Is religion inferior to logic ?

[MikeF]

I'm undecided. You're something of a conundrum. You do seem to question all sides, and your questions are generally reasonable, but I haven't quite pigeonholed you yet.

Is it not appropriate for the "critical thinker" to questions all sides, especially one's own?

I would also just quickly add that if questioning the efficacy for the non-bleiver in using the label* "atheism" or "atheist" immediately put me in the theistic camp in your mind, might that represent an example of confirmation bias?

* Edit: replace the word "term" with the word "label".

 

[F1fan]

There are no studies that can rule out the possibility of God's participation in the effect.

Why? Just because it is a tradition of belief in many traditions of culture?

We don't actually know that faith in God is a placebo. It could simply be a form of medicine or self-healing that science can't grasp.

Why? Because it is part of learned behavor that many people have been conditioned to due to exposure to others who behave that way? Religions foster ways of tricking the mind one way or another.

A. Critical thinkers challenge these traditions, namely not holding negative self-attitudes that learn to depend on reigion. This allows self-efficacy and rational life decisions. B. They learn to think for themselves and risk navigating social activity as non-believers. C. Despite heavy bias against non-believers they manage to live stable and accomplished lives.

Theistic faith is already very dynamic, and adaptable. If people are choosing to hold tightly to tradition, we must assume they are doing so because that's what works for them. The whole point of the placebo is that it works. Not that it's adaptable, or to anyone's personal liking.

How does it work for them if they don't have the freedom to reject religion and the rituals? You are hostile to any sort of critique of religious belief, so your suggestion of "what works" is limited. Have you ever advocated for teaching children critical thinking skills and teaching them how religious concepts are not fact-based?

How placebos work indicates how the mind can manage pain to some degree. It works on minds that open to suggestion, and I have to wonder if that is due to the lazy citizens who won't work of their critical thinking skills, nor teach the young these sklls so that irrational beliefs can be more easily justified.

Yes. And I personally think we have wandered way too far in the direction of individuality, to the point of becoming absurdly selfish and collectively destructive.

As if religious tribes aren't selfish and collectively destructive (KKK, Taliban, Creationists, Christian Trump supporters, etc.). If there is any problem it's young people poorly equiped to take on life, and find themselves in a social landscape that isn't fulfilling, or exploits emotions and ego in ways that religion used to occupy.

Whether religious or not we are individuals who want autonomy and connection, and each person needs to find their balance and health. I see statements like yours that have generalized complaints as if humans are consistently uniform and all mentally healthy and stable. The USA is a highly religious nation that offers the young generations very little as religion wanes. The "have faith and believe" attitude is obsolete and only leaves the young figuring things out for themselves, trial and error. Way too much error.

And if we do not find a way of correcting this error, soon, it will be the end of us.

Religion is dying, and you offer a dying solution as the only option. THAT is the error of the religious who see the dying of religion as a dying of themselves. Talk about selfish and desctructive.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it is just an acknowledgment of the spiritual existence.

So when you call me a materialist, you mean that I don't believe in a spiritual world? I gave you a philosophical definition of materialism. It is also used to refer to excessive desire for objects over other goals such as finding love. When the believer uses the word (or scientism), it usually is meant scoffingly and expresses disapproval of the critical thinker for rejecting faith as a path to knowledge.

For whatever their reason, many believers are offended by that, yet when do you see an empiricist have an emotional reaction to the believer's acceptance of faith-based beliefs as a truth? It's a strange asymmetry that I think is the result of the culture of academia and its effect on critical thinkers, where emotional reactions are discouraged and deemed inappropriate. This is in contrast to church culture, where preachers and sermons are often very emotional by design.

I just think you come across as arrogant, in assuming that believers are unable to think rationally, and logically.

Then you misunderstand me.

If you can't see why people believe what they believe .. other than because they have no intelligence,
then I would say that YOU are the one that is wrong.

That was a response to "Do you ever rebut comments you disagree with? Do you ever post a response that explains why the other guy's argument is incorrect in your estimation? Another poster claimed, "they all have evidence to support their choice" and I explained why that comment was incorrect. I gave a contradictory answer to his, by which I mean that we can't both be correct. If you think I'm incorrect, please explain how. If you can't do that, to what is your objection? An opinion you don't share but can't say why?"

Your response was ironic. You addressed none of the questions or comments there, made a comment unrelated to mine, and then objected to your claim that I said they have no intelligence, which I didn't say. What I did say, and to you, and just yesterday, was this: "Most critical thinkers are humanists. They're not all atheists"

People do indeed have valid reasons for their belief

Not by the standards of critical thinking. Their reason for belief is hunch or gut feeling because the idea of a god is comforting to them. You call that a valid reason, but I don't. It's understandable, perhaps, but it's not valid in the technical (academic) sense.

there is so much evidence for G-d, it's overwhelming.

