You have a cult following around celebrities and you are surprised by religion which is older than you?
The difference is we have evidence that celebrities exist
You are dumb so I am going to explain to you so you can understand why this is actually a counterexample that you just gave yourself. Irrationality is what’s the most important problem here. Celebrities can talk about absolute random and insane shit and people will believe them 100% and pretend their words are the words of god. You can prove it’s bullshit 100% and people will still believe it.
I wasn’t even disagreeing with you. But rage on, queen.
deleted by creator
2024 years since what?
The alternative is absolutely unfathomable. Like I am an atheist and the fact we exist in any capacity is insane. Where did everything come from? Where will it go? People believe in religion because it’s easier.
When I have an existential crisis over it I sometimes wish I was religious.
They are taught about it from childhood and many of us don’t questions stuff we’ve learnt in our childhood.
Education fails to instil scientific temper in them
Lack of proper mental health awareness and support.
Education fails to instil scientific temper in them
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery. Believing in god have nothing to do with science or math, it’s superstition, something that cannot be proven or unproven, it’s that irrational thought that make us human.
Thank you, I think people often overlook how faith and scientific thought can be complimentary. In any case, for questions of religious/spiritual matters, people are basically just running with a hypothesis that works for them. As long as they’re capable of being self-critical and aren’t pushing their beliefs on people who aren’t interested, then it seems fine to me.
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery.
No, Islamic COUNTRIES did. They didn’t achieve excellence in science because Islam benefitted science.
They achieved excellence in science compared to Christian countries in large part because their religious authority figures didn’t stand in the way anywhere near as much. Not because religion helped.
Believing in god have nothing to do with science
Not true. They are polar opposites. That’s why scientists are disproportionately atheist and agnostic: the evidence based mode of thinking employed in science doesn’t mix with the superstitious and unquestioningly convinced thinking of religion without some SERIOUS cognitive dissonance.
it’s that irrational thought that make us human
No. That’s not being human, that’s being brainwashed and/or obedient to authority.
You’re right that it’s irrational and that irrationality is an inherent part of being human, but the SPECIFIC irrationality of religion is learned and enforced, NOT inherent.
No, Islamic COUNTRIES did. They didn’t achieve excellence in science because Islam benefitted science.
No one claiming it is.
They achieved excellence in science compared to Christian countries in large part because their religious authority figures didn’t stand in the way anywhere near as much, not because religion helped.
Not sure how much difference is by changing “Islam” to “Islamic countries”, because the fact still remain that Muslim make scientific discovery and excel in mathematics despite being religious. Again, no one claiming Islam benefitted science.
Not true. They are polar opposites.
You just contradicted your last point. Also science are not religion, how can an apple be polar opposite to orange? One can believe in santa clause and ghost while excel in science. It’s not mutually exclusive.
That’s why scientists are disproportionately atheist and agnostic: the evidence based mode of thinking employed in science doesn’t mix with the superstitious and unquestioningly convinced thinking of religion without some SERIOUS cognitive dissonance.
Science are a broad subject, unless they purposely went and look for god, which they wouldn’t find, there’s like a huge load of subject that doesn’t have anything to do with god. Also your impression of religion is like, wrong lol. There’s more to religion than just praising god.
No. That’s not being human, that’s being brainwashed and/or obedient to authority.
See? Human ARE irrational.
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery.
People of all religions have contributed to scientific growth.
The average religious person and the person discovering scientific/mathematical stuff are generally different tho.
Universal basic education has gained focus in many parts of the world, only relatively recently.I think improved scientific temper would obviously clash with many mainstresm religions.
Presence of some supreme creator may not be proven or disproven, but I think the anti-evolution stuff and similar things in most mainstream religions would face more questions when scientific temper improves.
And I’m not saying that non-religious people are safe from similar stuff too. Just that it is easily spread and maintained when you have a community on it.
Presence of some supreme creator may not be proven or disproven, but I think most of the anti-evolution stuff and similar things in most mainstream religions would face more questions when scientific temper improves.
And religions can evolve with this (or die from declining membership), as long as the leaders don’t stick to the “These actually scientifically proven facts are lies sent by the Devil” line.
