Belief... or lack thereof

[pocaracas]

Well, yeah.

But I’m still confused. How do you think God could prove to you, by Himself, His existence?

He would know… didn’t you say he’s omniscient?
That He doesn’t do it, only says that he’s, at least, not interested in me acknowledging his existence.
So, if he’s not interested, why would people be interested in my belief?
(when I say “me”, here, I can mean any other person who doesn’t believe, including all children)
Let God do his thing.

 

[PRmerger]

Hasn’t time had enough time to get from infinity to now?

As has already been shown, the above is nonsense.

If time was infinite in the past, you simply cannot get to “now”.

If you have a train with an infinite number of cars, you’re NEVER going to get to the present day car.

If you have an infinite number of marbles, you’re NEVER going to get to the day when you can display them upon being counted. Why? Because you can never count them all.

 

[PRmerger]

He would know… didn’t you say he’s omniscient?
That He doesn’t do it, only says that he’s, at least, not interested in me acknowledging his existence.
So, if he’s not interested, why would people be interested in my belief?
(when I say “me”, here, I can mean any other person who doesn’t believe, including all children)
Let God do his thing.

Yes, He would know.

But I am not omniscient, so I don’t know.

You tell me: How do you think God could prove to you, by Himself, His existence?

 

[pocaracas]

OH!!! How I am amused at this!

You are absolutely, 100% correct on this!

What you have asserted above is nothing but your tacit acceptance of Catholic teaching.

You are simply echoing what Pope JP2 said in his magnificent encyclical, Fides Et Ratio.

Yes, intellect is great…but it can only take you so far.

Kudos to you for being so Catholic in saying this!

hum… thanks, I guess…

(also, your GIFs are getting a bit old… can you find some new ones? )

 

[PRmerger]

I said infinite time is nonsense?

Yes, sir. You certainly did.

My summary doesn’t make sense.
How can there not be enough time in time to account for all that time?

 

[PRmerger]

(also, your GIFs are getting a bit old… can you find some new ones? )

 

[MPat]

Ah… ok, I get it…
Do the two intersect?

“Intersect”? What do you mean by that?

Good question… I don’t know if they notice it…

Precisely. If you were deluding yourself, you would be claiming that you are not deluding yourself (and believing that) anyway. Thus your claims that you are not deluding yourself are not very persuasive…

The quotes you gave before have little to do with any closed-mindedness of mine.
One is about a question concerning the fact that humans seem to do all the work of convincing other humans about the existence of that God that could do it all by Himself in a much more convincing manner.
The other is about how those humans that are convincing the other humans are seemingly exploiting flaws of the human psyche.
If this is my mind being closed, then… I’m not sure I want to open it…
To know how my psyche can be exploited and just go ahead and allow it to happen?

In other words - yes, you are closed-minded about this; no, there is nothing wrong with being closed-minded by itself.

Of course, there could be something wrong about being closed-minded, if one also thinks one is being open-minded… Or about being closed-minded without a good reason…

NDE claimants are directly misinterpreting their perceptions, or inner experiences.
Conspiracy theorists are misinterpreting the collection of reports they get about a particular event.

Both are rationalizing something about which they have insufficient data… and both are seemingly arriving at the wrong conclusion, but convinced that it is right. The self-delusion is that self-convincing part, I’d say…

In that case someone deceived by a mirage would also be “self-deluded”?

Evidence… oh well, on a quick google search I came across this nice
blog post by a psychiatrist, concerning the problematic of avoiding self-delusion… One of the main mechanisms: self-awareness.

That is not nearly enough. You said that such awareness makes self-delusion impossible. The psychiatrist only says it can help to some extent.

Benefits from awareness of?..
The shield is composed of the awareness of how self-delusion can work.

Oh, but doesn’t it work a bit like “Unexpected hanging paradox”…?

That is, you are aware of dangers of self-deception. Then you try to avoid it (um, you do, right?). Then the danger decreases (at least in your view). Then you let your guard down. And the danger increases again.

That’s why I have asked you about conspiracy theorists. They are aware of many kinds of deception and self-deception (just ask them). And they claim they are avoiding that deception. And yet, you think they are still deceiving themselves.

I’ve been talking about psychology, all along…
That’s why I said that the claimed evidence wasn’t relevant.

Yes, you were trying to avoid looking at the evidence all along.

