Belief... or lack thereof

[pocaracas]

I am interested in this also.

Yes… many believers would like to know.
Many think a mere showing up on the part of God would do to convince an unbeliever like me.
To tell you the truth, if He did, I’d have no way of knowing if that was a real apparition, or a hallucination, or a dream, or some other misinterpreted brain working.

But if it were to happen to everyone (not necessarily at the same time, for some would be asleep, but… within a day or so… and then just keep happening every so often… not once every 2000 years, but every year or 2 years, or whenever required to provide some guiding insight.
And this would have been going on since time immemorial…
An extra result from this would be the total absence of religion - no one would believe, for everyone would have first hand experience. No need for special books with the full story, for everyone would have their own story of interaction with God. No faulty interpretation would be floating around, for everyone could have access to the source, everyone could be directly enlightened. No human representative on Earth would be required.

Certainly, such would be within reach of God, no?
Sadly, we don’t see anything like that happening…

I know, there’s a verse about it claiming that people would just believe out of fear.
That fear didn’t work very well for those who crossed the Red Sea, when Moses (aided by God) parted the sea and brought them into the “safety” of the desert…

 

[babylonfalling]

So I’m an atheist, yippee!

What does that mean?
The dictionary typically provides two possibilities, one of them does apply quite nicely: a person who disbelieves Some will call this simply “agnostic”, “agnostic atheist” or “weak atheist”… I don’t care… For me, I’m just atheist.

I’ve been in a few threads on this forum and some of them have veered a bit off-topic (can’t take all the blame for it, but some is certainly on me ) so those threads ended up closed.
I’d like this thread to be one where we can discuss any detail concerning how this disbelief of mine affects any particular aspect of life, of how I view the world, of how I envision that which is, as far as I am aware, unknown… and even that which is unknowable…

There are also some people in this forum who seem to operate under a few misconceptions about atheists, so I’d like to address them… Here’s one:

• All-mighty Lady-Chance-did-it: If no God creator of the Cosmos made all this and provided that mighty initial spark for life, then chance must have done it - no purpose, no intent, no reason… Or something like this, right?
  Well, I prefer not to be so bleak, but ultimately, yes… Under the assumption that no God exists, there seems to have been no consciousness that somehow started the Universe. Mind you, we, human race, don’t know how the Universe came into being. We can trace it back to the big bang… well, almost to the Big Bang and then our known physics becomes unsuitable, so the real answer is “I don’t know”, actually, no one knows. If anyone claims to know, they’re making it up. Any claim of divine revelation is also seen as making it up.

So, provided no God is available, why do people believe in them? How did that happen?
Sadly, written history starts at a time when religions already exist, so we don’t have any way of knowing the answer to this question.
We can try to reason it out, using the few pieces left behind for archaeologists to find, mingling them with known psychological traits shared by most humans (and likely shared with those humans who started the belief in spiritual entities).
Bah… we can never know the particulars, but my general guess is that, at some point, the frustration of not knowing many answers to questions that were burning their early curiosity-ridden minds led them to speculation… from wild speculation told over a campfire to a story which feels like it’s conveying the reality of things would go but a few generations, if any at all.
And then… just build upon it. The evolution of religions… it seems there are books written on that subject… (no, I didn’t read that… I arrived at that conclusion independently). It does make some sense, seeing as Christianity itself is clearly an evolution of the Judaic model.

With this, my mind is satisfied as it allows for everything that we see and experience to be caused by natural means.

Feel free to pick my atheism apart… I welcome you!

Atheists just love Christian attention

 

[PRmerger]

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

No, poca.

That is no more evidence for indoctrination than teaching your child the multiplication tables is indoctrination.

What you call “indoctrination” is a pejorative for what everyone else calls “education”.

Now, if you don’t want to hold a double standard, you need to start telling engineering students that they are being indoctrinated with math and science facts, and bank tellers that they are being indoctrinated by currency standards, and postal workers that they are being indoctrinated by weight dimensions…

 

[PRmerger]

Yes… many believers would like to know.
Many think a mere showing up on the part of God would do to convince an unbeliever like me.
To tell you the truth, if He did, I’d have no way of knowing if that was a real apparition, or a hallucination, or a dream, or some other misinterpreted brain working.

