How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?

[mesaprotector]

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.

"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 .

[bigreen69]

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 ; )

[OldTrees]

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.

[bigreen69]

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”.

[OldTrees]

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.

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 exist	Evidence against pluto can exist
Pluto exists	T	F
Pluto does not exists	F	F

	Evidence for god can exist	Evidence against god can exist
God exists	F	F
God does not exists	F	F

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.

[ddevans96]

...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.

[bigreen69]

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.

[furballdn]

Just going to post this little comic here.

[whatifidogetcaught?]

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.

[OldTrees]

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).

[ddevans96]

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.

[bigreen69]

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.