Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game

Other Topics => Off-Topic Discussions => Religion => Topic started by: Scaredgirl on November 08, 2011, 11:45:16 am

Title: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Scaredgirl on November 08, 2011, 11:45:16 am
How did you choose your religion?
Or was it chosen for you?

When people choose their religion, they study all the available options and choose the one they like the most. This is how it goes, right?

Wrong.

Religion is actually something most people are born into. If you were born in the US, you are most likely a Christian. If you were born in India, you are most likely a Hindu. If you were born in Iraq, you are most likely a Muslim. If you were born in some small jungle village in Africa you might worship "The Great Monkey".

It's very common that you follow in the religious footsteps of your parents. There are some cases where people convert to other religions later in life, but usually people stick with whatever religion they happened to be introduced as a child.

Lets take a look at the map.

WORLD MAP OF MAJOR RELIGIONS
(http://i.imgur.com/1FTCJ.jpg)
Click to open in full screen (http://i.imgur.com/1FTCJ.jpg)

I find it really strange that big divine things like God are determined by the country or family you were born in. I makes no sense. If I had been born elsewhere, would that somehow changed what God is like?

To me religions just seems like one small part of the culture, kind of like a language. A person who was adopted and raised as a Muslim, could have just as easily be adopted by some other family and be raised as a Catholic. To that person, what defines God and religion is his or her parents and culture.

I was a Christian for the first 18 years of my life but I did not choose that religion, nor I ever even believed in it. Just like about 90% of my fellow citizens, I was baptized when I was really young, and from there on I just did what everyone else did. Choosing some other religion was not really an option, not if I didn't want to be seen as weird. The general attitude has changed a lot since then, but the point is that it was a combination of my parents and social pressure that chose Christianity for me.


I have 2 questions to all religious people:
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Pineapple on November 08, 2011, 02:43:43 pm
So..why aren't language, cultural heritage, and etiquette--things all determined by the family we come from or the culture we grew up in--big things?
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ninetyfools on November 08, 2011, 02:53:54 pm
The Great Monkey.... LOL cant stop laughing.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: TheManuz on November 08, 2011, 03:06:32 pm
I'm italian, almost everyone here is catholic, but almost everyone is a fake catholic, it's like a cultural heritage, and many people goes to churches on sunday even if they don't believe. Of course there are people that truely believe, too.
I was born catholic, i had sacraments when i was too young to decide (baptism, confirmation and holy eucharist), and i'm kind of angry for that.
I love my parents, but i feel it would be more respectful if they let me choose when i would be older enough to decide.
Now i'm agnostic. Sometimes i feel there is some kind of superior energy that resides in everything, sometimes i'm not sure of it.
I believe that, if a "god" exists, it's not the catholic one, nor allah, nor the jew god. I cannot believe in a god that imposes arbitrary rules and deny paradise to an innocent just because he doesn't believe in himself.
However, i think that is more important to have faith in humankind, reason, logic, and try to do the good thing, without burdening ourselves with concepts like sin.
I believe in karma, somehow!
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Scaredgirl on November 08, 2011, 03:11:34 pm
So..why aren't language, cultural heritage, and etiquette--things all determined by the family we come from or the culture we grew up in--big things?
You are missing the point. The point of this topic is that creation of the universe, meaning of life, existence of God.. these are big things that most religious people do not form an opinion on based on evidence collected over the years, but based on where they happened to be born. It's basically creating a God and explaining the universe based on geographic location.

It makes sense that people in different parts of the world have different languages because language was created by man. God however is supposed to have created us, and everything else around here, so how can religion be so different in different parts of the world? Maybe there are multiple Gods (which contradicts what most religions teach us) who have their own territories? Or maybe religions were developed by man, just like languages were?
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: UTAlan on November 08, 2011, 03:45:19 pm
I was born and raised a Christian. Very likely, had I been born in a different part of the world or at a different time in history, I would have been raised differently. However, I am not a Christian solely because I was raised to be one. Many times, I have evaluated multiple religions and world views. While I can't guarantee that I've evaluated them all (who can?), I can confidently say I have found the truth. I'm not a big fan of the word "religion" when it comes to my personal beliefs (this probably isn't the place to discuss that, though), but I absolutely believe in the God of the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ - and not because I was raised to.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: BluePriest on November 08, 2011, 04:05:49 pm
Yes to the first question, no to the second.

So, if people that are born into religion are illogical, does that mean that the people that chose it later in life, without influence, are logical?
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Scaredgirl on November 08, 2011, 04:40:54 pm
I was born and raised a Christian. Very likely, had I been born in a different part of the world or at a different time in history, I would have been raised differently. However, I am not a Christian solely because I was raised to be one. Many times, I have evaluated multiple religions and world views. While I can't guarantee that I've evaluated them all (who can?), I can confidently say I have found the truth. I'm not a big fan of the word "religion" when it comes to my personal beliefs (this probably isn't the place to discuss that, though), but I absolutely believe in the God of the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ - and not because I was raised to.
Well, one could argue that after years of religious indoctrination, it would be very unlikely that you can be objective when comparing religions. If Christianity is part of what defines you as a person, it's going to be nearly impossible to suddenly convert you to some other religion. You might see the teachings of Christianity as the best choice for you, but had you been raised as a Muslim or Hindu, you would probably feel very differently.

I also think that you cannot say with an absolute certainty that you believe in Jesus because of your own beliefs, not because you were raised to. You might think you do, but that's not always the same thing, because emotions effect human behavior in many ways. It could be that because you have been raised a Christian, and have many positive emotions attached to Christianity, it drastically affects your opinion on this subject. Had you not been raised as a Christian, I doubt your belief would be as strong.

I have one question. Don't you find it a coincidence that the one religion that you were raised with, out of all the hundreds of other options that were available, just happened to be the perfect one for you?


Yes to the first question, no to the second.
How can you confidently say "No" to the second question? If you had been living in India all your life and had been taught Hinduism all your life, are you seriously suggesting that you would ignore your culture, your parents and your friends, and would convert to Christianity? Isn't it possible that you feel strongly about Christianity because that's what you have been taught? Isn't it also possible that you would feel the same way about Hinduism if you have been taught that?


So, if people that are born into religion are illogical, does that mean that the people that chose it later in life, without influence, are logical?
Being born into a religion does not make you illogical because babies cannot make decisions like that.

I do think that people who change religion at a later date are probably in general more educated and open-minded in world religions, although there are of course exceptions. The fact that they change religions show me that they have really considered different options and chosen the one that fits them the best. While changing religions doesn't of course make your faith more legit, it does show certain open-mindedness and wanting to learn new things. Optimal system would be of course if you tried out all the major religions before you convert into one, kind of like you test drive a car before buying one.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: willng3 on November 08, 2011, 05:02:54 pm
I don't know if I would exactly consider myself religious, but given that I was compelled to follow Christianity by my mother until I was responsible for myself, I think I'm credible enough to add my thoughts here.

1.  Yes.  Christianity is completely unknown still in some areas of the world so there's a very good chance of this.

2.  I don't see any reason why I wouldn't.  I honestly wasn't even aware that other religions existed outside of Christianity until the U.S. went to war against terrorism when I was 9 years old.  So if I was born and raised in...say, India, I could easily see taking Hinduism as the one true religion, especially if my peers and family followed the same religion.

I also find myself questioning several aspects of Christianity which either don't make sense to me or that I don't agree with.  I doubt this indicates I'll become Atheist, but it does seem to make it clear that I was forced into my religion rather than deciding for myself.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Brontos on November 08, 2011, 05:14:14 pm
Machiavelli explains repeatedly that religion is man-made, and that the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order.
Religions made our contries what they are now. During centuries (and still running for some), Religion was a part of the Power.

We're the sons of our fathers, and before that, they were sons of theirs fathers. Everybody is educated in what they've learned, and they've learned religions from their parents.

I see something simple and obvious here. Religions have the People, Religions had the Power. They forged our societies. They forged us. And it's still true. (And as we saw how it survived revolutions though Time, we can bet that it will be like this for a while).

To answer your questions:
1.Do you think that if you were born somewhere else, your religion (like your language) could be something totally different?----Yes, I'm sure of it.

2.If you answered "Yes" to the first question, do you think that you would see that other religion as the one true religion?----I don't have Faith. So I don't think I'll be able to see any religion as the One True Religion as long as I don't have evidences of it. The question is, would I have the same vision about Faith if I were born somewhere else? If I had a different education? Certainly not. And I really have no possibility to make such an hypothesis.


 
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: tyranim on November 08, 2011, 07:46:37 pm
well, i stated as an unpracticing christian (my mom was) i stopped believing in god at around 6 (my life was rather suckish). once i started doing a little bit of research into other religions, i settled on buddhism. but i later found out that that was a bad idea too since A LOT of people think that buddhists believe buddha is god (a lot of buddhists i met even share that beliefe ::)) so i ditched that one as well and am now agnostic :P
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: UTAlan on November 08, 2011, 08:29:20 pm
Well, one could argue that after years of religious indoctrination, it would be very unlikely that you can be objective when comparing religions.
1) It's quite presumptuous to say that someone else isn't able to be objective due to one factor, when you don't know any of the other factors involved. Obviously, being raised a Christian had an impact on my decision to accept it as truth, as well as to stick with it for this long. But it isn't the only reason, nor is it the main reason.

2) Your argument could be extended to say that nobody is able to be objective about anything they are taught as children, which means your choice to reject Christianity was just as biased as my choice to accept it. Interestingly, between 50-90% of teens leave Christianity after high school (http://www.conversantlife.com/theology/how-many-youth-are-leaving-the-church). To say that the 10-50% who don't just stay because they've been indoctrinated is silly. Moving out of your parents' house gives you the opportunity to experience life in a new way, along with evaluating what you truly believe versus what you were raised to believe. The end result will be either rejecting what you were raised to believe, or accepting it. The decision you make does not affect whether you are being objective in your analysis.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Kakerlake on November 08, 2011, 08:52:45 pm
I was born into a catholic famaly, in a catholic country in middle europe. So as everyone else, I was baptised and in the beginning I didn't think much of religion and just went with the flow, though I skipped the boring part of going to the church every sunday. When the time for the communion and confirmation came, I refused to do them since I didn't see any sense in doing it. - was pretty stupid I realize now, as you get a lot of presents and a great feast for just sitting those few boring hours around the church. But no one told me that until a few years later -.-*

Since I prefere logic, I guess you could call me an agnostic.

I have 2 questions to all religious people:
Define "religious people".
Is someone religious when he officially joins an official religion and does whatever is asked of such a pawn? - In that case, no I'm not.
Or is it enough to strongly believe in something which can't be proven to be called religious? - That I am indeed.
I believe that there is no God as in something that can think by itself and does stuff that sounds way OP. Also, I do believe that if one would know the position, mass and velocity of every object and energy fields in the universe, one could calculate the future. One sad conclusion from that is, that the free will is just an illusion.

  • Do you think that if you were born somewhere else, your religion (like your language) could be something totally different?
Yes, without a doubt. As you said, if I were born somewhere in that small jungle village, I would believe in the great monkey god. And since there would be nothing that could change my belief or give me a nudge off of the great monkey god, I'd be happy with it.
If my origin was somewhere else, I can't possibly tell. I might have even turned out as a very faithful catholic priest depending on my upbringing... or a suicide bomber  :-\

  • If you answered "Yes" to the first question, do you think that you would see that other religion as the one true religion?
Depends on where and how I would be raised. If all the "think by yourself" part was overwritten by some fancy fantasy story, I wouldn't possibly question my religion and call it the only true religion.
But in most cases, I think I'd be rational enough to see that it'd be pretty stupid to call one religion the only true religion.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Skotadi Phobos on November 08, 2011, 09:39:26 pm
SG you are 100% right. With most people there religion depends on where they were born.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: The_Mormegil on November 08, 2011, 09:52:47 pm
I believe that there is no God as in something that can think by itself and does stuff that sounds way OP.
Sig'd, since I laughed for about a minute after reading that.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: furballdn on November 09, 2011, 12:10:43 am
Born and raised an atheist. I suppose if I was born and raised in a religious household, I might've been that religion.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: teffy on November 09, 2011, 01:09:58 am
The point of this topic is that creation of the universe, meaning of life, existence of God.. these are big things that most religious people do not form an opinion on based on evidence collected over the years, but based on where they happened to be born. It's basically creating a God and explaining the universe based on geographic location.
It´s the same for atheists. You have no evidence that God doesn´t exist, and your opinion that God doesn´t exist isn´t based on evidence collected over years, but based on where you happened to be born. See here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg). If you´d be born in Africa, you´d probably not be an atheist / agnostic .

Quote
If you were born in the US, you are most likely a Christian. If you were born in India, you are most likely a Hindu. If you were born in Iraq, you are most likely a Muslim. If you were born in some small jungle village in Africa you might worship "The Great Monkey".
If you were born in South Korea, you probably had  no confession. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_South_Korea)

Born and raised an atheist. I suppose if I was born and raised in a religious household, I might've been that religion.
Theism AND atheism are a result of location, education (and also personal decisions, of course).

To the questions:
I reject the claim to absoluteness religions have, but I can´t exclude that - if I were born elsewhere - I could think that the claim to absolutness of my religion were justified.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: darkrobe on November 09, 2011, 01:12:51 am
posting to watch
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Kamietsu on November 09, 2011, 01:33:14 am
Yes/no to both questions.

It's a probability thing. Being in a certain area, surrounded by a certain culture, increases your chances of being and believing  the things that make them who they are. But simply being born and raised in a certain area only makes it more likely, or more probable, that one would become it and believe in it.

There are simply to many variables that could determine what you are and what you might believe. A person doesn't need to see all religions to know the one they were raised as isn't right for them. Same thing applies to when they have found a religion they enjoy. They don't need to see every religion to know that this new on they found is right for them. Could they find a better one? It is possible.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Ekki on November 09, 2011, 02:39:43 am
It's a probability thing.
*stuff*
A person doesn't need to see all religions to know the one they were raised as isn't right for them. Same thing applies to when they have found a religion they enjoy. They don't need to see every religion to know that this new on they found is right for them. Could they find a better one? It is possible.
I totally agree.

I can say both yes and no to question n°1. I was raised in a "meh" catholic family, so I was baptised but just so as I could have godfathers. I guess if I was born in Africa things will be different, but I'm so sure I'm genetically a "and why is that?" guy, I think I would end up the same, or at least not believing something "totally" different. I could be wrong, but that, without proof, is a matter of faith.

I would like to add something about religion. Religion IS something that appeared along with mankind, but that doesn't mean God (relating to any god/s) doesn't exist or whatever...

I believe in my own God, very similar to many of the main religions' Gods, since I see they are somehow similar in many ways. I believe this is not just chance (nor an "ultimate God"'s work), and the more I think of it, the more logic I add to it, and the more quantum physics I learn, I just believe more and more in what I do now. It's a bit of faith, a bit of logic, and a lot of quantum physics... And logic and atheism are far from being the same.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on November 09, 2011, 04:04:03 am
@ScaredGirl

Do you think that if you were born somewhere else, your religion (like your language) could be something totally different? Yes.
If you answered "Yes" to the first question, do you think that you would see that other religion as the one true religion? No. I would disrespect my irrational belief regardless of what it was.
Are our preconceptions about reality influenced and initially created by our surroundings? Yes.
Is this true about beliefs on the presence/absence of a god? Yes.
Are these preconceptions resilient and require evidence to discard? Yes.
If evidence against a preconception is not available can the preconception be readily discarded? No.
Does this have moral implications? Yes. Holding a specific belief cannot be morally required/immoral unless evidence for/against the belief is universally available.
Do beliefs about god have any causal link with god's nature or nonexistance? No. I can draw a 2x2 chart if you are unconvinced.
Could a god exist if Religion was man made? Yes, in fact if a god exists it is likely that religion was still man made.
Is indoctrination (Theist or Strong Atheist) wrong? Yes.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: BluePriest on November 09, 2011, 06:59:37 am
Quote from: ScaredGirl
How can you confidently say "No" to the second question?
Because I believe something you dont.
Quote from: ScaredGirl
If you had been living in India all your life and had been taught Hinduism all your life, are you seriously suggesting that you would ignore your culture, your parents and your friends, and would convert to Christianity?
Yes.
Quote from: ScaredGirl
Isn't it possible that you feel strongly about Christianity because that's what you have been taught? Isn't it also possible that you would feel the same way about Hinduism if you have been taught that?
It is possible to be raised one way, and still choose the path on your own. The reason I am so firm in what I believe is because of God, not because of my parents/society/anything else.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Helston on November 09, 2011, 01:01:34 pm
 I was raised in a Catholic family, and as such was Catholic until several years ago it all seemed ridiculous to me. I'm now a weak atheist, however this thread has raised a concern for me:

If I become a parent, will my children blindly follow me into atheism and merely accept my lack of beliefs as true due to their 'logical' nature? I certainly hope not.

EDIT: Spelling - stupid iphone.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Van Helsing on November 09, 2011, 01:09:42 pm

I was born in Spain. As you can assume, Catholic religion is choosen to almost every kid. Anyways, last 30 years have changed a lot the panorama. Now there is no more religion in public education, and there is almost a 20% of muslim that came across last 20 years.

Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on November 09, 2011, 06:26:03 pm
I was raised in a Catholic family, and as such was Catholic unt several years ago it all seemed ridiculous to me. I'm now a weak atheist, however this thread has raised a concern for me:

If I become a parent, will my children blindly follow me into atheism and merely accept my lack of beliefs as true due to their 'logical' nature? I certainly hope not.
Find an appropriate time to stress your potential fallibility to your kids.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Scaredgirl on November 09, 2011, 06:36:01 pm
Well, one could argue that after years of religious indoctrination, it would be very unlikely that you can be objective when comparing religions.
1) It's quite presumptuous to say that someone else isn't able to be objective due to one factor, when you don't know any of the other factors involved. Obviously, being raised a Christian had an impact on my decision to accept it as truth, as well as to stick with it for this long. But it isn't the only reason, nor is it the main reason.

2) Your argument could be extended to say that nobody is able to be objective about anything they are taught as children, which means your choice to reject Christianity was just as biased as my choice to accept it. Interestingly, between 50-90% of teens leave Christianity after high school (http://www.conversantlife.com/theology/how-many-youth-are-leaving-the-church). To say that the 10-50% who don't just stay because they've been indoctrinated is silly. Moving out of your parents' house gives you the opportunity to experience life in a new way, along with evaluating what you truly believe versus what you were raised to believe. The end result will be either rejecting what you were raised to believe, or accepting it. The decision you make does not affect whether you are being objective in your analysis.
Well, my apologies but I don't see how it would be presumptuous. First of all, I didn't state it as a fact, I only questioned your objectivity. Secondly, it's almost impossible for humans to be 100% objective about anything because we are not robots. Our past experiences affect how we make decisions no matter how objective we think we might be.  I'm guessing that religion is important to you, and if you are a devoted member of one religion, it's is highly unlikely that you could compare different religions objectively.

I'll ask this one question again because I think it's an important part of the point I'm trying to make. Don't you find it a coincidence that the one religion that you were raised with, out of all the hundreds of other options that were available, just happened to be the perfect one for you? I mean isn't it more probable that instead of this big stroke of luck, you feel Christianity is perfect for you just because you were raised as a Christian? And had you been raised as a Hindu, wouldn't it make sense that Hinduism would feel like the perfect choice for you?

I'm pretty sure that most highly religious people feel that their religion just happens to be the best one for them. That is simply not possible because religion is not something that is in our genes. Indian people do not have the "Hindu gene". Hinduism is 80%+ back there because it's part of their culture, and if that culture had some other religion, that religion would be the 80%+.


Quote from: ScaredGirl
How can you confidently say "No" to the second question?
Because I believe something you dont.
Quote from: ScaredGirl
If you had been living in India all your life and had been taught Hinduism all your life, are you seriously suggesting that you would ignore your culture, your parents and your friends, and would convert to Christianity?
Yes.
Quote from: ScaredGirl
Isn't it possible that you feel strongly about Christianity because that's what you have been taught? Isn't it also possible that you would feel the same way about Hinduism if you have been taught that?
It is possible to be raised one way, and still choose the path on your own. The reason I am so firm in what I believe is because of God, not because of my parents/society/anything else.

I think your responses show a very closed mind to this subject. If you thought about it logically and with and open mind, you would accept the strong possibility that the culture you were raised in would affect what you are as a person.

Let me ask you one thing. If you are unwilling to admit even the obvious possibility that your religion might be something different had the circumstances been different, why should I even debate with you about religion? I mean what's the point, because you clearly are not interested in hearing about other theories or possibilities, you only want to strengthen your current belief. This topic is not a discussion about arbitrary things like "what is God?" where anyone can say anything and nobody can prove otherwise. This discussion is about facts and numbers, so you can't just say "yes" and expect everyone to take your word for it.



I think that the main mistake many people here are doing is that they don't really consider how different they could be as a person had they been raised in a different culture and different religion. It's absolutely silly to assume that a person who was raised as a devoted Catholic would have the same beliefs and values as a person who was raised as a devoted Muslim.

When I am asking you to picture yourself as a Hindu, I don't mean putting on a robe right now, painting a red dot on your forehead, and moving to India. What I mean is years and years of religions indoctrination in Hinduism since you were a child, with little or no contact in Christianity (or whatever your current religion might be). And when a person says that even though they have been raised as a Hindu and taught Hinduism all their life, they would still automatically convert to Christianity, a religion that is not part of their culture, clearly they are looking this thing from the wrong angle.

To everyone who thinks they have a "free will" and would choose their current religion no matter how they were raised, consider this. If people are truly free and capable of choosing their own religions, how do you explain that map? Why do people in certain parts of the world prefer certain religions? Are those religions in their genes?

Like it or not but statistics do not lie. It's all there in that picture. Main reason how people choose their religion is not God speaking to them, years of studying different religions, or some religious quest. Main reason is simply geographic location, or more specifically the culture, you were born in.

Think about it.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: YoungSot on November 09, 2011, 07:23:00 pm
Quote from: Scaredgirl
Like it or not but statistics do not lie. It's all there in that picture. Main reason how people choose their religion is not God speaking to them, years of studying different religions, or some religious quest. Main reason is simply geographic location, or more specifically the culture, you were born in.
All the statistics point to is that most people adopt the religion that is already prevalent in their culture. I doubt anyone is arguing that everyone, or even the majority of people, really thinks through these things as much as they should. But that does not mean some of us didn't think it through, or study other options. It's good food for thought of course, but it shouldn't be treated as an actual logical argument against someone choosing the same religion they grew up with.

To everyone who thinks they have a "free will" and would choose their current religion no matter how they were raised, consider this. If people are truly free and capable of choosing their own religions, how do you explain that map? Why do people in certain parts of the world prefer certain religions? Are those religions in their genes?
I think this is closer to the heart of our differences on this subject. Most of us arguing with you believe in some kind of free will, and you don't. (correct?) As long as we are starting from such different basic assumptions, we aren't likely to come to an agreement on this.

Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on November 09, 2011, 07:41:13 pm
Quote from: Scaredgirl
consider this. If people are truly free and capable of choosing their own religions, how do you explain that map? Why do people in certain parts of the world prefer certain religions? Are those religions in their genes?
Because people tend to choose to only discard a belief when they are exposed to a more favorable (usually more probable) belief. Some people choose to require a disproof to justify changing positions. If we assume that this accurately describes the majority of people and if we accept the premise that the default belief is influenced by the culture, then we would predict the map.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Kakerlake on November 09, 2011, 08:35:30 pm
Like it or not but statistics do not lie. It's all there in that picture.
Actually statistics do lie, and they lie very good.
Think about it this way: Being questioned about your religion in a by Religion X dominated society, quite some folks might vote for Religion X even though they don't actually care about that Religion or even worse are just too scared to say what they actually believe in. *booOOo he's a pastafari! burn him! burn him with lemonade!*
That little cultural influence might be stronger than you thought yourself ^^

Also, do you always answer truthfully on those question thingies going around? Do you think many folks will answer my last question the same way you did? A~nd last but not least: did you REALLY answer that question truthfully? :3
Even I am still officially registered as a christian and I somehow just lack the motivation to actually go to change that.

Well, anyway, I strongly agree with what you said SG.
The upbringing, cultural influence and even a feeling you had while you were still in the mothers womb influences your psyche and can change you into a totally different person. While you are able to think yourself and change your oppinions in many ways, you can't easily uproot your whole psyche (and you probably want to do that only if you had a really miserable upbringing anyway) to make you the I-am-me-person no matter where and how you are born/brought up.
The stuff that comes from the genes can influence your way of thinking, but not what you actually think. - So it may support your inner rebel who goes against the religion you were born in, or it makes you just go with the flow. But I really doubt that there is that "I believe in ..."-gene that makes you want to join that religion, just as i doubt there is a "I speak english"-gene that makes you speak english.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: BluePriest on November 09, 2011, 09:05:56 pm
Quote from: ScaredGirl
Let me ask you one thing. If you are unwilling to admit even the obvious possibility that your religion might be something different had the circumstances been different, why should I even debate with you about religion? I mean what's the point, because you clearly are not interested in hearing about other theories or possibilities, you only want to strengthen your current belief. This topic is not a discussion about arbitrary things like "what is God?" where anyone can say anything and nobody can prove otherwise. This discussion is about facts and numbers, so you can't just say "yes" and expect everyone to take your word for it.
Say there are 100 people.
All of them were raised Christian.
50 of them changed beliefs in there lifetime to another religion.

If you look at this as only 50% of people chose their own beliefs, then you are looking at it wrong. For all we know, only 1 person blindly followed, and the remaining 49 were not brainwashed and actually made a mental decision to follow it.

You can assume I'm being blind, but I believe your the one who is blind here.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: darkrobe on November 09, 2011, 10:03:02 pm
Quote from: ScaredGirl
Let me ask you one thing. If you are unwilling to admit even the obvious possibility that your religion might be something different had the circumstances been different, why should I even debate with you about religion? I mean what's the point, because you clearly are not interested in hearing about other theories or possibilities, you only want to strengthen your current belief. This topic is not a discussion about arbitrary things like "what is God?" where anyone can say anything and nobody can prove otherwise. This discussion is about facts and numbers, so you can't just say "yes" and expect everyone to take your word for it.
Say there are 100 people.
All of them were raised Christian.
50 of them changed beliefs in there lifetime to another religion.

If you look at this as only 50% of people chose their own beliefs, then you are looking at it wrong. For all we know, only 1 person blindly followed, and the remaining 49 were not brainwashed and actually made a mental decision to follow it.

You can assume I'm being blind, but I believe your the one who is blind here.
Im not sure thats the point.

I think the point is to imagine what you might be like had you been raised in a group of a different religion.
So in your example. Say you were born with 99 other people who were all raised cristian.  and you are part of the 50% that stayed christian.

I think your supposed to think about whether had you been part of 100 people raised hindu. whether you would have been 1 of the 50% that stayed hindu, or whether you would have been part of the 50% that changed and perhaps ended up christian. If youve never considered other religions and whether they would fit you, i think maybe you should give this more thought than just throw out an answer.

I think it is harder to compare agnostics and atheists here. because most people who are agnostic or atheist werent raised agnostic or atheist. so im not sure we would have a good sample group.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Brontos on November 10, 2011, 01:50:09 am
My wife is chinese and got a very different religious education than me (french).
I have two kids, less than 3 years old, and be sure that they will have a bit more options about this choice than my wife and I got when we were young.

I'll reopen this thread in 20 years, to tell you what religion they chose, if they chose one. :p
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Scaredgirl on November 19, 2011, 01:33:02 pm
Quote from: Scaredgirl
Like it or not but statistics do not lie. It's all there in that picture. Main reason how people choose their religion is not God speaking to them, years of studying different religions, or some religious quest. Main reason is simply geographic location, or more specifically the culture, you were born in.
All the statistics point to is that most people adopt the religion that is already prevalent in their culture. I doubt anyone is arguing that everyone, or even the majority of people, really thinks through these things as much as they should. But that does not mean some of us didn't think it through, or study other options. It's good food for thought of course, but it shouldn't be treated as an actual logical argument against someone choosing the same religion they grew up with.

To everyone who thinks they have a "free will" and would choose their current religion no matter how they were raised, consider this. If people are truly free and capable of choosing their own religions, how do you explain that map? Why do people in certain parts of the world prefer certain religions? Are those religions in their genes?
I think this is closer to the heart of our differences on this subject. Most of us arguing with you believe in some kind of free will, and you don't. (correct?) As long as we are starting from such different basic assumptions, we aren't likely to come to an agreement on this.
I think you are kind of missing the point here. I'm not saying that people who were raised with certain religion are somehow incapable of switching religions. That happens all the time. But it is much more likely that they will stay with the religion they were brought up with. After all, it's part of their culture.

The point is that if there truly was a "free will" to choose whichever religion makes most sense to you, the world religious map would look different. Statistics are what they are, and they clearly show how there is a huge correlation between religion and geographic location. This is a pure fact that cannot be refuted. Why it happens doesn't even matter

If we ask that question from highly religious people, they would probably all say they would still choose that same religion, even if they were born elsewhere. We've had people say exactly that in this topic. But that doesn't make sense because it's against what the map shows.

Here's a popular quote that fits pretty well to this topic:

"Religion is like football. Everyone wants to believe their home team is special, but the fact is they only think so because they were born there."


Actually statistics do lie, and they lie very good.
Think about it this way: Being questioned about your religion in a by Religion X dominated society, quite some folks might vote for Religion X even though they don't actually care about that Religion or even worse are just too scared to say what they actually believe in. *booOOo he's a pastafari! burn him! burn him with lemonade!*
That little cultural influence might be stronger than you thought yourself ^^

Also, do you always answer truthfully on those question thingies going around? Do you think many folks will answer my last question the same way you did? A~nd last but not least: did you REALLY answer that question truthfully? :3
Even I am still officially registered as a christian and I somehow just lack the motivation to actually go to change that.

Well, anyway, I strongly agree with what you said SG.
The upbringing, cultural influence and even a feeling you had while you were still in the mothers womb influences your psyche and can change you into a totally different person. While you are able to think yourself and change your oppinions in many ways, you can't easily uproot your whole psyche (and you probably want to do that only if you had a really miserable upbringing anyway) to make you the I-am-me-person no matter where and how you are born/brought up.
The stuff that comes from the genes can influence your way of thinking, but not what you actually think. - So it may support your inner rebel who goes against the religion you were born in, or it makes you just go with the flow. But I really doubt that there is that "I believe in ..."-gene that makes you want to join that religion, just as i doubt there is a "I speak english"-gene that makes you speak english.
It is true that there are many different biases in statistics, but the margin of error is not even close to explain the clear distribution of religions. The fact that some people lie in statistical studies, does not make all statistics flawed. There are ways to weed out those answers, and even if it happens, all it does is slightly increase the margin of error. I would bet that most people do not lie about their religious beliefs because I don't see why they would do that. This is not the Dark Ages anymore, and usually when people have

And I don't really need statistics to see that what the map suggests is accurate. I've personally been to many parts of the word and I've seen the religious presence there with my own eyes. In most places, there is clearly one dominant religion. Come to my country and it will take you weeks to find a single Hindu. Go to India and you will find a million at the airport. That is not a weird coincidence.

It would be different if the question was: "Are you a religious person?" because people define the word "religious" differently. For example in my country, most people are Christian but would not call themselves religious. In this study however, they only determined in which religion people belong to. In most parts of the world, that is not something people need, or want, to lie about. Saying "statistics lie" is kind of like countering any scientific argument, regardless of the amount of evidence, with "science is wrong all the time". It's not always perfect, but it's better than anything else we have.

That last part about womb and psyche is interesting. I'm not sure if I believe that, but it's interesting nevertheless.


Quote from: ScaredGirl
Let me ask you one thing. If you are unwilling to admit even the obvious possibility that your religion might be something different had the circumstances been different, why should I even debate with you about religion? I mean what's the point, because you clearly are not interested in hearing about other theories or possibilities, you only want to strengthen your current belief. This topic is not a discussion about arbitrary things like "what is God?" where anyone can say anything and nobody can prove otherwise. This discussion is about facts and numbers, so you can't just say "yes" and expect everyone to take your word for it.
Say there are 100 people.
All of them were raised Christian.
50 of them changed beliefs in there lifetime to another religion.

If you look at this as only 50% of people chose their own beliefs, then you are looking at it wrong. For all we know, only 1 person blindly followed, and the remaining 49 were not brainwashed and actually made a mental decision to follow it.

You can assume I'm being blind, but I believe your the one who is blind here.
Im not sure thats the point.

I think the point is to imagine what you might be like had you been raised in a group of a different religion.
So in your example. Say you were born with 99 other people who were all raised cristian.  and you are part of the 50% that stayed christian.

I think your supposed to think about whether had you been part of 100 people raised hindu. whether you would have been 1 of the 50% that stayed hindu, or whether you would have been part of the 50% that changed and perhaps ended up christian. If youve never considered other religions and whether they would fit you, i think maybe you should give this more thought than just throw out an answer.

I think it is harder to compare agnostics and atheists here. because most people who are agnostic or atheist werent raised agnostic or atheist. so im not sure we would have a good sample group.
Yep, darkrobe understood what I meant. :)


Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ALilParasite on March 25, 2012, 08:49:08 am
Both my divorced parents talk strongly of god and Jesus and such, personally i didn't like the idea of church, Jesus, god. The whole Christianity thing in my family really got to me when i was talking to my cousins about a friend of mine that was bi-sexual, they weren't pleased with that fact. I had asked why they were displeased with my choice of friends and they said it was because "God didn't make us to be attracted to the same sex" or "It isn't how things are meant to be." Knowing that this is how I was supposed to see the world as a christian i didn't like it so i just went the being an Atheist. I had considered myself an atheist for a couple years until I found my current religion through the hardest badge of this game on kongregate.com. When i first started i asked someone what the name was supposed to mean and they referenced me to a link describing this "Flying Spaghetti Monster" They told me it had to do with the fact that there's just as much evidence as god and a bunch of the facts about what it is a Pastafarian's beliefs are. I now happily own my own Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti monster and read a few pages here and there in my free time in school.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: hainkarga on March 26, 2012, 02:12:18 am
Allright, if you get easily offended, please don't read this post.

For the great majority, not only there is almost no real choice in their religion, but there is also little to no choice in everything they think they choose or like. Media, politicians, religion, traditions, education systems, books etc. have been doctrinating & brainwashing the shit out of everyone for hundreds, thousands of years. That's how the world rolls.

