The Reasons Behind Following a Religion

[seycyrus]

Most atheists I know came to that state after being raised like most people (i.e., with religious beliefs taught to them by their family), yet came to question religion.

Most religious peole I know don't do much fretting about whether god exists or not...it's pretty much a settled question to them.

It's a mystery to me how you're reading that as egotistical.

Sorry for the late reply, real life you know.

It is quite apparent how it is an egotistical statement.

1) You obviously consider thoughtful investigation to have higher merit than thoughtless acceptance.

2)You squarely place yourself in the group that has "...thought about it a lot more..."

Therefore considering 1) and 2), it is obvious that you consider yourself amongst the group that is more enlightened than those relatively ignorant savages who practice religion.

How can you not realize that your statement *was* egotistical?

Considering the fact that your data is entirely anecdotal and at least partially biased I must ask you (and any others that choose to answer)...

How are you different from the clergy and such, in the dark ages (for example) who looked down upon the unlearned and ignorant comon folk and laughed in disdain at their ignorance?

They were certainly more educated and "thought about it more" than the average workmen.

I know you will say "But they were wrong, and I am right! The most educated, brightest minds of our time say so!"

Ahh...

You are the same then, at least in your words.

 

[seycyrus]

I would have to agree with you lisab.

Most of the people I know that belong to a religion belong because that's how they were raised and they've never thought about questioning it.

Most of the people I know who are religous think about their faith on a daily basis.

Most of the atheists I know, only think about their atheism when it comes time to mock religion in general, or the beliefs of others, specifically.

Furthemore, most of the people I know who are atheists have a belief system that stemmed from their rebellious teenager years when they rebelled against mommy and daddy without even a stray thought passing through their mind.

 

[Topher925]

Sorry for the late reply, real life you know.

It is quite apparent how it is an egotistical statement...

Fox News called. They said they want to give you your own show, right after Glen Beck.

 

[seycyrus]

should be based on pragmatic observations. What guides our laws should be what works best.

What??

Works best for who (whom)? According to what criteria?

If a persons religion effects they way they govern, then the first amendment is being breached.

No its not. Not unless it is directly related to the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof! You just quoted it.

 

[seycyrus]

Fox News called. They said they want to give you your own show, right after Glen Beck.

Uhm, sorry comrade, if I offended by my commentary.

 

[Pupil]

1) You obviously consider thoughtful investigation to have higher merit than thoughtless acceptance.

I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Obviously. Yes. Thoughtful investigation has higher merit than blind acceptance.

Therefore considering 1) and 2), it is obvious that you consider yourself amongst the group that is more enlightened than those relatively ignorant savages who practice religion.

She never said she was more enlightened and only ignorant savages practice religion. You're burning straw men at the stake, here.

 

[drankin]

I guess it's safe to say that religion influences policy but does not in a way that respects a particular religion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would have to agree with you lisab.

Most of the people I know that belong to a religion belong because that's how they were raised and they've never thought about questioning it.

How would you know? Same to you lisab. How would you know what personal struggles a person has with their faith; and what makes you think they would admit it to you when they do?

The fact is that all people of faith struggle with their faith at times; generally not all the time [for some it is all of the time], but at times. Even Mother Theresa admitted that she struggled with her faith. It is a common theme found in every church I have ever attended. Sooner or later, they all address the issue. There are also many books available for people going through a crisis of faith. You all want to make this as if people are brainwashed zombies, but that is nonsense. No matter how a person was raised, eventually faith is a choice. And anyone who chooses faith will struggle with that choice at times. In fact, one the the more famous bible verses is about how even Jesus lost faith [a wild idea for people who believe he was a deity].

In my opinion, what you can't accept is that other intelligent and rational people made a different choice than you did.

 

[seycyrus]

I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Obviously. Yes. Thoughtful investigation has higher merit than blind acceptance.

I never said I disagreed with that sentiment.

Rather, I disagree with her anecdotal evidence regarding who have "thought about it more".

She never said she was more enlightened and only ignorant savages practice religion. You're burning straw men at the stake, here.

Not at all. Note, I said "relatively". When you define a merit system and strongly place yourself in the higher caste, you are making a statement about your own perceived status.

It is evident in which group she self-identifies. It is equally evident regarding into which group she places those that practice religion.

Therefore, in accordance with her belief system (and yours) the non-practitioners have higher merit than the practitioners.

It is the same as stating "In my experience, those with dark hair are harder workers and more intelligent than those with fairer colored hair." "Oh yes, my hair *is* very dark, why thank you."

