Ask HN: When and why did you start believing in God?
8 points
by dvrp
1 day ago
| 11 comments
| HN
I presume many here are not believers. So, for those who believe—and in the spirit of open and genuine curiosity—I’d love to know what made them change their minds.
grugdev42
3 hours ago
[-]
I don't subscribe to God.

Humans have been inventing gods since the beginning of time as a way to control/exploit the masses or soothe the over active mind.

There are thousands of dead religions, but this round of current popular religions has hit the nail on the head... right?

A truly powerful and kind super being would not allow child abuse, cancer, famine, or rape to happen. Even if there is a god, I don't want to worship something that allows those things to happen.

Also, the term god is relative. To an ant, we are gods. Any sufficiently advanced being would appear god like to us. Should ants worship us given how little we care about them?

For every moment of beauty that must prove God's existence, there are an equal number of atrocities that must prove God's absence. We just don't see them as often, because humans hide that sort of stuff from polite society.

It's far more healthy to accept our mortality and short lifespan, packing it with things that make us happy. Masking your fears of death with a religion is a mistake.

Rather than devoting my life to worshipping something which may or may not reward me in the next life, I plan to spend my time doing and feeling positive things (because they feel good).

If I had to pick a religion, I think I'd choose Buddhism. It just seems like a good way to be peaceful.

reply
frwrfwrfeefwf
8 hours ago
[-]
Reading Christian mystics, Orthodox apophatic theology. It's correct and all very real despite the language they use. Zen etc is a better starting point, achieve kensho then go read the New Testament and watch your brain meltdown.
reply
kisper
1 day ago
[-]
Grew up in the faith, but never made it my own. I fell away for some years after I left home, with psychedelics, and ‘free’ sexuality before I realized that I had been desperate to fill an emptiness and the find answers to the plaguing questions that plagued me of who I was and what I was for and why I should continue living. It took a night of experimentation in witchcraft to snap me to the realization that if there WAS a god, maybe it was possible that it could be the God that came to be with us as man. “If he is there, if he is all powerful and loving, then surely you will let me know you are there, that you are Truth, because that is what I have been searching for“ was the essence of the prayer that night and the rest is history. I have an M.Sc. in the earth sciences. I loved learning previously about the beautiful and intricate interplay of factors across discrete systems in our physical world and, from the start of my reversion, I have looked for something that I can’t accept in the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that is logically inconsistent or incoherent within an all-encompassing view of reality, physical and otherwise… something I can unequivocally view as bullshit so that I don’t have to believe it, so I don’t have to impose upon myself everything that would be entailed if religion were indeed all true. Instead, The book has instead been wonderfully illuminating and found it to be a great primer for learning about the spiritual and human side of our metaphysical reality.

Regardless of religion, creed, or motto, it is human to seek the truth and understand it.

reply
dotcoma
1 day ago
[-]
I’m all for the truth, or even anything resembling the truth.

You can choose to study physics, or sociology, or how the human body works, or the mind, and how to fight diseases etc.

Questions bigger than that seem too big to me, but if trying to find an answer to those questions makes people feel good and/or live good lives, why not?

reply
jamesgill
1 day ago
[-]
Which god?
reply
AznHisoka
1 hour ago
[-]
Joe Pesci
reply
tim-tday
21 hours ago
[-]
I’m a fan of Ra the sun god.

What could be more reasonable than to worship the source of all heat life and light in this world? Unfortunately I grew up in the wrong era/continent for that.

reply
defrost
6 hours ago
[-]
Wagyl FTW here.

Once you've climbed a tree or cliff face and fallen free into the embrace of Wagyl's creation you'll not see the world in the same way again.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagyl

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djEqLRdqScM

reply
dotcoma
1 day ago
[-]
I was told to when I was a toddler, but by the time I turned 12 or 13, I had outgrown the phase.
reply
adamredwoods
1 day ago
[-]
There is absolutely no god(s). It is a false fabrication of the human mind.
reply
b0rtb0rt
10 hours ago
[-]
what created the universe?
reply
beams_of_light
7 hours ago
[-]
Don’t know, but religions created to reign in the masses probably don’t explain it.

There were many religions before the Abrahamic ones.

reply
b0rtb0rt
5 hours ago
[-]
how does religion being wrong disprove the existence of god?
reply
Henchman21
13 hours ago
[-]
There are monsters with human faces though. A great many.
reply
sph
21 hours ago
[-]
I built a more solid foundation for life after discovering spirituality in my mid 30s, but I still do not believe in a God the way religious people do. The existence of a prime mover from which the universe expanded (pretty difficult to refute) doesn't require my worship.

The first few chapters of Alan Watts' "The Way of Zen" opened a completely new world to me outside of rationality which I sorely was ignorant about, and I desperately needed. Having a spiritual perspective from which to view the world is probably the most valuable part of the religious experience. The fantasies people have over the centuries built on top, I really can do without.

reply
sds357
1 day ago
[-]
Using his name instead of his title/position helps. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Psalms-83-18/
reply
aarond0623
1 day ago
[-]
It is my understanding that we don't really know how this is pronounced and that this is just another instance of the Tetragrammaton [1] that is normally rendered as LORD with a few exceptions like this. This could just as easily be Yahweh instead of Jehovah.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton

reply
mrkeen
1 day ago
[-]
Or maybe you're not allowed to!

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-tetragrammaton/

Chalk this up as one more disagreement between believers (that they really should have settled by now, given their interactions with an unbiased, omniscient third-party)

reply
giardini
1 day ago
[-]
I fail to see how.
reply
yawpitch
1 day ago
[-]
Ahh, as in “om namah Shivaya” then?
reply
yawpitch
1 day ago
[-]
Almost every human being started believing in god(s) because they were introduced to the idea by their parents or other family members or teachers in stories and rituals and songs, usually long before they had the capacity to focus on objects more than two feet away. Every human society I’ve ever visited is saturated with the trappings of some religion or another, often many, and the messages and symbols of history’s many mythologies resonate in everything from the architecture to the money.

Those who don’t believe are usually the ones who have changed their minds, not the other way around. It’s not surprising that some number of those change their minds again.

reply
croes
1 day ago
[-]
Why the limitations to one God?
reply
alonsovm44
1 day ago
[-]
Because of divine simplicity, the absolute maximum of perfection logically excludes the possibility of more than one.

if there were two gods, they would have to differ from each other in some way. But a being that is pure act (without any potentiality) and absolutely simple (not composed of parts) cannot have any accidental differences. They could only differ in their very “whatness” (essence). However, if they differ in essence, then one has a perfection the other lacks. The one lacking that perfection would not be absolutely perfect, and therefore would not be God. Thus, you cannot have two beings each claiming to be the maximum of being.

reply
Sabinus
23 hours ago
[-]
Couldn't you suppose these gods had the same one-many property as the Trinity and say that it's whole essence is perfect?
reply
mrkeen
1 day ago
[-]
If you need a god to explain where the universe came from, induction would like a word with you
reply
kisper
1 day ago
[-]
My understanding of God is not “one more thing in the universe that explains an earlier thing.” It is closer to God as the ground of being itself: the reason anything exists at all, including matter, energy, spacetime, causality, and whatever laws describe them.
reply
croes
1 day ago
[-]
Then explain evil
reply
yawpitch
1 day ago
[-]
Loaded (and begging) questions are a fundamental part of circular reasoning.
reply
giardini
1 day ago
[-]
Occam's razor ("Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity")?

I mean, God, isn't one enough? Honestly, it's too much for me!

reply
mrkeen
1 day ago
[-]
Let's settle on having three then.

(If you had just one, it would look pretty silly calling himself father and praying to himself.)

reply
yawpitch
1 day ago
[-]
By that argument zero is sufficient.
reply
croes
1 day ago
[-]
In nature everything has a opposite or opponent. That would make at least two.
reply
yawpitch
1 day ago
[-]
Show me the opposite, or the opponent, of a black hole.
reply
croes
22 hours ago
[-]
reply
yawpitch
22 hours ago
[-]
I said show me, not point me at a hypothetical entity with no known pathway to reified existence.
reply
croes
20 hours ago
[-]
> hypothetical entity with no known pathway to reified existence.

More realistic than god.

reply
yawpitch
18 hours ago
[-]
> More realistic than god.

No argument there, but “in nature everything has an opposite” is just as illogical; many things have no opposite, thus it’s not “at least two” it’s zero asshole gods in a nihilistic atheistic universe, one asshole god in a true monotheistic universe, one neutered god and one not-quite god representing the bit that’s been neutered off in a false monotheistic universe, one good god and one bad god in a morally balanced duotheistic universe (looks identical to the zero god(s) option), or a variable number of variably asshole gods in a polytheistic universe.

reply
alonsovm44
1 day ago
[-]
For me it was that the implications of atheistic materialism contradicted basic empiric knowledge. Atheistic materialism is an onthologic monism, the ultimate implication of it is that nothing can be defined since everything is a continuum. yet we can discriminate concrete objects and things. No essence can be defined in Mat-Ath, When I was an atheist I argued that the essence of things can be defined in their composition and geometry (arrangement) of constituent parts. But that is a weak argument since "objects" constantly lose atoms and gain new ones. Think about the atoms you lose and gain through all your life (throwback to the greek boat paradox)

Ultimately it was that in MatAth the person could not be defined, yet we are persons. Also the concept of specie was broken too, every animal would be its own specie.

Then I realized that atheists have no explaination for quantum probabilities, i thought that for God to not exist everything had to be explainable with mechanisms. But when we measure the spin of a particle, whether is spin up or spin down, there is a 50/50 perfect chance? what mechanism makes the choice? There is none, and atheists have no answer other than "thats just how the universe works, period" I realized that since there is no mechanism the only thing that remains to explain it is Will, and if there is will there is a person behind that will.

reply
perilunar
9 hours ago
[-]
> atheists have no explaination for ...

So? Better to not be able to explain something, than a glib "god did it".

> atheists have no answer other than "thats just how the universe works, period"

I've never heard an atheist say anything like this. Or a physicist. They're more likely to say "that's how it appears to be. We don't know why. It's a bit of a mystery."

reply
mrkeen
1 day ago
[-]
> the ultimate implication of it is that nothing can be defined since everything is a continuum.

What does this even mean?

reply
yawpitch
1 day ago
[-]
That entire post, run through ChatGPT, gets summarized as “WOO!!!!”.

Not sure the fourth big bang was necessary.

reply