Beliefs, Religion and Faith.

[Assume Nothing]

Religion isnt harmless it stops us doubting. It stops people thinking and questioning reality. The presence of God and his assumed communications is too often cited as justification for immoral actions. Children are indoctrinated at a young age, not at a choice of their own, but at the bidding of their parents. Children arent taught to question reality instead, theyre taught to fear the wrath of the supposedly omnibenevolent deity with threats of eternal torture if they defy the teachings. What makes religious beliefs so unique is that it attempts to manifest itself into the logical centres of the brain, by compounding relatively harmless activities as sin evident in commandments such as thou shall not covet, or the insistence that homosexuality and masturbation is morally incorrect.

 

Our societies ostracize those who dont want to believe in a God, or the same belief as their God, under the false pretence of committing the supposedly morally righteous act of saving someone an action directly influenced by their belief. It seems hypocritical that those who preach the followings of Jesus morality would breach their very own guidelines they impose on non-believers/believers of other religions.

 

Its often cited that a life without God is sad and depressing, or that an atheist life is meaningless used as a common defence in support of a religious lifestyle. It should be noted that this is not true, as life has no more meaning than one attributes to it. The meanings to life are not inherent. The benefits of an atheistic lifestyle are that we can be accepting of others without the compulsion to question anothers beliefs, and to be open to all ideas for discussion and debate. Atheists can choose to study sciences without feeling like defying Gods intentions which comes with the extra baggage of theists feeling guilt. To be charitable, an atheist shows a respect for those in greater need out of their own sense of good-will, as opposed to attempting to appease a deity.

 

The theists Ive encountered often argue that without Gods support, they would lose their sense of morality. My response is that of sincere concern, as it seems to imply that they dont understand the concept of morality, and as their religious teachings assert that morals are God-given, without a God therell be no morals. The function of morality is to allow each-other to coexist peacefully and optimally, by agreeing that ones actions affect one another (positively and negatively) and therefore we ought to be concerned about the welfare of others. I personally dislike the notion of absolute morality, as it prevents people from making decisions in the context of a scenario to act in the most optimal way possible commandments such as thou shall not lie may stop a theist from protecting individuals such as in a holocaustic situation if one was hiding individuals of persecution.

 

You may be presented with an argument which takes the form of Pascals wager often, where the theist asserts that if youre wrong about the assertion that there is no God, youve got everything to lose because of the damnation to hell but if youre right about the assertion that there is no God, then nothing happens as youre just dead. However, if youre right about the assertion that there is a God, then youve got everything to gain as you would be sent to heaven but if youre wrong, then youve got nothing to lose as youre dead anyway.

 

This form of argument is flawed in a multitude of ways; its a false dichotomy between the notion that one must either Choose God or Reject God. A problem occurs when you realise that belief is not a choice - its a compulsion to accept what one deems to be true on the basis of evidence, convincing arguments and trust. If it were a choice, then the choices must be presented clearly if one could doubt if an option even exists, then its no longer a choice. The assertion that atheism is the rejection of God is also flawed, as disbelief is not rejection its scepticism on the basis that there is a lack of evidence, and there are an overwhelming number of discrepancies/inconsistencies within religious doctrines.

 

On a more relevant note, the notion that theists would lose nothing to falsely believe is also a flawed if this is the one and only life, then every moment spent worshipping/praying to a God, and every dime spent in deference to a God is wasted. Furthermore, even if we assume that believers went to heaven it would have to assume that the God is silly enough to buy into the covering ones ass belief in him, which is absurd as anything that may qualify for a God should have no trouble distinguishing the genuineness of their beliefs.

 

Even if we further assume that the God would buy into the covering ones ass thing it neglects the possibility that Christian believers would not avoid the heavens and hells of other religions if they were wrong about them, as all theists are atheists to other religions. On a slightly digressive side note, its possible that there exists a perverse God who only sends atheists to heaven a situation where theists actually lose in the case of believing in a God. Pascals Wager also implies that the best choice for a religion would be that of a demonic deity with the worse punishments for blasphemy, and the best bribes for blind faith. Is this really optimal?