They are taught about it from childhood
in one single word >> Indoctrinated
OP this is why people believe in religion, and it’s nearly impossible to get them out of it, you can’t reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into in the first place
I find this a seemingly straight-forward point I’ve never gotten a religious person to acknowledge.
99.99999% of people follow the religion they do because their parents did. Not because it’s true. That Christian, that Hindu, that Jew. It’s just because they were told it was true at birth.
If their religion was actually the Truth, why would that be the case…?
I wouldn’t make it that high. A large amount of Christians I know of are converts.
I find this a seemingly straight-forward point I’ve never gotten a religious person to acknowledge.
because they don’t see it that way, they have their own understanding of free will, religion sells itself as test ( for the most part ), if you pass the test ( temptation or whatever you wanna call it ) you’re qualified to enter heaven, so in a way even if you’re born christian or a Muslim you still going to get tested, so in their view it doesn’t change anything, but from our perspective, it changes everything because we bet that if their parents didn’t make them that way, they would never go that route on their own…
99.99999% of people follow the religion they do because their parents did. Not because it’s true. That Christian, that Hindu, that Jew. It’s just because they were told it was true at birth.
That’s why we must address the root cause of all this, which is religion, in Islam for example “Prophet” Mohammed piss be upon him, said
“Every child is born in a state of fitrah, then his parents make him into a Jew or a Christian or a Magian.” (Agreed upon)
As you can see, Mohammed doesn’t apply his own observation on his beliefs and because people glorify him, they will never dare to question his reasoning, which is also their own reasoning now…
You can tell a religious person to criticise everything and everyone, and they can, tell them to redirect their critism to their own belief, and suddenly they’ll become intellectually handicapped
My search for truth in my early 30’s led me to study the world’s religions, having grown up secular and feeling like something was missing. But don’t let this anecdote or others like it get in the way of your logic. You’re doing pretty good for a hairless monkey!
deleted by creator
Right. Throughout human history, if someone was cast out of a community, they didn’t survive. We’ve been trained through evolution to go along with the tribe because it’s unsafe to question anything and get cast out.
Survival of the fittest. Evolution does not value truth or mortality, so for example secret rapists are a highly successful adaptation regardless of the morality of the action. If evolution is a correct model of reality, this pesky religion and moral agency will diminish with time. True progress. Maybe we can start counting the years from the big bang instead of that Jesus event or w/e!
I agree. The support aspect is very strong. Can’t go against it, unless you are lucky and/or skilled. Or very brave.
I’d say it’s partly to find some comfort with life’s many uncertainties, and one of several ways to achieve a sense of purpose when struggling for some.
- Need psychological support in times of distress
- Gullible
- sense of community and shared experience
You’re definitely not gullible right?
Not religious either.
People can have a rich spiritual life and not believe in religion.
Because it can’t truly be proven that there either is or isn’t a god / gods.
You can laugh at people for believing in a god, but at the same time I’m willing to bet you can’t prove that there there isn’t one.
In my mind, atheism makes just as much sense as religion - they are both total assumptions based on incomplete data. Agnosticism is the only sensible way.
I agree with you. For what it’s worth, so did Einstein.
Source?
He very clearly spoke against organized religion and dogma. However, he maintained that he himself was agnostic. He labeled atheists to be just as arrogant as religious zealots for their absolutist views.
He said he believed in “Spinoza’s God” – referring to Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch thinker – “who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”.
On another occasion, he criticised “fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
He took offense to being labeled as an atheist. Not because of his Jewish roots, but because he believed that there was a possibility of a divine creator.
Ah okay, we’re on the same page now - you were referring to their last bit, not necessarily the first when speaking of Einstein. That lines up with what I knew about his beliefs
Atheist here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Atheism is merely about trusting what’s been proven, or has some evidence backing the claim that can be verified without doubt. Being agnostic is being indecisive about everything, even things that are completely made up.
One can argue that agnosticism is more scientific in that what cannot be verified, however improbable, remains possible.
What set the large masses in motion to collide in the Big Bang? What created that matter to begin with? There’s still room for the possibility of interference-based creation without contradicting modern science.