Sometimes it may be hard to distinguish and rationalize most of these consequences because everything is connected and usually complicated. But luckily for this topic; not religion. It really is very easy to see how and why people believe in X religion during Y period in Z region of the world. Its so homogenic and obvious. Look at the map again, it is like borders of countries. Much like how you have NO choice in where you were born to which parents, you have very little choice in your religion.

The way i see it:
* If you hate thinking / very smart to use it for your own benefits, you have your parents religion. 
* If you somehow managed to use your brain and like questioning stuff, you become an atheist or for the better a pastafarian  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian)like me.
* And if you are an insane person, you switch religions. Really they scare the hell out of me.

The map in OP says it all. And if you want to know why Z region has X religion, you should just check history. Christianity ? Check history of Roman Empire. Islam ? Check history of middle east. Hell, brits have their religion because king henry was a horny person and didn't want to take shit from pope anymore :)
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ALilParasite on March 26, 2012, 02:32:43 am
* If you somehow managed to use your brain and like questioning stuff, you become an atheist or for the better a pastafarian  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian)like me.
yay I am not alone :D
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: mesaprotector on March 26, 2012, 02:45:57 am
My mom's Jewish and my dad's an atheist. I hold beliefs that are probably most similar to Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

I agree that most people just take their parent's religion, but the existence of religion in the first place is an argument for its holding some degree of truth.

Quote from: Scaredgirl
"Religion is like football. Everyone wants to believe their home team is special, but the fact is they only think so because they were born there."
That's actually more true for religion than football :P .
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: bigreen69 on March 29, 2012, 05:52:15 am
Unfortunately I was born in the buckle of the bible belt in the United States.  Both of my parents are adherents of the protestant Christian faith.  I grew up believing and practicing this faith.  However, I gave up these delusions in favor of reason and logic.  I am anti-religious.  I would like to stamp out religion and any other the erroneous beliefs.  I studied History in college and the best I can tell is that religion in the most evil thing that humans have ever created. Good people will do the best they can, evil people will do evil, however to make a good person do evil you need religion.

god bless ; )
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on March 29, 2012, 06:51:47 am
Unfortunately I was born in the buckle of the bible belt in the United States.  Both of my parents are adherents of the protestant Christian faith.  I grew up believing and practicing this faith.  However, I gave up these delusions in favor of reason and logic.  I am anti-religious.  I would like to stamp out religion and any other the erroneous beliefs.  I studied History in college and the best I can tell is that religion in the most evil thing that humans have ever created. Good people will do the best they can, evil people will do evil, however to make a good person do evil you need religion.

god bless ; )
Reason and Logic are not answers they are tools. Beings cannot lack an answer to "What ought one do?". For even indecision is an answer to the question. One does not replace Christian morality with Reason and Logic. One replaces Christian morals with other moral theories.

It does not take religion to make a good person do evil. No one will ever choose to do other than what they believe they ought to choose. In this manner all moral agents are bound to seek to do what they think is good (though not necessarily what they think they think is good). It merely takes a mistaken belief in what is good for a good person to mistakenly do evil because they thought it was good.

Also consider the following:
If P then Q
Not P
Therefore not Q
^ This conclusion is not supported by the premises. Both True and False conclusions can be derived from False premises. Just because the logic ending in a conclusion is faulty is no reason to try to write off that conclusion as false or to seek to eliminate all belief in that conclusion.

Atheism is a reasonable point of view. Antitheism is not supported from the premises listed and thus is an erroneous belief.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: bigreen69 on March 29, 2012, 08:42:40 pm
I admire your semantics, however I think anti theism is a reasonable stance when it comes to these issues.  Religion is a dangerous, fraudulent and servile world view.  It is used to justify mad men, extort resources and enslave the minds of its adherents.   I would argue that it is the greatest threat to civilization.  Take a quick look at the all the evil that religion has brought into the world i.e. genocide, human sacrifice, genital mutilation, witch trials, subordination of women, slavery, etc.   A rational person would not participate in this, were it not justified by religion. 

The argument about religion is the only thing that will make a good person do evil is still valid.  Just because you redefine the process that alters the state this rational person’s mind does in no way eliminate religion as the prime mechanism.  In fact name another mechanism.  Better yet find me a good deed that a moral non believer would do that religious adherents participate in.  Then name me an evil deed that a moral person would do without religion.

There is more no way to prove that there is a god, none.  Even further there is even less evidence to support the attributes of said god.  If you choose to believe in some irrational construct, by all means go ahead.  However keep that garbage to yourself.  Do not ask the state to support it, pressure others to believe it, and lastly don’t go suicide bombing buildings to place yourself on the fast track to the “afterlife”.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on March 29, 2012, 09:26:19 pm
I admire your semantics, however I think anti theism is a reasonable stance when it comes to these issues.  Religion is a dangerous, fraudulent and servile world view.  It is used to justify mad men, extort resources and enslave the minds of its adherents.   I would argue that it is the greatest threat to civilization.  Take a quick look at the all the evil that religion has brought into the world i.e. genocide, human sacrifice, genital mutilation etc.   A rational person would not participate in this, were it not justified by religion. 

The argument about religion is the only thing that will make a good person do evil is still valid.  Just because you redefine the process that alters the state this rational person’s mind does in no way eliminate religion as the prime mechanism.  In fact name another mechanism.  Better yet find me a good deed that a moral non believer would do that religious adherents participate in.  Then name me an evil deed that a moral person would do without religion.
Have you ever read the Watchmen by chance? The characters of that graphic novel do a good job of displaying how moral theories can be the source of evil. If you feel sympathies with utilitarians then the Kantian willingness to be honest with murderers is appalling. If you feel sympathies with Kantians then you would be appalled at sacrificing others for the Greater Good. When has someone done something for a God that they were not simultaneously doing for the Good(or at least what they mistook as the good)? The majority of moral theories at this time are Religion. However the majority of Religions are monotheistic. If it is reasonable to limit our sight to only the majority of moral theories (Religion) then it is reasonable to limit our sight to the majority of religions (monotheism). Obviously this focusing leads to a ridiculous conclusion where the final target would be an insignificant fraction of the problem.

Quote
There is more no way to prove that there is a god, none.  Even further there is even less evidence to support the attributes of said god.  If you choose to believe in some irrational construct, by all means go ahead.  However keep that garbage to yourself.  Do not ask the state to support it, pressure others to believe it, and lastly don’t go suicide bombing buildings to place yourself on the fast track to the “afterlife”.
Don't be so quick to assume I am a theist. I happen to be an agnostic atheist. Also this section has a drastically different attitude than the section I was replying to.
I would like to stamp out religion and any other the erroneous beliefs.  I studied History in college and the best I can tell is that religion in the most evil thing that humans have ever created. Good people will do the best they can, evil people will do evil, however to make a good person do evil you need religion.
It is one thing to desire religious freedom including the freedom not to have a religion. It is another thing to use language that is mistaken for persecution of religious beliefs. This is the distinction between A-theism (not theism) and Anti-theism (against theism). Provocative language tends to be destructive to reasonable conversation. If you do not mean your exaggeration, then perhaps you should not use that one.

Finally I would like to return to an interesting distinction in the role the negative plays between God and Pluto
Evidence for pluto can existEvidence against pluto can exist
Pluto existsTF
Pluto does not existsFF
Evidence for god can existEvidence against god can exist
God existsFF
God does not existsFF
Lets examine the orange row.
In the case of Pluto, evidence can differentiate between its existence and non existence. In the case of God, there is no evidence useful in differentiate which reality exists.

Next, since reality already exists, the probability of the reality that exists being the reality that exists is 100%. So arguments about the number of variations of each of the possible realities would not change the probabilities.

So:
Evidence is not applicable to the question.
Neither is probability since the truth has 100% probability and nobody has knowledge of that detail.
This leaves a question that has no rational bias towards any of the possible answers.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ddevans96 on March 29, 2012, 10:03:42 pm
...and lastly don’t go suicide bombing buildings to place yourself on the fast track to the “afterlife”.
I usually avoid commenting in this section completely, but as an apatheist, I see what I quoted here to be downright screwed up. I can't express it more simply, it is the one of the most disgusting things I have ever read or heard pertaining to religion, here or elsewhere, theist or nontheist. Shame on you.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: bigreen69 on March 29, 2012, 11:38:20 pm
Oldtrees, i figured you were not a theist, the whole logic thing kind of points to that.  About the Watchmen, I’m not into graphic novels.  I can understand an agnostic view, been there.  I felt like it was very lethargic position for me.  The argument I don’t know and you don’t either is nice.  I think the fact that you cannot prove that there is a god is enough evidence to disregard religion.  The burden of proof is upon the believers not me.  They are the ones making fantastic claims with no evidence.  I am trying to simply point out that if you cannot prove there is a god, there I absolutely no reason to continue to practice religion. 

I am against people that make decisions based of beliefs they have no evidence to back up, because sometimes their decisions hurt other people.  That is my line of thought.  Even at the unassertive position of agnostic I think you can reach this conclusion or at the least follow this line of thought.   If you do think it is ok for people to hurt themselves or others bases on beliefs that have no supporting evidence, I would call you immoral. 

In response to ddevans96 I would like to say shame on you.  I think Kamikaze pilots in World War II to present day jihadist illustrate beautifully the dangers of religion.  These along with Crusaders, genocide, witch trials, genital mutilation, and pedophile priests illustrate this danger well.  I do not think that these are acts that rational people would come up with on their own.  When one mentions religion people have desire to be politically correct.  I find this disgusting.  This need for congeniality only allows these beliefs to persist unchecked.  It gives them the luxury to hide in the shadows behind your world view.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: furballdn on March 29, 2012, 11:43:21 pm
Just going to post this little comic here.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/atheism/1.png)
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/atheism/2.png)
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: whatifidogetcaught? on March 30, 2012, 12:02:51 am
I have no doubt in my mind that if I was born somewhere else, it would not have mattered. However, if my mom was born elsewhere, I would be a follower of a different religion. She bestowed Catholicism on me, something that wouldn't have mattered if I was born anywhere else, just so long as my mother raised me. My father never forced religion on anybody, so that isn't an influence on me whatsoever.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on March 30, 2012, 12:05:48 am
bigreen69, agnostic is an adjective modifying the noun atheist in contrast to gnostic atheism (the claim to know there is no god).

In my last post I demonstrated the reason why the negative is assumed prior to evidence in the case of Pluto. I also highlighted how the topics of Pluto and Gods differed in there correlations between truth and evidence. Since there is no correlation between truth and evidence on the topic of Gods, there is no burden of proof to hold either belief or disbelief. (Aka there is no reason for you to believe in god nor is there a reason for theists to disbelieve in god.) There still is a reason for all of us to correct incorrect moral beliefs rather than scapegoating a fraction of those beliefs.

Did you understand my Kantian and Utilitarian examples? People will have moral theories in the absence of religion and it is the theories that prompt actions (Good, bad and neutral).
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ddevans96 on March 30, 2012, 12:49:03 am
In response to ddevans96 I would like to say shame on you.  I think Kamikaze pilots in World War II to present day jihadist illustrate beautifully the dangers of religion.  These along with Crusaders, genocide, witch trials, genital mutilation, and pedophile priests illustrate this danger well.  I do not think that these are acts that rational people would come up with on their own.  When one mentions religion people have desire to be politically correct.  I find this disgusting.  This need for congeniality only allows these beliefs to persist unchecked.  It gives them the luxury to hide in the shadows behind your world view.
furball's comic, while inaccurate and meant more for amusement and truth, has one very valid point: Theists are not the only people in the world who have done terrible things. Stalin was an example of a violent and 'dangerous' atheist, but there are countless others.

You claim that theists who commit terrible acts would not come up up with these ideas except through religion. Simple logic says that everything any person ever does is because they have an idea to do it. Thus, any atheist who has ever killed would also have a reason for their actions

I also don't understand how political correctness applies to this. All it is is me pointing out your post was disgusting. It applied a blanket bias to all Christians based off of the evil in a portion of them. On the contrary, there are devout theists who are pure, moral, and treat others with utmost respect. Likewise, there are atheists who kill, live immorally, and have hearts of pure hatrid.

Lastly, I don't think you understand what my world view is. Simply put, apatheism means I have no interest in a god exists or not. I also live, much like many other people, to work towards virtues such as truth and loyalty.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: bigreen69 on March 30, 2012, 01:08:37 am
I have to disagree about the burden of proof.  They make these extravagant claims that they believe give them authority over others.  If someone says they are King of the world, I think they need some evidence to accept the throne.  This is dangerous, as I have stated before.

On your Kantian and Utilitarian examples I must apologize.  I over looked them.  They are idealistic extremes however I think you can be a little more pragmatic.  I think do unto others as you would have others do unto you is a good place to start.  I do not think this would be objected to by the majority of civilization.  This simple rule that is evident even in other primates I think would serve humanity well.  I don’t know if you could advance morals any further, nor should you have to. 
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: bigreen69 on March 30, 2012, 01:30:42 am
My dear ddevans96 I understand completely your world view.  I think you view is fairly selfish and immoral.  To criticize a critique of religion is utterly shameful.  The fact that you have no views on god is secondary.  I insist to not see religion as a threat to rational thought and civilization in an error.

Also Stalin is a poor choice of an atheistic villain; his regime is much more closely related to the Russian Orthodoxy than anything.  Just because he used secular language does in no way remove him as the head of his church.  What self-respecting dictator would not take advantage of this vacuum of power? Please don’t use Hitler either, he was catholic and supported by the pope until the end of the war. You should look to the French revolution.  There you will find bad behavior by secular peasants. 
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ddevans96 on March 30, 2012, 01:45:47 am
My dear ddevans96 I understand completely your world view.  I think you view is fairly selfish and immoral.  To criticize a critique of religion is utterly shameful.  The fact that you have no views on god is secondary.  I insist to not see religion as a threat to rational thought and civilization in an error.
I'd be interested to hear why you think apatheism is selfish and immoral, especially compared side-by-side to your own, and agnosticism. I think an interesting topic can come of that.  I also didn't see the original suicide bombing comment as a critique, though I understand if that's what you meant. As for finding religion as a threat, I don't think that's how I've ever seen it, but more as a viewpoint, somewhat opposite that of those that aren't centered around a god.

Also Stalin is a poor choice of an atheistic villain; his regime is much more closely related to the Russian Orthodoxy than anything.  Just because he used secular language does in no way remove him as the head of his church.  What self-respecting dictator would not take advantage of this vacuum of power? Please don’t use Hitler either, he was catholic and supported by the pope until the end of the war. You should look to the French revolution.  There you will find bad behavior by secular peasants. 
I do agree that Stalin's regime was not truly atheist, but I wanted to use one from the comic to set the point off, and as you said, it definitely couldn't be Hitler. Hitler wasn't even close to an atheist. I did consider bringing up in that paragraph other dictators and rulers, such as Bonaparte, Mussolini, and some of those in communist regimes, but I am yet unsure about the specifics of their atheism. I will also take the advice on checking out the religious aspects of the French Revolution, as I haven't done much study there.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: bigreen69 on March 30, 2012, 02:44:13 am
I think apatheism is selfish and immoral on the grounds that there is little regard for the harm that religion and other fantasies can cause.  If it is because you are ignorant of these threats to humanity, it is sad.  If it’s because you do not care for you fellow man it’s immoral.  I think it is a selfish stance because it does not seem to hurt you, you think you need not care.  Maybe I should have just called it lazy, that might suit it better.  I see this view as the standard ostrich with its head in the sand.  I think mankind can do better.

Take an easy example of the threat, circumcision.  If there is no religion, baby boys and some girls would not get bits of them cut off.  You might say big deal it is just foreskin and a clitoris.  However circumcision does kill children every year.  I cannot think this is remotely possible without religion. 

Even easier example, some adherents of religion deny their own children of basic medical care.  Why you might ask, their religion forbids it.  I do not see this as a noble act of faith; instead I think it is more akin murde to murder.

How about aids riddled Africa were missionaries teach the populous not to use condoms because they will go to hell.  Really, millions infected and dying, but they have the false hope of heaven.

These are things that are happening right now in the world, I would like the see this change and I see the debunking and skepticism of religion to be one means to facilitate this change.  In short I refuse to stick my head into the ground.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Aves on March 30, 2012, 04:03:25 am
Your argument goes a bit into the extremes there. Where do you draw the line between a religion and a culture? Who are you to dictate another person's beliefs, heritage, or upbringing? Religion has had a long history of causing suffering, but is the fault of religion, or of society? Your AIDS example about Africa could be attributed to mismanagement of the continent after centuries of European imperialism. Your example of health care does not take into consideration the cultural values that go along with religious values.

Personally, I don't believe in a deity, but that is a conclusion that I have reached without anybody forcing their views on me (If I were born under different circumstances, I would be a different person. Ergo, I have no idea on how I might have grown up in a different society. Most likely, I'd not exist or have died.)
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: bigreen69 on March 30, 2012, 06:15:47 am
I don’t see how the examination of ideas and beliefs that have no evidence to support them could possibly be called extreme.  Especially when these ideas or premises can and often do harm others. These beliefs need to be called into question.  I am not talking about culture never once mentioned it.  However while on the topic if your culture has a tendency to harm, oppress or threaten other members of humanity, it should be viewed with the same skepticism with out apology.  I am pretty sure it is quite fine to look at religion and culture thru this lens.


My aids example was not to illustrate causation.  The fact remains there is a lot of people that are infected by this virus in certain African countries.  That is the fact, not how it happened which does not matter to this argument.  The ridiculous thing is that still to this day Catholicism preaches against the use of condoms.  I would like to think that using condoms would help curb some of this human suffering.  Apparently the pope and many of his loyal followers see it different.