 

An additional problem with the notion that theists lose nothing is the fact that theistic beliefs cause harm by influencing individuals to make irrational decisions such as to ostracize and discriminate against those not of the same mind-set, to oppress scientific/medical developments, to encourage ineffective faith healing, to endorse abusive indoctrination of young children, etc. as highlighted in the first paragraph.

 

If the theist was right and the portrayal of God was Biblically accurate, then theyd gain everything but the possibility of the assertion holding true seems weak at best, as they defy the physical laws that we observe around us, with no evidence to hold for the assertions that a God exists, and its the Biblical portrayal which is accurate.

 

The theist may ask; If God(s) doesnt exist, then why is there Holy Scriptures? The answer is simple; as humans, we crave authority. In the lack of an authority where societies run amok, religions facilitated a function to keep people inline. The presence of the many religious scriptures can be explained by the compulsion of mankind to invent religions and associated deity(s), with ancient writings passed down as a Holy Scripture.

 

I believe a personal God is the manifestation of ones ego, which explains the strikingly similar intuitions and opinions of God to those of the self, but a theist can claim to disagree with another theist who worships the same God.

 

I believe we can improve our society if we thoroughly examined, scrutinized, and questioned our beliefs - and to be informed about the effects of our actions. I believe the socially optimal stance would be to raise a society with many secular humanists. I believe religion has become redundant, and we ought to raise our children irreligiously, giving them a choice of religious participation at their own discretion. I believe that as a society, we shouldnt fear we should doubt. If we question and find supported answers, then we build knowledge. Doubt is the missing ingredient of religion.

 

In an attempt to induce discussion, heres a small mind-game: if God heals those who pray to become better, then why are there no statistical variation for survival rates of Christian believers? Why is there world hunger, and why doesnt God heal amputees? How is God merciful and just, if mercy entails not acting on the basis of moral righteousness, therefore a direct contradiction of the assertion that God is just? How do religious beliefs benefit an individual in a way that secular communities cant, except for reasons cited within the purported Holy Bible? How is free will and Gods divine plan compatible?

 

I do realise that I may have confused theism with Christianity its simply convenient because Christianity encompasses a vast majority of western religious believers, therefore more pertinent to the discussion.

 

Feel free to comment. This took a while to type.

[Assume Nothing]

I think I may have to post an edit later, as it's so long that it's actually difficult to revise what's written and it's legibility.

 

I realise that a lot of the above is paraphrasing others, as I feel their points have been articulated very well. If theists are willing to watch some of these videos, it should provide some insight into atheistic views.

 

[hide]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JLfKbrwMvM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpz8PMcRJSY

[/hide]

[Assume Nothing]

Oh, and more videos

 

[hide]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs

[/hide]

[chenw]

I understand the need for humans to believe in something, but I do not, in anyway, believe in how this 'God' is depicted.

 

I myself grew up in two societies, One that is predominantly Buddhist (Taiwan) and another that is predominantly Catholic (Ireland). However I grew up in a family with the mother's side being rather devout Christian (her father was Apostolic), and the other half is Buddhist only because my father is registered as one.

 

Throughout my education (elementary/primary in Taiwan, Secondary and university in Ireland), I have come to accept that, while many things can be explained scientifically (at least somewhat), there are things that we simply do not understand, as we currently lack the intellect to do so (EG origin of the Universe, most of them are theories). This would be similar to back in the days where Humans did not understand the concept behind lightning and thunder (which we now understand as a large scale static discharge), the people back then believed it was a divine power that was angry at humans, and perhaps made up stories or legends about these seemingly divine powers.

 

This is what I personally believe to have happened with the Bible. Using the above example, a person with knowledge of Static discharge would describe lightning in a vastly different manner than that of a person who did not understand the concept behind it at all. This would eventually evolve to legends, myths and even text which religion are based on. While I understand why this happened from historical point of view (many troubled times back then), it still doesn't convince me enough that Bible is in anyway 'true'. To me, it looks like glorified version of true events based on eye witness accounts who did not understand the rationale behind it.

 

If god was truly as good as he described, then he certainly picked the wrong time to send his son to us. Because with the religion split that is rampant in our world today, now would be a good time to send him.

 

TLDR: I don't believe in any of the 'gods' that this world's religion depict him as, since all accounts are based on a divine text, which I consider as a glorified story book.

