Belief... or lack thereof

[eddie_too]

for those who believe, no proof is necessary. for those who do not believe, no proof is sufficient.

as near as I can tell, the above sums up this entire thread and all of the points being made.

trying to convince a human being for whom no proof is sufficient is an exercise in futility.

wanting to understand the mysteries of almighty God, His Incarnate Word and of all creation is a good thing. those of us blessed with the gift of faith are not wasting our time meditating upon these mysteries and seeking greater understanding.

in addition to such meditations, we really need to pray for those for whom no proof is sufficient. it is a spiritual work of mercy and also brings blessing upon ourselves.

 

[pocaracas]

Welcome eddie too

for those who believe, no proof is necessary. for those who do not believe, no proof is sufficient.

as near as I can tell, the above sums up this entire thread and all of the points being made.

Well, I don’t think that sums up the entire thread…
We’ve been discussing other things besides “proof”.

trying to convince a human being for whom no proof is sufficient is an exercise in futility.

Indeed… we have a saying around here, not sure there’s an english language equivalent… it goes somewhat like this: the blindest man is that which does not want to see.

wanting to understand the mysteries of almighty God, His Incarnate Word and of all creation is a good thing. those of us blessed with the gift of faith are not wasting our time meditating upon these mysteries and seeking greater understanding.

You seem to operate under the supposition that such “almighty God” actually exists and that He has left behind some mysteries.
And I’m wasting my time meditating upon them, while you just accept it as mysterious and leave it alone?.. is that it?

in addition to such meditations, we really need to pray for those for whom no proof is sufficient. it is a spiritual work of mercy and also brings blessing upon ourselves.

That’s kind… and also a bit selfish, apparently. But, hey, most (if not all) our altruistic acts can have a selfish point of view.

 

[guanophore]

I think the scenario Pocaracas was suggesting was that, if we all had direct, tangible, and frequent shared contact with God, then there would be no need for the institutions of religion or the intermediary of a priest.

Imagine . . .
“God wants us to have a prayer vigil to ask for His intercession.”
“No, you’re wrong Father. Me and Bob and Pete spoke to God last Thursday at a meeting at the public library. He explained that He wants us to get organised and sort the problem out ourselves. We all saw and heard Him plain as day.”

Why would any of us need to use ‘religion’ as a way to have a relationship with God, if we all had this sort of direct and immediate relationship with Him?

Your illustration makes the point well. It is not that God does not reveal Himself to all of us, because He does. It is that we perceive Him through our filters, and the filters are influence by our experiences and education (or lack of it). We are limited beings, and cannot see the whole.

Interesting that God promises through the prophets exactly this situation, where He will sprinkle our hearts, and we will all call God our Father. This has been what He has always wanted, for each of us to walk with Him as Adam and Eve did in the Garden. Each of us walking with God, though, does not preclude the need for religion. It is not for God, but for US!

 

[guanophore]

Hi guanophore,

Did he? How do you explain Martin Luther, then?

Actually a perfect illustration was given above. We all “hear” God differently. Each of us has been given the freedom to choose, and the choices we make have consequences. Martin Luther made choices that resulted in great division in the Church.

 Anyway, I don't think humans have a tendency toward religion, but toward making sense of all that's around them... of finding patterns where there are none... on drawing conclusions from incomplete data.

For some this leads them to a more spiritual point of view… for others, a more physical.

What if they are finding patterns where there really are some? But I agree, it might be better to say that humans are created with a need to find meaning and purpose. These are spiritual needs, in my opinion, that need a spiritual solution. You are right that some people find meaning in the physical. This does not preclude a spirituality. Perhaps “existential need” says it better. Human beings need to answer the questions of existence. Who am I ? Why am I here? Religions tend to help with that, but they are not the only path to a satsifying answer.

What you tell me about yourself is on a whole different level than what some people tell me about a God that they believe in… don’t you think?

