Religion isn't a raffle. I don't believe because I think I get some prize at the end.

    Science isn't here to make us feel all warm and cozy.  It's just the truth, whether that makes you uncomfortable or not.  I don't think of science as scary shit I just think of it as the truth.

You don't want to get something out of it ? You know, I kinda like all you theist regulars here. You have absolutely nothing in common with the theists that I hang out with.

Okay, let's try his first question then : Does your religion have a purpose ?

Satisfaction.

Kind of like the satisfaction I get when getting a hold of some really good strawberry ice cream, especially Ben and Jerry's organic strawberry. yumm... (paraphrase of bodhi's quote in another thread).

And if there is even one response like "Oh, "Satisfaction"? So then you must hate science."  I will cry fowl.. as in the bird.

That's why I said "kind of" and not "exactly like."  And.. the "satisfaction gotten" from my belief is definitely based in reality.  Where else could it be based in?

Then why have any ? Religion, I mean.

(Thank you for the honest answer, btw. Or are you just yoshing ?)

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

I reject what you have rejected and substitute my substitution for the reality that you rejected in the first place.

Um... of course, it could be a loaded answer, couldn't it?  Haven't you considered this possibility?  If all possible iterations of a well formed question lead to absurd answers, then shouldn't we start suspecting the answers instead of the question?

(If you want to argue that this is not a well formed question, you need to do that... not just say, "It isn't a well formed question.&quot

"What do you get from believing in theism/god/religion/etc...?"

This is a very reasonable question, and I'm sure the OP would be happy to rephrase it in many different iterations.  In fact, I'll save him the trouble...

What mental state do you achieve from believing?

What physical benefits do you achieve from believing?

What tangible benefits (money/property/etc) do you achieve from believing?

What intangible societal benefits (acceptance in the group/social status/etc) do you achieve from believing?

What benefits do you achieve after this life, in any form or fashion?

Once you've answered each of these questions, you can then explain how you know that the benefit you receive in any instance is only available through religion.  If you don't know this, you can explain why you believe it is better to believe in god than not, when there are clearly lots of people who don't believe in god who achieve benefits in all but the afterlife category.

This isn't hard, Pineapple.  You're just being evasive.  Why don't you just answer the question, and let the thing play out.  It might well be that your subconscious really just doesn't want to go down these paths for fear of having to give up your beliefs.

I don't know how they would get offended if the answers are given as only suggesting relevance to oneself, and not necessarily to any one else.

I just had a conversation like this with someone the other day.. I won't presume that someone else cannot "get" what I "get" through some other means.  That is not to say that I won't share my understanding.. how I perceive the world.. because, if they are similar to me, perhaps they will get a similar benefit.

*sigh*

Sure, go ahead.

Okay, fine. So you don't think it's unique to religion. So if what you get from it isn't unique, then why do you want religion ?

So it makes no difference whatsoever ?

No, they're not irrelevant, unless you believe you are superhuman.  Notice that you're being evasive again?  Are you afraid that admitting to feelings about god will make your position look less sound?  If so, then you've got some more thinking to do.  If not, then answer the question, for crying out loud.  Why do you want to take up so much time arguing about relevance when you could just answer the question?  The relevance is that the OP wants to know.

Naturally.  You think there is a god for a reason.  If your reason is 100% intellectual, then you need to get yourself to a psychologist immediately.  You probably need some strong meds.  If your reason is not 100% intellectual, then why not admit to the feelings you get?  If your belief is rational, feelings that reinforce it don't take away from its rationality.

I already answered it several times in the past. What got me thinking about was wonder and curiosity.

Maybe it's like Rhad where I get satisfaction, but just because I can also get it from atheism doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

You know why I think people are reading too much into my posts? Because they do.

I'm not the 'I luv jebus' type of person. The analogy of a relationship is the first thing I can think of where you can get the same thing from something else.

If I wanted to over anaylize your post I would ask what made you think of making love with a Tortoise?

This may come as a surprise Hamby, but while I sometimes do give vague answers on purpose, sometimes I don't intend to.

You know how I sometimes say 'My point was obvious!' I'm not joking. I actually thought it was that obvious which is why I get so pissed off when you don't get it.

Where did it fall apart?

Heh.. no career in politics.. just law.  Many times technical arguments (or attempts at them) are labeled doublespeak.. which is why so many people think lawyers are shifty (IMO). 

Yes - that "satisfaction" thing is bugging me too after reading the thread.