[Assume Nothing]

Duff/Y_Guy - do you guys have any particular opinions on this?

[obfuscator]

Obviously; but I realized a long time ago arguing about it on the internet is, by and large, a waste of my time.

[Assume Nothing]

Oh great. So whilst discussion is limited, the implications of religion still prevails. I'd like to see at least a single refute to initiate some dispute though.

[Randox]

If God is so loving, why would he punish those who don't believe in him? If God is merciful, would he be just? If you pray for something, and it's not in God's divine plan, would God grant your prayer? If it's his bidding/will, why pray in the first place? If God is the creator of the Universe, who created the creator? If a God exists, why doesn't he present himself in a way that's observable? How do you tell the difference between a natural remission with a miracle, if you're Christian?

The God I believe in doesn't care which religion you picked, or whether you believe in it or not. This is part of the reason why I am both Christain and 100% against trying to convert people. My personal faith doesn't require that other people believe what I do, so I am free to let them be.

 

I think the assumption is that God's morals are probably not our own, especially since we are supposed to be its children. If God created us, then God accepted our flaws, so there is nothing we could do that would be wrong. This might be a good time to point out that I believe in Evolution, though I am not opposed to the idea that Evolution could possibly be guided, at least to some extent.

 

Prayer gives me comfort. Simple as that.

 

I don't believe that God created the universe. I just assume that both the universe and God exist.

 

Stargate deals with this issue a lot, once you realise that the ascended ancients and Ori are for all intents and purposes, divine beings (in terms of power at least). They do not present themselves because they do not wish to interfere in the development of life. I assume that God doesn't make itself observable for the same reason. So that we are free to live our life, because if we had an observable deity, it is inevitable that our lives would revolve around that deity. In other words, to prevent us from suffocating in religion.

 

Why do natural remissions and miracles need to be different. I would consider that a natural remission of something terrible is a miracle in its own right, and even if that remission wasn't caused by divine intervention, that doesn't make it anything less.

[Giordano]

Obviously; but I realized a long time ago arguing about it on the internet is, by and large, a waste of my time.

[muggiwhplar]

I don't believe in God-- at least not as some sort of omniscient omnipotent being. At the risk of upsetting the religious posters, I just find that sort of silly >_>

 

If a "god" exists, I believe it's probably something more akin to "the force" in Star Wars.

 

I think that trying to figure out (or debate) if a god exists or not is a waste of time, considering it's something you'll probably never know the answer to before you die. As long as your beliefs make you happy and you don't force them upon others, I don't really see any issues with religious beliefs. But sadly that's not usually the case.

[The Dark Lord]

I do not believe in God; I believe that everything can be explained through natural phenomena. Many people in the Sciences seem to believe in God based solely on the fact that the universe is complex, therefore an intelligent being greater than ourselves must have created it. However, I would argue that "complexity" is a very subjective term, and one could argue that the universe isn't really as "complex" and "wonderful" as we think it is; we only view it as such due to our own struggle to comprehend it.

 

The universe is just something that exists, and I am fascinated by it. However, despite my fascination and despite the fact that I may describe the universe as "complex," I am not convinced that a deity exists. What people call "God" is what I call "nature." However, when I think about it, then that must also mean that people who believe in God (i.e. they call nature "God") are correct in that sense: God exists.

 

Then again, none of this really matters anyway. At the end of the day, my beliefs concerning religion and the divine are worthless. The only thing that matters to me is acquiring knowledge through the empirical nature of science.

 

[/philosophical bullshit]

[fakeitormakeit2]

Just as background before I disclose my religious beliefs, I would like to note I've extensively studied religious traditions in college (as it is relevant to my major) from the Quran to the Adi Granth, so I'm a decently versed individual in these matters. I've formally studied theology for the last 6 years.

