Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)

[matuski]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

 

[mr roboto]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

And in many other parts of the world being a devout believer can and will be used against you. It all depends on which group you are trying to fit into I guess. It comes down to expected norms of ones particular circle.

 

[proninja]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

For a group of people who are mostly rich white guys, the persecution complex surprises me a bit. Sort of like it does when Christians claim it in this country.

 

[Henry Ford]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

For a group of people who are mostly rich white guys, the persecution complex surprises me a bit. Sort of like it does when Christians claim it in this country.

I think there's a certain amount of anger and outrage raised by being repeatedly told that you're immoral and can't be trusted because you don't believe in a bearded guy who will smite you if you're a jerk.

 

[Steve Tasker]

One thing I do question a lot about these polls asking people about their religious beliefs is if there is a bit of a bias in the responses. NPR had a piece recently about how people systematically (and probably unconsciously) overinflate their actual church attendance and prayer habits in polls.

I don't often discuss religion in real life, but when I do it's usually with self-identifying Catholics. And if you really get down to it, from an actual belief standpoint, they're as agnostic as I am. But they self-ID as Catholic. Why? Perhaps it's just easier to keep IDing as Catholic and not discuss your actual thoughts? Maybe you don't want to disappoint your family? I don't know, but I do know that those friends of mine in particular definitely don't believe in Catholic dogma. But if you were to ask them in a street poll, I'd have no doubt they'd list themselves as Catholic.

Purely anecdotal, of course.

Totally agree ST. I think there are many atheists/agnostics continue to attend or play along. I don't know if this is a good thing. Otis in this thread says maybe there is a higher power but not the definition we've been given. Also said they may move to a more predominantly Catholic community and will likely attend to fit in or just because. I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

I mean, IMO, people can self-identify however they want. But to me personally, it feels hollow and disingenuous to self-ID as Catholic, to accept communion during mass, etc. if you don't believe in at least the core principles. And that's where my lack of faith, so to speak, in these polls comes from.

I think the stigma of being non-religious in America is lessening every day, thankfully. And as much as Fox News may want you to believe otherwise, there is a stigma associated with being non-religious in America.

 

[mr roboto]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

For a group of people who are mostly rich white guys, the persecution complex surprises me a bit. Sort of like it does when Christians claim it in this country.

I think there's a certain amount of anger and outrage raised by being repeatedly told that you're immoral and can't be trusted because you don't believe in a bearded guy who will smite you if you're a jerk.

I honestly didn't know this happens a lot.

 

[proninja]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

For a group of people who are mostly rich white guys, the persecution complex surprises me a bit. Sort of like it does when Christians claim it in this country.

I think there's a certain amount of anger and outrage raised by being repeatedly told that you're immoral and can't be trusted because you don't believe in a bearded guy who will smite you if you're a jerk.

Fair, but I don't notice much of that. Does it happen to you often?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

And in many other parts of the world being a devout believer can and will be used against you. It all depends on which group you are trying to fit into I guess. It comes down to expected norms of ones particular circle.

Absolutely. It'll be used against you by a devout believer of a different religion.

 

[mr roboto]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

And in many other parts of the world being a devout believer can and will be used against you. It all depends on which group you are trying to fit into I guess. It comes down to expected norms of ones particular circle.

Absolutely. It'll be used against you by a devout believer of a different religion.

Yes. Secularists and atheists are never discriminatory against religious people.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

I'm not looking for better or worse. I was just wondering if my gut instinct was right.

I suppose better or worse depends on who you are. If you're catholic and you want to see your religion thrive, then better is a higher retention and growth rate. If you're hindu, that data is maybe bad for you.

For me personally, there is no better or worse. I was just curious.

But a higher retention rate -- along with a very low rate of people leaving one religion they were raised in for a different religion -- would support my theorem.

This was all about a search for the numbers in the Pew report?

I thought this was about the big questions and the "choke point"?

Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.

J

Huh??

I'm confused. In one post you said you didn't really know if high or low retention was better or worse and that you were just curious.