I agree with your second paragraph but take issue with your first.
Atheism is not the belief that God categorically does not exist; it’s the position that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that God exists, and that therefore there is no reason to believe in him/her/it. It’s a subtle but important distinction because the first is not logically consistent whereas the latter is.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, tends to either be the view that the likelihood of God existing is more or less equal to that of God not existing, or the view that we will probably never know so we cannot come down on one side or the other.
Technically speaking, there are gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. Someone who calls themself agnostic believes in the possibility of a god(s). Self-identified atheists are typically gnostic atheists who believe with certainty that there is no god. They could also just be agnostic, and unaware of the difference in terminology.
There are many gnostic atheists commenting on this post with the “burden of proof” argument, and likening god to an invisible unicorn. They are quite confident in non-existence.
Gnostic atheists are only a thing on paper; I’ve never met or heard of another atheist who ascribes to this view. As the link you provided states, this academic definition of atheism is not one ascribed to by the vast majority of self-described atheists.
Or, to quote the American Atheists organization:
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Source
On this basis, any invisible unicorn/intergalactic teapot/flying spaghetti monster argument that invokes “burden of proof” is not an gnostic atheist position. The argument is based on the idea that until evidence for an invisible unicorn exists, there is no reason for it to have any bearing on our behavior.
This is different from saying that because no evidence of an invisible unicorn exists, that we must conclude that it categorically does not exist. You cannot logically prove the non-existence of a non-existent entity.
Then why are so many atheists commenting on this post using said arguments against another person’s beliefs, if not to discredit them and convince them their beliefs are impossible? No one here is trying to convince others that “their god” is correct, so it’s clearly not in defense.
That’s the behavior of someone who is trying to convince another of non-existence, therefore, it is safe to consider them gnostic atheists.
It’s not so much saying that someone’s religious beliefs are logically impossible, more highly unlikely. When I typically see this rhetoric, it’s generally along the lines of “how on Earth did you weigh up all the evidence (or lack thereof) and come to the conclusion that God exists?”, or more impolite words to that effect.
I personally don’t browbeat the religious, so I’m not condoning it, but that’s why this line of argument generally isn’t gnostic atheism.
If, on the other hand, someone is actually saying that the existence of God is logically impossible, a priori, then that would be gnostic atheism. But, like I said before, that generally isn’t what most atheists believe or argue for.
You don’t need proof where science doesn’t have any either. The beginning of creation remains a mystery. There is currently no explanation for the motion of the masses that collided, or the source of the matter. If science can hypothesize the events leading to the Big Bang, so can religion.
That just leaves you with the conclusion that “there is no current explanation” not that you can make whatever you want up.
Making up whatever you want is exactly how science works. It’s called a hypothesis. In science, that hypothesis is tested repeatedly. This is why science is best suited for repeatable phenomena.
In this case, neither science nor religion can test said hypothesis. Why is science correct but religion is not in this situation?
Because science doesn’t assert all hypothesis are true
Who says god’s existence is proven? It’s called a belief for a reason. It’s no different than a hypothesis.
be·lief

noun
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
“his belief in the value of hard work”
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
“I’ve still got belief in myself”
Which is completely different from a hypothesis, which is that something might be true and we should test it
Science tests hypothesizes and never claims they’re true until there’s mountains of evidence to indicate so.
Religion on the other hand takes a book written by bronze age goat herders and claims it to be true, damn the evidence stacked against it and contradictions within.
You’re making large assumptions. There are more religions than you know. The way one practices also may not be familiar to you. You’re demonstrating intolerance through ignorance. Maybe you should be asking questions in this post about religion, or abstain if you’re not interested in understanding it.
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the lawful harmony of existence. It also does not discount or displace science in any way.
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the lawful harmony of existence. It also does not discount or displace science in any way.
That’s basic deism but I would disagree and say it does conflict with science. Science is evidence-based, if you claim something exists you must present evidence to support it. I can’t just claim there’s a 5-ton diamond in my backyard and say “trust me bro”. Nobody would believe me, so why should anyone believe in any god without evidence?
