As does everything. That is called 'relativism'. There are some people who really like it, and others who don't, of course. Who's to say? Seems to have been a long road to a trivial conclusion. — Wayfarer

So, we should all shake hands and become agnostics.

It really does come down to a matter of taste or need. — John

Exactly

I have explained why the idea of desire is not sufficient to explain the theist-atheist divide. — Chany

Well, at least, it boils down to personal preference.

Do you think calling it a Law vs. God changes anything other than spelling? — Rich

Remember I'm speaking of the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent (OOO-god). The OOO-god is conscious while the laws of nature is not.

Do you think someone believing in Genesis is any more irrational or rational than someone believing in the Big Bang? — Rich

I don't see the relevance.

Obviously, it does not follow from mere disagreement that both sides ought to embrace agnosticism. — Chany

Answer me this:

1. If you believe in god what evidence do you have?

2. If you don't believe in god what evidence do you have?


I'm near certain your argument will fall to pieces under scrutiny - simply submit it to the opposing party.

What are we to make of this? Surely it must mean that god has neither been proved nor disproved. This path naturally leads to agnosticism, which I affirm is the most reasonable position on god.

I disagree that it all comes down to desire. — Chany

Well, if rational inquiry fails to establish god's existence/nonexistence then that, at the risk of repetition, precludes any form or shape of reason playing a part in the minds of theism and atheism. What else is there other than simple desire that makes the theist believe and the atheist disbelieve?

This is one way to look at it. However, those who appeal to Laws of Nature use it as a placeholder for the exact same theme as God, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, that excludes any notion of individual choice. In this regard, whether we discuss God or Determinism we are really discussing the same thing: i.e. no doubt there is no choice. — Rich

I'm not sure if I catch your drift. Laws of Nature per se lack that essential feature of a god-being to wit consciousness.

Well what do you think of the order that our universe evinces? In other words what is the source of the laws of nature? One answer is God. I thought this was a classic theistic argument??

I understand there is a similarity between god and the laws of nature in that both exercise a form of control over all matter and energy. However, given the laws of nature we can conjecture a law-maker. In this sense we can distinguish between god and the laws of nature.

This, of course, does happen, but it is not as prevenlant as you would need in order to reduce the question of theism to pure desire and emotion. — Chany

Well, my logic is simple.

There are two parties engaged in debate - theists and atheists. As fate would have it they both inhabit the same world. Yet, they come to antipodal conclusions. In a way, pitifully, their simulataneous existence is sufficient proof that both sides have got it wrong - they simply can't convince each other even when they throw their very best arguments at each other. Am I then mistaken in concluding that there's something else that's driving people into theism and atheism?

I'm not asserting that it's only fear and hope that is this something else - that which tips the balance of judgment in favor of or against god. Whatever this something else is, it eventually translates to desire, a desire for god to exist or not, as the case may be.

Would you agree that ? — Override

What you're saying is belief in god is coded in our DNA.

I haven't found any evidence that it is or it isn't. How would you explain atheism then? Shouldn't it, DNA-coded presumably, have gone out of circulation from the genetic pool by now?

Also, I don't think DNA codes thoughts rather, it codes the instrument of thinking - our brain.

Do people believe in God from second they are born or they learn it ? — Override

It's learned of course. You need a certain level of mental maturity before you can consider the thought.

X-) Strange...most others think god doesn't exist.

That doesn't wash because atheists have plenty of hopes and fears too.Yet, they are not compelled to be theists. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes I understand. What is most important here is the unverified nature of the god issue - we don't know if god exists or not. So, rationally, we should all be agnostic - uncommitted on the matter.

However, we have theists and atheists. They've made a decision on the god issue. What makes them take the leap from doubt (the rational position) to certainty (theism/atheism)? Just as say, fear makes a theist, hate or something else makes an atheist.

it would be dependent on whether his/her/it's existence would be of any use to us. — dclements

Yes and people differ in opinion on that. The end result? Theism for those who think god is useful and atheism for those who think otherwise.

Yes there it is. Some of the reasons that tip the balance in favor of either theism or atheism, depending on what can be loosely translated as hope, fear, attitude, etc.

Agnosticism, as far as I can tell, is equivalent to doubt. Should there be equivalent doubt about the Laws of Nature? Are those who are convinced that they exist/do not exist acting irrationally? — Rich

The laws of nature are significantly different from the OOO god of religion. The former have been fomalized mathematically and are used to make correct predictions on a daily basis - thereby vindicating themselves. Even then scientists continue to remain watchful for that one instance that may overturn a law of nature.

Clearly the OOO god hasn't yet reached that level of veracity/falsity and so the wiser it is to doubt any positive/negative claims about the OOO God.

Yes, I want God to exist, but with a lot of ambivalence about which God. — Bitter Crank

So you do wish for that other something - there's a hope for a better(?) world. Perhaps this fuels the desire to wish God into existence even if it means in your very personal terms. Do you think that all theists undergo your kind of reasoning? There's that other something that makes them believe in God?

I agree. There's an exchange - belief bartered for security, comfort, relief from meaninglessness.

That is my point. Some of us want God to exist. The reasons may differ from individual to individual. Isn't this the real picture of theism? Atheism too can be understood this way e.g. a gay person would dislike being divinely condemned and so s/he becomes an atheist.

"Do you want God or Laws of Nature to exist? Would that be your question? — Rich

For the present moment all I want to know is your desire vis-a-vis god's existence. This god is the creator of the universe and all that it contains - it is the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god of religion.