Makes sense… there’s no practical difference.
There’s only an intellectual difference.
Like I said earlier, I can’t be intellectually honest and claim that gods are impossible. But I can claim that they seem improbable.

Only if you are talking about this “probability” as a matter of taste. Otherwise you still need evidence.

The different religions foster a belief in whatever they do believe.
My avoidance is an attempt to prevent myself from blindingly accepting any religious claim without proper evidence going for it.

In other words, the only difference is that you are defending your atheism and others are defending their religious beliefs. I don’t think it counts as a real difference in this case…

That is, if you think defending religious beliefs is the sign of self-delusion, then your defense of atheism in the same way is a sign of self-delusion as well.

 

[MPat]

Indeed that argument would have been terrible.
Good thing I wasn’t making it, huh?

I see. But I’m afraid it means that you concentrated on “reasons to believe” instead of evidence without any argument…

Don’t do that… that’s silly. You know it’s silly. Why go there?

It is? Why don’t you explain why you think it is silly?

Once again, Little Johnny accepts heliocentrism, QM and his religion because some authority (teacher, mother, textbook) tells him so. What makes you think that this fact is a good reason to ignore evidence for his religion, but not evidence for heliocentrism or QM?

In case you wonder, no, Little Johnny has no other evidence for heliocentrism or QM. For example, yes, geosynchronous satellites might count as evidence for heliocentrism, but Little Johnny hasn’t launched one. He only heard that an authority told him such evidence exists.

And we were talking about “reasons for belief”, weren’t we?
At least, that’s what I’ve been doing all along…

Yes, you were. It was not a good idea.

Once more, “similar” is a very relative word. What I consider similar, you may not.
That’s why you’re resisting my claim that every religion has a very similar methodology in how it convinces people to believe in it. Our measure of similarity is different, apparently.

No, that doesn’t help. Even in that case you should have checked every single religion. You would only have to look for different similarities.

So, once again, find an answer to the analogy about sticks, or weaken your claim.

 

[pocaracas]

Yes, sir. You certainly did.

or not…
Here’s the summary:

So… you’re telling me that there’s not enough time in time to count all the time up to now (or up to the event that somehow caused the big bang, which set a t=0 for us)?

That “not” there… it counts.

 

[pocaracas]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/0145b2e2f15a0fae04e054371b334c23/tumblr_inline_ny4eyeZekG1r79k32_500.gif

Keep it going strong! MOAR!

 

[pocaracas]

“Intersect”? What do you mean by that?

An intersection is a mathematical operation between two sets where the result is whatever is common in the two sets.
Do “win by truth” and “win by profit” have any commonality?

Precisely. If you were deluding yourself, you would be claiming that you are not deluding yourself (and believing that) anyway. Thus your claims that you are not deluding yourself are not very persuasive…

Nor would yours be… nor would any believer’s.
So… what are we left with?

In other words - yes, you are closed-minded about this; no, there is nothing wrong with being closed-minded by itself.

Of course, there could be something wrong about being closed-minded, if one also thinks one is being open-minded… Or about being closed-minded without a good reason…

If I am closed-minded, then I have explained the why… I think there’s a good reason for it.
So there.

In that case someone deceived by a mirage would also be “self-deluded”?

Did he have access to the information that the mirage was just a mirage?
If yes, then you’re right… if no, then he’s just deluded by his perceptions.

That is not nearly enough. You said that such awareness makes self-delusion impossible. The psychiatrist only says it can help to some extent.

In my mind, it renders it near impossible.
If you forget about it, well… you let your guard down, you’re open to an attack.

Oh, but doesn’t it work a bit like “Unexpected hanging paradox”…?

That is, you are aware of dangers of self-deception. Then you try to avoid it (um, you do, right?). Then the danger decreases (at least in your view). Then you let your guard down. And the danger increases again.

That’s why I have asked you about conspiracy theorists. They are aware of many kinds of deception and self-deception (just ask them). And they claim they are avoiding that deception. And yet, you think they are still deceiving themselves.

Talking about “letting your guard down”
Conspiracy theorists, like us all, operate on incomplete data. But they tend to attribute some of the unknowns to the government or whatever institution is “pretending” to be the good guy. The non-conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, tend to accept the official account and just go on with life.
They have a bias towards connecting certain dots in a particular way… yeah… I guess you’re right… they do seem self-deluded like that.

Only if you are talking about this “probability” as a matter of taste. Otherwise you still need evidence.

It’s more of an intuitive probability, yes. But I think I remember giving some justification for it…

In other words, the only difference is that you are defending your atheism and others are defending their religious beliefs. I don’t think it counts as a real difference in this case…

That is, if you think defending religious beliefs is the sign of self-delusion, then your defense of atheism in the same way is a sign of self-delusion as well.

Is it?.. what am I deluded of?

 

[pocaracas]

I see. But I’m afraid it means that you concentrated on “reasons to believe” instead of evidence without any argument…

Well then… let’s deal with evidence, since you’re so eager…
Which evidence do you wish to bring forth?

It is? Why don’t you explain why you think it is silly?

Once again, Little Johnny accepts heliocentrism, QM and his religion because some authority (teacher, mother, textbook) tells him so. What makes you think that this fact is a good reason to ignore evidence for his religion, but not evidence for heliocentrism or QM?

In case you wonder, no, Little Johnny has no other evidence for heliocentrism or QM. For example, yes, geosynchronous satellites might count as evidence for heliocentrism, but Little Johnny hasn’t launched one. He only heard that an authority told him such evidence exists.

If the teacher is half competent, he’ll address some means by which Johnny can find the evidence for himself. Typically, this is accomplished using the historical methods first employed by the people who discovered those things about Nature.

You’re now going to tell me that religion teaches the same things… seek and you shall find.
The trouble is that psychological detail, where the seeking of something immaterial, but which allegedly makes you feel good, tends to make that something become the interpretation for many good-feelings…
Circularity ensues.
Self-delusion.

Yes, you were. It was not a good idea.

Of course it was.
Why people believe is, to me, more important than what they believe in.

Why do you believe in what you believe?
Lead me on your trip, from first principles to final realization, how did you come to be convinced that Catholicism provides an accurate description of reality. Please.

No, that doesn’t help. Even in that case you should have checked every single religion. You would only have to look for different similarities.

So, once again, find an answer to the analogy about sticks, or weaken your claim.

Those things are similar to me. My eye cannot perceive the 1mm difference in those sticks, hence they’re similar.

 

[MPat]

An intersection is a mathematical operation between two sets where the result is whatever is common in the two sets.
Do “win by truth” and “win by profit” have any commonality?

Yes, I know what one normally means by “intersection”. But we are not talking about sets.

The point is that “Win by profit” is a “tiebreaker”. Like in sports - first we decide places by points, then, in case of tie - by, let’s say, number of wins. So, in this case, how would you describe that “intersection” between “Win by points” and “Win by number of victories”?

Nor would yours be… nor would any believer’s.
So… what are we left with?

We are left with your stated reason for being close-minded about religion being not so good, after all.

That is, you were avoiding religion, as you thought that saves you from self-delusion. It appears that things are not that certain.

If I am closed-minded, then I have explained the why… I think there’s a good reason for it.
So there.

Yes, you do think you have a good reason for being closed-minded.

Did he have access to the information that the mirage was just a mirage?
If yes, then you’re right… if no, then he’s just deluded by his perceptions.

And you are assuming that someone who has just experienced a near death experience does have “access to the information” that it was just what you think it was?

In my mind, it renders it near impossible.
If you forget about it, well… you let your guard down, you’re open to an attack.

Is that “In my mind” good enough to show that you are immune to self-delusion?

Talking about “letting your guard down”

Yes. You still have to answer how you are sure that your certainty about lack of self-delusion does not lead to your guard being down.

Conspiracy theorists, like us all, operate on incomplete data. But they tend to attribute some of the unknowns to the government or whatever institution is “pretending” to be the good guy. The non-conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, tend to accept the official account and just go on with life.
They have a bias towards connecting certain dots in a particular way… yeah… I guess you’re right… they do seem self-deluded like that.

And yet, as I have noted, they do think they do their best to avoid deception and self-deception. Thus you have no reason to think that being sure of that is actually a sign of successfully avoiding self-deception.

It’s more of an intuitive probability, yes. But I think I remember giving some justification for it…

Maybe you should try to give justification for those probabilities again? After all, some other justifications have proved to be worse than they seemed to be - that might have changed something…

Is it?.. what am I deluded of?