All of what you call evidence for a god supports a naturalistic understand of reality. When something is discovered better understood as the work of an intelligent designer of our universe, then the notion can be reconsidered. For example, if the theory of evolution is wrong and falsified, the default paradigm to account for the evidence that was formerly support for naturalistic evolution becomes evidence of a deceptive, superhuman intelligent designer fraudulently planting evidence intended to be misunderstood. But even then, we wouldn't look for a supernatural intelligent designer for that, just a race of extraterrestrials that arose naturalistically themselves through abiogenesis followed by biological evolution.

There are no studies that can rule out the possibility of God's participation in the effect.

Nor need there be. We have no reason to think that such a thing happens, so no need to rule it out.

We don't actually know that faith in God is a placebo. It could simply be a form of medicine or self-healing that science can't grasp.

Then you don't know what placebo is. Did you know that there can be a negative placebo effect? The STEP study revealed a deleterious effect of being a cardiac patient and a believer going for relatively dangerous surgery and knowing that you were prayed for? From Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer - PubMed

"Conclusions: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

Humans can't know the truth. The best we can get is relative truthfulness.

The things we learn about reality can be called truth if they accurately predict outcomes. If you use a different definition of truth, it's not one useful to me. Au contraire. Calling hunches and comforting thoughts truth is a mistake.

Pretending that we pursue truth is self-deception.

Pretending that we can't have accurate, useful information about reality or that that isn't truth is the self-deception. Thinking that things like absolute truth are meaningful ideas is the self-deception. And thinking that faith is a path to truth or that unfalsifiable claims are comparable to empiric truth is self-deception. Epistemic nihilism, the faith-based thinker's friend, is a dead end. It serves none who bring it here. Your ideas about truth are useless even if they are in some sense correct. What difference would it make if they were? What ought one do differently? Nothing.

 

[F1fan]

I would also just quickly add that if questioning the efficacy for the non-bleiver in using the term "atheism" or "atheist" immediately put me in the theistic camp in your mind, might that represent an example of confirmation bias?

I think part of the problem is that many seem to fall back on religious ideas as automatically credible. Why consider gods and not aliens? I'd argue that aliens are more plausible than gods given they would be natural beings, albeit highly advanced. Just because a type of belief is a tradtion does not mean it is likely or rational to consider. All we have to do is examine how much creationism contributes to science, and the answer is zero. Creationism is the opposite of a contribution, as it's deliberate fraud that causes harm. We hear believers often cite how their religions offer aid and comfort to many, but my question is how much did that lazy tradition of belief contribute to people who have learned dependency instead of self-reliance?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not by the standards of critical thinking. Their reason for belief is hunch or gut feeling because the idea of a god is comforting to them.

You are merely projecting your own opinion of why people believe..
It is MUCH more than a "gut feeling".

All of what you call evidence for a god supports a naturalistic understand of reality. When something is discovered better understood as the work of an intelligent designer of our universe, then the notion can be reconsidered. For example, if the theory of evolution is wrong and falsified

There is no need to falsify the underlying principles of evolution.
There is a lot more to discussion that evolution v creationism.
Most believers today do not believe in a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Creationism is the opposite of a contribution, as it's deliberate fraud that causes harm..

Well, is creationism a religion? No.

 

[PureX]

You seem to have used this label “God” in two different ways. In the first instance it seems you are using it as a concrete proper noun, the name of a particular existent entity. In the second instance, it seems you are using it as a label for a biological process. Using the same label in different ways does not aid in clear communication. In an effort to avoid talking past each other we could adopt the convention of referring to PureX’s proposed entity in the first instance and PureX’s speculated biological process or effect in the second.

If it were merely a biological process science would likely be able to detect and study it. But nothing says that it has to be. Let me give an example.

Lets say I take some hallucinogenic drug and/or I undergo some psycho-spiritual ritual that results in my having an experience of God. Is the God I experienced "real"? Or is it "merely imagined". Did the drug/ritual open me up to being able to experience an aspect of reality that is otherwise hidden from us? Or did it just alter my perception of reality such that I confused a fantasy with reality? Or, could the latter actually also be the former??? Only our own bias can answer these questions for us because the truth is that we don't know. And we can't know.

Is the placebo effect of religiosity or spirituality just an illusion? Or is it real? The truth is that it's both. And we have no idea how that can be so. Science can study the physicality of it, but it has no idea how to study the meta-physicality of it.

... you still seem to be describing the placebo effect, which we have a label for, “placebo effect”. Belief in the efficacy of a modality that results in a healing effect is the placebo effect and the particular modality would be the placebo, in this case the belief in an imagined or assumed entity.

That shouldn't have any effect, though should it. What we believe about reality is not supposed to actually be able effect reality. And yet it does. So is our "belief" opening some door to reality to us that we otherwise have no access to or knowledge of? Does it really matter if it works? And it heals us? And we don't know how or why?

Ah, progress here. It seems we *are* in agreement that we are discussing the placebo effect of belief in imagined or assumed entities.

If only we new what that actually meant, though. The idea of God is real. And trusting in that idea really can heal us in ways and by methods that we do not understand. What else do we really need to know?

And here I agree that in many cases this type of placebo works in combating or preventing a variety of anxieties. But the beliefs that provide this placebo effect vary widely. It is not the same belief for all cases. I would even go as far as to say that each belief is actually unique to the individual. If most of these placebo beliefs form around different frameworks that are instilled or indoctrinated during development towards adulthood, isn’t it appropriate to evaluate what ancillary effects...?

Yes, but we have to investogate them for ourselves, don't we. Because as you say, all our god-ideals are unique to us, and so are the 'dis-ease' that we need to them to heal in us.

Should we not compare and contrast these placebo frameworks to see which work best both on the individual level but also for society at large?

Yes, but I see little value in my trying to do that for someone else, or they trying to do that for me.

 

[MikeF]

I think part of the problem is that many seem to fall back on religious ideas as automatically credible. Why consider gods and not aliens? I'd argue that aliens are more plausible than gods given they would be natural beings, albeit highly advanced. Just because a type of belief is a tradtion does not mean it is likely or rational to consider. All we have to do is examine how much creationism contributes to science, and the answer is zero. Creationism is the opposite of a contribution, as it's deliberate fraud that causes harm. We hear believers often cite how their religions offer aid and comfort to many, but my question is how much did that lazy tradition of belief contribute to people who have learned dependency instead of self-reliance?

You seem to have misinterpreted my comment and I think the problem began when I incorrectly used the word "term" instead of the word "label". I will edit that post.

My whole premise is just the very problem you describe. Western Philosophy and Western thought is founded on the notion that a world with imagined or assumed entities is a possible world. It does not categorically rule it out as a starting point. In my opinion, from a non-believers perspective, this is an invalid reference frame from which to engage in these discussions. We should not start with a conception of the world as one in which anything that can be imagined is possible or probable. This biased assumption that whatever is imagined or assumed is possible is deeply ingrained in our culture, begun in our ancient ignorance and passed down through indoctrination to every successive generation. If, like me, you reject the current default religious reference frame and believe there is a more appropriate frame to work within, then doesn’t it behoove one to make an effort to shift into that more appropriate frame or paradigm instead of accepting the default position and all the legacy assumptions and presumption that have accumulated within that reference frame?

For a non-believer to accept the label atheism, with its embedded reference to gods, as an appropriate label for self-identification is to play squarely in the theistic frame of a world where it is automatically assumed theistic non-human entities are possible or even probable. I advocate breaking the mold, leaving the flawed reference frame and continue to work discussions into a reference frame that builds from a blank slate.

How to self-identify then, in a way that contrasts with the theist? My recommendation would be to find or create another word that better describes the position. In my mind, the position is not one that rejects the claimed existence of a specific subset of unevidenced, purely imagined abstract constructs, rather, the position is one that rejects the claimed existence of *all* unevidenced, purely imagined abstract constructs. By using such a term and self-identifying with such a term you immediately declare a rejection of the faulty reference frame in which the imagined entity was created, and upon demonstrating that any particular claim presented is unevidenced, it equates that claim with all other fictions, including those fictions the claimant would agree are fictions.

Purely spitballing a candidate for such a term, let’s say we use “non-fictionalist” to be associated with “non-fictionalism”. We might define non-fictionalism to mean: “unevidenced mental constructions cannot be considered real and existent phenomena independent of thought.”

Now, when a Christian, for example, asks, “Do you believe in God?” and the non-believer replies, “No, I’m a non-fictionalist.”, we break the theist/atheist dynamic within the theistic reference frame and place the question into an evaluation frame of real/imaginary. By saying no we have immediately equated the object of the sentence with all that is considered imaginary and in a reference frame that does not assume the possibility of imagined entities.

I think there is a lot of emotional attachment to the label “atheist” by those who have identified as such, or use the label regularly. All I would say is that it is just a convention. There is nothing inherently necessary in the label. If non-believers of yore coined a different label for their non-belief and established a different convention, we would be using that label today instead of “atheist”.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are merely projecting your own opinion of why people believe..

