I am a theist

Originally posted by John W Booth
Because there is absolutely no reason to think that they are true ...

Which applies to almost all their beliefs and yours too. Yet you specifically singled out undesirable aspects of their beliefs (which are not even particularly common aspects).

...and they strike me as completely counter-intuitive.
And your belief strikes me as completely counter-intuitive.

Originally posted by whodey
If there is a God and he does not interact with mankind on any meaningful way nor care about them, he might as well be dead to them.

What is "meaningful" is a matter for you. I don't create "interactions" with God in order to conjure up "meaning", because I simply don't need to, nor do I project the human attribute you call "care" onto him/her/it in order make him acceptable or satisfactory to me (i.e. not "dead" to me). Your comments seem to me to be illustrative of the red pantaloons in my earlier analogy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
your belief strikes me as completely counter-intuitive.

That's OK with me. If I were religious perhaps I'd be worried about your view or try to change it or even supress it maybe. Who knows? As it happens I also find the idea of life after death completely counter-intuitive, with zero evidence that there is such a thing. For me, the idea or hope that 'I believe in God' leads to 'I will have an afterlife' is - I believe - the biggest non-sequitur in circulation in the whole realm of human discourse and thought. Perhaps this belief strikes you as completely counter-intuitive too.

Originally posted by Agerg
On a philosophical level, why is an inactive god a problem? Must some god that exists necessarily interact with humans???

I think religious theists conjure up "interaction" in order to tell themselves that they are immortal or similar self-reassurances, which then create "meaning". this process is then described as "logical". The "inactive god" makes all this very difficult.

Originally posted by whodey
It is logical to assume that God actually cares about his creation.

Why? Just look at what you have created in your lifetime. Things that you create are a reflection of who and what you are. Likewise, Biblically we are said to be created in the image of God. What you create speaks volumes as to who and what you are. It indicates your intelligence le ...[text shortened]... m and in which he has no interest. Why would he waste his time?

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Appropriating God as a member of the human race, and attributing to him human attributes, makes him easier to understand for you, I guess.

Originally posted by John W Booth
I think religious theists conjure up "interaction" in order to tell themselves that they are immortal or similar self-reassurances, which then create "meaning". this process is then described as "logical". The "inactive god" makes all this very difficult.

So why do you 'conjure up' your God? You admit there is no rational reason for believing in him. You must have some reason for holding a belief you know to be irrational.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So why do you 'conjure up' your God?

I don't know. All I know is that I don't conjure it up in order to create "meaning" for my life or to convince myself that I will live forever.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So why do you 'conjure up' your God? You admit there is no rational reason for believing in him. You must have some reason for holding a belief you know to be irrational.

Religious people will give you "reasons" for "irrational beliefs". I am just not religious.

Originally posted by John W Booth
Religious people will give you "reasons" for "irrational beliefs". I am just not religious.

In epistemic terms, most of us like to think that our beliefs/opinion/conclusions follow from some reason-giving considerations. We might well be in error, and our reasons may turn out to be bad ones—but absent some epistemic reasons, belief formation seems to be random and non-rational.

You strike me as arguing for rationality—or at least against counter-intuitive metaphysical speculation. So I am interested in why, epistemically, you conclude there is something that merits the label “god”—that is, what are some of your reason-giving considerations. If it’s just a “sense” or an intuition, fine. (And if I missed it in my reading through the thread, apologies.)

I am also interested in how you understand that word “god”, since it is the word that you use. For instance, most theists (and deists) consider “god” to refer to an “extra-natural” being that somehow transcends the natural universe. On the other hand, at least some of the Stoics pretty much used theos as synonymous with phusis (nature)—and would not be considered by most Christians, say, as “theists” at all.

Really interesting thread. Thanks for that. (As for me: no gods.)

Originally posted by John W Booth
Religious people will give you "reasons" for "irrational beliefs". I am just not religious.

I think it is hard to separate beliefs that are conjured up for psychological reasons such as fear of death, and beliefs like yours that are irrational but whose source is unexplainable.
I realize that a large part of religious belief tends to be an attempt to rationalize or explain what is at heart an irrational belief.
It is a well known fact that the vast majority of humans, when asked by a young child a question they do not know the answer too will make something up on the spur of the moment rather than admit ignorance. Some people will outright lie, others will speculate within reasons (ie it could be true as far as they know), but very few will say "I don't know".
Clearly with religious people a similar effect is evident. Theists rarely say "I don't know" when first asked a question regarding their religion, but after some discussion it often turns out that they do not know, though only some ever admit as such. Many will go into more and more elaborate detail trying to avoid admitting ignorance.
I think the psychology is similar to the adult/child relationship in that the questioner supposedly cannot challenge the questioned thus leaving the questions free to lie. If you cannot prove me wrong about my God, then I can say whatever I like.
There is another aspect to theism when it comes to defending their belief when they perceive a threat. Many creationists for example will attack the science of evolution because they see it as a threat to their religion. Again they will quite readily lie and make up elaborate stories.

But at the heart of all this, they hold a belief for which they have no rational explanation. So do you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But at the heart of all this, they hold a belief for which they have no rational explanation. So do you.

That's why I submitted this thread topic to Spirituality, I suppose.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think it is hard to separate beliefs that are conjured up for psychological reasons such as fear of death, and beliefs like yours that are irrational but whose source is unexplainable.
I realize that a large part of religious belief tends to be an attempt to rationalize or explain what is at heart an irrational belief.
It is a well known fact that the ...[text shortened]... rt of all this, they hold a belief for which they have no rational explanation. So do you.

It would seem we are in agreement about religion and religiosity and religious people.

Originally posted by John W Booth
It would seem we are in agreement about religion and religiosity and religious people.

Not entirely. You see all their beliefs that are extra to yours as being made up or motivated by psychological factors. I see no reason why some of them could be no different from yours.
Lets take the belief that there is an afterlife.
You assume that it is psychologically motivated.
Suppose it isn't. Suppose someone came by that belief via intuition or whatever method you came by your belief?
Simply because there is a possible motive for a belief does not mean that motive is the primary reason for it.
I don't think it is trivial to identify the cause of each belief.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not entirely. You see all their beliefs that are extra to yours as being made up or motivated by psychological factors. I see no reason why some of them could be no different from yours.

That's interesting. What "psychological factor" do you think is in play with me when I believe there is a God? Remember, I do not act upon the belief in any way. It does not affect my behaviour. No other beliefs pertaining to myself are built upon it. I do not claim to "know" what God wishes or thinks. I don't even claim that God has "wishes" or "thoughts". And I do not believe that I will benefit from any grace or advantage through my belief. In effect, it means nothing in terms of the "meaning" of my life. It does not fill me with "hope" or "perspective" or "purpose" or a "code for living". If it "gave" me any of those, and if that was how I coped with life and death, then I think a clear case could be made that "psychological factors" were in play. Describe the nature of the "psychological factor" you think that is at work with my belief.

Originally posted by Agerg
You can of course make that a lot smaller by considering the probability that his parents would have met and had sex to create Robbie (out of a world population of billions), and the probability their parents would have met and had sex to create Robbie's mother and father such that he'd later be born, and then the probability that their parents would have met ...[text shortened]... ut quite a few more zeros at the end of it (just in case 10^-1600 isn't quite small enough ).

I have also not taken into account that not every couple will concieve the first time they try. If if i assume a rather successful rate of two 'sessions' per couple we now how 3200 0's to contend. Pretty small odd's, yet Robbie is here with us today.