Why do so many people who believe in god refuse to discuss it?

[slickpoppa]

As much as we debate religion here, it seems that the majority of the population refuses discuess the possibility that god doesn't exist. I have many very smart friends who will not even engage in a conversation about the existence of god. If I question the existence of god, they will usually get very defensive and say something along the lines of "There's gotta be something else out there bigger than us."

People also get especially defensive upon questioning about specific aspects of their religion--such as questioning a non-orthodox Jewish person about why they ignore the strict dietary requirements of the Torah.

My hypothesis is that most people want to believe in god, but they also want to believe in a version of god that requires as little effort from them as possible. Therefore they adopt the most watered down version of their parents religion and then avoid thinking about it because thinking about it will likely lead to one of two unpleasant conclusions:
1. god doesn't exist
2. if god does exist, then they are doing a really bad job of doing what god wants.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
As much as we debate religion here, it seems that the majority of the population refuses to discuss the possibility that god doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) FYP

2) Not the population of SMP. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

3) The masses have never been the most intelligent bunch.

[ QUOTE ]

I have many very smart friends who will not even engage in a conversation about the existence of god. If I question the existence of god, they will usually get very defensive and say something along the lines of "There's gotta be something else out there bigger than us."

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's a huge issue that is very deep. Most people have a hard enough time swimming in the 'shallow waters of society' and all the pitfalls that come with it (ie- the 'self', your job, relationships etc)

[ QUOTE ]

People also get especially defensive upon questioning about specific aspects of their religion--such as questioning a non-orthodox Jewish person about why they ignore the strict dietary requirements of the Torah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because when you ask a question like that your motive comes into play.

If your motive is pure, the other person has to give an explanation (which usually will be complex) and they may not feel like doing so.

On the other hand, if your motive is impure, the other person is forced to partake in apologetics, and not everybody wants to necessarily 'defend' their faith.

[ QUOTE ]

My hypothesis is that most people want to believe in god, but they also want to believe in a version of god that requires as little effort from them as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's "natural" that's why, humans are selfish by nature.

[ QUOTE ]

Therefore they adopt the most watered down version of their parents religion and then avoid thinking about it because thinking about it will likely lead to one of two unpleasant conclusions:
1. god doesn't exist
2. if god does exist, then they are doing a really bad job of doing what god wants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, Catch 22.

Being raised in a religion is a sweet deal.

You can say you are "something" while doing nothing (ie- "Oh I'm ... but not practicing"), you don't have to defend your beliefs as much (compared to conversion), and you can freely leave and come back without as much guilt as if you converted and then "fell away".

[RJT]

I would guess for the reason they gave: “There’s gotta be something else out there bigger than us.” It is that simple and that complex. We have no scientific evidence one way or the other.

The rationale why they don’t want to talk about it with you is probably similar to rationale that black people can use the “n” word, while white people should not.

I would suggest, though, that discussions about specifics of a religion between religious people and atheists before discussing the “God exists or not” question gets ahead of itself (or is even backwards).

Your hypothesis that most want a version that requires as little effort… seems (is) probably true.

Might I pose your first sentence somewhat the reverse? (It isn’t exactly the reverse since the majority of population believes in a God.) It seems that most non believers refuse to discuss the possibility that god does exist. To paraphrase you, if I question the absence of a god, they will usually get very defensive and say something along the lines of ‘There can’t be something else, we have no evidence.” Or better still ( and probably more often the case) they point to specifics religious beliefs that appear to be nonsense (and/or taken out of context) and use that as an argument that therefore God must not exists.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


I would suggest, though, that discussions about specifics of a religion between religious people and atheists before discussing the “God exists or not” question gets ahead of itself (or is even backwards).


[/ QUOTE ]

While this sounds good in practice, I'm not too sure how much people are willing to defend or advocate "general" theism rather than their specific theistic worldview. To me, "theism" is much closer to atheism than it is to Christianity.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I would suggest, though, that discussions about specifics of a religion between religious people and atheists before discussing the “God exists or not” question gets ahead of itself (or is even backwards).


[/ QUOTE ]

While this sounds good in practice, I'm not too sure how much people are willing to defend or advocate "general" theism rather than their specific theistic worldview. To me, "theism" is much closer to atheism than it is to Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, I agree with you. Or I should say, I agree with what I think you are saying. Theism and atheism are close. Both take a stance and both are based on Faith. Theist, faith in a God. Atheist, faith that there is no god.

At the same time you seem to be unintentionally making one of my points. That those who want to discuss these things like to throw digs at religions. Your Christianity comparison sounds like a jab. If I read too much into it and it was meant only literally as written, then ignore this paragraph. If meant only as written then, too, I get your point, not conceding to it, but understand what you are saying.

[Jacob_Gilliam]

Hi. In your previous post you stated that "Thiest, faith in God. Athiest, faith that there is no God." But this is incorrect. Atheism does not require faith. Faith requires that you believe that something exists which cannot or is not proven. If athiesm is faith, then everything in the world is faith. If someone believes in unicorns, and I don't, that does not mean that I have "faith" that unicorns don't exist, for there is no conclusive evidence that unicorns exist. By saying that atheism is faith, you strip the word of its meaning, and no, I am not an atheist.

[RJT]

I might be wrong. It is my understanding that atheists believe that there is no god. They do not (or at least should not) state that it is 100% certain that there is no god. Nor do I think, like you seem to suggest that, they state that since there is no proof, then it is 100% certain that there is not a god. Your post seems more in line with being agnostic, whom if I am correct say: since we don’t know, I chose neither or I do not chose at all.

Your unicorn analogy doesn’t completely hold because of at least one reason - because a unicorn is defined as a mythological being. Being mythological it is already agreed that it does not exist.

p.s. Semantically you might be correct about being able to state or not what I said about “faith that there is no god” because of how the word faith might be defined. If I need to find a more exact way of saying what I mean, I am sure it can be done. Would have to take the time to find the right words.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I would suggest, though, that discussions about specifics of a religion between religious people and atheists before discussing the “God exists or not” question gets ahead of itself (or is even backwards).


[/ QUOTE ]

While this sounds good in practice, I'm not too sure how much people are willing to defend or advocate "general" theism rather than their specific theistic worldview. To me, "theism" is much closer to atheism than it is to Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, I agree with you. Or I should say, I agree with what I think you are saying. Theism and atheism are close. Both take a stance and both are based on Faith. Theist, faith in a God. Atheist, faith that there is no god.

At the same time you seem to be unintentionally making one of my points. That those who want to discuss these things like to throw digs at religions. Your Christianity comparison sounds like a jab. If I read too much into it and it was meant only literally as written, then ignore this paragraph. If meant only as written then, too, I get your point, not conceding to it, but understand what you are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since I didn't quite understand what you were saying, let me try to reclarify my statement (so that you can reevaluate and clarify yours =p).

I am a Christian. As a Christian, I believe that the Christian worldview, and only the Christian worldview has validity. To say otherwise would deny some of the tenants of Christianity. Thus for me as a Christian (and as I suspect for others for their religion), if I am to discuss "theism," I must discuss Christian theism.

To reclarify my statement: A "general theistic" worldview (where we just acknowledge there is some higher being) is as incompatible with Christianity as an "atheistic" worldview, and thus are to be equally opposed in my eyes.

If I made a "jab" at any religion due to my words, I am sorry, I do not wish to offend others with my words, but I do also acknowledge that the Christian worldview, in it's claims of being the exclusive truth, is offensive to others, so I am not sorry if my worldview offends someone.

As a side note, a Christian's defintion of faith is markedly different from that of anyone else (though oftentimes even Christians will get the two usages confused).

[Jacob_Gilliam]

The error in your post is that belief entails that you believe in the existence of something, not the lack thereof.
In order for atheism to be a belief, it would have to refute something that can demonstratably be shown to be true. True, if God exists then atheism is wrong, but that does not make atheism a belief because atheism does not refute anything known nor does it suggest the existence of anything which cannot be or is not proven. The unicorn principle does hold up because over the expanse of human existence many religions have "died", and today there stories would be considered mythology, but in the past would have been considered true (by those who practiced those beliefs, such as Greek mythology).

[RJT]

No, it is I who assumed incorrectly you were taking a jab at Christianity and I read more into it.

I see better what you are saying and can’t disagree with it at all. You seem to say that if (since) Christianity is true then God exists. Which is one way to go about it. And of course if one could prove Christianity true then of course God would have to exist.

I prefer my approach is all. That is if one wants to talk this stuff – let’s get the God question settled first. Mostly because we already know there would be no resolution to the answer.

A Christian (like myself, too) leaves himself open to that many more un-provables if he starts your way and might leave the impression that therefore we have answered the God question in the negative.

[hurlyburly]

I am atheist, and you're right about the certainty. I have no reason to believe that there are any god or gods out there. If someone has a degree of disbelief, that has to qualify as a belief, right? The angry atheist disturbs me because I think they'd be happier as agnostics but are choosing to not believe for some external reason.

As for the "faith there is no god" statement, atheism requires no faith whatsoever, as there aren't any acceptable counters. Either that or my faith is 100%, and that degree of certainty makes it feel like I have no faith. Confusing.

The mythological comparison is accurate from my perspective, although I don't know if anyone ever believed in unicorns. But Zeus, Odin and Ra fit the same mold as God. If proof of any of these beings came about (proof being they show up for dinner), I wouldn't choose to worship them, but they would get my respect.

Imagine the shock it would be for Christians and Muslims if the old Greek pantheon "woke up" and made themselves visible. I would be no more affected than if God or Allah started speaking from the heavens. It wouldn't be any more disturbing for me than for a person who heard about hippopotamuses, didn't believe they really existed, and then saw one (more of a "wow" than an "oh, [censored]"), because there is no investment in atheism.

Atheism is a lot more adaptable, since there is no belief. Being wrong is OK.

[txag007]

I'm not sure how to interpret your post. Are you asking a question about why Christians (or other believers in some type of God) won't defend their faith, or are you using the example of some who refuse to defend their faith as evidence that their faith is incorrect and therefore, God doesn't exist?

[RJT]

I think we need a linguist here to decide this one.

From my dictionary here at work – New World Dictionary of the American Language:

faith: 1. unquestionable belief that does not require proof or evidence.
belief: conviction or acceptance that certain things are true or real
atheist: a person who believes that there is no God.
unquestionable: 1. not to be questioned. 2. with no exception.
agnostic: unknown, unknowable – a person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God…

I could definitely change my word “faith” to “believe” with no problem.

Whether or not I have to, to be exact, I’ll leave open to further discussion

But it seems we should first decide on what atheism means exactly.

I am using the word atheist as above and adding the assumption that they have an unquestionable belief (faith) that there is no God. Using your definition, how do they differ from agnostics?

If we use your point then no one should not be able to make this statement either, “I believe that there is no God”.

[RJT]

Right, if your faith is 100% belief in no God, then it must feel to you that you have no faith. But, unless you are willing to state that you know with 100% accuracy that there is no God (includes any and all possible definitions), then it is with you having 100% faith (or belief) that there is no God that lets you come to these convictions. If you say you know with 100% accuracy and that is what lets you come to these convictions, then you need to publish.

Or you can say, like you did too, you have 0% faith that there is a God. Which seems to be how Jacob is defining atheism. In which case, then you can say I have no faith or that I don’t have faith or that atheism is the absence of faith in a God.

I use the word how the dictionary defined it. Doesn’t mean it is the only way it can be used and your way seems fine to me.

p.s. If you do indeed have 100% faith there is no God, then I envy you. I would be curious as to how you were able to get to that point.

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]
My hypothesis is that most people want to believe in god, but they also want to believe in a version of god that requires as little effort from them as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your hypothesis is pretty spot on. Insight into this universal human condition is given in scripture, Romans chapter 1:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

To paraphrase: Man knows God. Man wants a god on man's terms. Man becomes vain, thinking himself wise. Man's heart darkens. Man makes and worships a god that he himself has created which is like unto man himself.

[hurlyburly]

"If you do indeed have 100% faith there is no God, then I envy you."

I envy you just as much. I constantly search for a way to spark faith, I always look for a way that there could be a god. Obviously religion is of no help in that, it's got to be internal. I've verified that I'm not angry at God, or church, the world or someone who did something to me. He just doesn't fit in anywhere. I don't think people who DO believe are delusional, but I'd definitely be denying myself if I pretended to believe.

So I guess I'm in the 100% club, I just don't see it. I think the 0% faith club is angry about something or bitter (which is most of the atheists I've met, and why I think they are really closet agnostics).

[RJT]

Well, don’t envy me too much (but thanks, too) as my faith is probably as much as most, but not enough by my own standards. I have narrowed things down (for myself) to realizing that I “ain’t gonna” find what I am looking for in philosophy, nor even science. They both will fall short for me. Religion alone will too, of course. The only way I see for me to be fulfilled is to one day be able to really take that giant “leap of faith” that is talked about. To go for it with gusto. But, my mind works against (for what I believe is) my own good, so to speak.

My heart says yes, my mind is more than “maybe”, it might even be further than “probably”, I want to get to the “definitely” mindset.

Btw, the avenue I am choosing is with my own Catholicism. For me there is no need to reinvent the wheel. And for the other reason that I love the whole concept of Christianity. And too, I am too old (not that old 49) to learn new tricks.

Best of luck to you, too ( said ironically using the word luck).

p.s. I understand what you mean by the agnostic thing.

[Triumph36]

You ask, why do people refuse to discuss religion?

Because people like you are trying to talk them out of it, which they don't want to hear.

Because their beliefs may be deeply held, and may offend you or someone else present.

You would believe what you do about God and religion whether or not they passionately defended their beliefs or not.

I rarely venture into this forum - it started out with some promise but quickly degenerated into absurdity. It's posts like this that show it. Faith is something that defies reason - it cannot be rationally explained, it involves something more than syllogisms and proofs, and it slips out of our language and its terse abstractions.