 

[Pupil]

Not at all. Note, I said "relatively". When you define a merit system and strongly place yourself in the higher caste, you are making a statement about your own perceived status.

It is evident in which group she self-identifies. It is equally evident regarding into which group she places those that practice religion.

Therefore, in accordance with her belief system (and yours) the non-practitioners have higher merit than the practitioners.

It is the same as stating "In my experience, those with dark hair are harder workers and more intelligent than those with fairer colored hair." "Oh yes, my hair *is* very dark, why thank you."

Again, you're just assuming her opinion on things when you have no basis for doing so. She didn't define a merit system, or place herself in a higher cast, or talk about her belief system, and you have no right to tell me what my belief system is or how I look at practitioners.

She made an empirical statement that she observed most people who are atheists questioned their religion and most people who are theists did not.

I agree with what she said, as I have had the same experience. It does not follow that I think I am in a higher cast than religious people or look at them as ignorant, etc, and I find it absurd that you presume I do.

 

[seycyrus]

Again, you're just assuming her opinion on things when you have no basis for doing so.

My assumption is based on her statements. You have yourself validated my assumptions with your commentary after your "I laughed out loud statement".

She is an atheist.

She believes that thought has more merit than non-thought.

Do you disagree with the above? If so, which one?

She didn't define a merit system, or place herself in a higher cast, or talk about her belief system,

Yes she did, in the exact manner that I explicitly showed in my previous posts.

and you have no right to tell me what my belief system is or how I look at practitioners.

First of all, I laugh at your attempt to tell me what I have the right to tell you. Where does it end? I have given solid reasons for my beliefs regarding your beliefs. Furthermore, I have every right to do as I like and you have the right to reply as you see fit.

She made an empirical statement that she observed most people who are atheists questioned their religion and most people who are theists did not.

Anecdotal evidence which I countered with my own anecdotal evidence.

I agree with what she said, as I have had the same experience. It does not follow that I think I am in a higher cast than religious people or look at them as ignorant, etc, and I find it absurd that you presume I do.

I find it absurd that you cannot follow the logical progression.

IF 1) You think that thinking has more merit than non-thinking (or less-thinking as the case may be).

AND 2) Atheists think more than non-atheists.

THEN ...*drum roll*

Atheists have more merit than non-atheists!

Not according to what I have defined as your belief system, but what YOU have defined.

Furthermore...

IF 3) You consider yourself an atheist AND hold the above beliefs.

THEN *keep them drums a rolling*

You think you have more merit than non-atheists!

Note: If one were to include a few qualifiers such as "some", or "many" then there would be room to slide, but unfortunately none were mentioned.

 

[lisab]

Sorry for the late reply, real life you know.

It is quite apparent how it is an egotistical statement.

1) You obviously consider thoughtful investigation to have higher merit than thoughtless acceptance.

2)You squarely place yourself in the group that has "...thought about it a lot more..."

Therefore considering 1) and 2), it is obvious that you consider yourself amongst the group that is more enlightened than those relatively ignorant savages who practice religion.

How can you not realize that your statement *was* egotistical?

Considering the fact that your data is entirely anecdotal and at least partially biased I must ask you (and any others that choose to answer)...

How are you different from the clergy and such, in the dark ages (for example) who looked down upon the unlearned and ignorant comon folk and laughed in disdain at their ignorance?

They were certainly more educated and "thought about it more" than the average workmen.

I know you will say "But they were wrong, and I am right! The most educated, brightest minds of our time say so!"

Ahh...

You are the same then, at least in your words.

Comment #1: why yes, I DO consider thoughtful investigation to have higher merit than thoughtless acceptance. Wow, just who the hell do I think I am, valuing thoughtful investigation?

As to your comment #2, tell me exactly where I put myself in that second group, seycyrus. And while you're at it, point out to me where I have ever referred to people of faith as "ignorant savages" or "unlearned and ignorant comon folk." Are you aware ad hominem attacks are not allowed on this forum?

Wow, you are actually putting words in my mouth (see the bolded text). Don't make me into your strawman.

You speak angrily, and as if you know me...you don't. You have no idea about my beliefs, which are more complex than checking a box on a multiple choice form.

It still mystifies me why you choose to feel so victimized here.

 

[Evo]

How would you know? Same to you lisab. How would you know what personal struggles a person has with their faith; and what makes you think they would admit it to you when they do?

