Why do you have to believe in fantasy to believe in God?

[Greatest I am]

Why do you have to believe in fantasy to believe in God?

Before you jump all over me, remember that I am not an atheist.
I believe in a Godhead that is of this world and the reality we see around us.
Mine is not the God you believe in because to believe in that one, one must buy into fantasy, miracles and magic. This I have no need or desire to do.

The O T, the base of the Bible, is a document that the original writers, the Jews, do not believe in a literal way.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

Further, believers tend to believe what is written about God even as whoever is doing the writing admit that God is unfathomable and unknowable and works in mysterious ways. A catch 22.

As an adult, do you not think it strange and immoral that you would preach to and teach your children that there are real talking snakes and donkeys, that people can walk on water, turn staffs into snakes and that a loving God would use genocide against humans?

This being after nearly all of his perfect works have somehow become imperfect and thus showing a creator God who just cannot create creatures that will do as programmed.

These things that are impossible to believe unless you have bought into fantasy, miracles and magical thinking.

As far as the non believing world is concerned, there is no such thing as miracles and magic. No believer has ever been able to show or prove that any miracle has ever been performed and it would seem to me that if God wanted us to believe in them, he would have left one here for us to ponder. He did not.

If your God did not do all of the miracles shown in scripture, is there anything left that shows a real God?

God would always want what is best for him as well as what is best for man.

Note that 6 million of us starve to death yearly. A yearly holocaust.
If God does have all of these miracle making powers, how can things not be exactly the way he wants for both himself and man?

Now I know that many will point to free will, but because the Bible shows God ignoring man’s free will to live when he kills us all over the O T, this negates that argument so I hope no one bothers trying to use it.

If you believe in reality instead of fantasy and magic, does your God disappear?

Does God have to be able to do miracles to be your God?

Regards
DL

 

[BornReady]

People like fantasy. So it's not surprising some people believe in it. I agree with you that it's not a requirement. My brother is a Christian and he doesn't believe in miracles.

 

[Diggin Deep]

Give me convincing arguments that God doesn't exist before you ask why I'd believe in such a fantasy.

In your opinion, God is not a reality, just a comforting idea in my mind, an emotional crutch, wishful thinking - a mental or emotional disorder. You aren't the first to think so.

Is God just an imaginary "cosmic father" invented for our emotional protection, created in our image to comfort us, a phantom to fill the hollow places?

Any challenge put this way is beset with problems. Is it fair to simply dismiss theism because belief in God happens to fulfill emotional needs? Is there a real connection between our psychological state of mind and the truthfulness of our ideas?

Does it follow that since I want God to exist, therefore He doesn't exist, that since I draw comfort from believing He cares for me, therefore He can't care for me?

How does what we wish to be true influence what actually is true? One can no more disprove God by citing the emotional advantages of belief than he can prove God exists because of emotional motivations for denial. Put simply, psychological motivations give you information about the one who believes, but they tell you nothing about the truth of his beliefs. Faulting an idea solely based on its origin is a genetic fallacy.

You can't refute an idea by showing--even correctly--the psychological reasons a person happens to believe it. Why? Because psychological motivations have nothing to do with whether a belief is true or not. That evidence must come from other sources.

People have all kinds of twisted motivations to believe things that actually turn out to be true. Others have noble motivations to believe things that are false. You must show that a person is wrong before you start explaining why they are wrong. Does God exist? - must be answered with reasons first, not dismissed with misleading talk about motives.

Suppose someone makes note of the apparent order and design of the universe, for example, and conclude that some intelligent Being is responsible for them. How could you disprove them? There's only one way: address the merit of the reasons themselves.

It does no more good to say one loves the idea or hates the idea than it does to dismiss one's conclusion because he has heartburn. Reasons cannot be chased away by desires, motivations, or upset stomachs.

If there are good reasons to believe in God that are not dependent on my emotional condition, then assessing my psychological condition misses the mark entirely. One can never answer the question, "Is God just a fantasy?" by looking at motivations. To argue a belief of God, you must address their reasons, not their desires.

 

[pjbleek]

Give me convincing arguments that God doesn't exist before you ask why I'd believe in such a fantasy.