The Pineapple person evades the answer, the Gizmo person likens it to sensual satisfaction from eating some favourite food. So I suppose it must be to the latter that the question can be asked directly:

Can you please define what exactly is being satisfied by your theistic belief?

A couple of weeks ago, someone asked me this question:  After humanity is gone, what do you think will be our greatest achievement?

I answered, "nothing."

After several rounds of him accusing me of being evasive, I finally figured out why he didn't understand my answer.  "Greatness" is a measure of value, which is mind dependent.  A recording of Beethoven's Seventh is only great if there's a listener.  Otherwise, it's just some silicon with patterns -- patterns that nobody will recognize because nobody's there to view them.  When humanity is gone, there will be nobody left to measure worth, and so no worth will exist.  Human accomplishments only have value when there are humans around.

Of course, we can qualify the question further -- from the perspective of survival of x species, what will be humanity's contribution?

In many cases, the answer will be highly negative.  We've caused the extinction of more species than any other species ever.  We're getting up there close to the meteor that killed the dinosaurs in terms of effective eradication of life.

It puzzles me why this kind of thinking is so disturbing to so many people.  It doesn't change the fact that you're alive right now and there are still tuna in the sea, so you can still eat sushi if you want.

True.  Which is why I said, even if I didn't believe in God I'd still eat tuna.  (Well.. I didn't actually say that.. but metaphorically.. ya know?)

Glad to hear you see things like I do though.. at least with regard to the "greatest achievement of man once we are extinct."  It's nice to agree on the same reasoning.. we don't do it often.

Hell, I don't really even see one single achievement as the greatest thing man has done.  For value, you need a scale.  When you ask which is the greatest thing man has accomplished, you must also specify a scale.  Greatest medical advance?  Penicillin.

Greatest music?  Beethoven.

etc...

I offered you an explanation about what I think about my own personal beliefs and what colors them.  If they did not clearly explain that, then ask for clarification.  But not all the cheese in Georgia will justify being presumptuous regarding the reasons I perceive as being the basis for my feelings.

How I perceive my feelings is based upon "weak logic"? That's fine that you think that.. I think you think its "weak logic" is based upon "weak logic."

Did I say it did? I merely said I would ask one if ever I met one.

I did not fail to answer.  I answered.  I believe because I want to believe.  And I want to believe because of X reasons.  Whatever my reasons for "wanting to believe," does not change the reasons for "wanting to make things better"--which is what you suggested before.

Does not automatically encourage a desire for you? or for me? Because if you are speaking for me.. then you are be incredibly presumptuous again.  It's becoming a pattern.

(1) I never said individuals don't affect a trend.

(2) Never implied that an individual's input, even if tiny, doesn't matter.

What I did say is that (1) the trend has been a particular way, but that this would not stop me from (2) trying to change that trend.

All of which are "irrelevant to what you asked me"--indeed.  Yet you brought it up anyways, why?  You asked me what satisfaction I gain.  I explained.  You assumed that this explanation could not co-exist with actions you perceive as good as well as the explanation itself was based upon "weak logic."  I responded to both.  One of those responses, involved me saying "that they can co-exist."  You responded with what I quote, mainly, "it is irrelevant to what you originally asked." 

It may be irrelevant to what you originally asked (I agree), but you made follow up statements that were based upon "weak logic," and I so I was prompted to respond.

Keep up.

You keep on bring up this statement "logically lead one" or "automatically suggest to a person" that "sky daddy exists."  Did I ever say it did? Did I say it made it more likely? No.  I merely said the belief satisfies a perceived want for myself.  Which is what you originally asked, wasn't it?

If your answer does not answer the question put then one must at least presume to ask more.

So, at the risk of more circular reasoning from you I'll try again with reference to what you've just posted.

How you perceive your feelings is an unknown to me, since you have yet to explain it. When you have tried to explain it you have employed weak logic, yes. If not weak, it is most certainly ambiguous.

Why did you introduce the concept of a child rapist? Was it not to indicate how some people are apparently not pursuing a desire for universal goodness amongst humanity? I must have misunderstood, though in my defence again it was because you didn't explain yourself clearly. Why did you introduce the concept?

This is it? This is the logic that I am not supposed to refer to as weak? Sorry, but when I ask you why you want to do something, the answer "it's because I want to" does not suffice as a logical construct.

I "brought it up" because the desire to make an impact for change is, to me, a more logical conclusion to reach - if one's motivation is a wish that things be better - than a desire for there to be a "sky daddy", as you say. I did not say that they cannot co-exist, but at least one conclusion is grounded in reality whereas the other has no logical connection that I can see with the original motivation. This however was in fact the bit that you "brought up" first, and are yet to account for.

With what?

Your last comment brings the circle round to the start again, which is probably just as well since you got nowhere on your last tour. So, let's start again and this time I'll phrase the inquiry in a way more likely to elicit a non-circular response.

You compared the satisfaction you get from believing in god to that which you obtain from eating a particular ice cream which you like. The latter is a sensual gratification of sorts. Can you explain to me in what way belief in a deity conforms to the experience of a sensual gratification and why?

Fair question, if a side issue.

But if you need clarification I'll gladly give it.

I can employ the term "satisfy" with regard to myself probably in two ways. My senses can be satisified and my intellectual curiosity can be satisfied.

With regard to the senses the answer to "why are you satisfied when you eat an ice cream that you particularly like" is easy to explain. The response is nothing like "just because I just am" but would instead take into account how, in the case of sensory input received through the chemoreceptors in my tongue, the resultant impulses are distributed through my primary olfactory neurons (the bit that is common to all of us) and then on to other parts of my brain, a pattern which is unique to each person. How exactly my hippocampus and hypothalamus react has been conditioned genetically by exposure to potentially harmful food but also by associative incremental experience. Memory, in fact, plays a significant role in deciding whether or not the neurological impulses then reach the part that excites pleasure. We as a species are generally uniform in defining therefore what is bitter and sweet, but remarkably unique individually in deciding which particular taste evokes the most pleasure. See what I mean - no "sky daddy" association in the slightest is logically analagous to what is a perfectly understandable function in physiological terms.

When it comes to curiosity being satisfied, this is however analagous to sensory gratification. But it is a semantic shorthand. In fact in some languages the word used for both is different (in Norwegian for example satisfaction of curiosity uses a word that implies pleasure whereas satisfaction derived from eating something good uses a word which implies a demand being met with a pleasurable side effect, not quite the same thing).

However the analogy works in that the brain has a desire for an answer - itself analogous with appetite - and the data inputted "satisfies" this desire. There is a proviso - in order to achieve this the data must conform to expectation. If it doesn't then it simply raises another question, and so on. This is called education and is not a bad thing - the bulk of our education consists of data inputted to answer a question which exceeds expectation and therefore results in even more curiosity demanding even more answers. Keeping the whole thing from becoming overwhelming and leading to sensory input overload are "rules" that we employ to qualitatively decide which bits we'll allow in uninvited and which bits we can "forget" or leave to later. This judgement is essential and represents a compromise between our rationale and our desire to learn. You can think of it almost as a pacemaker.

When this pacemaker goes out of kilter it can have several different effects on our ability to take information in, and also our ability to judge the value of what we have just inputted into our brains. Information can apparently "satisfy" our curiosity even though we "know" it really shouldn't. But we allow ourselves that liberty because another thing we've been hardwired to do is make snap judgements and trust our instincts when the situation demands it.

Which brings me back to the god thing. Religion is not a strange phenomenon in my book. It is simply an organised attempt, for reasons that are totally understandable, to exploit that particular form of "short circuit" in order to impose social standards. But religion by its nature will always play catch-up with science and, as long as the quality of the information available for input improves (as it has consistently done), it will keep having to re-adjust its definition in order to remain even halfway credible (credibility is even more important to the religious mind than the scientific one since it attempts to establish it without empirical evidence and fails to function without it, whereas science allows for credibility lapses as long as the logic makes sense).

And THAT brings me back to satisfying my curiosity, and in fact the reason why I asked you to define how you derive satisfaction in any sense from a belief in a deity. I recognise that as long as my brain functions reasonably normally I am on a learning curve, and that the questions being asked of it - which demand satisfaction - cannot be met with religious assertion unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. That which is coming in to my my brain which is based on evidence is doing the job nicely, thank you, and allows me to cognitively explore my reality wthout recourse to "short circuitry" which provides ready answers but which doesn't hold up to further scrutiny when the pacemaker kicks in, and therefore simply impedes the process.

Apologies for the length of the reply, but it is an honest attempt to explain something fundamental which I don't think (call me presumptuous) you share, but which I think represents a more intelligent approach to understanding life, the universe and everything than yours apparently does - at least to me.

And I am genuinely interested in learning how you derive the satisfaction you claim, and how it can be described in any way as intelligent.

this makes me wonder what people think humanity is; do they mean humankind or humanity in the meaning of humanitas? If it is the latter, I would agree with your assessment, and if it is the former, I'd emphatically agree.