Would this be a valid way at looking at your statement? — Rich

My argument, if at all it is one, is that the rational thing to do is be agnostic about God. The obvious existence of theism and atheism goes to show that the arguments from both sides are not convincing enough. Yet people affirm/deny God with a certainty that isn't justified. What could cause this? I have a hunch that it has something to do with wishful thinking. That's why I made the poll to see, divesting the logical aspects of the issue, how people feel about God; what are their hopes or fears.

Are you referring to the 3 omnipowered god by ''Laws of Nature''? If you are then yes.

Therefore I think the question of whether or not one desires for God to exists is a rather irrelevant question, for the purposes you've expressed. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are two antagonistic views on God, to wit theism and atheism. Why? Each contradicts the other. That there's such a situation can only mean the arguments from both sides aren't conclusive. The rational thing is then to be agnostic. However, there are theists and atheists engaging in endless debates. Surely, it isn't logic that drives them to hold such strong views. I think there's something else and that is what I want to find out.

How does one deal with cognitive dissonance in general? Usually by compartmentalizing one's beliefs. — Arkady

If there's enough wiggle room in christianity to allow pro-choice then I guess the debate is internal (within Christianity). Atheists should simply recline in their seats and watch the show unfold - perhaps stepping up to deliver the coup de grace that ends the debate in favor of pro-choicers.

I wonder - would there be anyone here who doesn't believe in God, yet want one to exist? Or vice versa? — StreetlightX

I don't believe in Santa yet, for the sake of children around the world who think he's real, I'd want him to exist.

Theists may believe in Satan but, for the sake of all who may be harmed by Satan, don't want the devil to exist.

In other words, belief in a God helps us determine our actions, as it is part of the inherent societal attitudes influencing our decisions. — Javants

But do you want God to exist? Why?

the correct response would be for both sides to suspend judgement. — Chany

And yet they ignore this perfectly reasonable option and become theists and atheists. What is the cause of this? Are theists a cowardly bunch afraid of death or are they idealistic dreamers with a poor grasp on reality? Are atheists fiercely independent thinkers or do they hate what god has to say about their, say, sexual preferences?

What is the root cause of atheism/theism?

You do realize that there are some pro-choice Christians, correct? — Arkady

And may I ask how they circumvent the murder accusation.

You do realize that there are some pro-choice Christians, correct? — Arkady

And may I ask how they circumvent the murder accusation.

Well, killing the baby amounts to murder which I hope is forbidden in Christianity.

Atheists don't think abortion amounts to murder.

Since God is supposed to be immaterial, theists don't actually "see" God with their eyes. So I think the discretionary difference must be the result of some form of logic. Of course there must be some type of desire involved, as all choice requires motivating factors. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think it's a question of logic. Why? Because, one thing we do know is that evidence for and against god is unavailable. The simple reason for this, upon even a superficial analysis, is that if the evidence was there, either for or against, one of the warring factions (theists, atheists) wouldn't exist. So, the issue isn't logic at all. What I suspect is that there's a desire/hope/abhorrence that determines which side you choose.

Is my conclusion irrational? — Dredge

But how do you feel when you know that somewhere some poor child is starving to death? Do you still think of God?

Thanks for the post. Do you want God to exist? Why?

Your choice, even if it seems whimsical, IS relevant. It could explain why some believe and others don't.

Obvisouly theism and atheism can't be explained in terms of rationality. It's like two people put in the exact same environment (our world) and one sees God and the other doesn't. Clearly the fault is not in logic. I want to know if perhaps desire has a role in this.

I can see that forum members aren't interested in God-debates. Is it because it doesn't lead us to anything concrete? That's why I specifically avoided initiating an argumentative tennis match.

What I want to know is if you want God to exist and also your reason why you want God to exist or not.

This is relevant because the logic you offer may have implications on why some are theists and others theists.

I checked yes when I meant to check no when I couldn't decide whether I wanted god to exist or not. Unfortunately you didn't provide an "I can't figure it out" option. — Bitter Crank

Decide, even if only in play-mode.

Sorry. I had in my mind the Omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient god.

Is there such a thing as human nature? If there is then violence is surely one part of it.

Islam, any other religion or idea for that matter, is only an excuse for violence.

Perhaps a distinction relevant to the OP is that between overt and covert violence. All religions, in fact all ideas, have the seed of covert violence - imposing restrictions on freedom, especially freedom to do what is most basic to humans, to think.

Overt violence is the domain of, hopefully, few ideas and religions. Does Islam promote/condone overt violence more than any other religion?

Is Islam more violent than the other Abrahamic religions? — VagabondSpectre

''Islam'' means surrender. Isn't it ironic then that Islam serves as one of the most potent hotbeds of violence?

If God exists, is this divine comedy?

Can you tell me why? — TimeLine

Yes, I've noticed such types of questions. They appear to somehow circumambulate the 7 questions but these can always(?) be redone with some combination of the 7 primary questions.

For example I'll use your question: Can you tell me why?

The above question is actually:

''You tell me why. Yes/No - what/which is it?

There's no sense in which we can get outside of them to check whether the world is different from how we think of it. — Marchesk

Isn't this, in the least, an attempt to do just that - to step outside one's conceptual schema?

The mind has evolved over time and despite some hiccups here and there, it's still has the power to self-reflect and even if this doesn't amount to a ''stepping outside a conceptual schema'' it still has seed of it.