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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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.