But earlier you said a high retention rate was a "choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith"

J

Well for starters, what is "better"? For whom and in what way?The comment you quoted is my thought that, if there is arbitrary assignment of religion, then it creates some interesting questions. Which is what we have been discussing. Does that make sense?

I'm asking you which is "better" as far as the group being attractive or unattractive. Do you like a group with high retention where most of the children choose to follow their parents? Or is it better to have a group with low retention where most of the children choose a different path than their parents? What percentage would be attractive?

J

Again, not to be obtuse, but I'm not sure what you mean by attractive. Attractive to someone trying to prove what point?

I think I can answer your question by going back to your occupation analogy. In a population in which there is a more random distribution of religion from parents to children, it would to me

Attractive meaning you'd have a favorable opinion of the group.

Do you have a more favorable opinion of a group with high retention where most of the children choose to follow their parents? Or is it better to have a group with low retention where most of the children choose a different path than their parents? What percentage would be favorable?

J

 

[shader]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

Well that is your opinion. Quite obviously many others disagree, not only when discussing the earth, but also the universe, the physical laws that make up the universe, etc.

It's not my opinion, it's the result of applying math (particularly probability) and understanding the results of the work of astro physicists along with a few other branches of science.

Again, I disagree

With what? Math? The work of astrophysicists and lots of other scientists?

Your interpretation of the science mostly.

I'm not interpreting the science at all, just understanding what's been formulated. If you go with the worst case scenario of what we've discovered so far, the rare earth hypothesis, there are millions of planets in the universe that can support life as we know it. Given that the universe is over 13 billion years old, it's very highly probable there are/have been/will be planets out there that host species and civilizations as advanced, or more advanced as we are. I'm not making this up/interpreting it, it's just the inevitable conclusion of what we know already. As our technology improves we find even more possible planets fitting this category as well, so the probabilities increase.

I wasn't really discussing the earth itself, but the universe and the physical laws. While I do think the earth is special, I'm more than aware of the fact that there are likely many planets throughout the universe that are/could be suitable for human life. But the universe is a different story, as is the creation of planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

And in many other parts of the world being a devout believer can and will be used against you. It all depends on which group you are trying to fit into I guess. It comes down to expected norms of ones particular circle.

Absolutely. It'll be used against you by a devout believer of a different religion.

This is the point in the thread when we start defining communism as a religion, right?

 

[Gr00vus]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

Well that is your opinion. Quite obviously many others disagree, not only when discussing the earth, but also the universe, the physical laws that make up the universe, etc.

It's not my opinion, it's the result of applying math (particularly probability) and understanding the results of the work of astro physicists along with a few other branches of science.

Again, I disagree

With what? Math? The work of astrophysicists and lots of other scientists?

Your interpretation of the science mostly.

I'm not interpreting the science at all, just understanding what's been formulated. If you go with the worst case scenario of what we've discovered so far, the rare earth hypothesis, there are millions of planets in the universe that can support life as we know it. Given that the universe is over 13 billion years old, it's very highly probable there are/have been/will be planets out there that host species and civilizations as advanced, or more advanced as we are. I'm not making this up/interpreting it, it's just the inevitable conclusion of what we know already. As our technology improves we find even more possible planets fitting this category as well, so the probabilities increase.

I wasn't really discussing the earth itself, but the universe and the physical laws. While I do think the earth is special, I'm more than aware of the fact that there are likely many planets throughout the universe that are/could be suitable for human life. But the universe is a different story, as is the creation of planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc.

I don't know what you mean by different story. You mean not explained scientifically?

 

[shader]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

Well that is your opinion. Quite obviously many others disagree, not only when discussing the earth, but also the universe, the physical laws that make up the universe, etc.

It's not my opinion, it's the result of applying math (particularly probability) and understanding the results of the work of astro physicists along with a few other branches of science.

Again, I disagree

With what? Math? The work of astrophysicists and lots of other scientists?

Your interpretation of the science mostly.

I'm not interpreting the science at all, just understanding what's been formulated. If you go with the worst case scenario of what we've discovered so far, the rare earth hypothesis, there are millions of planets in the universe that can support life as we know it. Given that the universe is over 13 billion years old, it's very highly probable there are/have been/will be planets out there that host species and civilizations as advanced, or more advanced as we are. I'm not making this up/interpreting it, it's just the inevitable conclusion of what we know already. As our technology improves we find even more possible planets fitting this category as well, so the probabilities increase.