But if it were to happen to everyone (not necessarily at the same time, for some would be asleep, but… within a day or so… and then just keep happening every so often… not once every 2000 years, but every year or 2 years, or whenever required to provide some guiding insight.

How do you know that this wouldn’t be alien mind control?

An extra result from this would be the total absence of religion - no one would believe, for everyone would have first hand experience.

What? This makes no sense. No religion because no one believes?

 

[Aloysium]

Well Poc, what you have to do is pray, meditate, contemplate holy scripture, act charitably towards others, participate in the mass and the Eucharist, reconcile yourself with God. One knows one’s lover within their relationship. Your comment on indoctrination is quite appropriate as it is the reason why you do not see He who is as obvious as you are to yourself. Quit futzing around; open your heart and mind. It’s time to truly know!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

My 2 cents…

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…

What you call “indoctrination” is a pejorative for what everyone else calls “education”.

Interesting. The etymology of “indoctrinate” traces back to the Latin word doctrina, a word that I can find in the Vulgate (ex:Acts 2:42). Doctrina’s denotation was “teach.” It seems that the cognate for the word “teach” could be used in most of the places where I see the word “indoctrinate” on this page without having any impact on what I think to be the intended meaning of the sentences. That there is a negative “connotation” within any Christian community for the word “indoctrinate” is news to me. From the church communities in which I interact I’ve never gotten the impression that the word was pejorative. Had I ever gotten a warning for using the word prior to a statement that it was seen as insulting such a warning might have been puzzling to me. This may be a case of a word carrying a different connotation depending on the relationships of the people involved in the conversation.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[PRmerger]

My 2 cents…

Interesting. The etymology of “indoctrinate” traces back to the Latin word doctrina, a word that I can find in the Vulgate (ex:Acts 2:42). Doctrina’s denotation was “teach.” It seems that the cognate for the word “teach” could be used in most of the places where I see the word “indoctrinate” on this page without having any impact on what I think to be the intended meaning of the sentences. That there is a negative “connotation” within any Christian community for the word “indoctrinate” is news to me. From the church communities in which I interact I’ve never gotten the impression that the word was pejorative. Had I ever gotten a warning for using the word prior to a statement that it was seen as insulting such a warning might have been puzzling to me. This may be a case of a word carrying a different connotation depending on the relationships of the people involved in the conversation.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

Again, as long as you’re not holding a double standard, TS.

You tell your children they are being sent for their indoctrination of math and science facts and no one will have a problem with your telling Catholics that they have been indoctrinated by religious facts.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You tell your children they are being sent for their indoctrination of math and science facts

I would not have a problem with the “indoctrination” being used instead of “teach.” Though I would be more inclined say that they are being indoctrinated with certain methodologies. It’s a personal bias. This is probably because due to visual impairments preventing me from seeing the methods that teachers were using I had to figure out a way to solve problems on my own. While I consistently got the correct answers and did well in state academic contest because my methods didn’t conform to what was taught I was penalized. The teachers tried to teach (the i-word could be used here) that having the right methods was more important than having the right answer.

But I also have no problem with someone saying their children are being taught about their religion. If it’s considered offensive in these forums I will try to remind myself not to use the i-word in a religious context and wilL keep a look out for it being seen as having negative connotations in other communities.

and no one will have a problem with your telling Catholics that they have been indoctrinated by religious facts.

Given that it’s already known that I’m not Catholic I’m sure you understand that I wouldn’t label it as factual or non-factual. I might call it “information” and leave the assessment of the truth value alone.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[pocaracas]

Atheists just love Christian attention

I wouldn’t mind going to other faith’s forums, but this one is nicer.
And we know you guys don’t hunt us down and kill us and our families.

 

[pocaracas]

No, poca.

That is no more evidence for indoctrination than teaching your child the multiplication tables is indoctrination.

What you call “indoctrination” is a pejorative for what everyone else calls “education”.

Now, if you don’t want to hold a double standard, you need to start telling engineering students that they are being indoctrinated with math and science facts, and bank tellers that they are being indoctrinated by currency standards, and postal workers that they are being indoctrinated by weight dimensions…

Oh… I’m sorry if it’s a pejorative…
It’s not supposed to be.
"indoctrinate
[in-dok-truh-neyt]

verb (used with object), indoctrinated, indoctrinating.

1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.
   "

As you see, it’s the same thing you were saying, but devoted to beliefs.

 

[pocaracas]

How do you know that this wouldn’t be alien mind control?

God can be seen as the ultimate alien!

If it’s mind control, it’s indistinguishable from the real deal… And we’d be sure to have people recording the event… after all, nowadays, there are cameras everywhere, and instagram is available.

What? This makes no sense. No religion because no one believes?

No need to start a religion… no need for priests, priestesses, prophets, monks, seers, fortune-tellers, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe I’m wrong in thinking that religion wouldn’t happen… it’s possible…

 

[pocaracas]

Well Poc, what you have to do is pray, meditate, contemplate holy scripture, act charitably towards others, participate in the mass and the Eucharist, reconcile yourself with God. One knows one’s lover within their relationship. Your comment on indoctrination is quite appropriate as it is the reason why you do not see He who is as obvious as you are to yourself. Quit futzing around; open your heart and mind. It’s time to truly know!

Well… to me, He is not that obvious.
I’d expect to know my lover is real before I initiate a relationship with her (oh… damn… well, I’m sure God wouldn’t mind, after all, “He”'s asexual, isn’t He?)
Not exactly interested in having a relationship with an imaginary friend, you know?

Out of all those things you listed, I do… one: “act charitably towards others”.
Perhaps a bit of meditation, just before going to sleep.

 

[MPat]

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.

Sure. Was I claiming otherwise?

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?

No. At this point I am saying that:

1. 
   *]You were trying to avoid self-delusion by being closed-minded about religion. (I think you have agreed with such description - of course, with understanding that there is nothing wrong with closed-mindedness as such)
   *]It appears that is is not completely certain that you have avoided self-delusion. (since, for example, the psychiatrist you cited says that everyone has such problems)
   *]Therefore, it is not as certain, as you seem to indicate, that your closed-mindedness about religion actually achieved something useful.
   
   That’s all.
   

   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.

   Perhaps, in the sense that you did avoid religion. But it is not certain that you have managed to avoid false beliefs as such.
   

   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.

   Wait, wait wait… Those goals are completely different. Perhaps you could try to write down a “goal function”?
   

   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.

   Are you sure that in this case intentions are more important than results?
   

   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.

   OK, I guess I could try that…
   

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

   I’m afraid I’ll have to learn far more about the actual reasoning that led you there.
   

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

   That is, you are updating your statement to claim that awareness of possibility of “self-delusion” gives immunity to just “certain kinds” of it?
   

   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.

   It’s nice to see that you are using analogies as well.
   
   But I don’t see how it is supposed to show that knowing that you have guarded yourself from “the threat” cannot lead to letting your guard down again.
   

   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?

   Maybe they do not really do their best. But it doesn’t mean they do not think that they do.

 

[MPat]

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.

Sorry, but I still do not see how you are going to get from all that to “atheism is more likely to be true than all religions combined”. So, could you, please, explain, why are you not concluding, let’s say, that “atheism is more likely to be true than any religion (but not necessarily more likely than all of them combined)”? Or “atheism is true”? Or even “deism is more likely to be true than all religions 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?

Once again, I have to find out more about your reasoning.

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.

I was asking you about evidence you have explored, not about ways in which one ends up religious.

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

And yet, I see nothing silly here. And you just claimed “that’s silly” without giving much of an explanation.

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.

Actually, it doesn’t have to be just “by memorizing things”. But that is not that important. However you describe it, it is the common way of teaching (at the very least, that’s the method used to teach those four things that I seem to remember from school).

So, by “It’s all the same.”, do you mean that it’s OK to ignore actual evidence for heliocentrism, theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and heart function, given that they are taught without using that evidence?

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.

I do not see what difference that is supposed to make, as in this case you would still have to ignore all evidence with exception of those “thought experiments” (and they do not look like good replacements for evidence), even if you would manage to separate them from authority that offered them.

But, first of all, do you have evidence that anything like that is widely used for those four things I have listed (heliocentrism, quantum mechanics, theory of relativity and heart function)?

 

[MPat]

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?

You know, that starts to look like an admission that there might be some difference between evidence (or even “reasons for belief”) for different religions…

And yes, that was my point - you seem to overemphasise “feeling good”, when it is only important in some religions.

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.

No. It could explain why you are an atheist, but it cannot justify your atheism.

How unexpected…

OK, if it is so important to you, much of what I wrote about Catholicism, while contrasting it with Mormonism, was based on my experience.

But I’d prefer to keep this discussion far more limited. First, it is more orderly this way, second, just writing those replies takes time…

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?

OK, so, how many? Do you have some statistics? I know that was a rhetorical question, but it still does seem to indicate that you think there are a lot - and that needs some supporting evidence.

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”… -.-’

I’m afraid that if you have to group “death penalty” with “kindly asking to leave the room”, even “reasons for belief” in different religions start to look very different…

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.

Just that? Anyway, even the part about “shunning” looks suspicious - would you say we are “shunning” you here?

Also, those “commonalities” seem to apply for just about everything that people consider to be important. Atheists also teach their children to be atheists (after all, if you think there is something wrong with religious belief, why wouldn’t you want to protect your children from it?). It can be true even for skills: people who can read teach their children to read.

Thus, if that would be a reason to avoid religion, it would be a reason to avoid just about everything. Thus I conclude that is is not a good reason to reject religion.

 

[pocaracas]

Hi MPat,

No. At this point I am saying that:

1. 
   *]You were trying to avoid self-delusion by being closed-minded about religion. (I think you have agreed with such description - of course, with understanding that there is nothing wrong with closed-mindedness as such)
   *]It appears that is is not completely certain that you have avoided self-delusion. (since, for example, the psychiatrist you cited says that everyone has such problems)
   *]Therefore, it is not as certain, as you seem to indicate, that your closed-mindedness about religion actually achieved something useful.
   
   That’s all.

1. 1. “closed-minded”, in your definition of it.
   2. I may have not fully avoided self-delusion, but I’ve avoided some forms of self-delusion.
   3. Sure it did. I’m not burdened with picking a belief system, based on little more than the say so of others (including the writing by others)… too little information to make an informed decision. Might as well not make it.

   Perhaps, in the sense that you did avoid religion. But it is not certain that you have managed to avoid false beliefs as such.

   Certainly, intuition and macroscopic physical systems (human dimension) take preference in attempting to interpret the world… And when those are not applicable, my brain tends to try to apply them… it’s a waste of resources, but such is life.
   

   Wait, wait wait… Those goals are completely different. Perhaps you could try to write down a “goal function”?

   As I worded them… they’re a bit different, but they do overlap.
   

   Are you sure that in this case intentions are more important than results?

   The minimization of acceptance of wrong things is the important result.
   

   I’m afraid I’ll have to learn far more about the actual reasoning that led you there.

   Keep probing!
   

   That is, you are updating your statement to claim that awareness of possibility of “self-delusion” gives immunity to just “certain kinds” of it?

   The kinds that you’re aware of…
   

   It’s nice to see that you are using analogies as well.
   
   But I don’t see how it is supposed to show that knowing that you have guarded yourself from “the threat” cannot lead to letting your guard down again.

   Oh… you can always leave the door unlocked, of course. But I do my best not to.
   

   Maybe they do not really do their best. But it doesn’t mean they do not think that they do.

   So, then… I may be thinking that I’m doing my best to avoid self-delusion, but I’m not really… is that the point?
   I’m aware I’m not avoiding all forms of self-delusion, but I am avoiding those that are commonly used - pretend, feel, repeat…
   There’s an old saying “a lie told often enough tends to become a truth”. (this seems to have been misattributed to Goebbels, as a variation of the “Big Lie” propaganda technique).
   So… forgive me for trying to avoid becoming the target of a known propaganda device (even if the original was propaganda about the others being the liars and convinced of those lies).
   
   ##############
   

   Sorry, but I still do not see how you are going to get from all that to “atheism is more likely to be true than all religions combined”. So, could you, please, explain, why are you not concluding, let’s say, that “atheism is more likely to be true than any religion (but not necessarily more likely than all of them combined)”? Or “atheism is true”? Or even “deism is more likely to be true than all religions combined”?

   If you only get to belief by some common psychological flaw (indoctrination, faulty reasoning from incomplete data, etc), then the likelihood that the thing being believed in has some bearing in reality is low…
   The null hypothesis remains the more likely outcome.
   

   I was asking you about evidence you have explored, not about ways in which one ends up religious.

   Are the methods employed to get people to perpetuate belief not evidence of something?
   

   And yet, I see nothing silly here. And you just claimed “that’s silly” without giving much of an explanation.

   Silly because you’re equating the teaching of a methodology based on physical testing, with the teaching of a potential fairy tale.
   
   [cont.d]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont.]

Actually, it doesn’t have to be just “by memorizing things”. But that is not that important. However you describe it, it is the common way of teaching (at the very least, that’s the method used to teach those four things that I seem to remember from school).

So, by “It’s all the same.”, do you mean that it’s OK to ignore actual evidence for heliocentrism, theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and heart function, given that they are taught without using that evidence?

I’m sorry to hear that you had a less than half-decent teacher…
I learned maths in an engaging way, apparently.
First the numbers, then addition, subtraction, multiplication as a succession of additions, division as the opposite of multiplication, powers as a succession of multiplications… extension to the non-integer domain… equation solving by applying the same operation to both the lhs and rhs until you arrive at a simple form that’s easy to calculate with normal addition and multiplication. Functions as something that depends on a value that can take any actual number in its domain of applicability… integrals as the sum of a function’s chart area, dot by dot…
Things were taught in an order that let you build upon past knowledge.

History, sadly, is one of those subjects that rely way too much on memorizing… But, even then, they sometimes made reference to the original texts from where they got those bits of information.

The things you mentioned, all physics experiments.
When I learned them, some historical context was provided. For Heliocentrism, the geocentric model, with its continued insertion of extra circular orbits on top of other circular orbits to account for the odd motions of some planets was the clearly hinting that a better model was more likely. The measurements made my Galileo, during years, allowed him to compare with a pre-existing model (heliocentrism, by Copernicus, who was inspired by ancient Greeks) and this model turned out to be more accurate at accounting for his also more accurate than ever measurements.
The double-slit experiment requires some prior knowledge of wave interference. Actually, this experiment was historically performed prior to QM formulation… it was one of the reasons to dig deeper.
Well, I see that my class in “history of Physics” was not misplaced… sadly, the guys that came in the year after didn’t get that class, for the teacher had died… he was a priest. Funny that.

About the Michelson–Morley experiment, it doesn’t have that much to do with the theory of relativity… I thought there was something fishy when I first read that thing you wrote earlier, but didn’t bother to check… that experiment was to attempt to prove that light waves travel in a medium, like water waves travel in water, or earthquake waves travel in rock, or sound waves travel in air… but the experiment was a failure (from that point of view)… it ended up proving that no such medium existed.

Pumping of blood by the heart… just feel your own pulse.

These things are taught in the context of a growing body of knowledge, they are based on other things. They all comprise physical realities that require very little (if any) stretch of the imagination.
The teaching of a religion, on the other hand… requires little else.

##################

You know, that starts to look like an admission that there might be some difference between evidence (or even “reasons for belief”) for different religions…

And yes, that was my point - you seem to overemphasise “feeling good”, when it is only important in some religions.

What makes you think the other religions aren’t equally thought out?
Of course, each in its own way, likely related to how old it is (and how widespread), for that should relate to how many people have thought about the various problems… and provided a solution.

No. It could explain why you are an atheist, but it cannot justify your atheism.

How are those 2 different?

OK, if it is so important to you, much of what I wrote about Catholicism, while contrasting it with Mormonism, was based on my experience.

But I’d prefer to keep this discussion far more limited. First, it is more orderly this way, second, just writing those replies takes time…

So… raised a mormon? A believer by the age of… 2?
See how well you fall in line with statistics?

OK, so, how many? Do you have some statistics? I know that was a rhetorical question, but it still does seem to indicate that you think there are a lot - and that needs some supporting evidence.

More than one is all it takes…

jehoshuathebook.com/1/post/2014/05/kicking-your-child-out-of-the-house-because-of-their-atheism.html
patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/09/24/help-a-teenage-atheist-kicked-out-of-her-mormon-home/
kidswithoutgod.com/teens/ask/what-do-i-do-when-ive-been-kicked-out-of-the-house-for-being-an-atheist/
thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/31/lose-your-faith-get-expelled-at-byu.html

Maybe these are fabricated, but they do represent something that’s real.