Because I have had discussions with many, many, people about religion, and I can honestly say that in my life, the majority that attended church, only did so out of habit. Some admitted they went to keep up appearances, or to appease family/spouse, or just incase there might be an evil supreme being that really would torture them for eternity if they didn't show up, no matter how good they were. I also know some wonderful people that take religion very seriously, but they don't agonize over it, they are happily into it 100%. I don't know anyone that agonizes over it. Over the past 30 years I am meeting more and more atheists. Every man I've met in the last 20 years has been an atheist. And they have no inner struggles about it. Go figure.

 

[robertm]

I guess it's safe to say that religion influences policy but does not in a way that respects a particular religion.

This is not true. Ideas specific to the most popular religion(s) in the US directly influence policy.

Do Buddhists have a problem with gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender rights? Do Catholics want intelligent design creationism taught at school? Why do the large majority of the popular religious institutions in the US preach anti-science or pseudoscience and why does it seem to effect policy? The belief that the 'soul' enters the zygote at the moment of conception has hindered social progress in family planning and scientific progress in stem cell research.

Why are churches tax exempt? Even the ones that have no real charitable function.

Why can't the holy men and their flocks simply enjoy the freedom to do whatever amongst their own community? Why haven't and why can't believers ever seem to be able to keep it to themselves?

Why do so many people consider faith to be a respectable state of mind?


Seycyrus:

Works best for who (whom)? According to what criteria?

This of course, is not a simple manner. But adding unfounded faith-based mythical beliefs into the mix does not advance the argument one iota; indeed it makes good decision making unlikely in many cases.

Dogma and bias are highly effective blindfolds that we should not want our representatives to be wearing.

No its not. Not unless it is directly related to the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof! You just quoted it.

When an official makes an official decision which is based on his/her religious beliefs and that decision brings into effect public policy, the policy and the reasoning behind it respect the establishment of whatever religion the official happens to adhere to. Which is, apparently, unconstitutional.


Critical thinking skills are what is key for life, liberty, and the pursuit of whatever. Steadfast adherence to unfounded beliefs promotes and condones credulity and inflexibility.

 

[lisab]

How would you know? Same to you lisab. How would you know what personal struggles a person has with their faith; and what makes you think they would admit it to you when they do?

The fact is that all people of faith struggle with their faith at times; generally not all the time [for some it is all of the time], but at times. Even Mother Theresa admitted that she struggled with her faith. It is a common theme found in every church I have ever attended. Sooner or later, they all address the issue. There are also many books available for people going through a crisis of faith. You all want to make this as if people are brainwashed zombies, but that is nonsense. No matter how a person was raised, eventually faith is a choice. And anyone who chooses faith will struggle with that choice at times. In fact, one the the more famous bible verses is about how even Jesus lost faith [a wild idea for people who believe he was a deity].

In my opinion, what you can't accept is that other intelligent and rational people made a different choice than you did.

Well, coming from a Mormon family, I know many of my relatives didn't do much questioning. My father did, he was expelled, literally violently (he was beaten and thrown out of town at age 17). He was made an example of to anyone else who may have blasphemous ideas, I suppose.

And I know that faith is a huge comfort to people, and people who have it are...um...blessed (can I use that word ). I just can't, can't make myself believe in anything supernatural.

Ivan, you mentioned in an earlier post how hard it is to come to terms with the idea of a final judgement. I understand that. Similarly, it's hard to come to terms with death being absolutely final, and this life being a one-act show. I have one child, and I love my daughter with all my heart...it gives me nearly unbearable pain to think that when I die, I'll never see her again...and I will leave her all alone in the world.

Neither path is easy.

 

[Pupil]

First of all, I laugh at your attempt to tell me what I have the right to tell you. Where does it end? I have given solid reasons for my beliefs regarding your beliefs.

No, you just keep asserting you have a reason for telling me my beliefs. You don't, and you got them wrong.

I find it absurd that you cannot follow the logical progression.

IF 1) You think that thinking has more merit than non-thinking (or less-thinking as the case may be).

AND 2) every Atheists think more than every non-atheists.

THEN ...*drum roll*

Atheists have more merit than non-atheists!

Fixed (bolded). You have to think this is true for every every atheist and theist before coming to that conclusion. Something you just assumed I do without asking. I won't bother with the other stuff you wrote, as it hinges on the incorrect stuff above.

 

[seycyrus]

Comment #1: why yes, I DO consider thoughtful investigation to have higher merit than thoughtless acceptance. Wow, just who the hell do I think I am, valuing thoughtful investigation?

People who focus on this are missing the point. I hold the same value. Since most (if not all) people would make a similar claim, this strongly reinforces this, my first assumption
.

As to your comment #2, tell me exactly where I put myself in that second group, seycyrus.

Lacking concrete data, it would be safe to state that you place yourself somewhere in the middle, say withing one or two deviations.

Pray tell, just how much more *have* you thought about it than the average non-atheist that you discussed in your original comment? Much more? Much much more? Or perhaps much, much, much,much,much more?

And while you're at it, point out to me where I have ever referred to people of faith as "ignorant savages" or "unlearned and ignorant comon folk."

The word "relatively" was used in direct proximity to "ignorant savages" , was it not?

As for "unlearned and ignorant common folk", I directly connected that to clergy and such in the dark ages. I did not state that you said it.

Are you aware ad hominem attacks are not allowed on this forum?

Well its a good thing that I haven't made any.

Wow, you are actually putting words in my mouth (see the bolded text). Don't make me into your strawman.

You are incorrect on both points.

You speak angrily, and as if you know me...you don't.

I don't need to know you. I know what you wrote. As for anger, I am calm. Perhaps if you calmed down a little you wouldn't have made your false accusations.

You have no idea about my beliefs, which are more complex than checking a box on a multiple choice form.

One would hope that your beliefs are more complex than would be indicated by your original post in this thread, which could only be interpreted as I have outlined.

It still mystifies me why you choose to feel so victimized here.

It mystifies me why you would think that making a statement that was not only fallacious, but condecending would not provoke a response.

Err, ok, it doesn't mystify me all *that* much considering the forum. Attacks on non-atheists always seem to get a slide here. So, I guess it mystifies me a little.

 

[negitron]

So any notion that Atheists are, in general, smarter than a theist is false.

I would not go that far:

http://undergraduatestudies.ucdavis.edu/explorations/2004/clark.pdf

 

[lisab]

seycyrus -

Nope, not going to fly. You're slick, but stop dodging the question. I'll ask you again, and I will continue until you answer squarely:

As to your comment #2, tell me exactly where I put myself in that second group. And while you're at it, point out to me where I have ever referred to people of faith as "ignorant savages" or "unlearned and ignorant comon folk."

And if you don't like this forum, the buttons that led you here can lead you out of here, too.

 

[jobyts]

OK; tomorrow when I wake up, I want like to see this thread locked...

 

[seycyrus]

No, you just keep asserting you have a reason for telling me my beliefs. You don't, and you got them wrong.

You directly told me that I got at least one of them right. As for the second, my commentary was phrased in IF THEN statements.

If you don't think that "atheists put more thought into it than non-atheists" then you are exempt from the discussion, and may be excused.

If you do, AND you think that thinking has more merit than non-thinking (or less thinking), then you are placing yourself on a pedestal. Enjoy the view.

Fixed (bolded). You have to think this is true for every every atheist and theist before coming to that conclusion.

First of all, why are you editing my text? Can you not see that this may lead to unintended false quotations by others?

Secondly are you seriously going on the record to claim that the default assumption when no qualifier is given in the English language is "some"? Ridiculous. The default is "every".

If I said that "cats have two legs.", it would be incorrect. there is no implied "some" qualifying "cats". The implication, by default is "all".

Something you just assumed I do without asking. I won't bother with the other stuff you wrote, as it hinges on the incorrect stuff above.

As your first statement is in error, your conclusion is invalid. People might claim that you are running away. (Oh wait, do we assume that *all* people, or *some* people might make that claim?)

 

[negitron]

OK; tomorrow when I wake up, I want like to see this thread locked...

I'm totally down with that.

 

[seycyrus]

seycyrus -

Nope, not going to fly. You're slick, but stop dodging the question.

Haven't dodged it at all, but I note you refuse to address the central issue.

I'll ask you again, and I will continue until you answer squarely:

Your attempt to sidetrack this discussion into a discussion of your exact position in the bell curve is ridiculous, and noted. My argument holds whether you are on either end, smack dab in the middle or anywhere in between.

Your self-placement within the group in general, is sufficient

As to your comment #2, tell me exactly where I put myself in that second group.

See above.

And while you're at it, point out to me where I have ever referred to people of faith as "ignorant savages" or "unlearned and ignorant comon folk."

Uhm, okay. Show me were I said you did.

And if you don't like this forum, the buttons that led you here can lead you out of here, too.

I never claimed I didn't like it here. I claimed I didn't like the way certain situations were addressed/ignored.

I choose to light a candle as well as curse the darkness.

As for you, since you obviously don't like to be held accountable for your own words, and since you know where those buttons are...

 

[Evo]

Just curious why you're not wanting to hear from atheists, because it's likely that they have thought a lot more about this question than those who have never questioned their own beliefs.

That is not only a blatant example of an egotistical statement, but also of a logical fallacy.

seycyrus, you chose to read things into this that aren't there. Move along.

 

[lisab]

Uhm, okay. Show me were I said you did.

uhm, okay.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2291364&postcount=91

And you actually put words in my mouth in that post, in case you're forgetting.

 

[lisab]

Move along.

I'll move along too, this is going nowhere. Too bad; it had some interesting potential.

 

[seycyrus]

This of course, is not a simple manner. But adding unfounded faith-based mythical beliefs into the mix does not advance the argument one iota; indeed it makes good decision making unlikely in many cases.

I think that if Bush not gone to war and claimed that it was due to his religious convictions, many people would be ok with that, at least now

Dogma and bias are highly effective blindfolds that we should not want our representatives to be wearing.

How do you separate religious dogma and bias from non-religious dogma and bias? OK, dogma might be defined in terms of religion. If so let's use the word beliefs. How can you define which beliefs stem from religious convictions v.s non-religious convictions?

Would you propose a litmus test?

...the establishment of whatever religion the official happens to adhere to. Which is, apparently, unconstitutional.

Again, I don't see how a Budhist president supporting policy that is in accordance with his religious beliefs on non-violence would be an establishment of Budhism and in violation of the first amendment.

Critical thinking skills are what is key for life, liberty, and the pursuit of whatever. Steadfast adherence to unfounded beliefs promotes and condones credulity and inflexibility.

Not all religious beliefs are unfounded.

 

[negitron]

Not all religious beliefs are unfounded.

Care to share?

 

[whitay]

Being a theist is like being a mathematician. You need to contemplate your beliefs to truly understand them.
True, however, from my personal opinion, general atheists are no different than general theists.
Average Atheists are atheists because:
1. They hated church/temple/whatever when they were kids and rather abandon religion to save an hour a week.
2.Their friends are atheist/ it is "cool" to be atheist.
3. The superiority complex that comes with their false delusions that they are somehow more "logical" than theists.
4. They haven't even bothered to think about religion/deep philosophical questions and choose to affiliate themselves as atheist to avoid this.(Because if you believe in a God, you are supposed to make sense of it. Why does he do the things he does? Why did he create the Universe? Why did he make people so sinful/stupid? How do these fit together?)
Most theists are theists because:
Reasons you stated.
From my personal experiences, the average atheist is pretty stupid. Of course, the average person is pretty stupid anyway. Same goes with theists.
People rarely QUESTION anything. Atheists included.
So any notion that Atheists are, in general, smarter than a theist is false.
Because of #4 above, they convinced doesn't have to think about it.

Ill agree with the first point that it does waste time.

From my perspective Atheists never come in herds. I wish they did. That'd kinda be cool.

With the third, I cannot seem to comprehend how there is any sort of complex about being an atheist. Could you elaborate further on this notion of complex superiority?

The forth I will agree on in a touch an go basis. Simply because often the abandonment comes from the answers which the individuals came up with themselves after asking themselves these philosophical questions. So I therefore think that the amount of people who have actually abandoned because of your point is marginal or no existent. Or is there another reasoning behind what you meant?

Also I kinda don't fit into any of these 4 categories but I am average. Though I have read quite a lot of material from different Christian religions (Including their bibles, magazines and documentaries for creationism and religion beliefs). I interact with people from various Abrahamic belief systems every day. In fact with atheists that I do interact with. I don't really find any of these four points valid for any of them. I unfortunately just don't see it. Well ok maybe the first point but it is kinda weak.

 

[Pupil]

If you don't think that "atheists put more thought into it than non-atheists" then you are exempt from the discussion, and may be excused.

Hey! You finally almost got it! No one here is claiming every atheist puts more thought into it than every theist.

If you do, AND you think that thinking has more merit than non-thinking (or less thinking), then you are placing yourself on a pedestal. Enjoy the view.

Absolutely. That's a pedestal I hope everyone will share with me.

First of all, why are you editing my text? Can you not see that this may lead to unintended false quotations by others?

No. If someone quotes me it will only show what I wrote (not what I quoted), and if someone quotes you, it will show what you originally wrote, in neither case will it show the edited quote which I clearly stated I edited. Come on...

Secondly are you seriously going on the record to claim that the default assumption when no qualifier is given in the English language is "some"? Ridiculous. The default is "every".

Now you definitely got it! We added qualifiers!

Most religious peole I know...

Most of the people I know

And you just ran with it as if we said all.