What could you be deluded of? How about that guess that all religions are equally likely to be true, while atheism is far more likely to be true than all of them combined…?

 

[MPat]

Well then… let’s deal with evidence, since you’re so eager…
Which evidence do you wish to bring forth?

I wish to bring forth the evidence for different religions you have actually examined. So, can you describe it a little? For example, how much effort did you put into examining it, how was it distributed among different religions?

If the teacher is half competent, he’ll address some means by which Johnny can find the evidence for himself. Typically, this is accomplished using the historical methods first employed by the people who discovered those things about Nature.

Really? And if the teacher is only “quarter competent” and gives no such means? Are you going to say that then it is OK to dismiss evidence for QM, heliocentrism and religion that Little Johnny didn’t use?

Also, I’ll note that you were strangely silent about the actual means. Do you really expect every Little Johnny to measure parallax of some star before accepting heliocentrism? Or to perform double-slit experiment before accepting quantum mechanics? Or to perform Michelson–Morley experiment before accepting theory of relativity? Or, to take an example that is not extremely costly (in time or money), do you really expect him to perform (or even witness) vivisection of some animal before accepting that heart pumps blood?

If you do, I’m afraid that you will be disappointed. For in the real world most of the people only accept those things because some authority tells them so (a tiny minority finds some other evidence after that). And if you think you can dismiss evidence for different religions, because they are “really” transferred that way, you will have to dismiss evidence for all those things as well.

Of course, it doesn’t mean that you have to accept all religions. By itself it only means that have to look at the evidence before dismissing them. But before you do that, your atheism is unjustified.

You’re now going to tell me that religion teaches the same things… seek and you shall find.
The trouble is that psychological detail, where the seeking of something immaterial, but which allegedly makes you feel good, tends to make that something become the interpretation for many good-feelings…
Circularity ensues.
Self-delusion.

“which allegedly makes you feel good”? Um, isn’t that what Mormons specialise in?

Catholics are more likely to start believe because of some authority - only to find out that Catholicism can explain many facts. It can explain why it is hard to act in a moral way - and why it becomes easier after receiving sacraments. It can explain many miracles. It can explain its own history. It can explain why science is possible. It also fits with philosophical arguments. And yes, it can explain why non-Catholics do so badly in such discussions.

Of course it was.
Why people believe is, to me, more important than what they believe in.

First, evidence is not “what they believe in”. Second, what is “more important to you” is not what is necessary in order to justify your atheism.

Why do you believe in what you believe?
Lead me on your trip, from first principles to final realization, how did you come to be convinced that Catholicism provides an accurate description of reality. Please.

It’s a thread about your atheism. If you want to discuss something else, open a new thread. It’s not like there’s anything wrong with it.

Those things are similar to me. My eye cannot perceive the 1mm difference in those sticks, hence they’re similar.

That’s still a measurement of each of them. Would you like to try again?

 

[pocaracas]

Yes, I know what one normally means by “intersection”. But we are not talking about sets.

The point is that “Win by profit” is a “tiebreaker”. Like in sports - first we decide places by points, then, in case of tie - by, let’s say, number of wins. So, in this case, how would you describe that “intersection” between “Win by points” and “Win by number of victories”?

Oh… so “win by truth” is seen as a tie… I see…
You (and many others since Pascal) are attributing the same likelihood to the existence of a God as to its non-existence?
Well, I think I’ve told you before that that is not my view of the matter.

We are left with your stated reason for being close-minded about religion being not so good, after all.

That is, you were avoiding religion, as you thought that saves you from self-delusion. It appears that things are not that certain.

Wait a minute… Are you trying to tell me that my attempt not to become self-deluded by a belief is a poor reasoning to be, as you call it, close-minded?

The perception of the very real flaws in human perception and reasoning, informing my attempt to avoid such flaws is leading to one other flaw? Possibly, but likely not the ones I’m trying to avoid.
The goal is to consider as true as many actual true things and to consider as false as many actual false things. Minimize the acceptance of wrong things. Even if I have to reject some actual true things and accept some wrong false things… at least I’m trying to keep those wrong false things at bay.

Yes, you do think you have a good reason for being closed-minded.

You know… italics don’t show very well before I reply and see the tags… perhaps underline or bold is a better way to stress a particular word.

If I merely think I have a good reason, then, please, show me the wrong in my reasoning.