I’m afraid that if you have to group “death penalty” with “kindly asking to leave the room”, even “reasons for belief” in different religions start to look very different…

It’s the putting distance between the believer and the non-believer, at least as much as to keep the heathens out of earshot.

[cont.d]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont.]

Just that? Anyway, even the part about “shunning” looks suspicious - would you say we are “shunning” you here?

(Edited) I have to be serious most of the time… like Spock.

But no, you guys aren’t shunning me. You and PRmerger are being awesome (can’t forget ericc, too!).
But a few did make some more derisive comments… it’s to be expected, I guess…

Also, those “commonalities” seem to apply for just about everything that people consider to be important. Atheists also teach their children to be atheists (after all, if you think there is something wrong with religious belief, why wouldn’t you want to protect your children from it?). It can be true even for skills: people who can read teach their children to read.

Thus, if that would be a reason to avoid religion, it would be a reason to avoid just about everything. Thus I conclude that is is not a good reason to reject religion.

Atheists teach children to be atheists? I must be doing something wrong with my kids… I just teach them the things I know, help them with school to the best of my abilities, provide them with some shortcuts, provide some connective tissue when I feel they’ve been learning things out of context, etc… play with them, be there… their mum takes them to her Sunday mass… I stay home… is that teaching them to be atheists?
Certainly, I give them some pointers as how to not be deceived by other people, but I make it general and it essentially ends up being: don’t talk to strangers, don’t open the door to strangers, don’t go with strangers to anywhere…
They have time to think about things with developed brains…
While kids, they are, as Bill Cosby said, brain damaged! youtube.com/watch?v=qyMSc97UksM

Little aside over, that gradual introduction into a belief is the same as a gradual introduction into writing? As if the writings didn’t have immediate palpable results, while the other… you’ll see it when you die… come on… apples and oranges.

 

[guanophore]

No need to start a religion… no need for priests, priestesses, prophets, monks, seers, fortune-tellers, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe I’m wrong in thinking that religion wouldn’t happen… it’s possible…

I think you are wrong. I think that human beings are created with a tendency toward religion.
But I do agree, there is no need to start a new one. God has already given us one that works best for our nature.

Well… to me, He is not that obvious.
I’d expect to know my lover is real before I initiate a relationship with her (oh… damn… well, I’m sure God wouldn’t mind, after all, “He”'s asexual, isn’t He?)
Not exactly interested in having a relationship with an imaginary friend, you know?

I agree Poc. One cannot come to know anyone when they reject what has already been revealed.If I told you about myself, and you classified it as legend, what would make me want to tell you more??

What exists in the spiritual/imaginal realm is more real than what is in the material. If you are not interested in relating on that level, it is not likely that you will ever encounter anything of value that is intangible.

So, then… I may be thinking that I’m doing my best to avoid self-delusion, but I’m not really… is that the point?

You are your sole reference point, so it is more likely you will be self deluded.

.
There’s an old saying “a lie told often enough tends to become a truth”.

Is this your attitude about religion?

… a variation of the propaganda technique
So… forgive me for trying to avoid becoming the target of a known propaganda device (even if the original was propaganda about the others being the liars and convinced of those lies).

It is not that you want to avoid becoming a victim of propoganda, but your judgement that Chrisitanity is based in lies.

If you only get to belief by some common psychological flaw (indoctrination, faulty reasoning from incomplete data, etc), then the likelihood that the thing being believed in has some bearing in reality is low…

I agree.

Since you seem to have no other way of coming to it, it is not likely that you will.

Are the methods employed to get people to perpetuate belief not evidence of something?

Clearly. All something to be disparaged from your point of view.

Silly because you're equating the teaching of a methodology based on physical testing, with the **teaching of a potential fairy tale.**

I have to wonder what would bring a person with such attitudes to a place like CAF. Why are you here?

 

[PRmerger]

I would not have a problem with the “indoctrination” being used instead of “teach.”

Fair enough.

I look forward to the time when I see you say that you have indoctrinated your children or your students with your beliefs