The example of the health care is an example that is happening in modern day United States. The cultural argument makes no sense these people live in a country that has multi-billion dollar per year pharmaceutical industry.  I would assess the only thing that differentiates this group is their belief system not culture.  I would access that to sit idly by and watch a child die of strep throat is indeed sinister.  What ridiculous cultural value is this beneficial?  Religion be the cause, and I cannot see how it is in any way helpful to humanity.  Why not question it?


Aves that is about as plain as I can make.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: hainkarga on March 30, 2012, 09:12:07 am
In the case of Pluto, evidence can differentiate between its existence and non existence. In the case of God, there is no evidence useful in differentiate which reality exists.
.....
So:
Evidence is not applicable to the question.
Neither is probability since the truth has 100% probability and nobody has knowledge of that detail.
This leaves a question that has no rational bias towards any of the possible answers.
Saying "not having evidence to existence" and "not having evidence to non existence" are equal is an absurd and inverted way of thinking. In science, you don't have to show evidence that something does not exist, but the opposite. You care about measuring the non-existence of materials only if there is a scientific reason that it could exist in the first place which is not the case of god.

Having two possible options (god existing vs not existing) does not mean each share the pie chart of possibilities equally. You can't apply logic and statistics on the things that has no evidence: you just scientifically ignore it and apply palm to the face. The possibility that the god exist only challenges the possibility that rainbow pooping unicorns exist. It does NOT challenge atheism at all.

Even the embodiment of insanity: the inquisition needed some tiny bit of an evidence to witch hunt and burn people alive. You can't act on "not having evidence to non existence". That is plain insanity and sounds funny. Suppose you believe that universe is carried on the shoulders of chuck norris and elfs and klingons battle in his golden hair with light sabers. By your logic, your arguement is as strong ten thousand scientists who have the accumulated knowledge of thousands of years. What a cocky attitude... but then again it is chuck norris eh ? if enough people care and believe and clench their fists in defiance, it could become real! scientists can kiss my tits. :)

Only psychology branch of science cares about angry lunatics who wear funny outfits and claim that cloud people exist anyway.

And there is this "believing in a religion" issue which is an even more absurd thing than believing in god. Religious people tend to demand evidence that god does not exist and then proceed to conclude that their religion is the correct choice. This is another blood boiling level of insanity. I'm yet to see any believer who cares about showing evidence that their religion is the one that god intended if it existed.

Fact: Only believers need to prove their point by evidence. or just admit that it is "blind belief" and stop harrassing science and logic, really.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ALilParasite on March 30, 2012, 09:27:39 am
Having two possible options (god existing vs not existing) does not mean each share the pie chart of possibilities equally. You can't apply logic and statistics on the things that has no evidence: you just scientifically ignore it and apply palm to the face. The possibility that the god exist only challenges the possibility that rainbow pooping unicorns exist. It does NOT challenge atheism

Even the embodiment of insanity: the inquisition needed some tiny bit of an evidence to witch hunt and burn people alive. You can't act on "not having evidence to non existence". That is plain insanity and sounds funny.

And there is this "believing in a religion" issue which is an even more absurd thing than believing in god. Religious people tend to demand evidence that god does not exist and then proceed to conclude that their religion is the correct choice. This is another blood boiling level of insanity. I'm yet to see any believer who cares about showing evidence that their religion is the one that god intended if it existed.

Fact: Only believers need to prove their point by evidence. or just admit that it is "blind belief" and stop harrassing science and logic, really. at all.
I support what is said here, and the underlined made me literally Lol at it's truthfulness.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: hainkarga on March 30, 2012, 12:08:23 pm
@OldTrees

"Show me scientific evidence that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists after showing evidence that my god does not!" said the man with a giant hat who speaks to cloud people."My theory of talking snakes and magic apples is statistically as smart as Einstein's theory of relativity plus i'm more fabolous. Hat > Messy genius hair" he added.

RELATED MEDIA
(http://www.uploadup.com/di-NZRG.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg)
God vs Noodles debate at its peak.

(http://topcultured.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/einstein.jpg)
I try to make people believe that there is no difference between a misunderstood rude genius and a plain dumb jerk in an attempt to use this to my own ends.

(http://www.marriedtothesea.com/022310/i-hate-thinking.gif)
Islam and Christianity authorities, after years of negotiations, joyously united in one conclusion.

(http://content6.flixster.com/question/48/38/62/4838628_std.jpg)
You cannot compare our religion to harry potter universe! talking snakes makes sense for sure but gingers having two friends is obviously fiction

(http://www.winmentalhealth.com/images/disney.snow.white.wicked.witch.magic.apple.jpg)
Stairway to heaven, highway to hell.

A nodding religious person nearby: "obviously universe and everything in it were instantly created 5000 years ago. I'm either right or wrong, scientists that say dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago also are either right or wrong. Logic says we are equally right. All thanks to elements forum member @OldTrees, he has saved the village"


(http://iseeahappyface.com/upload/what-is-largets.jpg)
The woman we made the interview. Later on TV, being extra religious.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Aves on March 30, 2012, 02:19:20 pm
I don’t see how the examination of ideas and beliefs that have no evidence to support them could possibly be called extreme.  Especially when these ideas or premises can and often do harm others. These beliefs need to be called into question.  I am not talking about culture never once mentioned it.  However while on the topic if your culture has a tendency to harm, oppress or threaten other members of humanity, it should be viewed with the same skepticism with out apology.  I am pretty sure it is quite fine to look at religion and culture thru this lens.


My aids example was not to illustrate causation.  The fact remains there is a lot of people that are infected by this virus in certain African countries.  That is the fact, not how it happened which does not matter to this argument.  The ridiculous thing is that still to this day Catholicism preaches against the use of condoms.  I would like to think that using condoms would help curb some of this human suffering.  Apparently the pope and many of his loyal followers see it different.




The example of the health care is an example that is happening in modern day United States. The cultural argument makes no sense these people live in a country that has multi-billion dollar per year pharmaceutical industry.  I would assess the only thing that differentiates this group is their belief system not culture.  I would access that to sit idly by and watch a child die of strep throat is indeed sinister.  What ridiculous cultural value is this beneficial?  Religion be the cause, and I cannot see how it is in any way helpful to humanity.  Why not question it?


Aves that is about as plain as I can make.
My point is that the society that we live in can determine as much of what you denounce as religion does. And yet you attack religion more than society. Why?
The thing is, every society has at one point done the highlighted action. The United States supported dictators and exported arms to much of the world, and Europe conquered the Western Hemisphere, many nations restrict human rights today, etc... Every society has committed genocide or terror at one point in time, and yet you do not offer the same attack. Are those crimes lesser than the crimes committed by religion?

If benefiting humanity is the end goal, and takes precedence over everything else, then how far would you go to accomplish it? Telling others what to believe and what not to believe is the beginning of a slippery slope.

 
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on March 30, 2012, 04:52:45 pm
I have to disagree about the burden of proof.  They make these extravagant claims that they believe give them authority over others.  If someone says they are King of the world, I think they need some evidence to accept the throne.  This is dangerous, as I have stated before.

On your Kantian and Utilitarian examples I must apologize.  I over looked them.  They are idealistic extremes however I think you can be a little more pragmatic.  I think do unto others as you would have others do unto you is a good place to start.  I do not think this would be objected to by the majority of civilization.  This simple rule that is evident even in other primates I think would serve humanity well.  I don’t know if you could advance morals any further, nor should you have to.
Demanding submission is not the same as religion:
Back when you were at church, what percentage of the congregation believed they had authority over you or others? How much of this authority was voluntarily given and how much was demanded using faith as an excuse?

I make extravagant claims that people have a right from being murdered. I believe that right has authority over other. One the other hand people that grab power they do not deserve is not limited to religion nor is it a necessary characteristic of a religion.

Burden of proof:
1"The burden of proof is on the believers."
2"Why is it on them?"
1"Because we should always assume the negative prior to evidence."
2"Doesn't assuming the negative draw its credibility in science because it works to ensure the correct given sufficient time? Doesn't this require that the positive be able to have evidence if it were true? Why would we assume the negative when it is not useful?"

So, as a pragmatist, you find idealistic extremes to be sources of immorality. Both of those moral codes started with a golden rule premise and yet, without Religion being involved, they come to conclusions you find immoral. It is the desire to do good combined with a mistaken idea of what is good that is the source of evil. Religion is merely a subcategory that is a useful scapegoat for atheists. We need to recognize this cognitive bias and compensate for it in order to think rationally about the true source.

The golden rule (Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.) is a good premise when trying to answer what ought one do. However it fails to answer the question (What ought you would others do unto you?). In fact, the golden rule makes no claim about murder. It merely says that you ought only murder if you ought would others murder you. We should not be so arrogant to assume that following our hedonistic desires is moral. Therefore in the pursuit of moral action, we need humans need to go deeper into moral philosophy. Otherwise they are clinging to an assertion that does not have sufficient evidence.

In the case of Pluto, evidence can differentiate between its existence and non existence. In the case of God, there is no evidence useful in differentiate which reality exists.
.....
So:
Evidence is not applicable to the question.
Neither is probability since the truth has 100% probability and nobody has knowledge of that detail.
This leaves a question that has no rational bias towards any of the possible answers.
Saying "not having evidence to existence" and "not having evidence to non existence" are equal is an absurd and inverted way of thinking. In science, you don't have to show evidence that something does not exist, but the opposite. You care about measuring the non-existence of materials only if there is a scientific reason that it could exist in the first place which is not the case of god.
You missed my point. The key difference between science and theology is:
Science:
IF the positive were true, THEN there could be evidence of it being true.
IF the positive were false, THEN there could not be evidence of it being false.
Theology:
IF the positive were true, THEN there could not be evidence of it being true.
IF the positive were false, THEN there could not be evidence of it being false.
In science the lack of evidence for the positive is evidence of the lack of the positive.
In theology the change in the truth tables results in the lack of evidence for the positive no longer being evidence for the negative.
Quote
Having two possible options (god existing vs not existing) does not mean each share the pie chart of possibilities equally. You can't apply logic and statistics on the things that has no evidence: you just scientifically ignore it and apply palm to the face. The possibility that the god exist only challenges the possibility that rainbow pooping unicorns exist. It does NOT challenge atheism at all.
Again you missed my point:
They do not have equal probability. 1 has 100% probability and the rest have 0%. However it is unknown which is the 100%. Lets say I chose a card from a deck (without any red face cards). The card I picked has 100% of being the card I picked. The chance of it being Red is not 37.5% The chance of it being red is either 100% or 0% depending on my choice.
Also, when did I claim it challenged Atheism? I am an atheist. If I can say the above and still be an atheist, then either I am dumb or you are making irrational leaps in your conclusions.

Finally, did you know that Science must not be used for everything? It is improper use of Science to attempt to use it for any type of knowledge that cannot be discovered through falsifiable hypotheses.

The rest of your point is uselessly off topic due to the above misunderstandings

Edit: Quote bound fixing
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: BluePriest on April 02, 2012, 10:03:20 pm
People very rarely realize that oldtrees is really good at leaving his own belief out of a discussion. Many times, when you see him debating something, he is simply pointing out flaws of logic, and challenging the person he is debating to think critically of their own belief, and the belief of others.

Burden of proof is very simple. The burden is not, as commonly misunderstood, on the person proving a positive. It is on the person making an assertion. If someone is making a positive assertion (aka there is a God) then it is their job to prove it. If the person is making a negative assertion (aka there is no God) then it is their job to prove it.

If someone walks up to me and says "there is no God" without having any knowledge of my background, it is THEIR job to prove it. If I walk up to someone and say "there is a God" it is MY job to prove it.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: d1puffpuff on April 16, 2012, 10:58:08 pm
People very rarely realize that oldtrees is really good at leaving his own belief out of a discussion. Many times, when you see him debating something, he is simply pointing out flaws of logic, and challenging the person he is debating to think critically of their own belief, and the belief of others.

Burden of proof is very simple. The burden is not, as commonly misunderstood, on the person proving a positive. It is on the person making an assertion. If someone is making a positive assertion (aka there is a God) then it is their job to prove it. If the person is making a negative assertion (aka there is no God) then it is their job to prove it.

If someone walks up to me and says "there is no God" without having any knowledge of my background, it is THEIR job to prove it. If I walk up to someone and say "there is a God" it is MY job to prove it.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. :)
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: whatifidogetcaught? on April 17, 2012, 03:30:07 am
Well put sir. Which brings the point to everybody, prove it =p
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Seneka on April 21, 2012, 12:13:54 am
I am a Pastafarian and it was chosen for me!

Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: justaburd on April 21, 2012, 12:17:46 am
I am a Pastafarian and it was chosen for me!

I agree!
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: DeadHerald on April 21, 2012, 09:29:34 am

Baptized Catholic, later renounced. Currently, I'm spiritually lost. I have no desire to be an atheist, but no religion seems to fit me properly.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on April 21, 2012, 09:36:09 am

Baptized Catholic, later renounced. Currently, I'm spiritually lost. I have no desire to be an atheist, but no religion seems to fit me properly.
Look into moral philosophy. It addresses the important topics that Religion covers but does not require the existence/non existence of gods and it is based on inquiry and reasoning.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: lawrenceleong888 on April 22, 2012, 12:43:03 am
My parents practice taoism + buddhism...
I don't really bother about religion anyway...as long as I'm not doing something bad...
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: neuroleptics on April 27, 2012, 09:36:28 pm
1st of all, i would not say i support religion...as you know...it's always associated with rules, norms and regulations. Btw, i'm a Christian and all i know is that Christianity is ALL about relationship with God,  The Creator. This is established through our relationship with Jesus, the bridge between us and God. well, i'm not here to promote my religion, just saying that i choose christianity as my belief. To me, we are God's creation and why would he wanted to create us? because He's Love and he loves us. ...and i would like to respond this Love beyond measure and how is that supposed to be if there's no relationship between me and God?
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Fikraxtein on May 02, 2012, 11:50:22 pm
I've grown in an atheist family, except for my grandmother who is catholic and tried to convert me when I was younger. I always denied her religion. When I was 16, I started to study all kinds of religions, ancients and moderns. Then I chose the one that suited best for me. I wanted a faith, but rational enough. I think I found one I can integrate perfectly in my life, five years ago from now.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Mammalman on May 04, 2012, 12:31:44 am
My mom was raised Catholic, my dad was raised Jewish, they were both atheists by the time they met each other. They offered to take me to church or be bar mitzvahed but didn't force me to do either/anything. So far no one has managed to both define god and convince me one's existence is even somewhat likely, so I lack a belief in any gods, so I'm an atheist.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: BluePriest on May 04, 2012, 03:04:29 am
no religion seems to fit me properly.
I did believe in gravity, but it doesnt suit me properly so I decided it didnt exist.

Seriously, not trying to be a jerk or anything, but religion isnt about what "fits" you. Its about finding the truth. The real ignorance is saying you dont believe in a religion because it doesnt "fit you". I dont like everything about Christianity. That doesnt mean its any more or less real to me. I do m best not to try to convert it into something that its not just because i disagree with it.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: microman362 on May 05, 2012, 04:39:05 am
I have 2 questions to all religious people:
  • Do you think that if you were born somewhere else, your religion (like your language) could be something totally different?
  • If you answered "Yes" to the first question, do you think that you would see that other religion as the one true religion?

I currently am confused/undecided, when it comes to religion. But to answer the questions:
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: mildlyfrightenedboy on May 21, 2012, 03:52:32 am
I was born into Roman Catholicism.  My mother is a Eucharistic Minister, and there are four deacons in my close family.  I'm an atheist, but my family doesn't know that I am. 
A few years ago, my uncle and his family explained to my grandfather that they are atheists, and my family harassed them to the point that they got unlisted phone numbers and moved to Oregon (we live in New Orleans) without a trace.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on May 21, 2012, 04:56:27 am
@mildlyfrightenedboy
I hope your situation improves. Religious intolerance is unfortunate.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: GeniugG on May 26, 2012, 06:20:50 am
I choose my own religion , i believe their is no such thing as a god.
As a scientist i cannot believe such rubbish
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on May 26, 2012, 02:05:16 pm
I choose my own religion , i believe their is no such thing as a god.
As a scientist i cannot believe such rubbish
Neither Atheism nor Theism is a Scientific belief. If a belief must be scientific to hold, then neither can be held. Beware your cognitive biases.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Belthus on May 26, 2012, 06:48:37 pm
I choose my own religion , i believe their is no such thing as a god.
As a scientist i cannot believe such rubbish
Neither Atheism nor Theism is a Scientific belief. If a belief must be scientific to hold, then neither can be held. Beware your cognitive biases.
The null hypothesis is part of the scientific method.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ddevans96 on May 26, 2012, 07:34:50 pm
I was born into Roman Catholicism.  My mother is a Eucharistic Minister, and there are four deacons in my close family.  I'm an atheist, but my family doesn't know that I am. 
A few years ago, my uncle and his family explained to my grandfather that they are atheists, and my family harassed them to the point that they got unlisted phone numbers and moved to Oregon (we live in New Orleans) without a trace.