 

Basically, what I've come to after years of study of my own religious tradition (Syriac/Maronite) and the study of various others is the following (essentially a mix of Origen, Augustine and Teilhard de Chardin): The universe is panentheistic, which makes God essentially everything plus more (i.e. everything resides in God, but God is not synonymous with the universe). Now the universe consists of two distinctions, the essence (the uncreated aspect, God) and the energies (the created aspect, basically everything else). Everything living thing has an amount of this essence (think of it as a soul) contingent upon their complexity of consciousness. This makes all human beings legitimized fragments of God, as it does everything else. Human beings, taking into account free will, have the capacity for good (as they are made from the ultimate good), but they also have the capacity to act in the absence of that good (i.e. evil, but there is no evil. It's like how there's truly no "cold," there's just relatively less heat). Throughout life we collect gnosis (knowledge) which is what distinguishes us from other fragments of essence (and hence one can tell this is a non-incarnating ideology). Because there is no evil, but an absence of good, the compelling reason behind doing good is that it is deontological and ultimately doing what is "ordered" as opposed to "unordered" is what produces lasting fulfillment, whereas selfish deeds in the absence of good produce fleeting happiness and a lack of gnosis. Good deeds and human interaction exhibit a certain resonance between individual essences (love being the highest resonance, although not necessarily erotic love, any form; agape, philia, love for wisdom, ascetic discipline, etc.), whereas the absence of good lacks that. Prayer is the attempted resonance with the essence in God, and God can interact with anything that has essence.

 

When everyone dies, their essence (with their earthly gnosis) returns to the rest of the "free essence" (i.e. God) regardless of earthly behavior (similar to the belief of apocatastasis). Their judgment is essentially self-imposed; if they acted well in their life (collecting gnosis and resonating well with others), this nebulous afterlife will consist of an exchange of gnosis and love, and by extension be paradise. If they constantly acted in a manner that was absent of good, then they will suffer as they are attached to the ultimate "pool" of love for one another and happiness. However, they is always the chance to being penitent and truly reconcile (i.e. this opens the possibility for universal salvation and non-eternal damnation).

 

The implications for life on earth: (1) treat others well, for they share in the essence of God as much as you do regardless of how they act, your actions should be independent from the way others act; no one is inherently evil, (2) forgive and serve unlimitedly (there are no unforgivable offenses); the way you treat others is ultimately the treatment of yourself, (3) life isn't about being perfect, so much as reconciling for mistakes made, (4) suffering is never useless; it's always a learning experience as on the most basic level it results in gnosis, (5) you have to play with the cards you've been dealt; being incline to acting a certain way does not excuse you from acting in a disordered fashion.

 

With that being said, nothing pisses me off more than people who judge others, say others are going to burn in hell, belittle one another and act unforgivingly. Like the biblethumpers who say gays are evil and are going to burn; now I don't believe that gays should get married (I don't think marriage is an inherent right to begin with, but that's entirely another debate and this is only an example) but who is to say, other than God, that a gay person acts any less justly than me? Perhaps this judgmental person will be the one "burning" and the other person will be in a paradisal afterlife; this hypothetical gay person is a person first, sexuality is an incidental characterstic.

[Assume Nothing]

I feel this thread could be revived given the change in discussion on the 'Ethics and Morality' thread. Is this an appropriate analogy for Christian fundamentalism? Oh, and as an additional question - what exactly do moderate Christians believe? I've never understood the distinction, and why they would label themselves Christians if they don't accept the purported holy scripture as a literal truth.

 

Here's the analogy:

 

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John:

"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary:

"Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me:

"Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John:

"If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me:

"What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John:

"Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

Me:

"That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary:

"Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me:

"Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John:

"Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me:

"Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary:

"Oh yes, all the time..."

Me:

"And has He given you a million dollars?"

John:

"Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me:

"So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary:

"You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."

Me:

"Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John:

"My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me:

"Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John:

"Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me:

"So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary:

"Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me:

"What's that got to do with Hank?"

John:

"Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me:

"I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John:

"But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me:

"Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary:

"No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me:

"Then how do you kiss His ass?"

John:

"Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me:

"Who's Karl?"

Mary:

"A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me:

"And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John:

"Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the Desk of Karl

Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.

Use alcohol in moderation.

Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.

Eat right.

Hank dictated this list Himself.

The moon is made of green cheese.

Everything Hank says is right.

Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.

Don't use alcohol.

Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.

Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.

Me:

"This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary:

"Hank didn't have any paper."

Me:

"I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John:

"Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me:

"I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary:

"Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me:

"I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

Mary:

"It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me:

"How do you figure that?"

Mary:

"Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me:

"Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John:

"No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me:

"But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John:

"There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me:

"Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary:

"But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me:

"I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John:

"Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me:

"We do?"

Mary:

"Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me:

"You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John:

"Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me:

"But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary:

She blushes.

John:

"Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me:

"What if I don't have a bun?"

John:

"No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me:

"No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary:

She looks positively stricken.

John:

He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me:

"So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary:

Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John:

"That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me:

"It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary:

She faints.

John:

He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

[Jonanananas]

I guess it could be a fitting analogy, at least for those fundamentalists I know, but once again, why are you constantly arguing about fundamentalists? They're stupid, they are unable to listen to reason(at least in that aspect) so why bother? Let them be stupid, it's their right and just be happy you're not stupid as well.

 

 

As for what Christian moderates believe: It depends of course. There are many different denominations, and even inside a certain denomination beliefs probably vary a lot. What most believe in is that there is a God, who watches over humans and that his son Jesus Christ sacrificed himself to bear the sins of the world. He then got resurrected, which is promised to christians as well. That's the basic gist of it.

[Assume Nothing]

I argue about fundamentalists because they're the ones who - even in the minority, have a disproportionate influence on public affairs. It impedes our progress and causes a lot of the social harm we see derived from religion. This affects others in an adverse way - therefore it's immoral.

 

I don't understand the moderate Christian worldview, if such a thing exists - I need clarification before I can argue on that point. In response to your response: I don't get it, why are there such a variety of denominations? It seems to be essentially cherry-picked to match the individual tastes of the church-goers.

[Jonanananas]

I argue about fundamentalists because they're the ones who - even in the minority, have a disproportionate influence on public affairs. It impedes our progress and causes a lot of the social harm we see derived from religion. This affects others in an adverse way - therefore it's immoral.

 

I don't understand the moderate Christian worldview, if such a thing exists - I need clarification before I can argue on that point. In response to your response: I don't get it, why are there such a variety of denominations? It seems to be essentially cherry-picked to match the individual tastes of the church-goers.

 

 

 

Well I guess I have a slightly different view from you because we in germany have the luck that fundamentalists have next to no influence and there aren't that many of them here either.

 

 

As for not understanding the moderate Christians and why there are such a variety of denominations, I have to say I'm a bit baffled. What is there not to understand? It's what people believe in, even if there is no rational evidence. You obviously don't have to believe that yourself or understand *why* they believe in that, but saying you don't understand this worldview at all is a bit ... :huh: As for the number of denominations, you might as well ask why there even are different religions...

[Assume Nothing]

The question is not just 'what they believe' - rather, it's more 'why they believe it is'. If they know it's an irrational belief to uphold, why would they still uphold it? It should, in theory, be against their self-interest because irrational beliefs are almost always harmful/deleterious to themselves and to others. Christianity is rather baffling to me.

[Jonanananas]

The question is not just 'what they believe' - rather, it's more 'why they believe it is'. If they know it's an irrational belief to uphold, why would they still uphold it? It should, in theory, be against their self-interest because irrational beliefs are almost always harmful/deleterious to themselves and to others. Christianity is rather baffling to me.

 

 

You simply don't seem to understand religion in itself. It's basically the same for all religions, unless you're speaking of fundamentalists. There is obviously no rational evidence, but they believe in it, simple as that. And do you have any proof that irrational beliefs are almost always harmful? I'm not religious myself, but I know plenty of people whose religion gives them strength in their lifes, far more than I know of people where it would have been harmful.

[Assume Nothing]

It doesn't require statistical evidence to suggest that holding irrational beliefs is a cause of harm - we can go through an exhaustive list of examples to illustrate that this is the case. It's on this premise that I made the proposition.

 

My understanding of the matter is that they believe religious doctrines because of two primary factors;

 

It's likely that they have grown up all around it, with their family and their social groups all in favour of religious ideals and beliefs. They have been taught that it has been the word of 'god' from such a young age that their minds were not mature enough to criticize the concepts they were introduced to. It has been ingrained in the minds of the young like the way loaded terms could instill concepts into the minds of the public. Given that they've grown up all around religion, to disassociated themselves with it would be extremely painful, thus any doubts shall be rationalized to minimize the psychological pain of questioning their own beliefs. If rationalization isn't possible, then the use of threats or force shall do. I label these as willfully ignorant theists.

 

Confirmation bias - they attribute normal, fortunate occurrences to the purported deity they revere. They call these 'miracles'. If they find a 5 dollar bill on the ground, they would attribute it to the deity, despite being unable to distinguish the difference between random chance and 'god' attributed events. It, allegedly, acts as confirmation for them that their deity exists (which is in fact a non-sequitur).

[Danqazmlp]

You just don't understand unfortunately. Belief is belief. It is not a rational thing, not logical, it cannot be quantified and measured, it is simply belief.

 

One thing you seem to miss in your thinking is those who have converted to an alternate faith. They have not grown up with it, not been indoctrinated from an early age, but have, mostly as an adult, come into contact with a religion and simply believed it is right.

 

I don't think you will ever be able to fully debate religion unless you come at it with an open mind. The amount of times on these forums people have been in despair at your arguments show exactly that. You seem to not understand what religion at at it's core, therefore cannot legitimately argue anything about it.

[Will H]

If a "god" exists, I believe it's probably something more akin to "the force" in Star Wars.

 

This pretty sums up my view about God. The average human brain has an extremely big tendency to anthropomorphise things it doesn't understand. In children's TV, anything we're supposed to like and empathise with, even inanimate objects, (trains, cars, plants, cacti etc.), are given human personalities and faces, particularly two eyes and a mouth.

 

It's how we teach things, and that's fine as a learning tool for children. The problem with matters spiritual is that because we're all in the same level of understanding about the nature of God as a toddler understands about steam locomotives, we tack on every single human trait we can and go "yeah, that's it, God must be like that".

 

Suddenly, God doesn't just have a personality, he has a gender, and he's depicted in Christianity exactly the same way visually the ancient Greeks depicted Zeus, an old man in the sky. He comes with the impossibly universal concepts of "good", "evil", "vengeance", "sin" and heaps of other things that only exist subjectively in human society and nowhere else in nature. Most religions, if not all, even come up with a system for what happens after death, as if we're important enough to have some kind of universal process entirely dedicated to us. If science has taught us anything, it's that we are not important in the universe. We are but a bit of bacteria on a rock continuously falling in the endless void, nothing more.

 

We need to learn to look at what we're doing to our concept of what "God" is, not just study what we've already created. If God exists, it is extremely unlikely that It posesses anything that remotely resembles humanity. It is most likely a force, or the sum of all of the mechanisms that allow the universe to exist and function. Talk of whether there is one God or many gods is meaningless.

[Jonanananas]

It doesn't require statistical evidence to suggest that holding irrational beliefs is a cause of harm - we can go through an exhaustive list of examples to illustrate that this is the case. It's on this premise that I made the proposition.

 

My understanding of the matter is that they believe religious doctrines because of two primary factors;

 

It's likely that they have grown up all around it, with their family and their social groups all in favour of religious ideals and beliefs. They have been taught that it has been the word of 'god' from such a young age that their minds were not mature enough to criticize the concepts they were introduced to. It has been ingrained in the minds of the young like the way loaded terms could instill concepts into the minds of the public. Given that they've grown up all around religion, to disassociated themselves with it would be extremely painful, thus any doubts shall be rationalized to minimize the psychological pain of questioning their own beliefs. If rationalization isn't possible, then the use of threats or force shall do. I label these as willfully ignorant theists.

 

Confirmation bias - they attribute normal, fortunate occurrences to the purported deity they revere. They call these 'miracles'. If they find a 5 dollar bill on the ground, they would attribute it to the deity, despite being unable to distinguish the difference between random chance and 'god' attributed events. It, allegedly, acts as confirmation for them that their deity exists (which is in fact a non-sequitur).

 

 

Quite frankly, that's ridiculous. First of all, of course it requires evidence that irrational beliefs are a cause of harm. I just happen to know plenty of examples(aka religious people) who happen to get along with their life just fine.

 

Of course they're more likely to adopt a religion if they've grown up with it, but it doesn't stop there. They have the full capability to question their beliefs and some of them do - Like me. I've been raised catholic yet eventually decided I didn't believe in it. End of story. When you're talking about religious indoctrination, you're once again thinking in fundamentalist's terms. Use of threat or force to ingrain a belief is also a method of fundamentalists, not moderates.

 

 

As for miracles, they really play a minor role. Some believe in them, some not, but it's very rare that they're the cause of being religious.

 

 

Love is often irrational as well. Does that make it bad? Should we work against it? Obviously not. Rationality is all fine and good, but it isn't the answer to everything.

[Faux]

most atheists have this problem that they think all religious people are fundamentalists. outside of America, religious nuts are in the minority. just from my experience.

[Assume Nothing]

Getting along just fine with their lives by no means make religious ideals harmless. Whilst I can't pull up any statistical data on the issue (I don't think a consensus/survey has been done on this matter yet), I can illustrate the harm from an excerpt:

 

[hide=How harm can occur]

 

The "what's the harm?" arguments tend to be used with regard to single cases with a certain context - as illustrated in the introduction; however, harm from irrational beliefs can occur in many different ways depending on who holds them and the position they hold in society. Some ways in which harm can arise from irrational beliefs include:

Financial harm

 

This can occur to individuals, businesses, government agencies, institutions, etc. Spending hours on the phone to 'gifted psychics' can prove extremely costly to the individual; lending huge sums of money to people who can't afford to pay it back in the chase for more profit can prove extremely costly to banks, the government, and ultimately the taxpayer (as we have recently found to our cost!); spending money to 'invest' in an MLM business in the hope of making it rich.... one day.

 

Direct harm

 

Direct harm occurs as a direct consequence of an action or inaction: suffering a stroke after a chiropractic neck manipulation; being poisoned or killed by the unknown compounds in a herbal remedy; a woman needlessly dying in childbirth because her religion has interpreted scripture so that blood transfusions are not allowed; a person dying of cancer through choosing alternative medicine in place of proven treatments; physical/emotional harm caused by avoiding proper medical care because of the belief in alternative medicine.

 

Indirect harm

 

Indirect harm occurs as a consequence of inaction, previous action or due to the beliefs and actions of others: children dying through needless treatments for autism because the parents believe that it was caused by heavy metals in a vaccine despite the evidence against this; severely malnourished children due to being fed a strict vegan diet by their parents; children being harmed or killed by preventable diseases because their parents believe anti-vaccination propaganda; animals enduring curable conditions because their owners choose homeopathic vets or animal acupuncture.

 

Psychological harm

 

Caused by psychological investment in irrational concepts: false hope being given by 'psychic detectives' who involve themselves with murder and missing persons cases; distrusting things like medicine/science/institutions/etc. through conspiracy theories; irrational fears of things like Mercury in fillings, Aspartame in food, or fluoride in water; stress and anxiety caused through the belief in curses and spells, possession by demons, etc.

 

Social harm

 

This can manifest itself by things such as: poor public policy (using lie detectors to monitor paedophiles); wasting resources (using taxpayers' money to fund homeopathic hospitals); preventing scientific research and advances because of religious arguments; making major decisions without basing them on evidence or in spite of the evidence - e.g. going to war based on the belief that the enemy possesses weapons of mass destruction.[/hide]

 

Since you seem obsessed with gathering evidence as opposed to arguing on the basis of reason (as if it's an implausible concept), here's one: http://whatstheharm.net/scientificstudies.html

 

I'm not sure of the relevance of the 'love' analogy - care to explain? They're not even remotely similar. I don't see how it rationalizes your belief that religious ideals/beliefs are harmless.

 

Oh, and in response to the 'full capacity to question their beliefs' - this isn't quite so if they're taught to fear the deity they revere. Is it not mandated that questioning the 'word of (the purported) god' is the equivalent to blasphemy, which is punishable by eternal torture ('hell' as Christian theologians call it)? I realise I'm stepping into the lines of Christian fundamentalism, but that's exactly where the problems lie - why should it be ignored simply because they don't represent Christianity as a whole?

 

EDIT - The most problematic, outspoken theists who cause a majority of the problems are fundamentalists. Of course they won't escape scrutiny.

[Ginger_Warrior]

So you oppose fundamentalism rather than faith per se? By your own words, problems with religious idealogy are found with extremist, as opposed to moderate, Christians/Muslims/Jews/whatever.