I am sure I have no idea…

My point is that it is about a relationship. If someone discloses something about themselves, and you say it is a lie, myth, legend, or fantasy, how will that encourage the other to disclose more?

More likely, biased.

Yes, this is a much better word.

It's my attitude about human psychology.

That it seems to intersect with religion is a pity…

Psychology being the study of soul, and the soul being innately religious, there is bound to be overlap.

My judgement is that Christianity is based on pre-existing beliefs, with some extra sprinkles added at around the first century.

People already believed in God the Father, prior to Christianity, an in that geographical location for hundreds or even thousands of years.

Yes, very much so.

The concept of this God the Father may have come from other pre-existing concepts of the divine realm… the concept of the divine realm may have come from the yearning for everlasting life, contrasting with the observation that all life on Earth is finite…

Yes, and perhaps also the desire/need to make meaning.

What other way is there, I wonder…?

For those who will not listen to the communication of their own soul from within them, ,I don’t think there is.

Why?... to share my own unique point of view! :D

And what might be the point, purpose, or meaning in doing that?

 

[davidv]

Welcome eddie too

Well, I don’t think that sums up the entire thread…
We’ve been discussing other things besides “proof”.

Indeed… we have a saying around here, not sure there’s an english language equivalent… it goes somewhat like this: the blindest man is that which does not want to see.

You seem to operate under the supposition that such “almighty God” actually exists and that He has left behind some mysteries.
And I’m wasting my time meditating upon them, while you just accept it as mysterious and leave it alone?.. is that it?

That’s kind… and also a bit selfish, apparently. But, hey, most (if not all) our altruistic acts can have a selfish point of view.

Re: bold above; Why do you call it a supposition?

 

[MPat]

Certainly, intuition and macroscopic physical systems (human dimension) take preference in attempting to interpret the world… And when those are not applicable, my brain tends to try to apply them… it’s a waste of resources, but such is life.

You know, that does look a bit strange… You do mention “intuition”, but not “logic”.

And that gives me an idea: could it be that you are overusing that “intuition” where logical arguments should be used?

Let’s see if this hypothesis fits the data that was not used to formulate it.

If you only get to belief by some common psychological flaw (indoctrination, faulty reasoning from incomplete data, etc), then the likelihood that the thing being believed in has some bearing in reality is low…
The null hypothesis remains the more likely outcome.

That was given as an answer to a question how you got from some things you have mentioned to conclusion “Atheism is more likely to be true than all religions combined.” instead of some other, for example, “Atheism is more likely to be true than any religion”.

Now, of course, this answer does not really answer this question. But if you really did not construct an argument going from those things to conclusion, and instead used those things to inspire your intuition, it is, perhaps, the best answer we can expect. After all, you cannot explain why your intuition came up with one answer and not some other.

Silly because you’re equating the teaching of a methodology based on physical testing, with the teaching of a potential fairy tale.

This was given as an answer to the question why you thought my argument about four things schoolchildren take on authority (heliocentrism, theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, heart function).

Here again, the new hypothesis seems to fit the facts. If you would have been considering my argument as a, um, logical argument, most likely you would have noticed that it was meant to be a “reductio ad absurdum”, showing that if you took the same reasoning you are applying to religion and applied it to those four things, you would have to reject them, or other evidence for them (and, hopefully, you would see that such rejection is a bad idea).

But if you have used intuition, it is only natural that in one case it gave you an answer “science” and in the other case - “fairy tale” (you wouldn’t be an atheist otherwise). And then my suggestion that the reasoning would have led to the same answer really could look silly to you.

Little aside over, that gradual introduction into a belief is the same as a gradual introduction into writing? As if the writings didn’t have immediate palpable results, while the other… you’ll see it when you die… come on… apples and oranges.

That might be similar to the previous case: my example was meant to show how the same reasoning that you apply to religion would lead to unacceptable results when applied elsewhere. But if you use intuition instead, it is only natural that it responds differently.

The same hypothesis can explain why you give so much importance to “avoiding self-delusion”. If you were using logical arguments, such emphasis would be excessive (you would only have to check if no fallacies slipped through etc.). But if you are using intuition, the danger is real and only great care stops you from ending up with something unmanageable.

Thus, for now, it looks like the new hypothesis does fit the data.

So, one more test: would you say you really were using intuition in such (or similar) way?

And, of course, if you were, I guess I can only ask you to try to use intuition at least a bit less, and logical arguments at least a bit more…

 

[MPat]

I’m sorry to hear that you had a less than half-decent teacher…

As I have noted, my argument is not about teaching well or badly. It is specifically about experiments that schoolchildren cannot perform for themselves for some reason (time, cost, “moral cost”).

The things you mentioned, all physics experiments.
When I learned them, some historical context was provided. For Heliocentrism, the geocentric model, with its continued insertion of extra circular orbits on top of other circular orbits to account for the odd motions of some planets was the clearly hinting that a better model was more likely. The measurements made my Galileo, during years, allowed him to compare with a pre-existing model (heliocentrism, by Copernicus, who was inspired by ancient Greeks) and this model turned out to be more accurate at accounting for his also more accurate than ever measurements.

My point is that schoolchildren are not going to do all those measurements all by themselves. They can be told “Measurements were made and they were more accurate.”, but then they have to take that on authority - thus everything ends up based on authority anyway.

Also, the history might have been a bit simplified before it was given to you… You might wish to have a look at tofspot.blogspot.lt/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html…

About the Michelson–Morley experiment, it doesn’t have that much to do with the theory of relativity… I thought there was something fishy when I first read that thing you wrote earlier, but didn’t bother to check… that experiment was to attempt to prove that light waves travel in a medium, like water waves travel in water, or earthquake waves travel in rock, or sound waves travel in air… but the experiment was a failure (from that point of view)… it ended up proving that no such medium existed.

Yes, it has shown that “ether” does not exist and that speed of light is constant. That was one of two postulates of special theory of relativity.

Pumping of blood by the heart… just feel your own pulse.

It would tell us that “something moves in there periodically”. After all, Galen did not find out that heart pumps blood even knowing about pulse.

These things are taught in the context of a growing body of knowledge, they are based on other things. They all comprise physical realities that require very little (if any) stretch of the imagination.
The teaching of a religion, on the other hand… requires little else.

I’d say you might be exaggerating a bit in saying that theory of relativity or quantum mechanics “require very little (if any) stretch of the imagination”…

How are those 2 different?

How is “explaining how you ended up an atheist” different from “justifying your atheism”? Actually, the difference looks so clear that I do not know what can be used to explain the difference…

But let’s try anyway… Let’s say, we have someone who ends up believing he got a real E-Mail from a real Nigerian prince promising him riches. We can explain such belief by “He’s very gullible.”, but it does not justify this belief. After all, this belief is unjustified: there is no good reason to believe that.

So… raised a mormon? A believer by the age of… 2?
See how well you fall in line with statistics?

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that this is mostly based on my experience:

Catholics are more likely to start believe because of some authority - only to find out that Catholicism can explain many facts. It can explain why it is hard to act in a moral way - and why it becomes easier after receiving sacraments. It can explain many miracles. It can explain its own history. It can explain why science is possible. It also fits with philosophical arguments. And yes, it can explain why non-Catholics do so badly in such discussions.

Mormonism was not mentioned as something I have ever dealt with in any way, it was only an example of religion where “feeling good” was prominent in some way. I contrasted it with Catholicism, thus later I decided to refer to that post without actually citing it. I see that ended up confusing you a bit - sorry about that.

More than one is all it takes…

I’m afraid it is not. It might be enough to inspire the intuition, but it is not enough for an argument.

But no, you guys aren’t shunning me. You and PRmerger are being awesome (can’t forget ericc, too!).

