Why Do Some People not "choose to believe" in God?

 Today's Question and Answer:

[first draft] 

Question:
"Why do atheists need to see God to believe he lives?
Why don't they just believe like the rest of us?"

Answers:
Please note, before we dive into this, 
I don't wear the "atheist" label.

I am, instead, "athe-ISH", generally. 

I don't take the position that "no gods exist".

Nor do I take the position "I'm not convinced any gods exist".

Rather,
I take the position that "nothing could even possibly exist ... which meets my own personal standards ... when it comes to being worthy of such a dramatic crown.  

Some "gods" may exist.
In fact, some do. 
For example:
Some people have worshipped the Sun.
The Sun exists.
It has been a "god" to them. 
Therefor, their "god" exists. 

 I merely don't relate to anything in that way.  
Thus, I'll say "some gods exist", because many people DO relate to something in that way. 
 
However, the question is about atheists.
And I do know their answers. 

 In fact, even though I am not an "atheist", 
I share some of their points of view about it.

First, the question (as it was worded) ACCUSES all THEISTS of having BLIND FAITH; 
with the question being framed as "why do some people refuse to arbitrarily adopt any random conceptualization of "God"  like everyone else does?" 

I found that confession and accusation more than a little amusing. 

 Although, yes, I realize that guy didn't really realize what he was admitting to. 

Moving forward from there, ... 

Let's get this basic answer out of the way first:

"Belief" is never a choice.

Beliefs do not ever form as a choice. 

The question, as worded, confesses a lack of understanding about how perceptions and confidence levels are generated in a human mind.

Granted, many people will say "but I chose to believe in (whichever) God." 

However, they too have ran into the problem of:
 confessing something 
and yet 
not realizing what they just admitted to. 

Whenever someone "chose to believe" in any specific conceptualization of "God", ...
what that really means is;

They heard a story about a "God".

They got talked into WANTING it to be true.

So then they "assigned themselves" to it. 

They placed themselves under the authority of the PREMISE; 
in "hope" that it turns out to be true.

This is not true "belief". 

Belief based on HOPE that a proposition is true ... is not really a belief.

 It's merely an invested gamble;
 at a metaphoric craps table. 

What about belief based on authority?

 That isn't really belief either ... at first.  

Belief based on consequential authority ...
is a belief based on FEAR.

Fear 
gradually becomes a belief.
 
As a feared-thing becomes so overwhelming that "takes on a life of its own",
it "becomes real" to the perceptions of the terrified. 

  Without such gross manipulation, 
a person has fewer obstacles 
in the way of accumulating rationally justified perceptions. 

Nobody is free from emotional bias, missing data, corrupted data, or genetic reflex.
 
However, we all do have a baseline of psychological requirement for what we can "believe". 

To teach via example, for this point, 
here's a challenge:

TRY (really really try) 
to "believe" that tiny leprechauns live inside of your shoes. 

You won't be able to "choose to believe" it.

Now, take some time to really reflect on why you are literally incapable of "choosing to believe it". 

Discover:

Beliefs aren't a choice. 
 
Next, 
we should talk about the problems inherent to all personal-God-isms. 

These memes explain why literal "personal God" theologies are all morally problematic. However, they do fully allow for non-literal and impersonal God-concepts; such as the God-concepts found in early Stoicism, pantheism, etc.. The reason I don't call anything "God" (or "a god") is because I'm un-impressed by: a.) the deceptive and destructive "nature" of our world's natural ecosystem (which treats all life and well-being as disposable) b.) the cold, irradiated, and imprisoning vacuum of space, c.) the gross extremes of suffering which persist on our world. Now, "it just so happens" that I think the early Stoic conceptualizations about "God" are: probably somewhere in the ballpark of correct. However, our disagreements are still significant. "God" is an emotional expression. Any "God"-invoker who says otherwise ... is either lying ... or is unaware of their own emotions. As for me, my own personal emotions run contrary to it. Don't get me wrong. I wish I COULD "feel it"; about some God-ism that is effectively harmless. Stoicism, pantheism, pandeism, etc.. I tried. I just can't. My compassion is so strong (mostly for others, and then also for own sake too) ... it prevents me from wanting to make excuses (and poetry) for The Cosmic Meat Grinder. Nor do I 'perceive' that there is a cosmic force of virtue which "imbues" all humans with those virtues. To me, it seems unavoidably obvious that there are countless many humans in our world devoid of significant moral virtue. Nor do people share a common intelligence; except at an animal-level. Nor is animal-level intelligence very virtuous. Nor is nature (as a whole) very virtuous. However, I really do understand why people choose to focus on the good. I do also understand why people choose to wrap themselves up in the beauty. I just can't dial-down my compassion enough to accomplish that. However, clearly, the person who asked the question I am here to answer ... meant to include: absolutely all literal personal "God" theories. So here comes a more complete answer to what they meant:

When "God" is a concept
which other fallible people define for you,
"God" becomes the means by which
other fallible people control you.