I wasn't really discussing the earth itself, but the universe and the physical laws. While I do think the earth is special, I'm more than aware of the fact that there are likely many planets throughout the universe that are/could be suitable for human life. But the universe is a different story, as is the creation of planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc.

I don't know what you mean by different story. You mean not explained scientifically?

Yes, not explained scientifically. What was before the universe? Why did it begin? How did it happen? Why are the physical laws in place that allowed the universe to expand so rapidly and violently, yet result in such order. There are countless things in the universe that are finely tuned and science hasn't even begun to come close to formulating any reasons why. My point is not to hijack the thread with a science discussion. My point is that your arbitrary statement "none of which require sentient guidance" is an opinion, not a fact, or even a theory with any sort of evidence behind it.

 

[Henry Ford]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

For a group of people who are mostly rich white guys, the persecution complex surprises me a bit. Sort of like it does when Christians claim it in this country.

I think there's a certain amount of anger and outrage raised by being repeatedly told that you're immoral and can't be trusted because you don't believe in a bearded guy who will smite you if you're a jerk.

Fair, but I don't notice much of that. Does it happen to you often?

Less than it used to. In my younger years, it was something blatantly and clearly stated to me in pretty much those terms.

These days it's primarily by people who don't realize I don't believe in God, as they rant about how they don't trust anyone who's an atheist because there's no moral code or set of moral rules. When I have the energy to deal with it, I usually explain that I don't believe in God and get the incredulous "well, then how can anyone trust you when you swear to tell the truth?" or something similar. It's also implied during the discussions I have with people - "you can trust him, he's a God-fearing man" or "I don't trust a man who doesn't go to church" are things I hear about other people.

The top two things I get asked when and if I "come out" as a non-Christian are either how I know what it's okay to do and not do or how I turned out to be such a nice, trustworthy guy. Which in itself drives me bat#### crazy.

 

[proninja]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

For a group of people who are mostly rich white guys, the persecution complex surprises me a bit. Sort of like it does when Christians claim it in this country.

I think there's a certain amount of anger and outrage raised by being repeatedly told that you're immoral and can't be trusted because you don't believe in a bearded guy who will smite you if you're a jerk.

Fair, but I don't notice much of that. Does it happen to you often?

Less than it used to. In my younger years, it was something blatantly and clearly stated to me in pretty much those terms.

These days it's primarily by people who don't realize I don't believe in God, as they rant about how they don't trust anyone who's an atheist because there's no moral code or set of moral rules. When I have the energy to deal with it, I usually explain that I don't believe in God and get the incredulous "well, then how can anyone trust you when you swear to tell the truth?" or something similar. It's also implied during the discussions I have with people - "you can trust him, he's a God-fearing man" or "I don't trust a man who doesn't go to church" are things I hear about other people.

The top two things I get asked when and if I "come out" as a non-Christian is either how I know what it's okay to do and not do or how I turned out to be such a nice, trustworthy guy. Which in itself drives me bat#### crazy.

Understandable. Where do you live?

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

For a group of people who are mostly rich white guys, the persecution complex surprises me a bit. Sort of like it does when Christians claim it in this country.

I think there's a certain amount of anger and outrage raised by being repeatedly told that you're immoral and can't be trusted because you don't believe in a bearded guy who will smite you if you're a jerk.

Fair, but I don't notice much of that. Does it happen to you often?

Less than it used to. In my younger years, it was something blatantly and clearly stated to me in pretty much those terms.

These days it's primarily by people who don't realize I don't believe in God, as they rant about how they don't trust anyone who's an atheist because there's no moral code or set of moral rules. When I have the energy to deal with it, I usually explain that I don't believe in God and get the incredulous "well, then how can anyone trust you when you swear to tell the truth?" or something similar. It's also implied during the discussions I have with people - "you can trust him, he's a God-fearing man" or "I don't trust a man who doesn't go to church" are things I hear about other people.