Um, thank you.

Atheists teach children to be atheists? I must be doing something wrong with my kids… I just teach them the things I know, help them with school to the best of my abilities, provide them with some shortcuts, provide some connective tissue when I feel they’ve been learning things out of context, etc… play with them, be there… their mum takes them to her Sunday mass… I stay home… is that teaching them to be atheists?
Certainly, I give them some pointers as how to not be deceived by other people, but I make it general and it essentially ends up being: don’t talk to strangers, don’t open the door to strangers, don’t go with strangers to anywhere…
They have time to think about things with developed brains…

Sure, “Atheists are teaching their children to be atheists.” was not meant to be a rule without exceptions - just as, I’m sure, you were not claiming that every single Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Buddhist is always doing his best to teach his children to be Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Buddhists.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Catholic faith is not some truth that was just waiting to be discovered by the various peoples of the Earth.

Remember, my statement was in response to this:

I think anyone who is a seeker is going to come to know God in the way that God revealed Himself to be, regardless of geography.

And that is why there are Catholics in India. And Catholics in Afghanistan. And Catholics in China. And Catholics in Australia.

All who seek will find Him.

That statement was implying that the fact that there are Catholics in nearly every country shows that God had revealed himself to everyone.

This ignores the many other faiths that can say the same thing about being in various countries. And as I wrote out in detail these people in these countries became Catholic in part by being introduced to it from others. If the Catholic God revealed himself waiting to be discovered by the various peoples of the Earth, as you believe it is, why had no people outside of Israel (where it originated) come to the same conclusions independently – without being told about it by others?

I gave a list of things that were discovered to be true in multiple places independent of one another. The Catholic God is not one of them – although as I mentioned that doesn’t proclude it from being true. What it does do is eliminate the idea that just because there are practicing Catholics everywhere that this is somehow evidence of its accuracy or that the evidence for it can be found without first being informed of the concept.

Yes. Catholicism is not resulted from man seeking God, though He does fashion us to do so, but results from Him reaching out to us.

Each soul is presented with a “judgment call” or choice to reject or accept Him.

I would say that not every person in the past has been presented with the concept of the God of Catholicism, and that apart from being informed of that concept by someone else would not be given the tools necessary to be aware of it.

 

[Bradski]

Sure. I will accept this too…as long as you provide…evidence that this occurred.

Bit late to this, but…

It was conjecture. There is no evidence that this is the only universe. There is no evidence that there are many others. There is no evidence that God made this one just right at the first attempt.

Looks like we’re all square in that regard.

 

[guanophore]

Everyone has had a conversation with God? Well, that’s news to me.
Unless you say that a one way conversation counts…

Not everyone writes them down.

Not everyone is open to hear what is being said to them, so it can be very one sided.

And yet, we don’t see it…

Speak for yourself Pedro! Many of us “see it”. But it is true that one must be born again to “see” the Kingdom of God. It functions in the invisible realm, and some people cannot perceive it.

 

[PRmerger]

Bit late to this, but…

It was conjecture. There is no evidence that this is the only universe. There is no evidence that there are many others. There is no evidence that God made this one just right at the first attempt.

Looks like we’re all square in that regard.

Wait…

Let me get your opinion on whether there is only one universe (although this sounds almost ridiculous, given the UNI in the word UNI-verse…but I will concede that it may be a misnomer) or multiverses–what is your belief on this issue?

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps…
But it seems to have worked well for most of northern Europe and the US.

Well, these folks stand in the tradition of Apollos, full of zeal and passion for the Lord but in need of some gentle doctrinal correction

“Every single human society”? Are you sure?

Oh, yes.

But if you can name a society that did not have religion, please cite your evidence for this, and I will concede that it was not every single human society…only *almost *every single human society.

And it wouldn’t change my point at all, but I’d like to see evidence for a society that did not have a religious characteristic–an acknowledgement of something beyond this material world.

 

[PRmerger]

Ghost videos are everywhere…

Egg-zactly.

And still I’m not a believer.

So you see? Even with videos of alleged conversations with God, it wouldn’t be enough to convince a skeptic, so your proposition is inutile.

And it’s not like… wait i.imgur.com/aLPZjgN.png

LOL.

You do see that you’re simply reinforcing our position, right?

Photoshop was released in the 1980s and that’s the explanation for the drop in miracles.

So any miraculous recording that you’re demanding as proof for God would only be met with, “Well, there’s photoshop…”

Incidentally, the meme you offered makes a really idiotic claim, for you do know that correlation does not mean causation, right?

I mean, Human Growth Hormone was also invented (that is, genetically engineered) in the 1980s, so by your logic artificially manufactured growth hormone is responsible for the drop in reported miracles.

Are you willing to go on record here as asserting that?

 

[pocaracas]

Actually a perfect illustration was given above. We all “hear” God differently. Each of us has been given the freedom to choose, and the choices we make have consequences. Martin Luther made choices that resulted in great division in the Church.

It seems his choice is the one that works best for him, no?
So “our nature” is not homogeneous, which seems to lead to different religions and some divisions. If these divisions are the gift of a God, then what can we say about that God?

What if they are finding patterns where there really are some? But I agree, it might be better to say that humans are created with a need to find meaning and purpose. These are spiritual needs, in my opinion, that need a spiritual solution. You are right that some people find meaning in the physical. This does not preclude a spirituality. Perhaps “existential need” says it better. Human beings need to answer the questions of existence. Who am I ? Why am I here? Religions tend to help with that, but they are not the only path to a satsifying answer.

If they are finding patterns where there are some, then they are finding different patterns in different places of the world… Not exactly a unifying pattern…

And you are right, human being do seek answers to those questions. And religions do tend to help providing answers for them.
Some people can go on with their lives with those questions unanswered, or making their own answers along the way.

I am sure I have no idea…

My point is that it is about a relationship. If someone discloses something about themselves, and you say it is a lie, myth, legend, or fantasy, how will that encourage the other to disclose more?

yes, that’s true… but not exactly what I was going for.
How am I going to say that something about yourself is a myth?

Psychology being the study of soul, and the soul being innately religious, there is bound to be overlap.

That’s good… see it that way!

For those who will not listen to the communication of their own soul from within them, ,I don’t think there is.

Why must it be through that medium?

And what might be the point, purpose, or meaning in doing that?

It has come to my attention that some people out there aren’t really aware that atheists exist. Aren’t aware of how they reason, how they live their lives, how they come to be atheists even when they are born in a believing society.
I’m all for letting people know how things are. Certainly, my point of view is only one in the sea of atheists out there.

 

[pocaracas]

Re: bold above; Why do you call it a supposition?

Because humans can’t be certain of it.
Some can be convinced of it… but others are convinced of the reality of other gods… and some are not convinced of the reality of any god.

 

[pocaracas]

You know, that does look a bit strange… You do mention “intuition”, but not “logic”.

And that gives me an idea: could it be that you are overusing that “intuition” where logical arguments should be used?
…]
So, one more test: would you say you really were using intuition in such (or similar) way?

And, of course, if you were, I guess I can only ask you to try to use intuition at least a bit less, and logical arguments at least a bit more…

Yes, that looks strange, but the context of that sentence of mine was not the one you seem to be assuming.

Our first guess or attempt to explain something is mainly rooted in intuition and the physics of everyday life. Not logic, unless it’s the one embedded in that physics…
I was looking for a clip of the pendulum that seems to come back and touch your face, but I found this one instead :
youtube.com/watch?v=DVSYA1RnSMQ

When in such a position, intuition tells us we should back away from that ball coming directly at our face… but logic tells us it won’t reach our face… and yet, most of us will go with intuition.
That’s just what I was trying to convey.

#########################

As I have noted, my argument is not about teaching well or badly. It is specifically about experiments that schoolchildren cannot perform for themselves for some reason (time, cost, “moral cost”).

And, as I have noted, it’s not about actually undertaking those experiments, but running them in your head, based on the methodology presented by the teacher, or textbook.
Of course, they should start with simple experiments, easily verifiable by intuition, and then proceed to more complicated issues… build upon, stand on the shoulders of giants.
First, newtonian mechanics, then quantum.
First galilean relativity, then einsteinian.
With some electro-magnetics in between, for those were the bridges for both cases.

My point is that schoolchildren are not going to do all those measurements all by themselves. They can be told “Measurements were made and they were more accurate.”, but then they have to take that on authority - thus everything ends up based on authority anyway.

But it can be verified without the need for any pre-convincing that it will work.
In high-school, my physics teacher carried around his “portable physics lab”, a string, a small wheel and something to make a rough inclined plane. That’s enough up to high-school… apparently
In college, you start experimenting with waves and interference, particle physics, radioactive decay, optics, etc… and it just works. We actually replicated some of those experiments from long ago… Rutherford, Michelson, Einstein (for the photo-electric effect - the reason he got a Nobel prize), Newton (we worked out the gravitational constant pretty much the same way as Newton did)…
It’s not magic. It can be done, independently.
Certainly, no one expects a primary school kid to run those experiments… why would he?.. but, if you’re really interested, you get a chance to run them.
Every year, at my University, we have an open week, where we show people several simple experiments - they call it “the physics circus” and it’s attended mainly by high-school kids - pre-college - so they see that physics isn’t just an authority say so.

Also, the history might have been a bit simplified before it was given to you… You might wish to have a look at tofspot.blogspot.lt/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html…

Thanks…
Yes, everything tends to be simplified, when retold.
Even I suffer from that flaw. Some things that take the most time to put on code are the ones that get the least mention in the paper…

Yes, it has shown that “ether” does not exist and that speed of light is constant. That was one of two postulates of special theory of relativity.

A postulate that came out of the mathworks

It would tell us that “something moves in there periodically”. After all, Galen did not find out that heart pumps blood even knowing about pulse.

A something that gushes out when people get bruised. and the pressure with which it gushes out is coincident with the hart beating…

I’d say you might be exaggerating a bit in saying that theory of relativity or quantum mechanics “require very little (if any) stretch of the imagination”…

Once all the other, historically previous, physics concepts are acquired, these are just one more step.

How is “explaining how you ended up an atheist” different from “justifying your atheism”? Actually, the difference looks so clear that I do not know what can be used to explain the difference…

ok… we’re using different concepts of “justifying”.
Let’s go with yours.
I’ve explained how I ended up atheism, yes?
Now, to provide a good reason to accept that atheism… how about all the reasons I provided when explaining how I got there?
yeah… both those question still seem the same to me…
It seems you’re still thinking that atheism is a belief.

I’m afraid it is not. It might be enough to inspire the intuition, but it is not enough for an argument.

Wasn’t it for a rhetorical question?

Sure, “Atheists are teaching their children to be atheists.” was not meant to be a rule without exceptions - just as, I’m sure, you were not claiming that every single Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Buddhist is always doing his best to teach his children to be Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Buddhists.

Roger that!

 

[pocaracas]

Not everyone writes them down.

Not everyone is open to hear what is being said to them, so it can be very one sided.

Speak for yourself Pedro! Many of us “see it”. But it is true that one must be born again to “see” the Kingdom of God. It functions in the invisible realm, and some people cannot perceive it.

Doesn’t seem like a fair system…

(and I still don’t understand how you know my name… PM me!)

 

[pocaracas]

Well, these folks stand in the tradition of Apollos, full of zeal and passion for the Lord but in need of some gentle doctrinal correction

Oh, yes.

But if you can name a society that did not have religion, please cite your evidence for this, and I will concede that it was not every single human society…only *almost *every single human society.

And it wouldn’t change my point at all, but I’d like to see evidence for a society that did not have a religious characteristic–an acknowledgement of something beyond this material world.

At first, I thought North Korea!

But then, … The Pirahã from the Amazon.

And, if you’re willing to accept the testimony of an European in the 1500’s: books.google.co.uk/books?id=xZyOAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=pero+vaz+de+caminha+letter+beliefs&source=bl&ots=dj-fbXPO6O&sig=PBDuz2v-pzA5k08Ypp7av9jz66g&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=pero%20vaz%20de%20caminha%20letter%20beliefs&f=false (I hope that link leads to the exact page where the first brazilian people to have contact with europeans are described… “they had no political social organization or religious belief”.

############################

Egg-zactly.

And still I’m not a believer.

So you see? Even with videos of alleged conversations with God, it wouldn’t be enough to convince a skeptic, so your proposition is inutile.

The videos would be concerning something that you yourself would have experienced.
If it’s something that just started now, it would also be all over the news. Everyone would have a story of such conversation.
Unlike those ghost videos that started with poorly maintained photographic plates over a hundred years ago and have resurfaced explosively with the availability of video manipulating software.

LOL.

You do see that you’re simply reinforcing our position, right?

Photoshop was released in the 1980s and that’s the explanation for the drop in miracles.

Errr… no… according to the plot, photography “made” miracle claims drop, and photoshop fueled the increase.

So any miraculous recording that you’re demanding as proof for God would only be met with, “Well, there’s photoshop…”

Incidentally, the meme you offered makes a really idiotic claim, for you do know that correlation does not mean causation, right?

I know.
We could also say that the iphone (which came out in 2007) brought forth the 2008 economic worldwide recession.

I used a winky smiley for a reason there. I was joking with that.

 

[davidv]

Because humans can’t be certain of it.

Many are more certain of God’s existence than anything else. What evidence do you have that indicates that this certainty is a fantasy.

Some can be convinced of it… but others are convinced of the reality of other gods… and some are not convinced of the reality of any god.

 

[guanophore]

It seems his choice is the one that works best for him, no?

I wonder. He had regrets and remorse. I am sure he believed at the time he was doing what was right, and “worked best” according to his understanding of God.

So “our nature” is not homogeneous, which seems to lead to different religions and some divisions. If these divisions are the gift of a God, then what can we say about that God?

our “nature” is homogeneous to the extent that we all yearn and pursue meaning and purpose. Yes this pursuit can lead to many divisions, because people follow their own perceptions, which are necessarily individualistic.

Definitely the divisions are only a gift to the extent that through them, the Truth can be known. God desires unity.

If they are finding patterns where there are some, then they are finding different patterns in different places of the world… Not exactly a unifying pattern…

It all depends upon one’s perceptions. Joseph Campbell believed that he found patterns all around the world, and was able to unify them into one pattern.

And you are right, human being do seek answers to those questions. And religions do tend to help providing answers for them.
Some people can go on with their lives with those questions unanswered, or making their own answers along the way.

Yes. there is as many solutions to the desire for meaning as there are people.

yes, that’s true… but not exactly what I was going for.
How am I going to say that something about yourself is a myth?

Well, I am a Christian, and you believe that is a myth, so you have said that something about me is a myth…

That’s good… see it that way!

I can’t help it. I am very Jungian.
pocaracas;13465732:

Why must it be through that medium?

It does not, but you have rejected all the sources external to yourself, so the last bastion of the revelation of God, found within the human soul, is the only hope left.

It has come to my attention that some people out there aren’t really aware that atheists exist. Aren’t aware of how they reason, how they live their lives, how they come to be atheists even when they are born in a believing society.
I’m all for letting people know how things are. Certainly, my point of view is only one in the sea of atheists out there.

Thank you.

I don’t think we any longer have a “believing society”. Christians have become a minority in American culture.