It's similar for me, although I doubt my immediately family, at least, wouldn't react nearly that badly. My family is Protestant and ranges from casual to very pious, but I've settled on apatheism. None of my family knows this.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on May 26, 2012, 09:32:13 pm
I choose my own religion , i believe their is no such thing as a god.
As a scientist i cannot believe such rubbish
Neither Atheism nor Theism is a Scientific belief. If a belief must be scientific to hold, then neither can be held. Beware your cognitive biases.
The null hypothesis is part of the scientific method.
The null hypothesis is useful when evidence against the null hypothesis is possible. Aka when the null hypothesis is falsifiable.
When the null hypothesis is not falsifiable it is not scientific. It also loses its credibility as an argument.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: NonexistentFlower on May 27, 2012, 07:20:58 am
I was born Christian (Specifically Methodist), but a few years of parents oversleeping on Sundays has converted me to agnosticism :V.

My current belief has been that if deities exist, they are probably not worshipped.

Of course, other than the case of extremists (which are hard to resolve) I doubt religion is at all a bad thing. However the amount of religious intolerance online is ridiculous.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Annele on May 27, 2012, 08:06:34 am
I thought everyone here worshiped the great god Zanzarino.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: rosutosefi on May 31, 2012, 05:10:37 am
I was born as a Roman Catholic, grew as one, and decided to be a Protestant at the age of 14, for reasons that I don't want to argue about with a Roman Catholic.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on May 31, 2012, 05:29:03 am
I was born as a Roman Catholic, grew as one, and decided to be a Protestant at the age of 14, for reasons that I don't want to argue about with a Roman Catholic.
But, you are willing to argue about the reasons with anyone else?  :P
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: rosutosefi on May 31, 2012, 05:59:40 am
I was born as a Roman Catholic, grew as one, and decided to be a Protestant at the age of 14, for reasons that I don't want to argue about with a Roman Catholic.
But, you are willing to argue about the reasons with anyone else?  :P

Well, I'd explain it to someone else, not argue. (http://elementscommunity.org/chat/skin_default/smilies/silly.png)
I just dislike some customs that are added to religion that do not have any basis.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Keovar on June 10, 2012, 04:09:40 pm
  I guess I was born into the "christian by default" sort of thing that is common in US culture, particularly in Georgia and the rest of the Southeast.  The first church I remember going to sent a bus through the local neighbourhoods to pick up kids, so my attendence probably amounted to a couple hours of free babysitting, in my parent's eyes.  It was kinda fun to sing songs on the bus and Sunday school basically came down to stories and art, so that was interesting enough for me to go without complaint. 

  My parents got divorced, my dad eventually got custody, and eventually remarried to a pastor's daughter.  I hadn't been going to a church regularly for a few years by then, but as you can imagine, she changed that.  I was 12 by then, so my stepmom had already missed the prime indoctrination window (before age 8 or so) when a kid isn't very capable of critical thinking.  I'd already learned the truth about Santa and read a few fantasy novels by then, which may have inoculated me against being too credulous about magical claims such as talking snakes and an invisible entity listening to my thoughts.  I was involved with youth group stuff because they did a decent job of making it fun, but the regular services were quite boring, and I hated the uncomfortable clothes (I still hate wearing khaki or navy blue, decades later).  I did see that plenty of things didn't make sense - like the conflict of omniscience vs. free will - but I was baptised and tried to follow the format prescribed, thinking that it'd make sense eventually.  I also looked into other religions, particularly Wicca and other Pagan stuff.  As I got older, I questioned why I had to go to church and was told that if I chose not to, I would also be restricted from going out anywhere else for the rest of the week.  I had a girlfriend by then, so I figured it was worth yawning my way through a few hymns each week in order to spend time with her.  To get through the hymn-droning, I'd entertain myself by replacing "God", "Jesus", "Lord" etc. with names from older mythologies.  I was 'singing' with such minimal volume that it's not like anyone noticed. 

  After high school, I went into the Air Force for four years.  My original dog tags had "Southern Baptist", so I guess my parents wrote that on some paperwork or were watching me as I filled something out, I don't recall.  After training, when I got to my first duty station, I got new tags that said "Wicca" instead.  I guess I still had a lot of the underlying human assumptions that religion latches onto - the idea that the universe exists for a conscious purpose, the idea that there's an afterlife, etc. - and I still felt like I had to have 'something' for a religion.  Wicca is about as unstructured as it gets, having just the rule of "if it harms none, do as you will" and a wide assortment of possible views on god(s) and other metaphysical concepts.  I identified as Wiccan for quite a while and was even a member of a coven for a couple years, though I still thought of things like divination as pretty 'flaky' and didn't really base important decisions on such things or try to change my life with magic/prayer.  I guess that again it came down to being interesting and having friends in it as the real underlying reasons for involvement. 

  I eventually moved back to the Southeast, and having been out of it for a while, ended up finding the assumption of everyone being christian to be pretty irritating.  I tended to view supernatural things as unrealistic, but didn't spend much time seriously considering them.  My brother, on the other hand, had apparently started taking religion more seriously, at least insofar as it supported his assumptions about various cultural topics.  I remember asking him what would change if he could somehow know, for a fact, that there is no god.  He said he'd just do anything he felt like, because nothing would really matter.  I don't understand that, because if this is all there is, then this is all that matters.  If there's a perfect world after death, or some superbeing that's going to swoop in and solve all our problems for us, then what's the point of trying to improve conditions here, for ourselves?  At some point I began calling myself an agnostic, recognizing that there was no way I could ever know for certain that no god(s) or other supernatural things existed.  Belief in such things really had no bearing on how I lived or looked at the world in either case. 

  My stepmom and father got divorced a few years ago, and for some reason, I ended up becoming a prime source of emotional support for her.  During that time, I said I was an agnostic, and she seemed to accept that.  However, as she started recovering, she started putting on conversion pressure, mostly through her choice of gifts.  First there was a box of books like "The Purpose-Driven Life", but I'm visually impaired (due to optic nerve damage from multiple sclerosis), and I used that as an excuse for not reading them, though I suppose I could have endured the headaches induced by spending hours squinting through a magnifying glass if I'd been interested enough in the first place.  Then for christmas of 2009, she switched to DVDs, giving me one of a guy that attempted to 'prove' that the star of Bethlehem was real, (using astrology, of all things).  I was visiting with my brother at the time, and had no DVD player at home, so I just left it with him.  A year later, she gave me a copy of Ben Stein's 'Expelled', which is basically a lame attack on evolution, trying to present creationism as a legitimate 'theory' that was being shunned by a conspiracy of scientists.  I didn't even watch that one at my brother's place, I just 'forgot' it there and looked it up later at home. 

  Ironically, my stepmom's 'pushing' only pushed me into spending time looking at the question of religious belief, and I came to realize that I'm an atheist.  The term 'agnostic' still applies, in the sense that I do not know if god(s) exist, but that applies to everyone, and is thus not a very useful descriptor.  If someone claims to have faith, they're admitting to agnosticism, since faith is belief without evidence, but to know a thing you need evidence.  Most of the time, people are asking what you BELIEVE, not what you KNOW.  Like anyone, I do not KNOW, but I don't substitute faith in lieu of evidence, so I do not BELIEVE.  One who doesn't believe in god(s) is an atheist.  I'm a skeptic, in the sense that I think belief should be based upon evidence, not wishful thinking or faith.  I'm a humanist, in the sense that I care about the well-being of others and believe it's up to us to solve our own problems to improve the conditions of life.  While there is a large amount of overlap between those to whom the term 'atheist' applies, and those who are skeptics and/or humanists, but the only thing that the term 'atheist' addresses is whether or not one believes in god(s). 

  I realize that identifying myself as an atheist is similar to calling myself a non-astrologer, in some ways.  However, there isn't a huge cultural bias toward assuming astrology is true, basing policies on it, or judging others by it.  Newspaper horoscopes and such are common enough in our culture, but people tend to view that as entertainment, not reality.  If most people took astrology seriously, it would be culturally relevant to call myself a non-astrologer.  When religion fades in relevance to the same extent that astrology has, then I'll be happy to be what I like to call an 'apatheist'.  I'll still be an atheist, but it won't matter.  For now, there are still enough people trying to push their religion onto others through law, or otherwise using their faith as an excuse to mistreat others, so I'll openly declare myself an atheist as a way of saying I do not agree with that. 

Thanks for reading, 
Kevin 
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: esran on June 10, 2012, 04:20:15 pm
i do not believe religion is irrational, nor do i believe atheism is irratiional. rationality itself must be determined from those beliefs.
if you are christian, and devote your life to helping others and being a good person, you are rational.
if you are christian, and yet do things the bible says you will go to hell for, you are irrational.
if you believe that what goes around comes around, and you do good deeds, you are rational.
on the other hand if you believe in a disconnect between action and consequence, and doing good deeds cannot help you, than the rational thing to do is to only do things to help yourself.
with this information, it can be determined that whether or not religion is real, it is a good thing assuming poeple will act rationally. however there is evidence that people dont.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Cel on June 11, 2012, 02:59:52 am
@Keovar
Whew! That was quite a text wall to read through.
I only have one thing to say:
  If your step mom really truly believes in god, heaven, and hell, and that to not believe in this god will bring you to hell, then attempting to not convert you would basically be like watching you walk in front of a bus (in her eyes,) why wouldn't she try to save you? Sure, the obviousness is annoying, and the DVDs and books that you don't even care about, but think about it kind of like this; it's her way of showing her love and affection for you.
  If she didn't even try it'd be like this; 'sure I know my ex-stepson, who was there with me through some of the worst days of my life as a support and anchor, is going to spend eternity in endless agony and suffering, but do I really want to make myself (and possibly him) uncomfortable with this gift? Eh, I'll just buy him this T-Shirt.'
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: nerd1 on June 11, 2012, 04:50:44 am
I'd like to point out that this is not neccessarily a bad thing- the major monotheistic religions (judaism, christianatity, and Islam) each recognize the others beliefs to an extent, and say that even devotees from other religions can still get to heaven, implying that while each religion believes itself to be more right, being a good person and believing in a higher power are the prime factors in determining whether a person will get to heaven,giving theist agnostics a good chance of getting into heaven (if they are moral people, obviously.)

edit: concerning free will, altbough I don't know if there is a legitimate "normal" proof of it, the theist proof is "god=omnipotent" "god says there is free will," "q.e.d. there is free will," once you take take omnipotence into account, most paradoxes about religion vanish, although this only works for paradoxes.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Cheesy111 on June 11, 2012, 04:55:07 am
i do not believe religion is irrational, nor do i believe atheism is irratiional. rationality itself must be determined from those beliefs.
if you are christian, and devote your life to helping others and being a good person, you are rational.
if you are christian, and yet do things the bible says you will go to hell for, you are irrational.
if you believe that what goes around comes around, and you do good deeds, you are rational.
on the other hand if you believe in a disconnect between action and consequence, and doing good deeds cannot help you, than the rational thing to do is to only do things to help yourself.
with this information, it can be determined that whether or not religion is real, it is a good thing assuming poeple will act rationally. however there is evidence that people dont.

Sorry to derail this a bit, but are you saying that beliefs in and of themselves cannot be rational/irrational? Or that "beliefs" only applies to religious beliefs?
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: esran on June 11, 2012, 05:06:27 am
yes, that pretty much sums up what i said. no belief can be irrational or rational. rationality is determined by how you act in accordance with your belief.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Annele on June 11, 2012, 05:10:32 am
yes, that pretty much sums up what i said. no belief can be irrational or rational. rationality is determined by how you act in accordance with your belief.

Like Hitler was christian, but he was a horrible man who did horrible things, and Jesus was a christian and was a rational person who did rational things.
Whether or not you believe Jesuswas the Son of God, he still lived and did good things.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: esran on June 11, 2012, 05:16:43 am
yes, that pretty much sums up what i said. no belief can be irrational or rational. rationality is determined by how you act in accordance with your belief.

Like Hitler was christian, but he was a horrible man who did horrible things, and Jesus was a christian and was a rational person who did rational things.
Whether or not you believe Jesuswas the Son of God, he still lived and did good things.
exactly. you probably just mistyped but Jesus was Jewish.
but its not just what you do, its what you do in accordance with your beliefs. doign good deeds doesnt neccecarily mean you are rational.
if my belief is that kicking puppies means i go to heaven, and i spend all day kicking puppies, i would be acting rational in accordance with my belief.
until someone figures out a way to disprove the fact that theoretically any belief could be true, rationality must be determined by its coexistence with belief.
and thus any bad deed can be considered rational for a given belief set.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Annele on June 11, 2012, 07:07:28 am
yes, that pretty much sums up what i said. no belief can be irrational or rational. rationality is determined by how you act in accordance with your belief.

Like Hitler was christian, but he was a horrible man who did horrible things, and Jesus was a christian and was a rational person who did rational things.
Whether or not you believe Jesuswas the Son of God, he still lived and did good things.
exactly. you probably just mistyped but Jesus was Jewish.
but its not just what you do, its what you do in accordance with your beliefs. doign good deeds doesnt neccecarily mean you are rational.
if my belief is that kicking puppies means i go to heaven, and i spend all day kicking puppies, i would be acting rational in accordance with my belief.
until someone figures out a way to disprove the fact that theoretically any belief could be true, rationality must be determined by its coexistence with belief.
and thus any bad deed can be considered rational for a given belief set.

Jesus had christian veiws. But let's not get into an argument about it.
If Hitler had a religion in which killing jews was a regular practice, he would be rational. But that does not mean he would have been good.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Jenkar on June 11, 2012, 07:12:28 am
In his own moral views, yes it'd mean that.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Absol on June 11, 2012, 08:12:44 am
Wow. Godwin's law. And in a way i've never seen before, too.
I have nothing to say, only watching this.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: esran on June 12, 2012, 01:33:39 am
Fine. by what i have siad yes, i will admit that from the perspective of hitlers own moral beliefs, his actions are considered rational to him.
but that isnt the point im trying to make.
my point is that you shouldnt judge poeple based on their religion or beliefs, ad instead judge them based on the actions they take in conjuction with those beliefs.
in cases like hitler where his belief system so far differs from ours to the extent that things that are rational from his perspective are heinous and the worst of crimes from ours, empathizing is impossible, and thus we cannot judge him from his own belief system.
what my point was sopposed to be applied to was more the political arguments, and not crimes. for example, poeple who fight in wars believe that by doing so they are helping thier countries, and thus act rationally to their beliefs. poeple who protest those same wars believe the wars hurt their countries, and thus by protesting they act rationally for their beliefs. whether or not you support the war, you must judge them in conjuction totheir beliefs
more specifically i wanted to apply this to religion, but i wont list specifics for fear of offending others. suffice to say i dont care what religion you are, or if you are atheist, as longas you are not a hypocrite and act in conjuction with your own beliefs.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Jenkar on June 12, 2012, 07:19:06 am
That would be an ideal world, and it would be highly impractical.
Say, someone has the belief ''everyone should die''. And acts accordingly. He'd destroy the society, therefore placing the value ''good'' on him is a social suicide. Hence why people are judged by peopllre's bias and not their own.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on June 12, 2012, 03:00:19 pm
It is irrational to attempt to use a Means that will create Consequences opposite of the Intent.

Irrationality is not the only thing we use to judge the beliefs of others. Usually a persons beliefs are judged by their moral philosophy and those of others.

It is entirely likely that there exists a rational person that believes a/an intent/means/consequence is moral that you find immoral. This does not make the belief irrational.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Jenkar on June 12, 2012, 03:07:51 pm
The interesting thing is when you try to take out your own subjectivity, and set your judgment by the concordance of the one who you judge's actions and his/her own set of moral values (instead of using your own set of moral values as measuring stick). However, that behaviour is very inhuman and as said above, wouldn't work in society.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Heavenscall on June 12, 2012, 08:30:16 pm
Interesting thread and i, as a religous man try to give my answer. ( I don´t read all sites before )

I am a protestant christian and believe in what the bible says. I believe that god calls me and thats why i become a christian. It´s not the most important fact, that your parents are religous or not. My parents are religous, but how they life was not the best example and so my brother don´t want to be religous. On the other hand i know some missionaries and what they see / what happens when they speak about god in different countries. So i am pretty sure, that no matter i was born in germany (where i come from) or maybe egypt or somewhere else - i maybe startet with a different religion, but god would call me again and i become a christian. For sure, i can´t prove that, but i know many guys they change there religion after god spoke to them.

I hope my english is possible to understand ;-)

greetings, heaven
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Asinickle on June 12, 2012, 11:33:09 pm
Atheist here, born of atheistic parents.
Hard to say how I'd be if I had theistic parents, since... I'd have been raised different, and that person wouldn't really be me. But if my mental processes turned out as they did for the actual me, then I would become an atheist anyways, probably somewhere around age 11-14
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 16, 2012, 11:41:23 am
Sorry for the thread necromancy, but this has been an interesting read, and there was one point in particular I wanted to comment on.


OldTrees, surely if God did actually exist, it would be possible for there to be evidence that he did?  Therefore the null hypothesis is a perfectly valid tool in assessing the likelihood of his existence.


Furthermore, I'd have to ask what the difference is between a God who exists and makes no detectable impact on the universe whatsoever, and a God who simply doesn't exist.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on October 16, 2012, 01:12:12 pm
Sorry for the thread necromancy, but this has been an interesting read, and there was one point in particular I wanted to comment on.


OldTrees, surely if God did actually exist, it would be possible for there to be evidence that he did?  Therefore the null hypothesis is a perfectly valid tool in assessing the likelihood of his existence.


Furthermore, I'd have to ask what the difference is between a God who exists and makes no detectable impact on the universe whatsoever, and a God who simply doesn't exist.