Literal "Personal God"-ism
displaces a believer's "locus of identity".

[Two (very) short video clips explaining this:

Defining "External Locus Of Identity"

Illustrating Consequence ]

This results in stunting emotional maturity;
which "holds the door open"
for tragically exploitable vulnerabilities.

It seeks to find (else, to create) an unhealthy (emotionally dysregulating) crisis of ego.

Next is the attempt to: maneuver a target into crippling dependence on a perceived super-parent's validation, as a "remedy" for that crisis.

If successful, the next step is: handicap the target's ability to 'stand tall" on their own, in the midst of struggles.
How?

By teaching them to remain a child;
dependent on help from a mentally-projected parent.


That, in turn, keeps the victim dependent on a church (or any other religious people), to:
a.) define "God" for them,
and
b.) help them feel connected to "Him".

It also robs people from due credit for their character; including every brilliant facet of inner beauty, and the strength it takes for every storm they endure.
This is part of a system that keeps people from ever 'meeting' their self; at least not very deeply.
As a result, this keeps religious converts from ever meeting others very deeply.  


This is why religious friends and family will often fail to correctly understand and respect a "loved"-one who de-converts.
 Because they never really saw "the person".

Religious fundamentalists 
 only see others as a character in a story.
And they "reserve the right" to tell everyone else "who they are" based on that story. 

Thus, they've never really met the people they claim to love.
And that all traces traces back to the religious systems which prevent "believers" from ever deeply and truly discovering themselves.
 
In this way (and in other ways), it handicaps a person's ability to discern fantasy from reality.
This, in turn, further intensifies opportunities for random people to exploit them.  

Religious children are less able to distinguish fantasy from reality.
Link: Case Study
 

Worse yet,
when it comes to Christian religions,
that super-parent is so violating of the victim's autonomy ... that they're always reading that child's mind (not in reality; but in religious narrative).

This hinders development of ethical character in several ways;
including:

 "leading by example" ... a parent who  demonstrates violently psychopathic personal values. 

It also limits that "child's" opportunity to develop ethical character.

How?

 By perpetually undermining that person's ability to:

a.) stand tall on their own,
 
 and also by 
b.) robbing a person
of opportunities to "do good" for better reasons than:
a parent's ego (aka "all things for the glory of God") 
and then (as a reward) 
a parent's smiling approval. 






[Note: Christian memes shared in this blog were found on the internet. I didn't create these memes] 

Even worse yet, the mentally-generated Christian Super-Parent's multiple-personalities ... all spend far too much time being disgusted with the individual children in that "relationship";

hence, the conceptualized parent's need to keep "forgiving" you for being unworthy of their love.

The effect of that mentally-generated "relationship" is exactly the same as it would be ... if a clinical Narcissist biological parent was:
 
a.) always hovering,

b.) pitting that child against all the other "children" in the neighborhood (even in their own home) (as a would-be White-Knight savior of the "spiritually unclean" and "hell-bound") ,
c.) (all the while)
putting pressures on that child to never outgrow the need to be parented.

Worse yet, the things fundamentalist churches call "missionary work", "raising children", "youth pastoring",
and "witnessing" ... are all predatory and exploitative efforts to be "Flying Monkeys" and "triangulators" for the mentally-generated Super-Parent.

This, in turn, creates profound social division among humans, and equally devastating psychological harm to countless-many (non-consenting) humans.

Honestly, ask yourself.
Are you really so sure 
that what our world needs MORE of right now ... is even more division?

 The loudest
(and most politically weaponized)
versions of Christianity thinks so.

Thus, 
they insist.  

FAITH,
as I see it,
is not always an enemy to humanity.

Faith in Authoritarianism is.

Appeals to morality based on authority, 
 have always been an enemy to humanity.

 Because it devalues, demonizes, and ultimately plans violent disposal ... against everyone who thinks, lives, and loves beyond the limits of that system's control.  

Those who seek power for power's sake
are an obvious danger.

But those who seek power for "God's sake" are worse.
Because they don't merely seek to dominate for the sake of domination.

They seek the power it takes 
to eventually destroy everything and everyone 
deemed un-useful to the HOPE of a kingdom they've wagered their souls upon. 

Christian, Islamic. And Judaic "chosen people"-religions 
are extreme forms of racism. 


They are artificial social contructs 
which separate and elevate
 the VALUE of members 
(their rights, their well-being, and their very existence) 
far above everyone else. 

 
They're forgetting this is EVERYONE'S world. 

They're creating problems for countless-many non-consenting humans; per feeling entitled to cause those problems. 

Effectively, they are arsonists, in a world-on-fire.

Why?

So they can sell panic-shoppers fraudulent afterlife fire-insurance; 
on the condition that buyers surrender to being controlled and exploited "in the name of God". 

Meanwhile,
that child could never fully mature; until/unless they break free of that controlling parent's codependence.

 Mature people 
make good parents.

Good parents 
want their children to gradually outgrow all child-state dependencies. 

Literal and sycophantic interpretations of the Biblical "God",
in contrast,
do not want anyone to grow up.


 This was a fundamental premise in the "Garden of Eden" fable. 

It remained a fundamental premise throughout the Hebrew and (later) Christian fundamentalist churches. 

As a result, such religions seek out, create, and prey upon vulnerabilities;
exactly like a virus.
 
It's the real reason "personal God"-religions keep evolving.
They must.
In order to survive, they must keep spreading.
In order to spread, they must keep adapting to the ever-changing systems of potential hosts.

They infect minds.
Thus, those are the systems they must generate mutual-compatibility with. 

Thus, they seek to 'soften' minds
into being penetrate-able; 
 via parents and culture.

Those viral strains also must adapt themselves TO those minds. 

Thus, those mind-viruses must maintain  compatibility with the cultures they spread within. 
  
This is why the Hebrew religion(s) borrowed from existing popular cultural concepts ... 
to build their own religious stories, rules, and values with. 

This is why the early Christians churches did exactly that same thing.
They borrowed and adapted other culture's ideas ...
to build their own religious stories, rules, and values with. 

This is how those religions spread;
as complex and adaptive viral memetics.

This is why proselytizers speak as-if it's 'good enough' to join ANY rival/warring religious faction under their primary label. 
 Because that virus is doing their thinking for them.

[Link:
How Religious Fundamentalism Hijacks the Brain. Fundamentalist ideologies act like mental parasites. 
- Bobby Azarian Ph.D. 
Psychology Today]  
 
It only cares about surviving via spreading.
So then it makes the "evangelizer" ignore the FACT that the evangelizer does NOT think it's good enough to join ANY Christian faction. 
[Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Westboro Baptists, etc etc] 

 It makes them SPEAK as-if any faction will suffice.

 It makes them FORGET they don't really believe that. 

 THAT is what's really happening when a fundamentalist says intentionally generic things like "Just accept Jesus into your heart" or (even more generically) "start believing in (a) God". 
 
However,
it's a bit of a different game
when a proselytizer goes after "atheists" with an appeal to believe in the even-more-generic idea of a "God". 

 

Getting people into a mental state where they open a general space (in their head) for an undefined Super-Parent ...
is a matter of "priming" a mind to make-space for predators to 'fill in' the blanks ... with mentally-controlling pseudo-biographical details.


This is why most Christians and Muslims will soften up potential marks
with appeals to a vague yet friendly "God".
They are "tilling the soil" for later seed.

Those "spiritual flowers" are insidious weeds.
And they will absolutely WRECK the garden of your mind, if you allow it. 

However, 
in closing, 
please remember that I'm not saying "no gods exist".

Nor am I saying "I see no evidence for any gods".

Nor am I saying "nobody should have anything they call "God". 

I'm simply offering a cursory overview of:
common reasons
so many people don't have anything they call "God". 

Religions are a "cope";
 built upon proven-false histories, 
proven-false understanding(s) of cognitive and behavioral sciences,  
and mostly-destructive ethics. 



SOME "God"-concepts avoid the problems inherent to religion. 
But these are hard to notice in the noise of competing manipulative religions. 

Note:
 I am NOT claiming to have great (nor even adequate) coping skills.

Nor am I claiming a moral high-ground.

I think religious "faith", in general, is morally neutral.

Mostly only fundamentalism is morally negative. 

In any case,
some people develop coping strategies 
which do not require the invocation of God-isms.  

Also, many people had their "bridge" to any-and-all "God"-concepts, and even a bridge to spirituality itself ... burned to ash; by the abuses heaped upon them by predatory religions. 
 
Now that they have either a PTSD-reflex AND/OR strong rational and ethical objections to religion, ... they (most such people) will lack the ability to even entertain "spirituality"  as a potentially-useful interest. 

 They'll probably hear the word "spirituality" (which CAN exist without invoking "God")
or the word "God",
ever-after,
as:
A call to magical thinking,
and a prelude to someone who wants to 'soften them up' to be emotionally manipulated, mentally captured, and broadly exploited. 
 
As for me, 
and this is one of the reasons I say "I am not an atheist", ...
 
I say that spirituality IS a legitimate domain 
of exploration, discovery, and growth.

 Parents, grandparents, culture, and congregations ... all failed (after their best efforts)  
to permanently disable my ability to recognize and appreciate genuine spirituality. 

I am not "greatly spiritual".
But I've climbed that high, on occasion. 
And I can always see that place;
 from the jagged rocks my war-torn butt keeps falling back onto.