And you are assuming that someone who has just experienced a near death experience does have “access to the information” that it was just what you think it was?

No, I’m not. But they could…

Does someone who has just experienced a temporal lobe epileptic attack have access to the information that his/her mood swings or other even more acute psychosis are just the brain misfiring? Perhaps, nowadays… but 1000 years ago?.. 2000 years ago?.. 5000 years ago?.. 10000 years ago?
How would people interpret such unpredictable, sporadic, psychological disturbances?

Is that “In my mind” good enough to show that you are immune to self-delusion?

It’s good enough to show that I’m not available to certain kinds of self-delusion.

Yes. You still have to answer how you are sure that your certainty about lack of self-delusion does not lead to your guard being down.

If you are aware of a threat, you put security in place to cover that threat.
If the threat is breaking and entering, you lock your door… if they come through a bad lock, you get a better lock and reinforce your door.
In self delusion, you only get one attempt… so the security better be good… perhaps it becomes too good, for some of us… and not enough for others.

And yet, as I have noted, they do think they do their best to avoid deception and self-deception. Thus you have no reason to think that being sure of that is actually a sign of successfully avoiding self-deception.

hmmm… so… what is a “conspiracy theorist”? What is wrong with them, psychologically?
According to this guy, it’s a form of schizophrenia. According to this other guy, it’s a form of apophenia… which is, itself, an “acute stage of schizophrenia”.
From that first link, “Kapur calls it “biased inductive logic”—a top-down effort to explain the feeling that everything seems important.”
Are you sure they’re doing “their best to avoid deception”? Is everything really important?

[cont.d]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont.]

Maybe you should try to give justification for those probabilities again? After all, some other justifications have proved to be worse than they seemed to be - that might have changed something…

1-How did the concept of God first appear to humans? As a physical entity presenting itself? or as the result of thought? If the first, then the absence of such presentation in recent times is suspect… if the second, then, like any proposed theory, it requires validation. Validation is not available, unless through some means which can be mistaken for a psychological flaw known as self-delusion, so any such validation is inconclusive.

2-How is the belief in God perpetuated? Through actual experience of God or through convincing people (preferably the more gullible, the young) that such an entity exists? If the first, then I’d expect everyone to have been included in that experience, I wasn’t. If the second, then, again, it’s the exploitation of a psychological flaw in humans.

3-miracles - you guys seem keen on having some evidence every now and then. Miracles could indeed help convince some of the more skeptical… but they present themselves in such feeble fashion. One is a person who writes in her diary that she talks to Jesus - Van Gogh thought he WAS Jesus, at times; another claims that some special Hosts are kept fresh for much longer than is ordinary - foul play is never considered; another claims the Sun did strange things in the sky - the atmosphere does strange things, allowing for some awesome light effects every day… sigh…

I still see much riding on using known psychological flaws in human brains, and little actual evidence.

What could you be deluded of? How about that guess that all religions are equally likely to be true, while atheism is far more likely to be true than all of them combined…?

If I am deluded of that, then I have provided a few good reasons (or so I see them) for it to be so.
If they are bad reasons, then my reasoning is impaired. I require help… could you help me?

I wish to bring forth the evidence for different religions you have actually examined. So, can you describe it a little? For example, how much effort did you put into examining it, how was it distributed among different religions?

My memory is ****, but a little…
Islam - Everyone is supposed to be born a Muslim, but needs a little nudge from family and society to remind them as kids.
Hinduism - Everyone is a part of the Hindu society. It permeates everything in life. And, of course, kids are taught their gods and their philosophies.
Jainism and Buddhism are similar to Hinduism in this respect…

Oh… Christianity: home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm It’s kids all the way.

Really? And if the teacher is only “quarter competent” and gives no such means? Are you going to say that then it is OK to dismiss evidence for QM, heliocentrism and religion that Little Johnny didn’t use?

Also, I’ll note that you were strangely silent about the actual means. Do you really expect every Little Johnny to measure parallax of some star before accepting heliocentrism? Or to perform double-slit experiment before accepting quantum mechanics? Or to perform Michelson–Morley experiment before accepting theory of relativity? Or, to take an example that is not extremely costly (in time or money), do you really expect him to perform (or even witness) vivisection of some animal before accepting that heart pumps blood?

If you do, I’m afraid that you will be disappointed. For in the real world most of the people only accept those things because some authority tells them so (a tiny minority finds some other evidence after that). And if you think you can dismiss evidence for different religions, because they are “really” transferred that way, you will have to dismiss evidence for all those things as well.

Of course, it doesn’t mean that you have to accept all religions. By itself it only means that have to look at the evidence before dismissing them. But before you do that, your atheism is unjustified.

Now, you’re being silly. I told you it was silly to go here…

If the teacher isn’t half competent, then the kid learns by memorizing things, just like he does for writing and reading and religion, yes. It’s all the same.

If he’s given the instructions of how to arrive at a particular result, then, even if he can’t run the experiment for real, he can imagine it, follow its steps and follow the reasoning. He can conduct what is usually called a “thought experiment”. These thought experiments are important to test how one step of the experiment leads to another and how valid each step is.
If the steps to arrive at the conclusion are wrong, the thought experiment can show that they’re wrong.
If the thought experiment goes through without requiring anything out of the ordinary, then Johnny will say that the experiment makes sense and the resulting conclusion also makes sense.

[cont.d]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont.]

“which allegedly makes you feel good”? Um, isn’t that what Mormons specialise in?

Catholics are more likely to start believe because of some authority - only to find out that Catholicism can explain many facts. It can explain why it is hard to act in a moral way - and why it becomes easier after receiving sacraments. It can explain many miracles. It can explain its own history. It can explain why science is possible. It also fits with philosophical arguments. And yes, it can explain why non-Catholics do so badly in such discussions.

I agree… it’s a very well thought out religion.
Very little loose ends… and the ones that are loose, are quickly dismissed as “mysteries”, still retaining validity, of course… God only knows, huh?

First, evidence is not “what they believe in”. Second, what is “more important to you” is not what is necessary in order to justify your atheism.

I know evidence is not “what they believe in”…evidence is what strengthens the belief in what they believe in.
I’m, more concerned with why they believe…
If you believe because of some psychological pathway, then I disbelieve because that pathway was not activated in me… or is non-existent.
If you believe because you’re convinced to do it by your parents and care-givers, then I disbelieve because I wasn’t convinced by my parents… Parents may be the first exploiters of that psychological pathway.
If you believe because there’s valid evidence for the existence of God, then either I haven’t been presented with that evidence, or I haven’t deemed that evidence to be valid for the conclusion being advocated.

My atheism is justified through my inability to accept any belief that has been presented to me.

It’s a thread about your atheism. If you want to discuss something else, open a new thread. It’s not like there’s anything wrong with it.

How unexpected…

That’s still a measurement of each of them. Would you like to try again?

Every single religion relies heavily in convincing its young to believe in it.
If this works with the majority, the others will either fall in line through the faulty “ad populum”, or will get there through some emotional trial, or will be dismissed as an abnormal person - denied marriage rights, family rights, etc…

How many parents deny their children lodging upon finding that they’re atheists?
Muslims excel at this detail, by declaring the death penalty for such an action of “desertion” (aka, apostasy).
Even in seances, those who do not believe are kindly asked to leave the room, for they are “casting a shadow and preventing the spirits from stepping forth”… -.-’

So, commonalities: gradual introduction of children into the belief; shunning non-believers, thus strengthening the belief of the believers, at least by the fear of being shunned.

 

[Michael_Francis]

**Be advised:

This thread is constantly monitored by me and is allowed to deal with topics re: atheism.

So long as all post remain charitable, all is well.

Contempt for or derision of either religious belief or lack thereof is counterproductive to the dialog and will invite moderator intervention.

Please carry on accordingly.**

 

[guanophore]

You tell me: How do you think God could prove to you, by Himself, His existence?

I am interested in this also.

 

[pocaracas]

Be advised:

This thread is constantly monitored by me and is allowed to deal with topics re: atheism.

So long as all post remain charitable, all is well.

So… can MPat elaborate on his path to belief? Or is that too much off-topic?

Contempt for or derision of either religious belief or lack thereof is counterproductive to the dialog and will invite moderator intervention.

Contempt and derision… I once got a warning from another moderator about mentioning that indoctrination is the main driver of any religion, and he said is was considered contempt… is this message of yours concerning that fact?
I mean no contempt or derision… this is a simple observation supported by statistics kindly provided by many believers: home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm