A
AnAtheist
Guest
Lisa N:
Intersting. Do you have any sources where I can find those studies?
- Status
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Books, articles. Why don’t you google and see for yourself?
Lisa N
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Lisa N:
But I’ll have a look anyway…
Because nowadays Google only produces data and not information.
But I’ll have a look anyway…
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Lisa N:
Scientific American:
Are you referring to the study of Dean H. Hamar? That seems to be the only one made so far, and it was only published in a book and not in scientific magazins. Doesn’t sound convincing:
Scientific American:
btw, that is the same guy who claimed to have found the “gay gene” in '93, and has not been confirmed by others either. That I didn’t know until now. Thank you for that, I really learned something today!
E
Exporter
Guest
L
Lisa_N
Guest
I don’t know but then I’m not the skeptic waiting to be convinced. I don’t need a scientific study to believe. That’s why we call it faith.
Lisa N
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Lisa N:
My recollection of the story that made the rounds a few months ago is that rather than supporting the validity of religious belief, it simply stated that some people are much more amenable to religious belief because it makes them feel good.
B
BlessedBe13
Guest
Honestly, that has to be the most ignorant comment I have seen here. I know several athiets, and they do have a “moral code” that has nothing to with whether or not they will get into legal trouble. No, they don’t break the law, but there is more to being moral than not breaking the law, and I see morality/a conscience in them as well. As I’ve said before, they seem to be more moral than some religious people I know.
B
BlessedBe13
Guest
That is also a broad, incorrect statement, and can also apply to many religious people I know.
C
Carl
Guest
AnAtheist
A society can only work, if certain rules are obeyed, like not to kill other members of that society.
Yes, but I need you to tell me where the moral authority for such laws resides. Does it reside within each individual. Does it reside in certain groups of individuals? Which groups? How does society make its laws? Do the majority decide? What if the minority disagree? Are they morally compelled to obey the majority? Are the majority morally compelled to obey the minority? Who can we refer to as the ultimate authority? Is there any ultimate authority in the atheist’s world concerning the moral rightness or wrongness of an act?
*Basically what one does not want to be inflicted on oneself, should not be inflicted on others. *
Close to a notably Judaeo-Christian sentiment!
That is such a simple principle, that even a caveman can understand that.
Yet there are some simple moral principles that even modern high-tech men and women refuse to understand. Common sense is not sufficient to persuade many people of the rightness or wrongness of an act, especially if they are chronic subscribers to the act.
Some adult professionals, who ought to know better (have never lived in a cave) routinely have sex with kids of their own sex or the opposite sex. They see nothing morally wrong with it so long as it is consensual and some are actively engaged in promoting the legalizing of it (North American Man Boy Love Association, for instance … NAMBLA).
Would an atheist be more likely to agree or disagree with this kind of morality? On what grounds? Where would the moral authority lie since the atheist can’t use in this case: what one does not want to be inflicted on oneself, should not be inflicted on others.?
A society can only work, if certain rules are obeyed, like not to kill other members of that society.
Yes, but I need you to tell me where the moral authority for such laws resides. Does it reside within each individual. Does it reside in certain groups of individuals? Which groups? How does society make its laws? Do the majority decide? What if the minority disagree? Are they morally compelled to obey the majority? Are the majority morally compelled to obey the minority? Who can we refer to as the ultimate authority? Is there any ultimate authority in the atheist’s world concerning the moral rightness or wrongness of an act?
*Basically what one does not want to be inflicted on oneself, should not be inflicted on others. *
Close to a notably Judaeo-Christian sentiment!
That is such a simple principle, that even a caveman can understand that.
Yet there are some simple moral principles that even modern high-tech men and women refuse to understand. Common sense is not sufficient to persuade many people of the rightness or wrongness of an act, especially if they are chronic subscribers to the act.
Some adult professionals, who ought to know better (have never lived in a cave) routinely have sex with kids of their own sex or the opposite sex. They see nothing morally wrong with it so long as it is consensual and some are actively engaged in promoting the legalizing of it (North American Man Boy Love Association, for instance … NAMBLA).
Would an atheist be more likely to agree or disagree with this kind of morality? On what grounds? Where would the moral authority lie since the atheist can’t use in this case: what one does not want to be inflicted on oneself, should not be inflicted on others.?
L
Lisa_N
Guest
The point wasn’t that this idea of a ‘God gene’ supports religious belief, I was just responding to “AnAthiest” who claimed that people became religious via indoctrination by parents, society, friends and missionaries. I disagree with that premise.
I think there are levels of communication that are unexplainable, by science anyway. If it is true that we are made in the image of God, it would not be out of the realm of possibly that He created us with an ability to relate directly to Him, without being spoon fed. That’s what I believe anyway.
I am pointing out that you cannot FORCE people to believe or disbelieve. Actions can be forced but not beliefs. Since athiests are no more able to disprove God to believers than believers are able to prove God to athiests, we all make that judgement ourselves. But I don’t think we can point to outside forces entirely because there are too many people who became believers without outside influences.
Lisa N
B
Benadam
Guest
a correct conscience is engraved on our hearts as creations in the image of God. We have fallen from that image, and become subject to distortions of reality in relation to suffering. From our infancy we accept distortions of reality in order to relieve anxiety. Whether it is the anxiety attached to the loss of the sense of oneness with creation and the sense of power that comes with it inherent in the first conscious state of awareness or maternal seperation anxieties that lack resolution that come after, we all distort reality in different degrees.
Distorted reality blurs that law engraved on our hearts.
In as much as the maternal care we recieve is able to preserve us from anxiety along with our own in born disposition to suffer without distorting reality, we possess a correct or incorrect conscience.
If we are parented as objects to use, our value, our acceptability, is based on conditions. If this is the only form of love we are exposed to as we form our construct of reality then others are percieved as objects to use as well. The primary commandment to love God and your neighbour as yourself, as well as the golden rule are made almost inconceivable when our perception suffers that distortion. That person’s morality will be based on what feels good and will be forced to conform to the morality of those who were loved unconditionally by it’s outward appearance.
Remember Paul talking about gentiles with a correct conscience and remaining obedient to the light it reveals, he said they were a ‘law’ unto themselves. They were those who’s life offered them a good beginning and were wise eneogh to continue in preserving their conscience, or the ‘law’ written on their hearts. Don’t mistake a correct conscience as something given by a teaching that is learned afterwards as something to help form or reform it.
There are other factors that effect the formation of conscience of course but conscience at it’s roots is founded on the natural law. Unfortunately that law is spotted and wrinkled by sin from the womb of our mothers.
Our conscience is preserved by the gift of love and in it’s dawning experiences by the maternal gift of love.
That’s why Mary’s perfect Maternal care is so vital to humanity.
Distorted reality blurs that law engraved on our hearts.
In as much as the maternal care we recieve is able to preserve us from anxiety along with our own in born disposition to suffer without distorting reality, we possess a correct or incorrect conscience.
If we are parented as objects to use, our value, our acceptability, is based on conditions. If this is the only form of love we are exposed to as we form our construct of reality then others are percieved as objects to use as well. The primary commandment to love God and your neighbour as yourself, as well as the golden rule are made almost inconceivable when our perception suffers that distortion. That person’s morality will be based on what feels good and will be forced to conform to the morality of those who were loved unconditionally by it’s outward appearance.
Remember Paul talking about gentiles with a correct conscience and remaining obedient to the light it reveals, he said they were a ‘law’ unto themselves. They were those who’s life offered them a good beginning and were wise eneogh to continue in preserving their conscience, or the ‘law’ written on their hearts. Don’t mistake a correct conscience as something given by a teaching that is learned afterwards as something to help form or reform it.
There are other factors that effect the formation of conscience of course but conscience at it’s roots is founded on the natural law. Unfortunately that law is spotted and wrinkled by sin from the womb of our mothers.
Our conscience is preserved by the gift of love and in it’s dawning experiences by the maternal gift of love.
That’s why Mary’s perfect Maternal care is so vital to humanity.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Lisa N:
Just to nitpick, most atheists have no desire to disprove god (as this is not their position) and maintain that it is up to the theists to make their case. As far proving god to atheists, there is an old thread or two on this site that covers a lot of ground, but by and large it’s a losing proposition for both sides.
To say that people come to believe without outside influence is difficult to defend, because we all interact with the outside all the time. It would be more accurate to say that some people come to believe without undue outside influence.
I misunderstood. I think you are both right - up to a point. It would appear that some people are receptive to theistic beliefs and others are not and it is somewhat irrelevant how the former come to acknowledge such a belief. At the same time, however, I agree with AnAtheist that religious people will generally raise their children or introduce non-believers in their own faith, which can be considered as indoctrination in a specific faith with some justification.
Be that as it may, I have problems with some people being intriniscally more receptive to god-belief than others and the presumption of free will. Not all people created equal would appear to raise a few theological issues.
Nor should one force others to believe or disbelieve…
Just to nitpick, most atheists have no desire to disprove god (as this is not their position) and maintain that it is up to the theists to make their case. As far proving god to atheists, there is an old thread or two on this site that covers a lot of ground, but by and large it’s a losing proposition for both sides.
To say that people come to believe without outside influence is difficult to defend, because we all interact with the outside all the time. It would be more accurate to say that some people come to believe without undue outside influence.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Sure people may TRY to raise their children a certain way, and may try to convert others. I always wonder how successful those nice young men from the LDS church have been, as they go door to door. OTOH many people, including children may well reject the teachings for “no good reason.” My grandparents raised my mother to be religious. She became an avowed and quite outspoken atheist. I was raised to be an atheist and probably was one as a child because that’s all I knew. But I did always feel a pull toward religion and when I was free to explore this facet of the world I was totally enveloped. IOW both of us completely changed as adults based on both our own experiences and with our own exploration.
In my mother’s case I think she became so educated that she started to think that human knowledge was all there was and thus no need or reason for God. In my case, reason didn’t answer many questions and knowledge isn’t all there is to existence.
I’m a bit confused. Frankly it would not be difficult to point out that all people are NOT created equal although I understand the concept within the sight of God. Do you think all are equal? Why WOULDNT there be differences in the receptivity to God or religion or spiritual things?
Why do you have a problem with people being intrinsically more receptive than others? We are all different and the Bible is FULL of stories about people who either listened to God or rejected God. IOW some more or less receptive.
Well they CANT force belief so that’s sort of moot isn’t it?
I learned from an atheist (a philosophy professor) that there are problems with the various proofs for God’s existence. So that was never an issue to me. But while athiests may not spend much time trying to disprove God, their often utter disdain for believers says that we are not worthy of the effort anyway. I would suggest most atheists think they are ever so much smarter than believers. I think you will see much more atheism for example in the ivory towers of academia. What those folks don’t know is they believe in god, but it’s a little ‘g’ God. We all believe in something if nothing else, that the sun will rise tomorrow.
So then if they come to believe without undue outside influence, what explains the internal influence? 'Splain to me how I have become such a believer. I’d love to have an understanding.
Lisa N
C
Carl
Guest
WOLPERTINGER
Just to nitpick, most atheists have no desire to disprove god (as this is not their position) and maintain that it is up to the theists to make their case.
Not so fast.
I don’t think you can speak for what most atheists desire unless you have talked to most atheists.
I won’t use the word most either. I will just say some, because I know some atheists who might agree with you, and I know some who I don’t think do agree with you.
The ones who don’t agree with you (I have met them) will say they most definitely want to prove God cannot exist because God is an illogical and unnecessary concept. Then they make their case in considerable detail. Haven’t you seen these atheists arguing with great gusto at various web sites?
Moreover, I am convinced that some atheists desire that God should not exist. These are the atheists who, like certain Christians, rationalize their immoral actions in the name of furthering some noble mission (the Inquisition, for Christians, the slaughter of millions by the atheist Stalin to advance the cause of communism). But those who ran the Inquisition knew they would be judged. Stalin did not believe there was anyone to judge him. A convenient dodge.
This same dodge is expressed by the Marquis de Sade in his infamous Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man, wherein he justifies every kind of vice on the grounds that there is no God who can punish.
Just to nitpick, most atheists have no desire to disprove god (as this is not their position) and maintain that it is up to the theists to make their case.
Not so fast.
I don’t think you can speak for what most atheists desire unless you have talked to most atheists.
I won’t use the word most either. I will just say some, because I know some atheists who might agree with you, and I know some who I don’t think do agree with you.
The ones who don’t agree with you (I have met them) will say they most definitely want to prove God cannot exist because God is an illogical and unnecessary concept. Then they make their case in considerable detail. Haven’t you seen these atheists arguing with great gusto at various web sites?
Moreover, I am convinced that some atheists desire that God should not exist. These are the atheists who, like certain Christians, rationalize their immoral actions in the name of furthering some noble mission (the Inquisition, for Christians, the slaughter of millions by the atheist Stalin to advance the cause of communism). But those who ran the Inquisition knew they would be judged. Stalin did not believe there was anyone to judge him. A convenient dodge.
This same dodge is expressed by the Marquis de Sade in his infamous Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man, wherein he justifies every kind of vice on the grounds that there is no God who can punish.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Lisa N:
There are both theists and atheists that exhibit utter disdain for the other side and neither side can really claim the moral high ground. You pose an interesting question: Are theists worthy the atheist’s effort to be shown to wrong? This is a very loaded question, but the answer must be a resounding no; not because theists are not worthy of the effort, but because the effort would be misguided as an attempt to force a change of belief.
Just in case you feel like objecting that pointing out flaws in other people’s argument is an attempt to force a change of belief, I disagree. I never approach theists with lines like “you are wrong and here is why”; instead I answer to charges of “you are wrong and here is why” and again, I’m pretty evenhanded in complaining about theist and atheist arguments alike. Granted, there is a potential of introducing doubt, but if somebody’s belief is as fragile as not to tolerate being questioned, then this person has no business in pursuing an argument in the first place.
Finally, do most atheists think they are smarter than believers? I have no idea. Some undeniably do and some of those are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier themselves. My take is that anybody who thinks himself to be superior to somebody else is wrong by default. The fundamental problem is that a rational defense of faith amounts to an oxymoron; just say that you believe, don’t claim to have answers that you don’t, and leave it at that.
I don’t know that internal influence is the opposite of undue external influence and would guess that people that change their belief systems late in life do so predicated on a combination of personal predisposition, intellectual and emotional needs, and their life experience. This is, there are probably internal/individual and external factors.
Please let me clarify this. We, as human beings, are most definitely not created equal in the sense that each one of us has a distinct personality, abilities, and so on. However, if we are not equally receptive to god-belief - to a god and creator that is alleged to have a personal relationship with humans - this would seem to be fundamentally unfair with regards to our individual experience of god, if any. In other words, if some of us are created to be more attuned to god than others, it sort of absolves atheists from being blamed for their lack of belief. Or to put it yet another way, some believers would have an unfair advantage at salvation.
I don’t really have a problem with it. However, what I’m trying to get at is that you should, because it would imply that the game is rigged, so to speak.
No, because it doesn’t prevent some people from trying anyway.
This is a common theme. I personally consider the so-called proofs for or against god primarily as a means to reinforce an existing belief. I have no particular interest to actively debate this issue, but I will point out flaws on the arguments of either side if I consider them deficient.
There are both theists and atheists that exhibit utter disdain for the other side and neither side can really claim the moral high ground. You pose an interesting question: Are theists worthy the atheist’s effort to be shown to wrong? This is a very loaded question, but the answer must be a resounding no; not because theists are not worthy of the effort, but because the effort would be misguided as an attempt to force a change of belief.
Just in case you feel like objecting that pointing out flaws in other people’s argument is an attempt to force a change of belief, I disagree. I never approach theists with lines like “you are wrong and here is why”; instead I answer to charges of “you are wrong and here is why” and again, I’m pretty evenhanded in complaining about theist and atheist arguments alike. Granted, there is a potential of introducing doubt, but if somebody’s belief is as fragile as not to tolerate being questioned, then this person has no business in pursuing an argument in the first place.
Finally, do most atheists think they are smarter than believers? I have no idea. Some undeniably do and some of those are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier themselves. My take is that anybody who thinks himself to be superior to somebody else is wrong by default. The fundamental problem is that a rational defense of faith amounts to an oxymoron; just say that you believe, don’t claim to have answers that you don’t, and leave it at that.
Beats me. How would I know?
I don’t know that internal influence is the opposite of undue external influence and would guess that people that change their belief systems late in life do so predicated on a combination of personal predisposition, intellectual and emotional needs, and their life experience. This is, there are probably internal/individual and external factors.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Being equally receptive to a God belief, may be something we are born with but it evaporates over time or through certain influence. So in saying the game is rigged so to speak, it’s by our own response and freewill. I’ve heard the question, how many men did God try to communicate with before Abraham listened and did what He said? Maybe a lot heard the voice of God but chose to ignore Him or were afraid to respond or thought they might be going mad. Similarly if you are an atheist, maybe God is trying to communicate with you but you do not hear. You may have been born with the “receptors” but you’ve put up a wall (the you is not you personally as I have no idea what you believe).
So I am not saying some of us are “predestined” to know God and others will always be ignorant. That sounds WAY too Calvinistic to me. But I think that some people become skeptics or start worshipping other gods and don’t listen when the Real One talks. IOW no one has an unfair advantage at salvation but not everyone takes up the opportunity.