In your opinion, God is not a reality, just a comforting idea in my mind, an emotional crutch, wishful thinking - a mental or emotional disorder. You aren't the first to think so.

Is God just an imaginary "cosmic father" invented for our emotional protection, created in our image to comfort us, a phantom to fill the hollow places?

Any challenge put this way is beset with problems. Is it fair to simply dismiss theism because belief in God happens to fulfill emotional needs? Is there a real connection between our psychological state of mind and the truthfulness of our ideas?

Does it follow that since I want God to exist, therefore He doesn't exist, that since I draw comfort from believing He cares for me, therefore He can't care for me?

How does what we wish to be true influence what actually is true? One can no more disprove God by citing the emotional advantages of belief than he can prove God exists because of emotional motivations for denial. Put simply, psychological motivations give you information about the one who believes, but they tell you nothing about the truth of his beliefs. Faulting an idea solely based on its origin is a genetic fallacy.

You can't refute an idea by showing--even correctly--the psychological reasons a person happens to believe it. Why? Because psychological motivations have nothing to do with whether a belief is true or not. That evidence must come from other sources.

People have all kinds of twisted motivations to believe things that actually turn out to be true. Others have noble motivations to believe things that are false. You must show that a person is wrong before you start explaining why they are wrong. Does God exist? - must be answered with reasons first, not dismissed with misleading talk about motives.

Suppose someone makes note of the apparent order and design of the universe, for example, and conclude that some intelligent Being is responsible for them. How could you disprove them? There's only one way: address the merit of the reasons themselves.

It does no more good to say one loves the idea or hates the idea than it does to dismiss one's conclusion because he has heartburn. Reasons cannot be chased away by desires, motivations, or upset stomachs.

If there are good reasons to believe in God that are not dependent on my emotional condition, then assessing my psychological condition misses the mark entirely. One can never answer the question, "Is God just and idea?" by looking at motivations. To argue a belief of God, you must address their reasons, not their desires.

I got nothing....

 

[FreightTrain]

Give me convincing arguments that God doesn't exist before you ask why I'd believe in such a fantasy.

In your opinion, God is not a reality, just a comforting idea in my mind, an emotional crutch, wishful thinking - a mental or emotional disorder. You aren't the first to think so.

Is God just an imaginary "cosmic father" invented for our emotional protection, created in our image to comfort us, a phantom to fill the hollow places?

Any challenge put this way is beset with problems. Is it fair to simply dismiss theism because belief in God happens to fulfill emotional needs? Is there a real connection between our psychological state of mind and the truthfulness of our ideas?

Does it follow that since I want God to exist, therefore He doesn't exist, that since I draw comfort from believing He cares for me, therefore He can't care for me?

How does what we wish to be true influence what actually is true? One can no more disprove God by citing the emotional advantages of belief than he can prove God exists because of emotional motivations for denial. Put simply, psychological motivations give you information about the one who believes, but they tell you nothing about the truth of his beliefs. Faulting an idea solely based on its origin is a genetic fallacy.

You can't refute an idea by showing--even correctly--the psychological reasons a person happens to believe it. Why? Because psychological motivations have nothing to do with whether a belief is true or not. That evidence must come from other sources.

People have all kinds of twisted motivations to believe things that actually turn out to be true. Others have noble motivations to believe things that are false. You must show that a person is wrong before you start explaining why they are wrong. Does God exist? - must be answered with reasons first, not dismissed with misleading talk about motives.

Suppose someone makes note of the apparent order and design of the universe, for example, and conclude that some intelligent Being is responsible for them. How could you disprove them? There's only one way: address the merit of the reasons themselves.

It does no more good to say one loves the idea or hates the idea than it does to dismiss one's conclusion because he has heartburn. Reasons cannot be chased away by desires, motivations, or upset stomachs.

If there are good reasons to believe in God that are not dependent on my emotional condition, then assessing my psychological condition misses the mark entirely. One can never answer the question, "Is God just and idea?" by looking at motivations. To argue a belief of God, you must address their reasons, not their desires.

Nice debating! Where's the counter-argument?

 

[Diggin Deep]

There's a another problem with the view that dismisses God because people have emotional reasons to believe in Him. Let's turn the question "Is God just a fantasy?" on its edge for a moment and turn it around. Is believing that there is not such thing as the "Bible God" a reality, or is it just a fantasy, an emotional crutch, wishful thinking? It goes both ways.

Instead of inventing God, have people invented non-God? Have they invented this idea to escape some of the frightening implications of God's existence?

People of all cultures, from the most primitive to the most advanced, believe in God. There's a reason. They don't have to work themselves into belief. Quite the contrary, it's a natural conclusion based on the observed order of the world, more like an effortless response. Most people, when left to their own intelligence, see beyond the visible to what's behind it and what explains it.

The belief in a non-God, is the real anomaly - the response that's unnatural, forced, and artificial. Disbelief, not belief, takes the real effort. It's almost as if one has to talk themself out of believing in God.

Why would anyone do that when the evidence is so apparent? The motive, I think, is obvious. If we can somehow convince ourselves God doesn't exist, then He won't be cramping our life style. When it comes to our own lives, we don't like riding shotgun; we want to hold the reins.

 

[Diggin Deep]

I got nothing....

Oh I'm sure you do buddy...you are smarter than the average bear :nod::nod:

 

[pjbleek]

Oh I'm sure you do buddy...you are smarter than the average bear :nod::nod:

I could hear Yogi saying that too....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pqyax6gwzQ

:24::24::24::24::24::24:

great...smarter than a bear...where's Boo-Boo.....?

 

[Diggin Deep]

I could hear Yogi saying that too....


:24::24::24::24::24::24:

great...smarter than a bear...where's Boo-Boo.....?

OK...you talked me into it...I'll be Boo-Boo. Although, Xeno may want to fight me over the right to do so

 

[pjbleek]

OK...you talked me into it...I'll be Boo-Boo. Although, Xeno may want to fight me over the right to do so

I want a womanzzzz to be Boo-Boo....lol:24::24::24::24::24::24:

 

[Tim]

There's a another problem with the view that dismisses God because people have emotional reasons to believe in Him. Let's turn the question "Is God just a fantasy?" on its edge for a moment and turn it around. Is believing that there is not such thing as the "Bible God" a reality, or is it just a fantasy, an emotional crutch, wishful thinking? It goes both ways.

Instead of inventing God, have people invented non-God? Have they invented this idea to escape some of the frightening implications of God's existence?

People of all cultures, from the most primitive to the most advanced, believe in God. There's a reason. They don't have to work themselves into belief. Quite the contrary, it's a natural conclusion based on the observed order of the world, more like an effortless response. Most people, when left to their own intelligence, see beyond the visible to what's behind it and what explains it.

The belief in a non-God, is the real anomaly - the response that's unnatural, forced, and artificial. Disbelief, not belief, takes the real effort. It's almost as if one has to talk themself out of believing in God.

Why would anyone do that when the evidence is so apparent? The motive, I think, is obvious. If we can somehow convince ourselves God doesn't exist, then He won't be cramping our life style. When it comes to our own lives, we don't like riding shotgun; we want to hold the reins.

Your entire argument falls apart at the seems when examined closely.

People of all cultures, from the most primitive to the most advanced, believe in God.

Not true, they may believe in a supernatural force or deities, but not necessarily God. There is a big difference.

There's a reason. They don't have to work themselves into belief. Quite the contrary, it's a natural conclusion based on the observed order of the world, more like an effortless response. Most people, when left to their own intelligence, see beyond the visible to what's behind it and what explains it.

This is even more evidence that there ISN'T a god or some supernatural being out there.
Take a close look at the religions of the world throughout history, they change as out technology and understanding of the natural world does. We no longer believe that Zeus is the one responsible for the magnificent lightning bolts that light up our skies. We no longer believe that Ra is responsible for the annual flooding of the Nile delta to create the fertile soil needed for life. I could go on and on with hundreds even thousands of examples of religious beliefs that were abandoned throughout the years because we have a better understanding of the physical world around us.
Just because we don't understand something in the natural world, it does not mean that it must be designed by god. Quite the contrary, it just means that there is a lot to learn.

Why would anyone do that when the evidence is so apparent? The motive, I think, is obvious. If we can somehow convince ourselves God doesn't exist, then He won't be cramping our life style. When it comes to our own lives, we don't like riding shotgun; we want to hold the reins.

The evidence is not apparent, hell, there isn't any evidence... it's just your inability to accept the fact that we don't know ______*blank* (fill that in with whatever you want)

 

[Diggin Deep]

Your entire argument falls apart at the seems when examined closely.

Not true, they may believe in a supernatural force or deities, but not necessarily God. There is a big difference.

I do apologize Tim, I did not mean to capitalize "God" in that context.

The evidence is not apparent, hell, there isn't any evidence... it's just your inability to accept the fact that we don't know ______*blank* (fill that in with whatever you want)

I disagree - there is evidence of a higher power and it is apparent. Look around you at any living thing. Is that not evidence of a higher power?

 

[pjbleek]

I do apologize Tim, I did not mean to capitalize "God" in that context.



I disagree - there is evidence of a higher power and it is apparent. Look around you at any living thing. Is that not evidence of a higher power?

^^^
this is tough...you can sense the wonder of this but is from humans evolving or is there something else?

 

[Diggin Deep]

^^^
this is tough...you can sense the wonder of this but is from humans evolving or is there something else?

One issue of doubt I had dealt with for a very very long time. Good question :thumbup I suppose the answer can only be found within the individual. What they choose to believe in and put their faith in for themself.

 

[pjbleek]

Well...think of this... you think the Creator has a video tape of your life readily available upon your arrival? You both review the video and see if you are worth of eternal life?

I often wondered where the hidden cameras were hidden...

 

[Diggin Deep]

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was an Austrian neurologist who founded the practice of psychoanalysis, a system espousing the theory that unconscious motives dictate much of human behavior. Though championing atheism, Freud admitted that the truth of religion could not be disproved and admitted that religious faith has provided comfort for untold numbers of people down through history. However, Freud thought the concept of God was illusionary. In one of his religious works, The Future of an Illusion, he wrote, “They [believers] give the name of ‘God’ to some vague abstraction which they have created for themselves.”

When making an honest examination of these claims, the first thing to recognize is what those making the assertions are claiming about themselves. Deriders of religion are saying that Christians are prone to psychological and wish-fulfillment factors that they, the skeptics, are not. But how do they know that? For example, Freud saw the need for a Father God as an outworking of emotionally needy people desiring a father figure, but could it be that Freud himself had an emotional need for no father figure to exist? And perhaps Freud had an outworking of wish-fulfillment that manifested in not wanting a Holy God and judgment in the afterlife to exist, a wish for hell not to be real. Demonstrating the plausibility of such thinking is the writing of Freud himself who once said, “The bad part of it, especially for me, lies in the fact that science of all things seems to demand the existence of a God.”

Professor/Philosopher Thomas Nagel once said, “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and naturally hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope that there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.”

If humankind merely invents the concept of God to make itself feel better, would people fabricate a God who is holy? Such a God would seem to be at odds with people’s natural desires and practices. In fact, such a God would seem to be the last type of god they would come up with. Instead, one would expect people to create a god that nods in agreement with the things they naturally want to do instead of opposing the practices that they themselves (for some reason yet to be explained) label as “sinful.”

One last question is how do the “fantasy” and "crutch" claims explain people who initially were hostile to religion and did not want to believe? Such people seemingly had no wish or desire for Christianity to be true, yet after an honest examination of the evidence and an acknowledgement of its “realness,” they became believers. English scholar C. S. Lewis is one such person. Lewis is famous for saying there was no more reluctant convert in all of England than himself, that he was literally dragged kicking and screaming into the faith, which is hardly a statement that one would expect from a person engaged in a wish-fulfillment fantasy.

 

[Diggin Deep]

Well...think of this... you think the Creator has a video tape of your life readily available upon your arrival? You both review the video and see if you are worth of eternal life?

I often wondered where the hidden cameras were hidden...

PJ...I surely hope not :ninja

In my opinion, God does not view our relationship with Him like that. Biblically - none of us are worthy. Yet He gives us mercy (not punishing as our sins deserve) and grace (blessing us despite the fact that we do not serve it). I believe Him when He says that our sins are casted as far as the east is from the west - from one nail scarred hand to the other.

I have a hard time thinking of "judgment day" as how you put it. I can't imagine God saying, "Well Joe, you repented for these sins, but forgot about that one." Jesus said that the way to the Father is through Him and whoever accepts Him may enter His kingdom. I can't imagine their being a stipulation and a hidden claus that we didn't know of once we get there - it would kind of go against the idea of God being just.

 

[Greatest I am]

People like fantasy. So it's not surprising some people believe in it. I agree with you that it's not a requirement. My brother is a Christian and he doesn't believe in miracles.

Christians usually believe in the divinity of Christ Jesus.

Does he speak of Jesus' birth?
No immaculate conception = no virgin birth and thus Jesus would not be divine.
No divine Jesus= no Christian.

Regards
DL

 

[pjbleek]

Christians usually believe in the divinity of Christ Jesus.

Does he speak of Jesus' birth?
No immaculate conception = no virgin birth and thus Jesus would not be divine.
No divine Jesus= no Christian.

Regards
DL

it was believed that Mary was a virgin and was spoke by the angel Gabriel. but then again so was Anakin's mother....but she wasn't spoken to by an angel.....

 

[Greatest I am]

Give me convincing arguments that God doesn't exist before you ask why I'd believe in such a fantasy.

In your opinion, God is not a reality, just a comforting idea in my mind, an emotional crutch, wishful thinking - a mental or emotional disorder. You aren't the first to think so.

Is God just an imaginary "cosmic father" invented for our emotional protection, created in our image to comfort us, a phantom to fill the hollow places?

Any challenge put this way is beset with problems. Is it fair to simply dismiss theism because belief in God happens to fulfill emotional needs? Is there a real connection between our psychological state of mind and the truthfulness of our ideas?

Does it follow that since I want God to exist, therefore He doesn't exist, that since I draw comfort from believing He cares for me, therefore He can't care for me?

How does what we wish to be true influence what actually is true? One can no more disprove God by citing the emotional advantages of belief than he can prove God exists because of emotional motivations for denial. Put simply, psychological motivations give you information about the one who believes, but they tell you nothing about the truth of his beliefs. Faulting an idea solely based on its origin is a genetic fallacy.

You can't refute an idea by showing--even correctly--the psychological reasons a person happens to believe it. Why? Because psychological motivations have nothing to do with whether a belief is true or not. That evidence must come from other sources.

People have all kinds of twisted motivations to believe things that actually turn out to be true. Others have noble motivations to believe things that are false. You must show that a person is wrong before you start explaining why they are wrong. Does God exist? - must be answered with reasons first, not dismissed with misleading talk about motives.

Suppose someone makes note of the apparent order and design of the universe, for example, and conclude that some intelligent Being is responsible for them. How could you disprove them? There's only one way: address the merit of the reasons themselves.

It does no more good to say one loves the idea or hates the idea than it does to dismiss one's conclusion because he has heartburn. Reasons cannot be chased away by desires, motivations, or upset stomachs.

If there are good reasons to believe in God that are not dependent on my emotional condition, then assessing my psychological condition misses the mark entirely. One can never answer the question, "Is God just a fantasy?" by looking at motivations. To argue a belief of God, you must address their reasons, not their desires.

Nicely put garbage. Just kidding. Smile.
I recognize your effort here.


"Give me convincing arguments that God doesn't exist before you ask why I'd believe in such a fantasy."

Two things come to mind here.

First.
Logical fallacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyA8cIzosFU

Second.

Actually, I see more proof for God's existence than you do.
Seems to me that if there was a creator with a pocket full of miracles, he would create a perfectly evolving system and that is exactly what I see. That includes you and I and everything.

Do you see that evolving perfection all about?

If not then your God screwed up.

Candide
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA

Is this clip truth or cynicism?

Regards
DL