A hypothesis requires no evidence. It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments. The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence. If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
A hypothesis requires no evidence.
Correct
It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments
repeatable controlled experiments are only one aspect of evidence gathering to falsify a hypothesis. Here are a few other methods:
- Observational Astronomy
- Modeling and Simulations
- Indirect Experiments
- Lab Experiments
- Historical Data Analysis
By combining these methods we can still falsify a hypothesis, thus allowing “science to happen”.
The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence.
Correct! There is no evidence for what lead to the big bang because we can’t gather any data before it started. But we have mountains of evidence that all point to a “big bang” happening - down to a fraction of a second shortly after it started! [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] .
If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Science is willing to discard ideas that lack evidence or aren’t falsifiable. Is religion ready to stop preaching because faith, by definition, is a lack of evidence?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
The difference between string theory and Spinoza’s god is the falsifiable part. String Theory, being a scientific theory, makes predictions that should be able to be tested through experiments (although testing will likely be a challenge much like Astrophysics and will instead depend on other scientific methods to gather evidence for/against it). Spinoza’s God is a philosophical concept and not directly falsifiable through scientific methods. Spinoza’s god is the equivalent of me claiming I’m friends with a telepathic unicorn from another dimension, both useless and irrelevant.
[1] Gravitational Waves: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-cosmic-discovery-could-be-closest-weve-come-beginning-time-180950109/
[2] Redshift: https://socratic.org/questions/how-does-a-redshift-give-evidence-to-the-big-bang-theory
[3] Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/cosmic-microwave-background-proves-big-bang/
[4] Abundance of Light Elements: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html
[5] Expansion: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_exp.html](https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html
[6] Olbers’ Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers’s_paradox
[7] Quasars Existence: https://www.astronomy.com/science/60-years-of-quasars/
[8] WMAP Survey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wilkinson-Microwave-Anisotropy-Probe
All religion is untested made up nonsense, no exceptions.
If you make it up without evidence, it can be thrown out without evidence. Athiests make no claims, there’s nothing to throw out.
The real answer to these questions is “we have no idea”, everything else falls under russel’s teapot.
Are you this arrogant in condemning everything you don’t understand?
If you truly believe “you have no idea,” then how can you be sure every religion is wrong without understanding them?
I do understand that it is something people made up without any evidence.
I am this arrogant about anything without evidence, if you present evidence, then I have a reason to believe.
Okay but here in the real world, those making the claim have the burden of proof.
This is a classic, literally text book example of the logical fallacy of ignorance.
Invisible unicorns exist, and because you can’t disprove it, we should build unicorn fences.
The logic doesn’t follow.
I don’t disagree that religious people need to prove their beliefs. They are the ones making up insane stories that all contradict one another, and it is absolutely up to them to prove that there is a god, or miracles, or whatever.
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?” That doesn’t make them correct. More correct, maybe, as they aren’t the ones making up the stories in the first place, but I’m fairly sure history and science have proven time and time again that humans know less than we think.
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?”
Very few atheists say this. The vast majority of us say we don’t know one way or the other.
That’s being agnostic, not atheist
Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists are both atheists. Assuming all atheists are gnostic atheists is like assuming all Christians are Catholics.
Gnostic atheists are rare, and if you want evidence look at this thread.
This has become a misunderstanding of language and wording.
When I say agnostic, that includes “agnostic atheists”. Does that clear things up?
I swear some people (i.e. self proclaimed “atheists”) get offended at the thought that they might be associated with anyone religious by accepting the fact that their beliefs are, by definition, agnostic.
I’m tapping out of this thread, didn’t come here to argue about English. Also, please don’t take my last paragraph as an attack - it’s a general observation.
No, this was your misunderstanding:
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?”
The language is irrelevant, you’re claiming something that’s just untrue for 99% of atheists. You going on to distinguish “agnostics” from “atheists” isn’t the real issue.
The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic. Actually I cannot say I have ever once heard of a gnostic atheist, i.e. someone who would want to “prove no gods exist”. You (and afaict, all atheists) agree that that would be absurd, because for all we know some god is hiding under a rock somewhere. We can’t claim certainty until we’ve checked under every rock.
Agnostic atheism is where people generally land when they realize that none of the theists have found anything, either. Why believe in something prior to the point of there being any valid reason for the belief?
To further illustrate, do you believe in unicorns? No, right? Does that mean you say you can prove there aren’t any? Also no, right? Same situation with agnostic atheists.
Sorry if I’m over-explaining, it’s a commonly misunderstood topic
Really? They’re all over this thread citing the “burden of proof” argument and calling god a unicorn.
Requiring someone to provide evidence to back up a claim is not the same as taking a position that the claim isn’t true. This is the root component of the burden of proof and the stance many people have towards a god claim: they aren’t convinced the god exists due to a lack of evidence provided by the person claiming the god does exist. Until there’s actual evidence it’s rational and reasonable to withhold judgement.
The unicorn (or other mythological beings) are used as a similar case to illustrate to a theist that they have the same kind of attitude towards the idea of a unicorn existing as an atheist does to any gods. They’re both neat concepts, but without evidence showing they actually exist, they’re nothing more than an idea for stories and art.
I’d respect that opinion if this were a post about debating the existence of god. This is a post asking religious people why they are religious. Atheists were not under attack, nor were any religious people asserting that others should believe their faith. Actively attempting to discredit the beliefs of another is just as self-righteous as attempting to convert without request.
This is the fundamental problem that Einstein had with the arrogance of atheists. As a self-identified agnostic, this is why he was offended when he was referred to as an atheist.
“fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2010/07/26/128769603/the-hidden-dimensions-of-science-vs-religion
Yes, really! I endorse Azimir’s explanation fully.
To potentially address some confusion:
If you said there are no gods, that would be a claim that requires proof. You would then have the burden of proving that there are no gods. Exceptionally difficult, as one could be hiding anywhere.
If you claim there is at least one god, then you have the burden of proving that.
Where would you land if you believed neither claim could be proven? Well, it turns out, you could actually be either an atheist or a theist! All we have learned so far is that you are agnostic.
This is where the story ends for the agnostic atheist. They have no reason to believe either claim, and therefore they do not believe there is at least one god, and therefore they are an atheist.
The agnostic theist however has additional work they must perform in order to become a theist from this position. They must believe in at least one god to be a theist, but they have no evidence that would compel such a belief. So they must take it on faith.
This leads to additional questions such as: is faith a good reason to believe in things? Can’t you use faith to believe in literally anything, thereby making it useless?
This is generally why the atheist is involuntarily forced to withhold belief. I phrase it that way because often people forget how beliefs work, they are compulsions. They can’t choose to look past these thoughts and believe in a god any more than you could choose to set aside your better judgement and believe, and I mean really believe, in unicorns.
I understand if you also can’t choose not to be offended by the unicorn comparison, btw. I didn’t like hearing it the first time when I was young and involved with the church. It made me think “surely that’s a step too far, and these two concepts are incomparable. Billions of people worship, they can’t all be that wrong”. It inspired me to go look and see what all of my fellow religious people had to offer in that regard. And to be honest, I still love hearing from them, but the truth is so far nobody has any evidence whatsoever. Most religious people themselves will even admit that. So it really does just come down to faith in the end.
By definition, science has proven nothing. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Yet you believe in science, but expect religion to have proof.
I’m unconvinced by your claim that science and religion are the same. Can you prove that?
That is not my claim. I’m stating that the scientific method is not a proof. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Science is best suited for testing a hypothesis of repeatable phenomena. An untested theory is no different than religion.
Interference-based creation can be considered a hypothesis. It is a theory that a supreme being or entity created and set the masses in motion that caused the Big Bang. Science also has unsupported theories about creation prior to the Big Bang.
My point is that a truly scientific person would accept all possible theories, no matter how improbable, until data is provided to believe otherwise.
Sure, and so as an atheist and an otherwise “scientific person”, I do accept that god is a valid hypothesis. And I will remain an atheist until any evidence pops up to support that hypothesis.
At some point I think you may have gotten confused by terminology. It is indeed similar to various other scientific ideas, which are believed only after being tested. You do not accept every hypothesis as being the truth until proven otherwise. That is the essential difference between conducting science and exercising one’s imagination.
This is likely not the best place to get answers for this question.
Dear (my) god, you folks are irrational. If someone acts a certain way, judge them for it! But judging anyone with faith just because you don’t believe in that!? I can’t prove God exists any more than you can prove they don’t. If a religious person acts kind, fair, and rational, you shouldn’t have anything against them, should you? But this post isn’t about American right-wingers, or extremist Islamic Muslims, is it? It’s about anyone who has any faith at all, just because you don’t believe the same thing. Caring Christians literally building homes for people internationally, Sikhs feeding anyone, no matter their beliefs…
I know I’m going to get downvoted for this, but that’s literally small-minded.
What would you think of someone who goes door to door trying to convince you a blubbery clown rules the universe from planet zebulon?
Is that a normal person just doing normal person things?
For the non-religious, there is no difference between the person above and a relgious believer.
I think it’s reasonable to ask why people still hold unfounded beliefs with the greater interconnectedness of the world making it pretty plain that not all these religions can be divinely inspired truth, so many of them are necessarily imaginary.
It’s a post asking why people believe in religion. People who don’t believe in religion or spirituality really have no reason to comment other than to condemn. The arrogance of atheists on Lemmy is very disappointing.
Disappointing, but not surprising.
Victimized ✅
Logical fallacy of ignorance ✅
Ignores the atrocities and genocide committed in the name of “religion” ✅
You are quite literally the pot calling the kettle black with your “small minded” comment. Nobody here was persecuting religion, but specific implementations that have committed mass murder, or engage in obnoxious displays (screaming at people at events (some events designed to support groups of people), going door to door, shaming vulnerable people trying to get medical procedures, etc etc)
The day you widen your view to see others perspectives and history of abuse is the day you’ll actually be on the right “religious” track. Humanity is the religion.
nobody here is persecuting religion
proceeds to generalize all religious people as the worst of religion
Most religious people do acknowledge all the stuff you’re talking about, and agree with you on how terrible they are. Most of the time when you meet a religious person, you won’t think there’s anything different until you ask them.
I haven’t generalize anything - I was speaking of this specific instance but see whatever you want to see ig
More comforting than the alternative. Its one reason why when material conditions worsen people faith goes up.
How do you know that the real creator(s) are documented?
You’ve been threatened and Stockholm’d through fear, likely as a child or when vulnerable into seeing 1 alternative, when the alternatives are infinite
I think you missed the point here. To the believer, evidence is not the main concern. Many Christians talk about their connection and relationship with god, which is subjective. To them, god exists because they have faith, not evidence, that it exists. Where’s that faith coming from? As many others explained in this thread, it’s about finding the sense of community and comfort in knowing that somebody higher us knows best in the world of uncertainty.
Serious answer:
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I believe in a religion because I’ve found it to be personally beneficial.
I was a pastor for many years and saw much of the best and worst religion had to offer. I haven’t stepped foot inside a church since COVID broke out and don’t know that I ever will again.
My personal beliefs are still a significant part of my life, but I understand why someone would ask the question that spawned this discussion.
You find it personally beneficial, but you haven’t actually answered the question.
I think that does answer the question - for a lot of people, the reason they’re religious is because they find it personally beneficial for one reason or another.
yup, religion has made me mentally stable so I guess it’s beneficial to me at least.
I guess I’m putting emphasis on the word “believe” and you seem to be seeing religion as a way to find comfort. This is why I feel you are not actually answering the question that OP posed. Perhaps I’m taking the question too literally.
Adding more to this. The question is why do you believe in religion, not why you are religious. To me, there’s a difference between the two of these.
Think of your closest friend or family member. Do you “believe in” them?
There is a significant difference, but, in my limited experience, many people are religious, but don’t actually believe, but they think they do believe. When the rubber hits the road you find it what a person actually thinks is true.
Yas queen. COVID’s not over! And even so, God and your soul aren’t important enough to risk contacting the common cold lol
Maybe you haven’t noticed it, but many people are deeply irrational.
Happy cake day!
Thanks!
It’s still not too late for you.