If God did actually exist, it would be possible but not necessary for there to be evidence that he did. Therefore the null hypothesis is not a valid tool in assessing the likelihood of its existence. If this possible but not necessary evidence was discovered then it would impact our assessment. However since it does not necessarily exist if god exists, its absence does not impact our assessment.
Analogy: There may or may not be glass in that window a mile away. If there were glass the glass might be stained glass. If it were stained glass we could see it from a mile away. Not seeing the colors of stained glass is evidence of it not being stained glass not evidence of it not being glass.
Key: god = glass, possible but not necessary evidence = possible but not necessary staining

The difference between undetectable impact (afterlife, souls, ...) and no impact. [Not a difference I care about, but some would care about it.]
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 16, 2012, 06:13:36 pm
If God did actually exist, it would be possible but not necessary for there to be evidence that he did. Therefore the null hypothesis is not a valid tool in assessing the likelihood of its existence.

Perhaps not in the strict scientific/statistical sense, however the general idea that things don't exist unless there is evidence to suggest they do is a good one.  Otherwise you end up with an infinite number of things which you can say there is no evidence for which do nonetheless exist.  And I mean "infinite" literally. 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster may be an over-used parody, but I think that the one really clever thing about it is that the doctrine explicitly states that there is no evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because he specifically changes the results of any experiments which might indicate his existence by hand.  Which means that it actually becomes a more credible explanation than the Judeo-Christian God, as he is reported to show himself to humans and interact with the world all the time.

Quote
If this possible but not necessary evidence was discovered then it would impact our assessment. However since it does not necessarily exist if god exists, its absence does not impact our assessment.

Again, I disagree.  That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  I see no reason to give credence to any proposition which has no evidence whatsoever to support it.  And, if I did, I would have to give equal credence to every proposition which was presented without evidence.

Quote
Analogy: There may or may not be glass in that window a mile away. If there were glass the glass might be stained glass. If it were stained glass we could see it from a mile away. Not seeing the colors of stained glass is evidence of it not being stained glass not evidence of it not being glass.
Key: god = glass, possible but not necessary evidence = possible but not necessary staining

Sorry, but that's a poor analogy.  We can see light reflected off the glass.  We can buy a telescope to see the glass.  We can walk the mile to see in person whether there is glass.  We can use a gun to shoot it to see if it shatters.  There are any number of ways in which we can check whether there is glass there or not. 

There is no analogy for this proposition, unless it's essentially the same proposition.  In this case, for your analogy to be accurate the glass would have to be said to be in the frame yet it was utterly invisible to any form of perception, it didn't hinder the passage of matter through it...unless, basically, this glass was utterly indistinguishable from there being no glass whatsoever, no matter how you tried to test it.  And, in that analogy, I think it's entirely reasonable (not to mention logical) to work under the premise that there is, in fact, no glass in the window, unless you're presented with evidence that there is.

Quote
The difference between undetectable impact (afterlife, souls, ...) and no impact. [Not a difference I care about, but some would care about it.]

The existence of these things doesn't necessarily imply the existence of God, and the existence of God doesn't necessarily imply the existence of these things. 

To go back to the window analogy, if there's glass in the window which is transparent and doesn't interact with matter or energy in any way and is therefore utterly indistinguishable from there being no glass in the window, then what's the difference between that glass being in the window and no glass being in the window?
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on October 16, 2012, 08:00:48 pm
If God did actually exist, it would be possible but not necessary for there to be evidence that he did. Therefore the null hypothesis is not a valid tool in assessing the likelihood of its existence.

Perhaps not in the strict scientific/statistical sense, however the general idea that things don't exist unless there is evidence to suggest they do is a good one.  Otherwise you end up with an infinite number of things which you can say there is no evidence for which do nonetheless exist.  And I mean "infinite" literally. 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster may be an over-used parody, but I think that the one really clever thing about it is that the doctrine explicitly states that there is no evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because he specifically changes the results of any experiments which might indicate his existence by hand.  Which means that it actually becomes a more credible explanation than the Judeo-Christian God, as he is reported to show himself to humans and interact with the world all the time.
The general idea that things don't exist unless there is evidence to suggest they do is a fallacious idea that has been used to attack theists without reason. The valid version would be to either believe or disbelieve things that have no possibility for evidence either way. This version solves the infinite things problem and does not claim more than it can support.

Quote
If this possible but not necessary evidence was discovered then it would impact our assessment. However since it does not necessarily exist if god exists, its absence does not impact our assessment.

Again, I disagree.  That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  I see no reason to give credence to any proposition which has no evidence whatsoever to support it.  And, if I did, I would have to give equal credence to every proposition which was presented without evidence.
Uh, when did I mention presentation/proposition? If someone wanted to convince you to change your position then they would need to provide evidence. Someone does not need to provide evidence to defend their position if you do not provide evidence for why they should change their position. The quote "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." is part of the evidence I am using to convince you of my claim that the attacker has the burden of proof and that the attacker has an impossible task.

Quote
Analogy: There may or may not be glass in that window a mile away. If there were glass the glass might be stained glass. If it were stained glass we could see it from a mile away. Not seeing the colors of stained glass is evidence of it not being stained glass not evidence of it not being glass.
Key: god = glass, possible but not necessary evidence = possible but not necessary staining

Sorry, but that's a poor analogy.  We can see light reflected off the glass.  We can buy a telescope to see the glass.  We can walk the mile to see in person whether there is glass.  We can use a gun to shoot it to see if it shatters.  There are any number of ways in which we can check whether there is glass there or not. 

There is no analogy for this proposition, unless it's essentially the same proposition.  In this case, for your analogy to be accurate the glass would have to be said to be in the frame yet it was utterly invisible to any form of perception, it didn't hinder the passage of matter through it...unless, basically, this glass was utterly indistinguishable from there being no glass whatsoever, no matter how you tried to test it.  And, in that analogy, I think it's entirely reasonable (not to mention logical) to work under the premise that there is, in fact, no glass in the window, unless you're presented with evidence that there is.
The analogy was used to demonstrate the relation between existance/nonexistance and the observation of/absence of related possible but not necessary evidence. Since none of the differences you observed related to the relationship, it was a good analogy.

Quote
The difference between undetectable impact (afterlife, souls, ...) and no impact. [Not a difference I care about, but some would care about it.]

The existence of these things doesn't necessarily imply the existence of God, and the existence of God doesn't necessarily imply the existence of these things. 
The difference was between undetectable impact and no impact. Those were possible not necessary examples listed.
As I said, I do not care about the difference between undetectable impact and no impact but some would care.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 16, 2012, 08:51:58 pm
The general idea that things don't exist unless there is evidence to suggest they do is a fallacious idea that has been used to attack theists without reason.

Why is it fallacious?  That it has been used to attack theists certainly doesn't imply that it is therefore wrong.

Quote
The valid version would be to either believe or disbelieve things that have no possibility for evidence either way. This version solves the infinite things problem and does not claim more than it can support.

How does it solve the problem? 

Quote
Uh, when did I mention presentation/proposition?

The proposition is that God exists.  In fact, more, it's that the specific God of the believer exists, as opposed to the infinite number of other Gods which must be deemed equally possible, as there is no evidence for any of them.

Quote
Someone does not need to provide evidence to defend their position if you do not provide evidence for why they should change their position.

There may not be direct evidence that God does not exist.  As has been noted often, it's not possible to prove the negative.  However, there is certainly plenty of evidence that God is not necessary in order for the universe to exist as it does.  In fact, were this not true, then our hypothetical theist wouldn't be arguing for a God for which there is no evidence.  There is also evidence that God is an invention of mankind.  There is also evidence of the cognitive biases and superstitious modes of thought which can cause animals such as ourselves to fool ourselves into attaching meaning to things which do not have the meaning that we attach to them. 

There's quite a lot of evidence which make God both unlikely and unnecessary.  Weighed against that is no evidence whatsoever that he exists.

So, yes, I can provide evidence for why our hypothetical theist (for the sake of my not typing that out over and over again, I'm going to call him Theo from now on) should consider changing his position.

Quote
The quote "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." is part of the evidence I am using to convince you of my claim that the attacker has the burden of proof and that the attacker has an impossible task.

No, again, I don't accept this premise.  The logical position is to assume that something doesn't exist unless there is cause to believe that it does.  Theo is presenting the idea of a deity, and therefore has the burden of proof for establishing this to be the case.

I'm also curious as to how you've determined which side is "the attacker" in this instance.  Surely, if you take the two statements "God exists" and "God does not exist", then the only thing being "attacked" is the null hypothesis?  By defining the atheist as "the attacker" you're implying that "God exists" is, in fact, the null hypothesis.  I would contend that Theo is the person attacking the null hypothesis by stating that an entity for which there is no evidence exists.

Quote
The analogy was used to demonstrate the relation between existance/nonexistance and the observation of/absence of related possible but not necessary evidence. Since none of the differences you observed related to the relationship, it was a good analogy.

No, I'm sorry.  I don't want to get into one of those "arguing about arguing" exchanges, but your analogy relies on there being no way to tell if glass a mile away exists unless it's stained.  This is absolutely false, and so the analogy falls down at the first hurdle. 
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on October 16, 2012, 09:45:18 pm
The general idea that things don't exist unless there is evidence to suggest they do is a fallacious idea that has been used to attack theists without reason.
Why is it fallacious?  That it has been used to attack theists certainly doesn't imply that it is therefore wrong.
It is biased towards an answer without reason for the bias. Since its bias is unsupported it is fallacious to accept that bias without further evidence.

Quote
The valid version would be to either believe or disbelieve things that have no possibility for evidence either way. This version solves the infinite things problem and does not claim more than it can support.

How does it solve the problem?
Either belief or disbelief is valid when there is no possibility for evidence either way. Thus the starting position is acceptable. Thus there is no need to evaluate the existance/nonexistance of each of the infinite things that have no possibility for evidence either way.

Quote
Uh, when did I mention presentation/proposition?
The proposition is that God exists.  In fact, more, it's that the specific God of the believer exists, as opposed to the infinite number of other Gods which must be deemed equally possible, as there is no evidence for any of them.
The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism. This is a very important detail. I have never supported an assertion that god does or does not exist. Therefore unless you are supporting one of those assertions then neither of those assertions is being defended as part of this discussion.

Quote
Someone does not need to provide evidence to defend their position if you do not provide evidence for why they should change their position.
There may not be direct evidence that God does not exist.  As has been noted often, it's not possible to prove the negative.  However, there is certainly plenty of evidence that God is not necessary in order for the universe to exist as it does.  In fact, were this not true, then our hypothetical theist wouldn't be arguing for a God for which there is no evidence.  There is also evidence that God is an invention of mankind.  There is also evidence of the cognitive biases and superstitious modes of thought which can cause animals such as ourselves to fool ourselves into attaching meaning to things which do not have the meaning that we attach to them. 

There's quite a lot of evidence which make God both unlikely and unnecessary.  Weighed against that is no evidence whatsoever that he exists.

So, yes, I can provide evidence for why our hypothetical theist (for the sake of my not typing that out over and over again, I'm going to call him Theo from now on) should consider changing his position.
1) The hypothetical individual is not arguing/proposing/asserting. (I use individual because the next necro might be a theist and I want to cover both sides)
2) God not being necessary is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.
3) Religion possibly being an invention of humanity is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.
4) You have provided no evidence to the likelihood of a deity other than it is less than 100%*. You did not provide any support for your conclusion that a deity is unlikely.
5) Something being unnecessary has no impact on whether it exists or not.
*Actually you merely provided evidence that the likelihood was not necessarily 100%. Existence is binary and thus likelihood for existence is also binary.

Quote
The quote "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." is part of the evidence I am using to convince you of my claim that the attacker has the burden of proof and that the attacker has an impossible task.

No, again, I don't accept this premise.  The logical position is to assume that something doesn't exist unless there is cause to believe that it does.  Theo is presenting the idea of a deity, and therefore has the burden of proof for establishing this to be the case.

I'm also curious as to how you've determined which side is "the attacker" in this instance.  Surely, if you take the two statements "God exists" and "God does not exist", then the only thing being "attacked" is the null hypothesis?  By defining the atheist as "the attacker" you're implying that "God exists" is, in fact, the null hypothesis.  I would contend that Theo is the person attacking the null hypothesis by stating that an entity for which there is no evidence exists.
1) Theo is not presenting the idea of a deity. The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism.

2)If John, a theist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then John would be the attacker.
If Jill, an atheist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then Jill would be the attacker.
If Jane, a theist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jane would be the attacker.
If Jonny, an atheist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jonny would be the attacker.
Since John, Jill, Jane and Jonny all attempted to persuade without using evidence, they can be rejected without evidence by Thelma and Theo.

3) Usually there are 2 attackers in an argument and only 1 during proselytizing.


Quote
The analogy was used to demonstrate the relation between existance/nonexistance and the observation of/absence of related possible but not necessary evidence. Since none of the differences you observed related to the relationship, it was a good analogy.

No, I'm sorry.  I don't want to get into one of those "arguing about arguing" exchanges, but your analogy relies on there being no way to tell if glass a mile away exists unless it's stained.  This is absolutely false, and so the analogy falls down at the first hurdle.
How does it rely on there being no way to tell if glass a mile away exists unless it's stained? The analogy is merely being used to demonstrate the absence of staining is not evidence of the absence of glass. No analogy is perfect. However an analogy is deemed valid if there is no difference that reflects on how the analogy is being used. Since I was using the analogy to give a concrete example of "possible but not necessary" AND none of the differences were related to this, the analogy is valid for its usage.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 17, 2012, 12:22:29 am
A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 17, 2012, 07:17:53 am
It is biased towards an answer without reason for the bias. Since its bias is unsupported it is fallacious to accept that bias without further evidence.

I don't agree that there is no reason for the bias. 

I tell you that I have an invisible, intangible, inaudible dancing pink unicorn which lives in my flat and brings me ice cream sandwiches in bed.  Are you seriously contending that there's no reason whatsoever to start from the premise that I'm lying, mistaken or deluded?  Or would you accept that starting from the premise that such a being doesn't exist unless there's evidence that he does is a good idea?

Quote
Either belief or disbelief is valid when there is no possibility for evidence either way. Thus the starting position is acceptable. Thus there is no need to evaluate the existance/nonexistance of each of the infinite things that have no possibility for evidence either way.

I still don't understand how your final sentence follows logically from your first two.

Quote
The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism.

Yes it is. 

Quote
1) The hypothetical individual is not arguing/proposing/asserting. (I use individual because the next necro might be a theist and I want to cover both sides)

Yes they are.  A theist, by definition, asserts that a deity or deities exist.

Quote
2) God not being necessary is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.

It's not a disproof of anything.  But it is indirect evidence that God does not exist.

Quote
3) Religion possibly being an invention of humanity is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.

Again, it's not a disproof of anything.  But it is evidence that God does not exist.

Quote
4) You have provided no evidence to the likelihood of a deity other than it is less than 100%*. You did not provide any support for your conclusion that a deity is unlikely.

I have.  And I'm afraid that just stating that I haven't isn't a counter-argument.

Quote
5) Something being unnecessary has no impact on whether it exists or not.

All other things being equal, the explanation with the fewest entities is to be preferred.

Quote
*Actually you merely provided evidence that the likelihood was not necessarily 100%. Existence is binary and thus likelihood for existence is also binary.

Something being binary does not mean that the probability of either hypothesis being true is 50%. 

Quote
1) Theo is not presenting the idea of a deity. The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism.

Yes he is, and yes it is.  By definition.

Quote
2)If John, a theist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then John would be the attacker.
If Jill, an atheist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then Jill would be the attacker.
If Jane, a theist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jane would be the attacker.
If Jonny, an atheist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jonny would be the attacker.
Since John, Jill, Jane and Jonny all attempted to persuade without using evidence, they can be rejected without evidence by Thelma and Theo.

3) Usually there are 2 attackers in an argument and only 1 during proselytizing.

You seem to be talking as if we're discussing a hypothetical argument between two people, rather than what the actual nature of reality is.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 17, 2012, 07:18:31 am
A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?

You're right that it's not proof.  Nobody is claiming proof of anything.  But it is evidence.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on October 17, 2012, 08:03:15 am
It is biased towards an answer without reason for the bias. Since its bias is unsupported it is fallacious to accept that bias without further evidence.

I don't agree that there is no reason for the bias. 

I tell you that I have an invisible, intangible, inaudible dancing pink unicorn which lives in my flat and brings me ice cream sandwiches in bed.  Are you seriously contending that there's no reason whatsoever to start from the premise that I'm lying, mistaken or deluded?  Or would you accept that starting from the premise that such a being doesn't exist unless there's evidence that he does is a good idea?
Prior to your assertion I would have defaulted to the starting position on the topic.
After your assertion I would evaluate your argument to see if it convinced me to abandon my starting position or whether it was insufficient.
The particular subject matter renders your task of making a convincing argument impossible so I would remain at my starting position.
I see no rational reason to hold either starting position is an inferior starting position.

Quote
Either belief or disbelief is valid when there is no possibility for evidence either way. Thus the starting position is acceptable. Thus there is no need to evaluate the existance/nonexistance of each of the infinite things that have no possibility for evidence either way.

I still don't understand how your final sentence follows logically from your first two.
If there is no reason to change ones position without evidence on topics without the possibility for evidence either way, then there is no reason to waste time and effort considering if one should change ones position on those topics.

Quote
The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism.

