Why does anyone believe in god/gods, taking into account that there's no sign of intelligent design anywhere we've looked? Life is just random chance, the laws that rule the universe are arbitrary and meaningless, it's all chaos. So why invent this mystical thingy that helps explain nothing about our reality and creates more questions instead?
because they are fucking retarded lol
Social indoctrination. It's not that deep, people are just brought up to be religious. In 200 years it will seem ridiculous that anyone even was religious.
>>819140>In 200 years it will seem ridiculous that anyone even was religious.One of those things that's been being said for more than 200 years.
i dont think they necessarily believe in god. most of them probably just wish god or heaven was real
>>819136Humans have a religious drive, it's a human universal, probably related to group cohesion or fighting through bad times, or maybe something about pattern recognition, seeing faces in nature, feeling like one thing is connected to another, etc. The one hunter-gathering group claimed to be agnostic (the Piraha) still believe in invisible men who come from other layers of reality (the sky).
>>819170>The one hunter-gathering group claimed to be agnostic (the Piraha) still believe in invisible men who come from other layers of reality (the skyThat's not the same as religion at all though.
>>819173drop the cope pipe
>>819136>Why does anyone believe in god/godsHow can you be over the age of 15 and not know this?
>>819136Are kids born Atheists?
Cognitive scientists say human minds may come pre-wired for theism (agency detection, purpose-seeking, afterlife intuitions). But do those instincts actually make kids believers in gods? And what happens to kids raised without religion at all?
00:00 Setting up the question: Theistic Babies?
2:32 Cognitive Defaults for Theism?
13:56 Cultural and Social Inputs for Theism
20:33 What about kids raised in nonreligious families?
>>819136Animism: The first religion?
Anthropologists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries hypothesized that animism was the earliest religion. But later scholars have called this theory into question. What is animism? And how should we categorize it?
>>819136 Do Dreams Explain the Origin of Religion?
Do dreams explain the origins of religion? From biblical visions to Tibetan dream yoga, anthropologists, psychologists, and neuroscientists have long debated how our nightly visions shape gods, spirits, and sacred traditions.
The Lost Pantheon of Yahweh - Polytheistic Roots of the Abrahamic Religions
Today, billions of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Baháʼís, and others worship the God of Abraham — but where did this idea of one universal God actually come from? This video explores the ancient Near Eastern origins of Yahweh, tracing how the deity worshipped by Israel and Judah emerged from the older polytheistic world of Canaan. We begin in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant, where Canaanite peoples worshipped a divine council led by El and Asherah, alongside gods such as Baal, Shapash, Mot, and others. From there, we follow the rise of Yahweh, a southern storm deity whose cult gradually merged with that of El. Over centuries, political centralization, royal reforms, competition with Baal worship, and the crisis of the Babylonian Exile transformed Israelite religion from polytheism into monolatry, and finally into true monotheism. The video also examines the roles of King Josiah, the Deuteronomists, Isaiah, Cyrus the Great, Persian influence, Zoroastrianism, the Second Temple, and later Abrahamic religions. This is the story of how one regional god became the single God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and much of the modern world.
How did something come out of nothing. If there is no things, how will you get the things to make something?
>>819231"yeah let's use quotes to vaguepost the point I'm trying to make"
I had a little bit of a stroke reading this. What point are you trying to make the last quote?
>>819231Who says second-to-last quote? Stuff relies on other stuff to exist to exist. The creation of our universe must've been created by something.
>>819234there was no time before time so not really
>>819141It's been trending towards that direction I think. Everywhere's getting more secular, even religious people are less religious than before. This goes for all religions around the globe.
>>819242nonreligiosity is increasing, but that does not mean a lack of supernatural beliefs. People have plenty of crank supernatural beliefs, just not associated with any one particular organized religion. People are homebrewing their own beliefs.
>>819234>Stuff relies on other stuff to exist to exist.It is literally impossible to know this. You just made a claim with no evidence to back it up. It could very well be the case that stuff just exists for no reason.
>(therefore) The creation of our universe must've been created by something.This is circular logic. If
something needs to create something for it to exist, then we arrive at the very same question:
how did something come out of nowhere?. This hypothesis creates more questions instead of answering the mystery of existence.
>>819249This will never go away I think. People hypothesize about what they don't know/understand and will believe whatever explanatuon they've found satisfiable enough. Doesn't need to be supernatural, as it could be pseudoscience, misinformation, hoax, mandela effect etc
>>819253The future world religion is gonna be a UFO cult, assuming we keep exploring space.
>>819136If you are familar with your Feuerbach/Marx, you understand that God is not an "invention" a la Plato's Noble Lie, but is an expression of our alienation in the form of an external representative. It abstracts from our essence and so perpetuates itself objectively in the world. In the realm of capitalism, God typically disperses into other superstitions like "value" or "the market". The "invisible hand" is religious language. Put most simply, God reveals the secret of our social institutions, which is why religion only appears with the extent of civilisation. The uncivilised do not have religion, even if they have basic superstitions.
>>819170Superstition is absolutely separate from religion, which is actually why the early Catholics persecuted superstitions as folk belief systems.
>>819241Right, so time comes from the uncreated and eternal.
That is a basic deduction.
>>819250>Impossible to knowWhat? It is self-evident knowledge; an axiom. A=A.
Stuff needs stuff.
>>819255Ehhhh UFO cult or not the basic premice of this argument is to conceal an acceptance of god beyond our most basic understanding.
>>819255>>819269The perniciousness of the UFO cult is that it appeals to something which is able to save us from ourselves. For more, read Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End". UFOs are a class concept of superiority.
>>819268>If you are familar with your Feuerbach/Marx, you understand that God is not an "invention" a la Plato's Noble Lie, but is an expression of our alienation in the form of an external representative. those aren't mutually exclusive
>>819276Yes they are; one supposes that ideas move the world, while the other supposes that the world moves ideas. If you tried to convert savages to Christianity, there is no frame of reference, so ideas are historical.
>>819277>not an invention>but an expression of alienationa person can invent an expression of alienation
>>819278Howso?
If you are referring to particular theology, notice that the peasants don't actually read their holy books, but believe what suits them. You can say that Islam is different from Christianity in particular, but if you translated the Arabic to English, doesn't it all fit together quite well? Even the head coverings were common with Western women before the 20th century. Theological conferences like Vatican II respond to the world; the world does not respond to theology.
>>819279people invented god to express their alienation from a cold and uncaring universe
>>819279i don't get why you're adding all the extra stuff to the conversation. maybe i am just a dumb monkey
>>819280I don't really believe that - at least in general.
I think that the fantasy of an afterlife is historically particular to a certain period of civilisation. We see in the Epic of Gilgamesh (2000 BCE) not a single hope for an afterlife. Homer (800 BCE) denies any idea of Heaven. Hesiod (700 BCE) speaks of the "Isle of the Blessed" as a sort of Heaven. It is only really with Plato (380 BCE) that we see a full belief in both Heaven and Hell. So, ideas develop, but they develop alongside material circumstances, not just as a dynamic of the mind. We see that religious faith is highest in the least well-off, and so the fantasy of revenge (e.g. Hell) and reward (e.g. Heaven) is attributed by Nietzsche to be symptom of "slave morality". Slaves are the most alienated and so are most religious - but its a matter of cause and effect. Wouldn't you say that as people become richer, they become less dependent on the fantasy of Heaven? If this is the case, then it is the world which moves ideas, not the other way round.
>>819281We are all dumb monkeys.
>>819268<Impossible to know>What? It is self-evident knowledge; an axiom. A=A. Stuff needs stuff.Claiming that "
stuff needs stuff to exist" is a metaphysical assertion, not a self-evident logical tautology like A = A. Just because your intuition tells you that it's self-evident doesn't mean that it is. This isn't like saying that "
a cat is a cat", it's a completely different beast.
Additionally, saying that "
a creator, that just exists for no reason, is required for things to exist" is even more wild than saying that "
things just exist for no reason". You're just adding a mystical middle man without explaining why.
>>819372The alternative of things coming from things is things coming from no-thing. No-thing has no qualities or determinations, so cannot be anything, hence it is no-thing; a lack of any-thing. Can no-thing exist? No, since existence is based on some-thing having existence. So, it is impossible to propose no-thing having precedence to some-thing. If there is some-thing, it must come from some-thing, even from itself.
If you can't follow the intrinsic logic, then you are just stubborn.
>>819374You just abandoned your original claim that
"stuff needs other stuff in order to exist". When you say that
"stuff can come from itself" then you're admitting that
"something does not require an external cause to exist", which agrees with my point that
"existence does not inherently require a prior creator".
>>819372>Claiming that "stuff needs stuff to exist" is a metaphysical assertion, not a self-evident logical tautology like A = A.Natural theology is argument for the existence of a god from how things are in the world (rather than being based on miracles, what it says in religious books ,and so on., which is the scope of "revealed " theology. )
. Specifically, natural theologians ask what causes change (.It's not just that stuff needs stuff to exist .) We know change happens, we can observe it. They claim that ultimately there must be a "prime mover" behind all changes, which is itself unchanging. Otherwise, there's an unending series of change agents, which doesn't start anywhere, which is the same as saying there's no cause of the changes we can observe.
Inb4 it's all flux and dialectics
but what causes the flux?
I know the answer.anons don't care. Fair enoigh, you don't need theology or gods to discern dialectics in the human society (or anything else.)
0123456789
0123456789
0123456789
0123456789
Etc,
Ive seen that like way more dramatic…
Supernatural beliefs would still exist in a fully secular world but they would look completely different from religion. Religions only exist as a result of enforced orthodoxy, they are inherently unnatural.
>>819374>the intrinsic logicReality is not based on human intuition (what you call "logic"). It's based on evidence, the material.
Inb4 it's all flux and dialectics
but what causes the flux?
I know the answer.anons don't care.
>>819499>And what is the answer, O insufferably smug poster? You're just pissed off because you're the bent over patient in this argument and I am the agent putting my cock in and out of your arse. Flux and dialectics are both change. What causes flux in the soupy chaos? Things to change Dialectically?.its change , so Ultimately, a "prime mover.
>>819499Sorry about the fkn tripple post queer. Whats that? You cought me half drinking??
>>819374go learn what a higgs boson is
>>819374go look into the higgs field, what it is, where it is, and spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking.
>>819386>exterior causeI never proposed an exterior cause, but only saw the cause of "stuff" as internal; e.g. stuff comes from stuff. Your incoherent alternative is that stuff can come from not-stuff, but you know that's impossible. I never invoked "creation", either, that was the other anon, since its impossible to "create" matter. That's why reality is uncreated/eternal - and so time must also thus, by necessity, come from the timeless.
>>819476The ancients reckoned that matter is uncreated, and that time was an imposition upon matter by a deity, since time must begin after the margin of chaos. Flux is then presupposed as eternal, with time being a type of local order which allows for the formation of natural bodies. A deity puts matter into a harmony we call "time", or relative motion; so absolute motion is the same as stillness (as we read in Heraclitus).
>>819509>EvidenceLogic is built from self-evidence. That is the nature of it.
>>819284>We see in the Epic of Gilgamesh (2000 BCE) not a single hope for an afterlife. Homer (800 BCE) denies any idea of Heaven. Hesiod (700 BCE) speaks of the "Isle of the Blessed" as a sort of Heaven. It is only really with Plato (380 BCE) that we see a full belief in both Heaven and Hell.OH FUCK SMITH ANON IS IN SIBERIA
>>819284>>819280>people invented god to express their alienation from a cold and uncaring universe>>819284>I don't really believe that - at least in general […] We see that religious faith is highest in the least well-off, and so the fantasy of revenge (e.g. Hell) and reward (e.g. Heaven) is attributed by Nietzsche to be symptom of "slave morality". Slaves are the most alienated and so are most religious - but its a matter of cause and effect. Bruh you said you don't believe that but then you backed up his argument.
>>819590It requires subtlety, nonetheless.
The fantasy of religion is particular to historical development, since otherwise the human condition would permit the full indulgences of sublime reward at all times. I don't take Nietzsche's argument that the Bronze Age was a paradise seriously, since Gilgamesh bemoans his fate unto death - the Freudian point would be that Death Anxiety induces fantasies of immortality, yet immortality is barred from Gilgamesh. So it cannot be a purely psychological affair. We see in the Bible, litters of economic metaphors concerning "wages of sin" and "heavenly treasures" and parables of God as a creditor. The very structure of "Judgement" is a courtroom, as an example, so courts must historically precede its idea, with justice being renumeration. I might say then that material alienation precedes the psychology of alienation, with fantasy as a medium. So, it is society which creates God, as a reflection of itself, and God is internalised in this way. It's the same way science fiction isn't really about the future, but the present.
>>819586>I never proposed an exterior cause, but only saw the cause of "stuff" as internal; e.g. stuff comes from stuff. <Note, then, to begin with, that things cannot act upon each other and turn into one another at random, unless it be by incidental concomitance ; for how (to take an example) could culture, as such, ‘ become’ pallor ? A man of culture, who had been of a swarthy coinplexion, might indeed become pale, and so the person we had described as ‘ cultured’ might come to be a person we describe as ‘ pale,’ but only incidentally to the fact that the cultured person who became pale had other qualities concomitantly with his culture ; for he cannot ‘become’ pale on the mere strength of already having some quality other than pallor to start from, unless that quality is on the specific line of antithesis to pallor—swarthiness or some intermediate shade. P.53, Aristotle The Physics Vol-i : Philip H Wicksteed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
https://share.google/4RXCkmBwZhxzenv2vIf I read this correctly, something can't change into something else without being the "patient" of an external "agent " - unless it already had the necessary qualities characteristic of what it changes into in it already , in which case it would already be that thing.
>The ancients reckoned that matter is uncreated, and that time was an imposition upon matter by a deity, since time must begin after the margin of chaos. >A deity puts matter into a harmony we call "time", or relative motion; so absolute motion is the same as stillness (as we read in Heraclitus).Like in Genesis?. God doesn't create matter out of nothing, but out of watery chaos.
But what caused the watery chaos?
And later in the Bible, there is a reference to God smiting the heads of dragons in the waters. What were dragons doing in the waters?
It's all very unsatisfying. If the gods didn't cause Matter to physically exist, but just tweaked it to give it Form, the question of why everything exists, rather than nothing, isn't answered.
Unique IPs: 27