How can rational people believe in any religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also Buddhism isn't deistic. Rational people are practitioners.

Not true. Many buddhists pray to lord buddha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can “rational” people not believe in entities greater than themselves? Start there, then add details.
Many religions explain the unexplained and provide supports of various kinds — including community— in the face of the unbearable.

One doesn't need religion to have community. And you are asking that people start with an irrational position of faith. Lived experience and observation does not support the existence of some magical deity. Human beings in our present evolutionary form have existed for about 300,000 years. There have been innumerable religions over all those eras. Gods and beliefs change all the time. There's clearly a hunger to believe in something. That's very human. Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and so on all had their gods. That doesn't make Isis and Zeus real.

I'm with OP. I don't understand them either. Believing maybe there is intelligent design? Possibly. That's hard to prove one way or the other yet. But the religions of the earth are very easy to prove untruthful. I remember reading that Allah only made plans for men in heaven and laughed at the thought this religion was actually thought real by so many on the earth and no one could blaspheme the person who wrote that. I have the same thoughts about the illogical teachings of Christianity and Judaism and all religions that separate men from animals although they aren't as blatantly off and required more thinking to get there. When you study history it's easy to see that all of these religions are made up by men based on the time they lived in. Whether they were all accessing some overarching God's power, who knows, but the word for word is definitely of their own mind. I think OP the reason others don't question their beliefs is lack of thought and wish to. So while you thought and thought others just don't or won't and we are only in charge of our own mind. Why do people stay addicted? Why do people not make their bed in the morning? Why do some people think the world is flat and not test that assumption? All of these things are habits and motivation to not change. Just focus on your own life. Its hard enough to manage one life. If athiests would start better communities the people in religion that are drawn to the community aspect of faith would just come over more because they are really there for community and are too lazy to go to church and practice living a good life much less think about how to create their own spiritual community. Think about MAGA and how many people were drawn to that in the span of a few years even though it didnt exist before. Create something that is of value to you and if others find value in it too they will join. Stop obsessing about people stuck in their ways.

[Anonymous]

Agree, OP.

I don't have any issue with personal faith.

But religion? Organized religions? Absolute corruption, completely embedded with man's selfishness and agenda.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

I’d go even farther than OP calling religion irrational and say that it’s narcissistic in this modern age. I can understand why humans needed it to answer questions about the world in historical times, but we now have greater scientific knowledge.

We know that humans have been around for a fraction of the 13 billion years the universe has existed. And 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct through multiple mass extinction events. How incredibly self centered to think this was all created especially for us.

And the only reason people even follow the mainstream religions we see today is because those specific cultures survived and won. People believe in Jesus because of conquests and colonial missions, not because it’s inherently more true. If the Roman Empire hadn't fallen, we could just as easily be worshiping Zeus.

Not only that but anthropologists can study societies and predict what kind of God they’ll come up with based on their environment and how they’re organized. Instead people think that they just happen to be so blessed to have been born into the “correct” religion, not fully grasping that people who believe in other religions are just as convinced they are worshipping the true God, and for the most part it’s just product of their environment.

If people were just using it for emotional support, community, etc. I would say it’s all harmless and not care about religion. But in the modern world, it’s still being used as a weapon. It’s a tool to strip women of reproductive rights, spread hate against gay and trans people, and justify wars that only end up lining the pockets of billionaires. It’s a mechanism to keep the masses doing the bidding of the people at the top.

It still boggles my mind how many people can’t see through organized religion. Even as a kid I thought it was all just a polite lie, something people did for tradition.

All of this has been on my mind a lot more now with the crazy rise of Christian nationalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn’t there only be one religion if religion is real?

Why would this be true?

If you mean "Shouldn't there only be one *true* religion?" Then yes. We agree. Like most religious people, I believe that mine is the only true one. Most religions make exclusive truth claims.

So your religion is the real one and all the others are just practicing fake made up stuff right? And your believes are more true than other people’s beliefs because you’re super special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You've thought and thought and can't get to something easily understood and obvious to everyone else?

Yikes.

Bigger “yikes!”… everyone doesn’t believe in religion as you stated. That is incorrect. In fact religion is a major player in world dynamics because people believe different things….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One person chooses to believe there is a God. You choose to believe there isn't one. You can't prove either stance, theirs or yours.

Religion is not merely “choosing to believe in God.” I believe in a higher power or energy of some kind. But religion is gobbledygook.

Religion is a belief in things like someone living inside a whale for 3 days, a great flood that wiped out much of early humanity, a crucified man being resurrected after 3 days, earth being created in six days, martyrs getting 72 virgins, a hidden army licking a wall, etc.

It’s so fantastical that people just make up rationalizations for how it’s just an interpretation or whatever and then religious councils will come together and create their own new interpretations over time. It’s like a little kid who keeps making up new rules to a nonsensical board game.