Yes it is. A theist, by definition, asserts that a deity or deities exist.
A theist, by definition, believes that a deity or deities exist.
Do you mean "holds a belief" when you say "assert" or are you using the common definition of "trying to persuade others this is the case"?

Quote
2) God not being necessary is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.

It's not a disproof of anything.  But it is indirect evidence that God does not exist.
It is not necessary for you to be human in order to breathe air. Is this indirect evidence that you are not human?

Quote
3) Religion possibly being an invention of humanity is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.

Again, it's not a disproof of anything.  But it is evidence that God does not exist.
Since the invention of religion could happen even if god existed, then religion being an invention is not evidence that god does not exist.

Quote
4) You have provided no evidence to the likelihood of a deity other than it is less than 100%*. You did not provide any support for your conclusion that a deity is unlikely.

I have.  And I'm afraid that just stating that I haven't isn't a counter-argument.
The obvious counter arguments are now included. I had expected you to see them upon reflection previously.

Quote
5) Something being unnecessary has no impact on whether it exists or not.
All other things being equal, the explanation with the fewest entities is to be preferred.
Misuse of Occam's_razor
It deals with parsimony not probability.

Quote
*Actually you merely provided evidence that the likelihood was not necessarily 100%. Existence is binary and thus likelihood for existence is also binary.

Something being binary does not mean that the probability of either hypothesis being true is 50%. 
Binary means:
If X then the probability of X is 100%. If !X then the probability of X is 0%. Binary is 0s and 1s corresponding to 0% and 100%.

Quote
2)If John, a theist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then John would be the attacker.
If Jill, an atheist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then Jill would be the attacker.
If Jane, a theist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jane would be the attacker.
If Jonny, an atheist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jonny would be the attacker.
Since John, Jill, Jane and Jonny all attempted to persuade without using evidence, they can be rejected without evidence by Thelma and Theo.

3) Usually there are 2 attackers in an argument and only 1 during proselytizing.

You seem to be talking as if we're discussing a hypothetical argument between two people, rather than what the actual nature of reality is.
Assertions result from someone trying to persuade another person not from merely silently believing something. We are discussing the rationality of assertions and silent beliefs. (You have been reading what I wrote and my replies correct? This should not be a surprise.)
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 17, 2012, 12:04:21 pm
A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?

You're right that it's not proof.  Nobody is claiming proof of anything.  But it is evidence.

You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: BluePriest on October 17, 2012, 11:13:43 pm
A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?

You're right that it's not proof.  Nobody is claiming proof of anything.  But it is evidence.

You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.

To further expand, and try and stop a rebuttal  I see coming, you can see an atom with a telescope, but we previously didnt have any way to see them. Perhaps there is a way to see some type of god that isnt normally visible with the standard human perception. Who knows, we may develop god seeing goggles since we have night and heat seeing goggles. People arguing that atoms didnt exist because they couldnt be seen probably felt like fools once a way to detect them was created.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 18, 2012, 12:16:42 am
We can't really see an atom yet, more of like molecules blurred to look spherical. Up to now the internal structure of an atom is still theorized. And we wouldn't be able to invent deo seeking goggles becuz of we do we become god, being able to see what a god sees.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on October 18, 2012, 04:59:07 am
A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?

You're right that it's not proof.  Nobody is claiming proof of anything.  But it is evidence.

You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.

To further expand, and try and stop a rebuttal  I see coming, you can see an atom with a telescope, but we previously didnt have any way to see them. Perhaps there is a way to see some type of god that isnt normally visible with the standard human perception. Who knows, we may develop god seeing goggles since we have night and heat seeing goggles. People arguing that atoms didnt exist because they couldnt be seen probably felt like fools once a way to detect them was created.
This version of god would fall into the "If evidence necessarily would exist if it exists, then lack of evidence is evidence of lack" scenario. Atoms had the same situation until evidence was discovered about their structure and later were able to be seen.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 18, 2012, 09:14:11 am
Prior to your assertion I would have defaulted to the starting position on the topic.
After your assertion I would evaluate your argument to see if it convinced me to abandon my starting position or whether it was insufficient.
The particular subject matter renders your task of making a convincing argument impossible so I would remain at my starting position.

And what is your starting position on the existence or otherwise of my unicorn?  And can you please explain your reasoning.

I see no rational reason to hold either starting position is an inferior starting position.

Quote
If there is no reason to change ones position without evidence on topics without the possibility for evidence either way, then there is no reason to waste time and effort considering if one should change ones position on those topics.

Your initial position not being logical or rational is a reason to change your position.

Quote
A theist, by definition, believes that a deity or deities exist.
Do you mean "holds a belief" when you say "assert" or are you using the common definition of "trying to persuade others this is the case"?

"Assert" does not necessarily mean trying to persuade anybody of anything. 

Quote
It is not necessary for you to be human in order to breathe air. Is this indirect evidence that you are not human?

False equivalence.  God, in this instance, is being posited as an explanation for the existence of the world as we currently understand it to exist.  God not being necessary for the world as we currently understand it to exist is evidence against the existence of God.

Quote
Since the invention of religion could happen even if god existed, then religion being an invention is not evidence that god does not exist.

No, it is not proof, but it is evidence.  That, say, the God of the Church of Jesus Christ And The Latter Day Saints exists yet mankind only came to know this through the circuitous route of developing the Sumerian and Canaanite religions, from there venerating Yahweh the God of War above the others, this becoming a monotheistic religion known as Judaism, which then became Christianity, from which emerged Joseph Smith's Mormonism, which became the Church of Jesus Christ and the Later Day Saints is less probable than that God doesn't exist and that these stories are just stories.  Especially as we're talking about a God who has no influence on the world whatsoever, which would necessarily mean that he didn't influence these religions whatsoever, which would mean that Thomas S. Monson has ended up landing on the truth by pure chance.

Surely you don't disagree that the probability of someone alighting on the exact truth by chance in amongst a literally infinite number of possible alternatives is infinitely small?

Quote
The obvious counter arguments are now included. I had expected you to see them upon reflection previously.

You had expected to say "no you're wrong" and for me to simply agree with you?  Not to be rude, but that's a little ironic, given that you're arguing that one should not change one's position unless given cause to do so.

Quote
Misuse of Occam's_razor
It deals with parsimony not probability.

And the parsimonious explanation is to be preferred.

Quote
If X then the probability of X is 100%. If !X then the probability of X is 0%. Binary is 0s and 1s corresponding to 0% and 100%.

This is a strange argument to be making.  Obviously something either exists or it doesn't.  But we're talking about assessing the probability of something existing.  If I draw a card from a deck and hold it face down and ask you what colour it is, then the probability of the card being red is 100% if I drew a red card or 0% if I drew a black card, but all you can tell is that the probability of drawing a red card is 50%.  In that situation, were I to draw a card and ask you what you thought the probability of it being red was, would you honestly say "either 100% or 0%"?  Because that's the least useful application of probability I've ever heard of.

Now, leaving aside the cards, what we're assessing is not whether or not God exists, but what the probability is that someone who states that God exists is correct.  This probability is not 50%.  There being 2 possible outcomes does not make those two possibilities equally probable.  If I roll a fair 6-sided die then I can either roll a 1 or I can not roll a 1.  Despite this, the probability of me rolling a 1 is 16.66%, not 50%.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 18, 2012, 09:18:06 am
You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.

Atoms are perceptible. 
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 18, 2012, 09:23:00 am
People arguing that atoms didnt exist because they couldnt be seen probably felt like fools once a way to detect them was created.

If God can be proven to exist, then I will begin to believe in the existence of God.  I will not, however, feel like a fool for having based my thinking on empiricism, logic and scepticism.  I will still be using the same process in my belief of God - believing to be true what the evidence indicates is true.  Why should I feel a fool for doing so?  I would be a fool if I denied evidence in order to reach a conclusion that I wanted to reach, but reaching an incorrect conclusion because of a lack of data with which to reach the correct conclusion?  There's absolutely nothing foolish about that.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 18, 2012, 09:47:41 am
You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.

Atoms are perceptible.

This is not convincing at all...........
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 18, 2012, 09:57:10 am
This is not convincing at all...........

What would it take to convince you that atoms are perceptible?  If you believe that they are not, then how do you imagine particle accelerators work?
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 18, 2012, 10:09:06 am
I do believe in atoms. However, if this statement was to argue to someone who is completely against atoms, it would be totally useless.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on October 18, 2012, 10:22:32 am
Prior to your assertion I would have defaulted to the starting position on the topic.
After your assertion I would evaluate your argument to see if it convinced me to abandon my starting position or whether it was insufficient.
The particular subject matter renders your task of making a convincing argument impossible so I would remain at my starting position.

And what is your starting position on the existence or otherwise of my unicorn?  And can you please explain your reasoning.
My starting position is what I believed when I developed from a child into a fully rational pre adult. My upbringing did not mention intangible unicorns so my starting position on the topic of intangible unicorns is one of disbelief.

Quote
I see no rational reason to hold either starting position is an inferior starting position.

If there is no reason to change ones position without evidence on topics without the possibility for evidence either way, then there is no reason to waste time and effort considering if one should change ones position on those topics.
Your initial position not being logical or rational is a reason to change your position.
When there is no possible evidence, neither position is irrational. Therefore there is no reason to waste time considering your starting position on each of the infinite topics that have no possible evidence.

Quote
A theist, by definition, believes that a deity or deities exist.
Do you mean "holds a belief" when you say "assert" or are you using the common definition of "trying to persuade others this is the case"?

"Assert" does not necessarily mean trying to persuade anybody of anything. 
You need to define your terms. Then you need to defend your claim that your terms have the same relation to burden of proof the normal usage of the terms do.
Especially address the phrases: "I think X" and "I claim X".

Sidenote: I may be misinterpreting your claim. However your claim that people need to defend silent beliefs is rather enraging.


Quote
It is not necessary for you to be human in order to breathe air. Is this indirect evidence that you are not human?

False equivalence.  God, in this instance, is being posited as an explanation for the existence of the world as we currently understand it to exist.  God not being necessary for the world as we currently understand it to exist is evidence against the existence of God.
False. God not being necessary for the world to exist is merely evidence that god is not necessary for the world to exist. The melting of ice is not necessary to the formation of liquid water (vapor can condense). Is this evidence against ice melting? No. It is the listing of other possibilities.
"X is not necessary for Y is evidence of not X" is the form of your argument.
Being human is not necessary for you breathing air is evidence against you being human.


Quote
Since the invention of religion could happen even if god existed, then religion being an invention is not evidence that god does not exist.

No, it is not proof, but it is evidence.  That, say, the God of the Church of Jesus Christ And The Latter Day Saints exists yet mankind only came to know this through the circuitous route of developing the Sumerian and Canaanite religions, from there venerating Yahweh the God of War above the others, this becoming a monotheistic religion known as Judaism, which then became Christianity, from which emerged Joseph Smith's Mormonism, which became the Church of Jesus Christ and the Later Day Saints is less probable than that God doesn't exist and that these stories are just stories.  Especially as we're talking about a God who has no influence on the world whatsoever, which would necessarily mean that he didn't influence these religions whatsoever, which would mean that Thomas S. Monson has ended up landing on the truth by pure chance.

Surely you don't disagree that the probability of someone alighting on the exact truth by chance in amongst a literally infinite number of possible alternatives is infinitely small?
Since the probability of someone inventing Christianity and the probability of Christianity being correct. are independant, the probability of someone inventing Christianity is irrelevant to the probability of Christianity being correct. (Replace Christianity with any religion that has a deity)


Quote
The obvious counter arguments are now included. I had expected you to see them upon reflection previously.

You had expected to say "no you're wrong" and for me to simply agree with you?  Not to be rude, but that's a little ironic, given that you're arguing that one should not change one's position unless given cause to do so.
I have found that people tend to notice when they misread something if they are merely notified. Usually in depth correction of a misreading is insulting.

You believe you are arguing against an ignorant theist and thus used arguments meant to address certain arguments that ignorant theists present. I had hoped you would have taken my hint and noticed that I was not using God being necessary or Religion being inspired as premises. I had hoped you would have noticed that either of those details would mean that evidence would necessarily exist if God existed (why god would be necessary/how the inspiration occured). Since my premise is there is no necessary evidence that would exist if God existed, obviously you were not addressing my argument and thus I assumed you misread.

Quote
Misuse of Occam's_razor
It deals with parsimony not probability.

And the parsimonious explanation is to be preferred.
I do not see a preference outside of model building. There is no preference when comparing scientific models. Why would there be a preference when comparing topics science can't touch due to lack of possibility of evidence?
Quote
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

Quote
If X then the probability of X is 100%. If !X then the probability of X is 0%. Binary is 0s and 1s corresponding to 0% and 100%.

This is a strange argument to be making.  Obviously something either exists or it doesn't.  But we're talking about assessing the probability of something existing.  If I draw a card from a deck and hold it face down and ask you what colour it is, then the probability of the card being red is 100% if I drew a red card or 0% if I drew a black card, but all you can tell is that the probability of drawing a red card is 50%.  In that situation, were I to draw a card and ask you what you thought the probability of it being red was, would you honestly say "either 100% or 0%"?  Because that's the least useful application of probability I've ever heard of.

Now, leaving aside the cards, what we're assessing is not whether or not God exists, but what the probability is that someone who states that God exists is correct.  This probability is not 50%.  There being 2 possible outcomes does not make those two possibilities equally probable.  If I roll a fair 6-sided die then I can either roll a 1 or I can not roll a 1.  Despite this, the probability of me rolling a 1 is 16.66%, not 50%.
Theoretical past events have determined states. Theoretical future events have probabilistic outcomes. This detail is often used to explain how "unlikely" things like evolution are not unlikely to have occurred. (related to the Anthropic Principle)
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 18, 2012, 10:45:56 am
I do believe in atoms. However, if this statement was to argue to someone who is completely against atoms, it would be totally useless.

I have no need to convince anybody of the existence of atoms, as atoms are perceptible and therefore there is evidence of their existence.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 18, 2012, 11:11:06 am
My starting position is what I believed when I developed from a child into a fully rational pre adult.

How do you determine exactly when you developed from a child into a "fully rational pre adult"?  What are your criteria for this?

Quote
When there is no possible evidence, neither position is irrational.

I disagree.  The rational position is not to believe in something unless there is reason to believe in it.

Quote
You need to define your terms. Then you need to defend your claim that your terms have the same relation to burden of proof the normal usage of the terms do.

An assertion in the sense I'm using it is no different to any other statement.  If someone is making a positive assertion about something, the burden of proof is upon them.

Quote
Especially address the phrases: "I think X" and "I claim X".

I don't think I've used either of those phrases, and am not sure whether you're using "I" there to mean me, or to mean a hypothetical person saying something, be that Theo or a hypothetical atheist.  Furthermore, I don't know whether you're asking me to define the words "think" and "claim", or whether you're asking me to fill in what "X" is in my own personal estimation.  So I can't answer that without you being a little clearer.

Quote
Sidenote: I may be misinterpreting your claim. However your claim that people need to defend silent beliefs is rather enraging.

I've not said that anybody needs to defend anything.  I also find it extremely curious that you've found anything in this conversation "enraging".  Rage is an extremely strong emotion to have and perhaps, if this is the reaction you're having to what I've thus far considered to be a friendly discussion of differing viewpoints, then we should simply leave it here.

Quote
God not being necessary for the world to exist is merely evidence that god is not necessary for the world to exist. The melting of ice is not necessary to the formation of liquid water (vapor can condense). Is this evidence against ice melting? No. It is the listing of other possibilities.

Vapour condensing is not a more parsimonious explanation for the formation of water than ice melting, and vice versa.

Quote
Since the probability of someone inventing Christianity and the probability of Christianity being correct. are independant, the probability of someone inventing Christianity is irrelevant to the probability of Christianity being correct. (Replace Christianity with any religion that has a deity)

There is no "probability" of someone inventing Christianity.  The history of Christianity is a matter of historical record.  The history of Christianity as developed from Yahwism is taught in seminary.  It's as much fact as anything from 4,000 years ago can be said to be.

So, given this, the probability of any one of them being correct is relevant.  And the probability of any of them being correct by pure chance in amongst the infinite alternatives is infinitely small.

Quote
You believe you are arguing against an ignorant theist[...]

Not only have I not even vaguely implied this, I've explicitly presented some of my arguments in a manner which directly contradicts this assertion.


Quote
I do not see a preference outside of model building. There is no preference when comparing scientific models. Why would there be a preference when comparing topics science can't touch due to lack of possibility of evidence?
Quote
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

I don't think Wikipedia is exactly the best source.

Quote
Theoretical past events have determined states. Theoretical future events have probabilistic outcomes. This detail is often used to explain how "unlikely" things like evolution are not unlikely to have occurred. (related to the Anthropic Principle)

Correct., but this doesn't address anything I've said.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on October 18, 2012, 12:23:38 pm
My starting position is what I believed when I developed from a child into a fully rational pre adult.

How do you determine exactly when you developed from a child into a "fully rational pre adult"?  What are your criteria for this?
The existence of such a point is all I need for my point. I will leave it to Psychologists to define the criteria and find the average moment.

Quote
When there is no possible evidence, neither position is irrational.

I disagree.  The rational position is not to believe in something unless there is reason to believe in it.
So far you have not supported your claim that people with positive starting positions should take the time to evaluate a lack of evidence against their position and be convinced to change positions. Since you have not supported this positive assertion (which is different than a positive starting position) then I see no reason to be convinced to abandon my starting position that their is no superior position when evidence cannot exist.