Not necessarily. Say a theist encounters an atheist. He tries to convince him that God exists and that God has a plan for him. He is not trying to FORCE a belief on the atheist but to the theist he is doing what Jesus instructed, to go out and spread the Good News.
Your description sounds like someone trying to force a screw into hardened wood. There is no force involved. Each side tells its story and for the theist, the Holy Spirit does the hard lifting and for the atheist, he believes the god of knowledge will impart wisdom on this poor misguided fool who is wasting time praying the rosary or feeding the poor. Frankly back in my agnostic/atheist days, I always thought Pascal had the right idea.
No I don’t think pointing out flaws in the other’s argument is an attempt to change a belief because you cannot force anyone to believe anything. THat is why belief is really the greatest gift that one can give to God. It’s something He cannot force upon you.
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling argument either way. It think people believe or they don’t. You can’t talk them into one way or the other with reasoning or empiracal studies.
How about an irrational defense of faith? Must an argument be rational to be believed? I’m not too sure. But I am pretty sure that most atheists think they are smarter than the average bear. Maybe having grown up with them, (not just my parents as atheism is quite rampant among university professors in my experience) I’ve only seen this side of things.
I don’t know that internal influence is the opposite of undue external influence and would guess that people that change their belief systems late in life do so predicated on a combination of personal predisposition, intellectual and emotional needs, and their life experience. This is, there are probably internal/individual and external factors.
You make it sound too lengthy a process and too rational and analytical. Many people have a “road to Emanus” type conversion. No paralysis by analysis. We are struck by the Holy Spirit and it’s no contest.
Lisa N
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Absolutely right!
But I doubt that the Inquisition slaughterers thought they are doing something wrong, neither did the SS-soldier murdering innocent jews. They were all convinced to do something good. They were all on some noble mission, as you said.
I like the Buddhist philosophy, that there are principles of right and wrong, that even the gods must follow…
B
Benadam
Guest
The Buddha is correct. The Catholic Church has gone so far as to define it, it’s called the natural law. I refer to it in a previous post in this thread defining it as the foundation of conscience. I assume it was an acceptable definition of conscience since it didn’t recieve any rebuttles. Whether or not it added to the discussion I don’t know. In regards of the Inquisition, no doubt there are many things to regret that happened under it’s cause.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Lisa N:
Side 1: “I have something to offer”
Side 2: “No, thank you.”
and then stops, ignoring the frequency of occurance nothing objectionable happened. If the side that initiated the conversation does not take no for an answer or opens the conversation with the more frequently observed “repent, or else” or “how can you be so dumb to believe what you do”, then something improper has occured.
Not so fast. If we are the product of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator that allegedly gives us free will, but punishes lack of recognition unspeakably harshly, then rigging the game by making some of us more receptive to the proper message is not something to be waved away like that.
Regardless of the “god gene”, to me Christian theology implies exactly that - one of the ramifications of all the omni attributes. Of course, I don’t know which god you believe in.
There are several possible takes. To begin with, force is in the eye of the beholder. Technically, Christians are required to evangelize unbelievers, which can be construed as a forcible attempt. To put it this way, “I’m just obeying orders” is not a convincing justification. Pragmatically, however, it is more of an issue of tone. If the conversation follows the lines of:
Side 1: “I have something to offer”
Side 2: “No, thank you.”
and then stops, ignoring the frequency of occurance nothing objectionable happened. If the side that initiated the conversation does not take no for an answer or opens the conversation with the more frequently observed “repent, or else” or “how can you be so dumb to believe what you do”, then something improper has occured.
I personally consider Pascal’s Wager as so deeply flawed as being at a loss where to begin to object. Worse, I consider accepting the wager for the hope of reward and/or fear of punishment as morally bankrupt.
We agree on that. I’d go further and say that a truely compelling argument for either side would be a big loss for all.
That’s a trick question. Some people believe in things they don’t know to be true, others have knowledge and yet believe otherwise. For an argument to be sound, however, it cannot be irrational.
You have stated this before. It is undeniably true in some cases; to say that it is true for most is a personal opinion of yours, but to convince me of the truth of it requires more than just anecdotal evidence. Likewise, this forum alone is replete with members that exemplify corresponding charges atheists make regarding theists.
Actually, you misrepresent what I said. I am indeed analytical in my assessment of what changes people’s beliefs, but I have most definitely not said that the persons in question engage in that level of introspection.
- Status