The top two things I get asked when and if I "come out" as a non-Christian is either how I know what it's okay to do and not do or how I turned out to be such a nice, trustworthy guy. Which in itself drives me bat#### crazy.

And maybe the third being how do you wake up in the morning if you don;t have something bigger in life to live for (ie the afterlife I guess?) I think its the opposite.. my life is about my short stint here on earth..I am going to make the most of it for myself and everyone around here based only on the repercussions in this life.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I dont believe divorced people should be allowed to adopt.

 

[Gr00vus]

I don't know what you mean by different story. You mean not explained scientifically?

Yes, not explained scientifically. What was before the universe? Why did it begin? How did it happen? Why are the physical laws in place that allowed the universe to expand so rapidly and violently, yet result in such order. There are countless things in the universe that are finely tuned and science hasn't even begun to come close to formulating any reasons why. My point is not to hijack the thread with a science discussion. My point is that your arbitrary statement "none of which require sentient guidance" is an opinion, not a fact, or even a theory with any sort of evidence behind it.

Your application of terms like "order," "finely tuned," begs the question. Your frequent use of the query "why" as well. You assume some sort of humanly relatable purpose and/or intention behind these things, where there is no reason to assume so.

For the rest, our current lack of understanding does not form the basis or need to then jump to a faith based explanation. Doing so only complicates things further rather than providing answers to any questions in this realm which science has not provided yet.

 

[Henry Ford]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

For a group of people who are mostly rich white guys, the persecution complex surprises me a bit. Sort of like it does when Christians claim it in this country.

I think there's a certain amount of anger and outrage raised by being repeatedly told that you're immoral and can't be trusted because you don't believe in a bearded guy who will smite you if you're a jerk.

Fair, but I don't notice much of that. Does it happen to you often?

Less than it used to. In my younger years, it was something blatantly and clearly stated to me in pretty much those terms.

These days it's primarily by people who don't realize I don't believe in God, as they rant about how they don't trust anyone who's an atheist because there's no moral code or set of moral rules. When I have the energy to deal with it, I usually explain that I don't believe in God and get the incredulous "well, then how can anyone trust you when you swear to tell the truth?" or something similar. It's also implied during the discussions I have with people - "you can trust him, he's a God-fearing man" or "I don't trust a man who doesn't go to church" are things I hear about other people.

The top two things I get asked when and if I "come out" as a non-Christian are either how I know what it's okay to do and not do or how I turned out to be such a nice, trustworthy guy. Which in itself drives me bat#### crazy.

Understandable. Where do you live?

Louisiana. I understand that's at least partially a function of geography.

 

[shader]

I don't know what you mean by different story. You mean not explained scientifically?

Yes, not explained scientifically. What was before the universe? Why did it begin? How did it happen? Why are the physical laws in place that allowed the universe to expand so rapidly and violently, yet result in such order. There are countless things in the universe that are finely tuned and science hasn't even begun to come close to formulating any reasons why. My point is not to hijack the thread with a science discussion. My point is that your arbitrary statement "none of which require sentient guidance" is an opinion, not a fact, or even a theory with any sort of evidence behind it.

Your application of terms like "order," "finely tuned," begs the question. Your frequent use of the query "why" as well. You assume some sort of humanly relatable purpose and/or intention behind these things, where there is no reason to assume so.

For the rest, our current lack of understanding does not form the basis or need to then jump to a faith based explanation. Doing so only complicates things further rather than providing answers to any questions in this realm which science has not provided yet.

Again...YOUR opinion. I'm done with this sidebar. You seem to be firmly convinced that your way of looking at things is accurate, so I won't argue with you anymore.

 

[Spanky267]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

So what your saying is that we hit the evolutionary powerball on the first try?

 

[The Commish]

Shader, if a Jehovah's Witness becomes a Baptist or a Catholic or a Mormon, to me as a non- Christian it's all the same. I know there are big differences between these, but they all believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, thus they are all Christians from my perspective.

Right....but your unwillingness to recognize the differences shouldn't be placed on them....that's on you. For some the theology is so different they consider it a change in religion and your comment about "divinity" is incorrect.

Fine. All of them worship Jesus Christ- hows that? In any case, relative to Otis' argument that most Christians are Christian because their parents were Christian and because they live in a society which is largely Christian, these distinctions don't matter.

In those sects that don't believe in the Trinity, I'm not sure this is even true. I don't know who Mormons "worship" honestly. And of course it matters. We have to understand how they interpreted the question(s) in order to understand their answers, no?

 

[timschochet]

So many people always raise the "Problem of Evil", and it's certainly worth discussing. But for me an equally important issue that I would like to bring up with those who have faith is what I would call the "problem of needless death". Specifically, in Jesus' day, people didn't wash themselves enough, and as a result they got diseases and died very young. And this lasted for nearly 1900 years after Jesus died, until scientists discovered the existence of germs, and that keeping clean could help eliminate many diseases and needless death.

So the question I would ask is, why did God allow this? Why didn't He stress cleanliness in the Bible? Or why didn't Jesus do it? Why didn't Jesus tell the Apostles about germs? And instead of creating magical loaves of bread, why didn't Jesus instruct His disciples about how to grow wheat better, or any sort of technology which would serve to lengthen people's lives and make them easier? Why does God allow cancer, and not give us the cure for it right now? This is the "problem of needless death" as I see it, and I'm wondering how religious people will respond.

 

[timschochet]

Shader, if a Jehovah's Witness becomes a Baptist or a Catholic or a Mormon, to me as a non- Christian it's all the same. I know there are big differences between these, but they all believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, thus they are all Christians from my perspective.

Right....but your unwillingness to recognize the differences shouldn't be placed on them....that's on you. For some the theology is so different they consider it a change in religion and your comment about "divinity" is incorrect.

Fine. All of them worship Jesus Christ- hows that? In any case, relative to Otis' argument that most Christians are Christian because their parents were Christian and because they live in a society which is largely Christian, these distinctions don't matter.

In those sects that don't believe in the Trinity, I'm not sure this is even true. I don't know who Mormons "worship" honestly. And of course it matters. We have to understand how they interpreted the question(s) in order to understand their answers, no?

I'm suggesting it doesn't matter only within the context of Otis' point.

 

[timschochet]

And the Mormons that I have known worship Jesus Christ.

 

[The Commish]

I don't even know where to begin to respond to that

 

[shader]

Shader, if a Jehovah's Witness becomes a Baptist or a Catholic or a Mormon, to me as a non- Christian it's all the same. I know there are big differences between these, but they all believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, thus they are all Christians from my perspective.

Right....but your unwillingness to recognize the differences shouldn't be placed on them....that's on you. For some the theology is so different they consider it a change in religion and your comment about "divinity" is incorrect.

Fine. All of them worship Jesus Christ- hows that? In any case, relative to Otis' argument that most Christians are Christian because their parents were Christian and because they live in a society which is largely Christian, these distinctions don't matter.

In those sects that don't believe in the Trinity, I'm not sure this is even true. I don't know who Mormons "worship" honestly. And of course it matters. We have to understand how they interpreted the question(s) in order to understand their answers, no?

I would imagine Mormons would say that they worship God.

 

[shader]

So many people always raise the "Problem of Evil", and it's certainly worth discussing. But for me an equally important issue that I would like to bring up with those who have faith is what I would call the "problem of needless death". Specifically, in Jesus' day, people didn't wash themselves enough, and as a result they got diseases and died very young. And this lasted for nearly 1900 years after Jesus died, until scientists discovered the existence of germs, and that keeping clean could help eliminate many diseases and needless death.

So the question I would ask is, why did God allow this? Why didn't He stress cleanliness in the Bible? Or why didn't Jesus do it? Why didn't Jesus tell the Apostles about germs? And instead of creating magical loaves of bread, why didn't Jesus instruct His disciples about how to grow wheat better, or any sort of technology which would serve to lengthen people's lives and make them easier? Why does God allow cancer, and not give us the cure for it right now? This is the "problem of needless death" as I see it, and I'm wondering how religious people will respond.

Cleanliness is stressed all throughout the bible, though admittedly much more so in the laws given to the Jews. But Jesus was a Jew and practiced those laws, as well.

 

[Gr00vus]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

So what your saying is that we hit the evolutionary powerball on the first try?

Highly unlikely on the first try, but possible. More likely after millions or billions of tries. This universe is nearly 13.8 billion years old, with millions of planets capable of supporting life. This planet is about 4.5 billion years old. That's a pretty big lab and a lot of time in which to conduct evolutionary experiments.

 

[Spanky267]

I have faith for the same reason many others have mentioned. I believe in science. But I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake. But if I combine and mix the ingredients properly I get a cake. Thats how I see the universe. Carefully constructed.

Your misunderstanding of the universe starts right at the beginning of your post and it's that flawed logic that supports the rest. Imagine if you threw all the cake ingredients randomly into the oven billions and billions of times. Eventually you would get a cake. That's Darwin and nature. It doesn't have to be by "design."

Have you ever seen any living thing evolve? Did Darwin? Thats why its considered a Theory and not a proof. We suppose evolution.

You can throw the ingredients to make a cake into an oven billions of times. But you wont truly have a cake. You'll have some things that are cake like and some others that are definitely not cake.

You may be right that it doesnt have to be by "design" but since we dont really know there is a possibility that it might indeed be by design. There is plenty about the planet, let alone our own universe that we dont understand. I'm not surprised that we dont have a full understanding of God. Or that we have to leave much to faith when it comes to God.

 

[proninja]

Oh gosh, we're rolling with the "just a theory" argument? :embarrasing:

 

[Spanky267]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.

It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

Joe,

Your doctor analogy isn't apt. In that context, a kid could choose to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, and there is no "right" answer. It's a decision like in choosing a religion, but no career choice is right to the exclusion of all others, and you don't have to hinge your life in an underlying factual premise that cannot be confirmed. Religion is different. You pick one, and to believe in one, you have to believe it's right, and therefore by definition all the others are wrong.

And to the influence question, when you're in high school and college, you are taught you can be ANYTHING. It's a menu and all of those options are open to anyone. Most religious households don't operate that way. I don't expect that in a Christian household parents would tell their kids to be Buddhist if they want (and give them the opportunity to learn it), or Jewish, or other. The reaction frequently would be more like another poster in this thread indicated-disappointment that the kids let the faith. The pressures and situation are so entirely different from a family who would love to see their kid be a doctor.

So I don't think that analogy applies. I suspect you and others would like to think you had that kind of unfettered free choice in choosing your religion, but it's awful uncanny that you (and most) happened to choose the same religion, of all the options out there, that your parents raised you in.

Ah but what if the child of the doctor apires to be a truck driver or a garbage collector. You dont think that the parents have any influence on their childs career choice, even if its simply to get them to aspire to be more than what the parents achieved?

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Oh gosh, we're rolling with the "just a theory" argument? :embarrasing:

Thread derailment was inevitable. It was a good run. Was hoping we could make it another day or two, though.

 

[timschochet]

I have faith for the same reason many others have mentioned. I believe in science. But I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake. But if I combine and mix the ingredients properly I get a cake. Thats how I see the universe. Carefully constructed.

Your misunderstanding of the universe starts right at the beginning of your post and it's that flawed logic that supports the rest. Imagine if you threw all the cake ingredients randomly into the oven billions and billions of times. Eventually you would get a cake. That's Darwin and nature. It doesn't have to be by "design."

Have you ever seen any living thing evolve? Did Darwin? Thats why its considered a Theory and not a proof. We suppose evolution.

You can throw the ingredients to make a cake into an oven billions of times. But you wont truly have a cake. You'll have some things that are cake like and some others that are definitely not cake.

You may be right that it doesnt have to be by "design" but since we dont really know there is a possibility that it might indeed be by design. There is plenty about the planet, let alone our own universe that we dont understand. I'm not surprised that we dont have a full understanding of God. Or that we have to leave much to faith when it comes to God.

Umm no, this is not an accurate statement.

 

[Gr00vus]

I have faith for the same reason many others have mentioned. I believe in science. But I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake. But if I combine and mix the ingredients properly I get a cake. Thats how I see the universe. Carefully constructed.

Your misunderstanding of the universe starts right at the beginning of your post and it's that flawed logic that supports the rest. Imagine if you threw all the cake ingredients randomly into the oven billions and billions of times. Eventually you would get a cake. That's Darwin and nature. It doesn't have to be by "design."

Have you ever seen any living thing evolve? Did Darwin? Thats why its considered a Theory and not a proof. We suppose evolution.

You can throw the ingredients to make a cake into an oven billions of times. But you wont truly have a cake. You'll have some things that are cake like and some others that are definitely not cake.

You may be right that it doesnt have to be by "design" but since we dont really know there is a possibility that it might indeed be by design. There is plenty about the planet, let alone our own universe that we dont understand. I'm not surprised that we dont have a full understanding of God. Or that we have to leave much to faith when it comes to God.

Evolution experiments. Evolution, or more accurately, speciation via natural selection is an observed process. Ever eat maize? You're tasting evolution my friend. Granted that was controlled natural selection. The fossil record documents speciation in times past, no human dictated guidance involved. There's not any question about this process. It's a well earned, proven scientific theory.

One of those billions of times you throw those ingredients in the oven, you'll get a cake.

There's no rational need for a god of the gaps to answer for the things we don't currently understand. Maybe we'll get answers someday, maybe we won't, but our lack of knowledge does not logically necessitate the existence of gods.

Gods are a creation stemming from man's ego - the inability to accept the unknown and the inability to accept our individual insignificance in the context of the universe and (what we perceive to be) time.

 

[Spanky267]

Oh gosh, we're rolling with the "just a theory" argument? :embarrasing:

I dont know if this comment was directed a me. But on the "theory" that is was. I'll respond.

While there is strong evidence for Darwin's Theory. The evolution of whales for example. I dont as a result discount that a higher power may have set the wheels in motion. Please dont confuse me for a creationist.

 

[Spanky267]

Sorry guys for the poor wording of my original reply. I told you I wasnt the most articulate....and there you have it.

 

[datonn]

It's not "creation vs. evolution." It's "creation AND evolution." FWIW. Though folks on both poles of that issue will throw rotten food at me for saying it (even if they're both wrong).

 

[Henry Ford]

I have faith for the same reason many others have mentioned. I believe in science. But I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake. But if I combine and mix the ingredients properly I get a cake. Thats how I see the universe. Carefully constructed.

Your misunderstanding of the universe starts right at the beginning of your post and it's that flawed logic that supports the rest. Imagine if you threw all the cake ingredients randomly into the oven billions and billions of times. Eventually you would get a cake. That's Darwin and nature. It doesn't have to be by "design."

Have you ever seen any living thing evolve? Did Darwin? Thats why its considered a Theory and not a proof. We suppose evolution.

You can throw the ingredients to make a cake into an oven billions of times. But you wont truly have a cake. You'll have some things that are cake like and some others that are definitely not cake.

You may be right that it doesnt have to be by "design" but since we dont really know there is a possibility that it might indeed be by design. There is plenty about the planet, let alone our own universe that we dont understand. I'm not surprised that we dont have a full understanding of God. Or that we have to leave much to faith when it comes to God.

A single living thing doesn't "evolve." Species evolve.

 

[Todd Andrews]

And the Mormons that I have known worship Jesus Christ.

Yeah, but they believe he came from the Planet Kolob.

 

[Otis]

Oh gosh, we're rolling with the "just a theory" argument? :embarrasing:

Oof. We always get there eventually. Somebody mark the time....

 

[matuski]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

For a group of people who are mostly rich white guys, the persecution complex surprises me a bit. Sort of like it does when Christians claim it in this country.

My career would be at a dead end if I were to make my position on religion known. There is no complex, it is real.

ETA - you can imagine in my line of work that most of my customers have explicit religious affiliations.

 

[mr roboto]

I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?

It isn't complicated. There are real world consequences to openly denying the invisible guy in the sky.

People hide behind religion to judge people, and in many parts of this world it can and will be used against you.

For a group of people who are mostly rich white guys, the persecution complex surprises me a bit. Sort of like it does when Christians claim it in this country.

My career would be at a dead end if I were to make my position on religion known. There is no complex, it is real.

Serious question: aren't you in film?

 

[Otis]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

I'm not looking for better or worse. I was just wondering if my gut instinct was right.

I suppose better or worse depends on who you are. If you're catholic and you want to see your religion thrive, then better is a higher retention and growth rate. If you're hindu, that data is maybe bad for you.

For me personally, there is no better or worse. I was just curious.

But a higher retention rate -- along with a very low rate of people leaving one religion they were raised in for a different religion -- would support my theorem.

This was all about a search for the numbers in the Pew report?

I thought this was about the big questions and the "choke point"?

Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.

J

Huh??

I'm confused. In one post you said you didn't really know if high or low retention was better or worse and that you were just curious.

But earlier you said a high retention rate was a "choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith"

J

Well for starters, what is "better"? For whom and in what way?The comment you quoted is my thought that, if there is arbitrary assignment of religion, then it creates some interesting questions. Which is what we have been discussing. Does that make sense?

I'm asking you which is "better" as far as the group being attractive or unattractive. Do you like a group with high retention where most of the children choose to follow their parents? Or is it better to have a group with low retention where most of the children choose a different path than their parents? What percentage would be attractive?

J

Again, not to be obtuse, but I'm not sure what you mean by attractive. Attractive to someone trying to prove what point?

I think I can answer your question by going back to your occupation analogy. In a population in which there is a more random distribution of religion from parents to children, it would to me

Attractive meaning you'd have a favorable opinion of the group.

Do you have a more favorable opinion of a group with high retention where most of the children choose to follow their parents? Or is it better to have a group with low retention where most of the children choose a different path than their parents? What percentage would be favorable?

J

To be clear, I'm not trying to say I have an UNfavorable opinion of any group. My point is that the facts of the passing down of religion and strong correlation of a child's religion to the parents' religion suggests to me there isn't a whole lot of independent or thoughtful decision making happening. If you're asking how much correlation is low enough that I think it wouldn't suggest this conclusion? I have no idea. I guessed 99 percent, and it looks like the number is more like 90 percent in some data/religions, less in others. 75 percent still seems pretty strong. 50 starts to become a whole lot less powerful, as it would feel a lot more like a random distribution.

And of course you probably have to get behind the numbers. If certain religions skew the data one way or another because of some particularity or issue happening with that religion or in a certain region of the world, that's useful to know.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I never said outside influences don't affect many, or that people aren't shaped by their surroundings. The extent to which every child analyzes their beliefs as they get older differs based on their society, their family and their religion, no doubt.

In reality, there aren't a lot of religions that teach that you can't leave that particular religion or you will burn in hell. Many protestant religions go from church to church depending on the preacher, their spouse, etc. Very few believe eternal damnation will come to them if they go to the Second Baptist Church instead of the First Baptist Church, or even if they go to the new megachurch down the road. The "my religion or eternal hellfire" is becoming more of a rarity. As for those that do believe in hellfire, they usually believe that as long as you are a part of SOME "christian" religion, you are ok.

I don't really think it matters what they believe regarding switching churches. What is important is what they believe if you abandon religion altogether and say i don't believe any of it. It is an incredibly common teaching that you receive salvation by having faith in jesus, god, etc. That is kind of the basic premise.

Even though people may not come out and say you will burn in hell, when they have been saying your whole life that believing is what leads to your salvation they are saying that the opposite of believing means no salvation.

 

[Tchula]

If you become born again, you have enlightenment. It isn't something that can be understood without experiencing it.

 

[Henry Ford]

If you become born again, you have enlightenment. It isn't something that can be understood without experiencing it.

Sounds very nice.

 

[Otis]

If you become born again, you have enlightenment. It isn't something that can be understood without experiencing it.

I've only been born one time.

 

[butcher boy]

If you become born again, you have enlightenment. It isn't something that can be understood without experiencing it.

I've only been born one time.

Can I choose whose ###### I pop out of the second time? Dibs on Kate Upton.