In order to convince you of my position I have described how when evidence is possible but not necessary its lack is not evidence of lack. Since there is no evidence of existence
and no evidence of lack there is no evidence to convince people from their starting positions. Previously I have described how the null hypothesis in science is justified by evidence of existence being necessary if existence is true. Since the justification is not applicable in this case, the bias is unsupported and should be abandoned until evidence is provided to support the bias (since if the bias were valid then support would necessarily exist).

Quote
You need to define your terms. Then you need to defend your claim that your terms have the same relation to burden of proof the normal usage of the terms do.

An assertion in the sense I'm using it is no different to any other statement.  If someone is making a positive assertion about something, the burden of proof is upon them.

Quote
Sidenote: I may be misinterpreting your claim. However your claim that people need to defend silent beliefs is rather enraging.

I've not said that anybody needs to defend anything.  I also find it extremely curious that you've found anything in this conversation "enraging".  Rage is an extremely strong emotion to have and perhaps, if this is the reaction you're having to what I've thus far considered to be a friendly discussion of differing viewpoints, then we should simply leave it here.
You claimed that the existence of a theist is an assertion of theism. This is a very inflammatory claim because it equates all theists as the type that go around asserting theism. This prejudice was enraging.
The expansion you have above seems to indicate that you do not believe the existence of a theist is the same as the existence of a theist asserting theism. If you do believe these are the same thing then I see no reason to discuss with you.

If however you agree that someone needs to assert a claim to be asserting a claim and merely believing a claim is not the same as asserting a claim, then we can discuss the nuance of the burden of proof if any that exists for those that believe but are not asserting claims.

Quote
God not being necessary for the world to exist is merely evidence that god is not necessary for the world to exist. The melting of ice is not necessary to the formation of liquid water (vapor can condense). Is this evidence against ice melting? No. It is the listing of other possibilities.

Vapour condensing is not a more parsimonious explanation for the formation of water than ice melting, and vice versa.
See wikipedia link (or further links) as a source describing parsimony as not being evidence. Since the analogy was describing how "not being necessary is not evidence of not being", the parsimony difference is not relevant to this analogy.

Quote
Since the probability of someone inventing Christianity and the probability of Christianity being correct. are independant, the probability of someone inventing Christianity is irrelevant to the probability of Christianity being correct. (Replace Christianity with any religion that has a deity)

There is no "probability" of someone inventing Christianity.  The history of Christianity is a matter of historical record.  The history of Christianity as developed from Yahwism is taught in seminary.  It's as much fact as anything from 4,000 years ago can be said to be.

So, given this, the probability of any one of them being correct is relevant.  And the probability of any of them being correct by pure chance in amongst the infinite alternatives is infinitely small.
As discussed in binary probability. The probability of an existing religion being correct is 100% or 0%. Not infinitesimal.

Quote
I do not see a preference outside of model building. There is no preference when comparing scientific models. Why would there be a preference when comparing topics science can't touch due to lack of possibility of evidence?
Quote
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

I don't think Wikipedia is exactly the best source.
Wikipedia is usually maintained by people interested in the fields the pages are on. It is much better to have a scientist talking about science as a source than either a theist or an atheist talking about god as a source. You can read the links if you find Wikipedia to be below your standard. Until you link a better source, I will go with this citation.

Quote
Theoretical past events have determined states. Theoretical future events have probabilistic outcomes. This detail is often used to explain how "unlikely" things like evolution are not unlikely to have occurred. (related to the Anthropic Principle)

Correct., but this doesn't address anything I've said.
If so then only because you were not addressing my sidenote. The above quote is my sidenote. Whether a religion is correct or mistaken is an unknown determined state. Aka a Binary (100% or 0%) probability.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 18, 2012, 02:44:03 pm
I do believe in atoms. However, if this statement was to argue to someone who is completely against atoms, it would be totally useless.

I have no need to convince anybody of the existence of atoms, as atoms are perceptible and therefore there is evidence of their existence.

You can't touch it, you can't smell it, you can't hear it. The limitation of the senses causes atoms to not be perceptible. That was why Democritus was being ridiculed by Aristotle because atoms aren't perceptible objects.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 18, 2012, 03:30:35 pm
The existence of such a point is all I need for my point.

No, not really.  You can't just say that there is a cut off point for something being someone's starting position and then say that how this starting point is defined is unimportant.  This is a premise that your entire argument is built upon.  As it is you haven't even established that such a point exists.

Quote
So far you have not supported your claim that people with positive starting positions should take the time to evaluate a lack of evidence against their position and be convinced to change positions.

You keep presenting straw men as if they were my arguments.  Please don't do this.  I had hoped for a rational discussion of the issues, but that will be impossible to do if you keep making up viewpoints for me and then arguing against those, rather than what I've actually said.

Quote
You claimed that the existence of a theist is an assertion of theism. This is a very inflammatory claim because it equates all theists as the type that go around asserting theism. This prejudice was enraging.
The expansion you have above seems to indicate that you do not believe the existence of a theist is the same as the existence of a theist asserting theism. If you do believe these are the same thing then I see no reason to discuss with you.

If however you agree that someone needs to assert a claim to be asserting a claim and merely believing a claim is not the same as asserting a claim, then we can discuss the nuance of the burden of proof if any that exists for those that believe but are not asserting claims.

This is starting to become a little bizarre.  I've explained how I'm defining the word "assert" in this conversation, yet you seem to have ignored that.  Perhaps for clarity's sake you should define how you are using the term in the above sentences.

Quote
See wikipedia link (or further links) as a source describing parsimony as not being evidence.

I wonder if you've actually read all of that Wikipedia page?  Perhaps you should read the section where it talks about Occam's own application of his Razor to the question of God's existence or otherwise.  Are you claiming the Occam did not understand the Razor correctly?

Quote
As discussed in binary probability. The probability of an existing religion being correct is 100% or 0%. Not infinitesimal.

This is another straw man.  Please read and respond to what I've actually posted.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on October 18, 2012, 03:32:26 pm
You can't touch it, you can't smell it, you can't hear it. The limitation of the senses causes atoms to not be perceptible. That was why Democritus was being ridiculed by Aristotle because atoms aren't perceptible objects.

Well, you can touch atoms, in fact.  Or, at least, the electromagnetic fields of your atoms can repel them in the manner that we class as "touching".  If that wasn't the case then you'd pass through everything.

And there's more ways of perceiving things than directly with your unaided senses.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on October 18, 2012, 08:39:42 pm
The existence of such a point is all I need for my point.

No, not really.  You can't just say that there is a cut off point for something being someone's starting position and then say that how this starting point is defined is unimportant.  This is a premise that your entire argument is built upon.  As it is you haven't even established that such a point exists.
Children undergo mental development.
Mental development eventually stops.
Adults can be rational.
Children are not completely rational.
Rationality is refined as part of mental development.
Therefore there exists a point where rationality is fully developed.
I did not say how the starting point is defined is unimportant. I said it is important but not to my argument. I said that Psychologists would be the best source for an accurate definition if you were interested in going more in depth to mental development. My argument uses the premise that people have a collection of beliefs/disbeliefs at the moment they become fully rationally that is infulenced by upbringing rather than rationality.

Quote
So far you have not supported your claim that people with positive starting positions should take the time to evaluate a lack of evidence against their position and be convinced to change positions.

You keep presenting straw men as if they were my arguments.  Please don't do this.  I had hoped for a rational discussion of the issues, but that will be impossible to do if you keep making up viewpoints for me and then arguing against those, rather than what I've actually said.
I did not intend to create a strawman. Where did I misunderstand your point?
I said people have starting positions. Some of these starting positions are beliefs rather than disbeliefs. Some of these beliefs are on topics where there is no possibility of evidence either way. You said the rational position is disbelief until evidence even in the case where evidence cannot exist. Therefore you are suggesting these people should take time to evaluate these beliefs that have no evidence against them and the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Therefore you are suggesting these people take time evaluating beliefs with no evidence either way to justify changing their position.

Quote
You claimed that the existence of a theist is an assertion of theism. This is a very inflammatory claim because it equates all theists as the type that go around asserting theism. This prejudice was enraging.
The expansion you have above seems to indicate that you do not believe the existence of a theist is the same as the existence of a theist asserting theism. If you do believe these are the same thing then I see no reason to discuss with you.

If however you agree that someone needs to assert a claim to be asserting a claim and merely believing a claim is not the same as asserting a claim, then we can discuss the nuance of the burden of proof if any that exists for those that believe but are not asserting claims.

This is starting to become a little bizarre.  I've explained how I'm defining the word "assert" in this conversation, yet you seem to have ignored that.  Perhaps for clarity's sake you should define how you are using the term in the above sentences.
A) There is a theist standing on a corner. This theist exists.
B) There is a theist standing on a corner making the claim that god exists. This theist exists and is asserting theism.
There exist A that are B however not all A are B.
Therefore the existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism. The theist must be claiming god exist rather than merely silently believing god exists for it to be an assertion.

A) There is a kantian standing on a corner. This kantian exists.
B) There is a kantian standing on a corner making the claim that Kant was correct about deontology. This kantian exists and is asserting deontology.
There exist A that are B however not all A are B.
Therefore the existence of a believer of X is not an assertion of X. The believer of X must be claiming X is true rather than merely silently believing X is true for it to be an assertion.

Quote
See wikipedia link (or further links) as a source describing parsimony as not being evidence.

I wonder if you've actually read all of that Wikipedia page?  Perhaps you should read the section where it talks about Occam's own application of his Razor to the question of God's existence or otherwise.  Are you claiming the Occam did not understand the Razor correctly?
Quote
In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of a God does not help to explain the universe better, then the idea is that atheism should be preferred (Schmitt 2005).
1) There is no claim that Occam used it this way.
2) As seen above Occam's razor is not used that way(preferring between models) in science, why would it be used that way in theology?


Quote
As discussed in binary probability. The probability of an existing religion being correct is 100% or 0%. Not infinitesimal.

This is another straw man.  Please read and respond to what I've actually posted.
How is this a strawman?
I initially claimed that past events had a fixed nature (100% or 0%). You said stuff about non binary probabilities and then agreed that past events have a fixed nature. An existent theory about the past is either correct or incorrect it is not some non binary probability of being correct. It does not have a 50% chance of being correct. It does not have an infinitesimal chance of being correct. It is either correct or incorrect.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: BluePriest on October 18, 2012, 10:54:52 pm
Ill give you a real life example, as it seems to be the only way to get one of OldTrees points across, this is related to evidence, and saying that since there is no evidence, then you dont need to come up with evidence to disprove God.

Personal Evidence of God for me.
1)Feeling his presence, not just while in church but during prayer
2)Hearing footsteps by like the classic footsteps poem during a very dark time in my life when I wanted nothing to do with God and jumped out of a moving car. I heard footsteps by me which comforted me.
3)Having the chronic knee pain that the doctors said I was going to have for the rest of my life healed during a service at church

This is personal evidence of God for me.
You ask why I believe, I list this as some of the things. Now this is my evidence of God existing. If you want to change my mind when I am not asserting to you taht he does exist, and you are asserting that he doesnt, then it is your job to do soemthing to change my mind.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 19, 2012, 05:22:09 am
The reason why a lot of people do not believe in God is because there is no evidence to support his existence. While this is true, but can you explain the mass population in Christianity then? While, there is no evidence, but the fact that I can feel his presence indicates makes me, at least, know that God exists. He has worked on me miracles too by sending me a wonderful guardian angel while I was depressed and cured me of it :).

And you can't say that science and religion are in complete oppositional sides. According to Elaine Howard Ecklund's Science vs. Religion - What scientists really think, she states that through a survey of 1500 scientists and an interview with around 250 of them, almost half of the scientists have a spiritual faith and then even a quarter of them try to consolidate the forces of religion and science together. The anthropic principle further supports the case, with that with so many factors at hand, but yet everything is twined just right so that we have the universe as we know it today. In addition, science just works. It doesn't have to work that way, like E = mc^2, or F = ma, or E = hf. It doesn't have io be that way but rather some super complex equation. But how can these equations be so simple, yet have such a huge implication?

So, if you don't believe in God, I respect that. However, sometimes, there really isn't a need for evidence to prove something like that of the existence of God.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: furballdn on October 19, 2012, 05:30:02 am
While this is true, but can you explain the mass population in Christianity then?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/World-religions.PNG/800px-World-religions.PNG)
33.32% of the world can't be wrong! It's the 66.68% of the world that is wrong!

Logically, the number of believers has nothing to do with the validity of something. During the greek times, everyone believed in the greek gods. During the medieval period, people believed the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe. That doesn't make them any more right or wrong.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 19, 2012, 05:36:12 am
My point through that is not saying that God exists. I'm explaining why so many people believe in a God even though there is no evidence to support that he exists.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: furballdn on October 19, 2012, 06:06:28 am
My point through that is not saying that God exists. I'm explaining why so many people believe in a God even though there is no evidence to support that he exists.
So many modern day people believe in god the same reason medieval people believed the world was flat and why Greeks believed in Zeus.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on October 19, 2012, 06:34:19 am
My point through that is not saying that God exists. I'm explaining why so many people believe in a God even though there is no evidence to support that he exists.
So many modern day people believe in god the same reason medieval people believed the world was flat and why Greeks believed in Zeus.
That reason might be: They were raised to see purpose in the world. Pattern matching is one of the skills humans have. It was evolutionary beneficial to be developed to the point to find patterns that do not exist in order to find more patterns that did exist (hidden predators).

God is one of the major patterns people see when looking at the world. Whether it is a real or fictional pattern is unknown.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: furballdn on October 19, 2012, 07:32:09 am
I'd definitely say societal and cultural values (the way they were brought up) contributes most to people's beliefs and thoughts.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: Absol on October 19, 2012, 12:08:10 pm
One more comment:
These days, any people are "addicted" to religion. It's like they try to escape reality through prayer and stuff.
They can't face life so they pray. In prayer, they find peace. That's what the addiction is about. Peace in life, which they can't attain normally.

My point:
1. Consider the purpose you pray
2. If you pray to escape reality, then change it
3. Pray for the strength (and courage) to face reality
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: BluePriest on October 19, 2012, 03:47:51 pm
My point through that is not saying that God exists. I'm explaining why so many people believe in a God even though there is no evidence to support that he exists.
So many modern day people believe in god the same reason medieval people believed the world was flat and why Greeks believed in Zeus.

What do you define as evidence?

Quote
Personal Evidence of God for me.
1)Feeling his presence, not just while in church but during prayer
2)Hearing footsteps by like the classic footsteps poem during a very dark time in my life when I wanted nothing to do with God and jumped out of a moving car. I heard footsteps by me which comforted me.
3)Having the chronic knee pain that the doctors said I was going to have for the rest of my life healed during a service at church

While, there is no evidence, but the fact that I can feel his presence indicates makes me, at least, know that God exists. He has worked on me miracles too by sending me a wonderful guardian angel while I was depressed and cured me of it :).


If we present evidence then it should be counteracted in a definitive way, and if you cant then Im not saying that you should convert, but I am saying that it is unwise to think people are being illogical for believing in god, and assume that they do so with no evidence whatsoever
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: OldTrees on October 20, 2012, 11:15:43 am
My point through that is not saying that God exists. I'm explaining why so many people believe in a God even though there is no evidence to support that he exists.
So many modern day people believe in god the same reason medieval people believed the world was flat and why Greeks believed in Zeus.

What do you define as evidence?
That which would be if god exists but would not be if god did not exist. (Or vice versa)

Subjective accounts that could very well be influenced by the subject could be caused by the subject rather than the outside force they ascribe to the account. Therefore it does not fulfill the second half (would not be if god did not exist).
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: BluePriest on October 20, 2012, 03:50:50 pm

Subjective accounts that could very well be influenced by the subject could be caused by the subject rather than the outside force they ascribe to the account. Therefore it does not fulfill the second half (would not be if god did not exist).

I completely agree with you.
Title: Re: How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?
Post by: ElementalDearWatson on November 01, 2012, 03:56:49 pm
It's been a while since I've posted, for which I apologise.  Life got in the way, I'm sure you know how it is.

OldTrees, it seems that this has rapidly become a discussion in which almost all of the energy is devoted to going back over points which have already been discussed.  In my experience such discussions rarely progress forwards and even more rarely end up anywhere good, especially if one of the participants has expressed anger over the issues being discussed.  I think therefore that it's best that we leave this discussion where it is.

Quote
Personal Evidence of God for me.
1)Feeling his presence, not just while in church but during prayer
2)Hearing footsteps by like the classic footsteps poem during a very dark time in my life when I wanted nothing to do with God and jumped out of a moving car. I heard footsteps by me which comforted me.
3)Having the chronic knee pain that the doctors said I was going to have for the rest of my life healed during a service at church

While I completely respect that these things are no doubt very powerful for you, and that it's entirely your right to interpret them however you wish, I don't think that they are indicative of a higher power of any kind.  What you list as 1 and 2 have alternative explanations in what is known about the way the human brain operates.  Occurrences such as these are commonplace and well understood. 

I can't comment directly on point 3 without knowing the exact details of the case, but faith healing has repeatedly failed to provide any results under controlled conditions, beyond short-term placebo effects.  Therefore, with the greatest of respect, I remain sceptical of your claim.

As I say, this is your evidence, and I cannot and will not comment on how you should interpret it.  However, it's certainly not evidence for me that any kind of deity exists, as there are alternate explanations which don't require one.
blarg: