you can reduce the explanation of religious belief down to this simple factor alone.

Consider ritual for example, a phenomena that seems deeply bound to religion, yet doesn't appear to play much of a part in cases of imaginary friends.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

The real question would be how humans have become able to not believe in god, because I do believe we are to an extent, naturally predicated to belief.

Very superb question. I think I may have a few really good reasons or possible explanations but in this specific case I will refrain from sharing most of them and try to write a concise generalized explanation:

The Scientific Method, perhaps?
Those that follow strict rules of logic, perhaps?

The steps one takes from assumptions to conclusions, perhaps? I think there are more accurate methodologies to follow here. Notice I stated more accurate as opposed to something transcribed (like perhaps writing things on tablets) to form accurate and useful conclusions. perhaps?

Is it not strange that when people are asked the proper questions communication tends to be slightly more succinct. Kind of minimizes the guess work and mind reading required for effective communication.

 

[RedYellow]

I think the ability to remove ourselves from our observations is the starting point to ending belief. The ability to look at reality objectively, rather than as a narrative which is specifically tailored to our experience. We have to get past the god by seeing it as a projection of our own ego.

 

[Demojen]

There's no one reason people believe in god, it's got to be a rich tapestry of things, by-products of being human. Superstition, agency projection, awareness and fear of mortality, desire for leadership, desire for group solidarity, guilt complex. The real question would be how humans have become able to not believe in god, because I do believe we are to an extent, naturally predicated to belief.

Naturally predicated to belief in a diety? I disagree. Experience shapes perception first. Perception shapes experience thereafter.

Do not use the "Babies believe in God theory", either, because it fails to reconcile what God is in the thesis statement. When you pose a vague oversimplification to a child as an answer to complicated issues, they will adapt. It's child abuse to put them in the position where they are goaded to conclude an answer when "I don't know" should suffice. It is no different than in court when a legal professional decides to "lead" a witness.

 

[Andiferous]

I'm guessing, to the best of my information;

there is no better evidence to believe that there is NO god and such. Thus makes the beset hypothesis.

There are answers to everything, but not everything makes sense.

 

[RedYellow]

There's no one reason people believe in god, it's got to be a rich tapestry of things, by-products of being human. Superstition, agency projection, awareness and fear of mortality, desire for leadership, desire for group solidarity, guilt complex. The real question would be how humans have become able to not believe in god, because I do believe we are to an extent, naturally predicated to belief.

Naturally predicated to belief in a diety? I disagree. Experience shapes perception first. Perception shapes experience thereafter.

Do not use the "Babies believe in God theory", either, because it fails to reconcile what God is in the thesis statement. When you pose a vague oversimplification to a child as an answer to complicated issues, they will adapt. It's child abuse to put them in the position where they are goaded to conclude an answer when "I don't know" should suffice. It is no different than in court when a legal professional decides to "lead" a witness.

Well, I never said I though babies believe in god, I just think that the way our minds are set up provides a strong context for god belief to be embedded via cultural reinforcement. Immediate experience does shape our perception, but only to the extent it serves us in our daily lives. Experience doesn't tell you everything about what you are experiencing, which is why our natural human prejudices end up filling in the blanks.

So yeah, I didn't necessarily mean people naturally just believe in god on their own, they are just naturally receptive to it, to varying degrees. Culture does the rest.

 

[PAB]

The real question would be how humans have become able to not believe in god, because I do believe we are to an extent, naturally predicated to belief.

Very superb question. I think I may have a few really good reasons or possible explanations but in this specific case I will refrain from sharing most of them and try to write a concise generalized explanation:

The Scientific Method, perhaps?
Those that follow strict rules of logic, perhaps?

To echo CommonEnlightenment a little bit on his point of the scientific method :

I do not think religious ideas originally came about as a disorder of any sort. Religious ideas had a function and prior to science were the first attempts by humanity to understand the world. The idea of heaven , an afterlife , a messianic figure, a god who created us - and so on- all of these ideas have a history. Humans in a formal sense no longer need these ideas, as we have science as a method to understanding the universe and the ourselves.

 

[prycejosh]

"There's even a third category of imaginary friend recognition: when the child doesn't see the imaginary friend at all, but can only feel his/her presence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_friend
I'm gonna look into this.

god is not imagnary but true and real he left us his theories on things on life in his word. he wants to give you a better and more fulfilled life. he wants you to unlock potential and gain success. sins are all things bad for you anyways. he says do this and this will happen. it is all true ive experienced it myself me and millions of other people. jesus did much more than just die for our sins.

 

[WarK]

god is not imagnary but true and real he left us his theories on things on life in his word. he wants to give you a better and more fulfilled life. he wants you to unlock potential and gain success. sins are all things bad for you anyways. he says do this and this will happen. it is all true ive experienced it myself me and millions of other people. jesus did much more than just die for our sins.

So you're claiming that your imaginary god is one of the true ones? How do you know? Can you show us how you came to this conclusion? Because it looks like you're just another one of those theists who claim to have knowledge but in reality only have faith i.e. nothing at all.

 

[australopithecus]

Prycejosh, if you're going to continue to revive long dead threads just to preach, I advise strongly that you don't do that.