You should really look into the beliefs of religions other than your own (presumably you believe those religions are wrong if yours is the true one). That is how your religious beliefs sound to many others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also Buddhism isn't deistic. Rational people are practitioners.

Not true. Many buddhists pray to lord buddha.

They do not pray asking for intervention or favors. It's not like asking God to cure your cancer or make you rich. It's veneration, meditation, chanting for self reflection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have thought and thought about this. How can anyone believe religion is real? To me it is all superstition. I can understand why some people need it— it gives them community, structure, for some, morals and for others excuses to commit atrocities. But really, what separates idol worship from Jesus worship or monotheism? In my mind it is all a bunch of made up nonsense that is not grounded in reality. It’s crazy to think that highly intelligent people believe all this.

Pascal’s wager. If you don’t believe, your kinda an idiot - even to those of us who are scientists with PhDs and study the universe with numbers.

NP. Pascal’s wager isn’t exactly an expression of faith. It’s a cost benefit analysis. Pure game theory.

The wager is that you can’t actually know if God exists, so you might as well hedge the bet that brings the greater upside. Inherent in this is the “not knowing.” Isn’t that agnosticism at its core?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also Buddhism isn't deistic. Rational people are practitioners.

Reincarnation is rational?

[Anonymous]

Living as if believe is something people of all beliefs do. You dont need to have a belief in the supernatural to act a certain way. Many people believe in religious teachings without actually believing the religion which makes sense because to them they are all man made creations so obviously they would have some understanding also being human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have thought and thought about this. How can anyone believe religion is real? To me it is all superstition. I can understand why some people need it— it gives them community, structure, for some, morals and for others excuses to commit atrocities. But really, what separates idol worship from Jesus worship or monotheism? In my mind it is all a bunch of made up nonsense that is not grounded in reality. It’s crazy to think that highly intelligent people believe all this.

Pascal’s wager. If you don’t believe, your kinda an idiot - even to those of us who are scientists with PhDs and study the universe with numbers.

NP. Pascal’s wager isn’t exactly an expression of faith. It’s a cost benefit analysis. Pure game theory.

The wager is that you can’t actually know if God exists, so you might as well hedge the bet that brings the greater upside. Inherent in this is the “not knowing.” Isn’t that agnosticism at its core?

Why would you believe in a thing you don't know if it exists? Especially a thing in a state where conditions are exactly the same if it does not exist as if it does?

That makes zero sense. And people don't take that approach with ANY other belief except for god. Which is what makes it 100% a rationalization designed to simply enable the belief.

That's all Pascal's wager actually is - a rationalization for a presupposed belief.

It’s not rationalization for an existing belief. It’s an argument that one is better off living *as if they believed* based on a calculation of upsides vs downsides that lie along different paths.

It’s a cold calculus, that’s all.

FWIW, Pascal actually did believe. But his wager is game theory.

You’ve convinced me to live as if I believe in Santa. There is only upside!

Not trying to convince you of anything.

But you’re not far off from what the argument is. The difference is that you’ll probably get presents whether it not you believe in Santa.

[Anonymous]

*whether or not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have thought and thought about this. How can anyone believe religion is real? To me it is all superstition. I can understand why some people need it— it gives them community, structure, for some, morals and for others excuses to commit atrocities. But really, what separates idol worship from Jesus worship or monotheism? In my mind it is all a bunch of made up nonsense that is not grounded in reality. It’s crazy to think that highly intelligent people believe all this.

Pascal’s wager. If you don’t believe, your kinda an idiot - even to those of us who are scientists with PhDs and study the universe with numbers.

NP. Pascal’s wager isn’t exactly an expression of faith. It’s a cost benefit analysis. Pure game theory.

The wager is that you can’t actually know if God exists, so you might as well hedge the bet that brings the greater upside. Inherent in this is the “not knowing.” Isn’t that agnosticism at its core?

Why would you believe in a thing you don't know if it exists? Especially a thing in a state where conditions are exactly the same if it does not exist as if it does?

That makes zero sense. And people don't take that approach with ANY other belief except for god. Which is what makes it 100% a rationalization designed to simply enable the belief.

That's all Pascal's wager actually is - a rationalization for a presupposed belief.

It’s not rationalization for an existing belief. It’s an argument that one is better off living *as if they believed* based on a calculation of upsides vs downsides that lie along different paths.

It’s a cold calculus, that’s all.

FWIW, Pascal actually did believe. But his wager is game theory.

You’ve convinced me to live as if I believe in Santa. There is only upside!

Not trying to convince you of anything.

But you’re not far off from what the argument is. The difference is that you’ll probably get presents whether it not you believe in Santa.

Pascal’s wager. If you don’t believe in Santa, your (sic) kinda an idiot - even to those of us who are “scientists” with “PhDs” and study the universe with “numbers”.