I wrote, "Their reason for belief is hunch or gut feeling because the idea of a god is comforting to them." Why do you never attempt to rebut? Do you not understand that we can both be correct if our comments aren't contradictory, meaning mutually exclusive? To rebut, you'd need to offer and support a contradictory position, without which, nobody who accepts my claim has a reason to change his mind.

It is MUCH more than a "gut feeling".

No, it isn't. You forget that I have personal experience with that feeling and its misinterpretation. You are where I was then. One experiences pleasant to euphoric mental states and falsely attribute them to something outside of his head - the very definition of projection. An astute observer and critical thinker will understand that he is sensing the output of own mind just like when he dreams, another mental state that the unsophisticated frequently misinterpret as a message received from somewhere out there rather than having been generated de novo by the mind.

There is no need to falsify the underlying principles of evolution.

There is for a critical thinker who denies them, but not for a faith-based thinker.

Your answer misses the point of the comment and fails to address much less rebut any of it, which was:

"All of what you call evidence for a god supports a naturalistic understand of reality. When something is discovered better understood as the work of an intelligent designer of our universe, then the notion can be reconsidered. For example, if the theory of evolution is wrong and falsified, the default paradigm to account for the evidence that was formerly support for naturalistic evolution becomes evidence of a deceptive, superhuman intelligent designer fraudulently planting evidence intended to be misunderstood. But even then, we wouldn't look for a supernatural intelligent designer for that, just a race of extraterrestrials that arose naturalistically themselves through abiogenesis followed by biological evolution."

You seem unaware of and uninterested in the academic standards for debate and dialectic. You have no interest in trying rebut anybody, meaning you have no chance at persuasion. Nothing you write that doesn't attempt to explain why the beliefs of others are wrong can be expected to make them think they are. My comment was correct when I made it, and nothing you wrote even attempts to show how and why it is not.

 

[MikeF]

If it were merely a biological process science would likely be able to detect and study it. But nothing says that it has to be. Let me give an example.

Lets say I take some hallucinogenic drug and/or I undergo some psycho-spiritual ritual that results in my having an experience of God. Is the God I experienced "real"? Or is it "merely imagined". Did the drug/ritual open me up to being able to experience an aspect of reality that is otherwise hidden from us? Or did it just alter my perception of reality such that I confused a fantasy with reality? Or, could the latter actually also be the former??? Only our own bias can answer these questions for us because the truth is that we don't know. And we can't know.

Is the placebo effect of religiosity or spirituality just an illusion? Or is it real? The truth is that it's both. And we have no idea how that can be so. Science can study the physicality of it, but it has no idea how to study the meta-physicality of it.

That shouldn't have any effect, though should it. What we believe about reality is not supposed to actually be able effect reality. And yet it does. So is our "belief" opening some door to reality to us that we otherwise have no access to or knowledge of? Does it really matter if it works? And it heals us? And we don't know how or why?

If only we new what that actually meant, though. The idea of God is real. And trusting in that idea really can heal us in ways and by methods that we do not understand. What else do we really need to know?

Yes, but we have to investogate them for ourselves, don't we. Because as you say, all our god-ideals are unique to us, and so are the 'dis-ease' that we need to them to heal in us.

Yes, but I see little value in my trying to do that for someone else, or they trying to do that for me.

You are ignoring the big picture though, aren’t you? It is not simply about the individual, it is also about how the individual interacts in society. What we believe affects how we participate in the group. Did you not just say:

Yes. And I personally think we have wandered way too far in the direction of individuality

You seem to agree that we must have a broader view than simply meeting the needs and wants of any one particular individual. You have not established that the gods myth is the only placebo belief system that will satisfy or meet the needs that you say are being met with current placebo beliefs. You also haven’t acknowledged that the gods myth placebo is common simply by the fact that that is the reference frame that is widely taught or indoctrinated during development.

We both seem to agree that mere belief materially affects how one feels and how one behaves, but it is a double-edged sword. Let’s take the extreme example of the Heaven’s Gate cult who, in 1997, believed that the Hale-Bopp comet masked the detection of an alien spacecraft that was on its way to earth. They believed that if they committed suicide at the comets closest approach, they would leave their bodily containers, enter the alien spacecraft and it would take them through Heaven’s Gate into a higher existence. This mere belief had a profound effect on the reality of the 39 suicide victims and on the reality of any friends and family they may have had.

We can and should ask whether there are better options possible than what we are currently doing. To disagree would be like llike saying a peasant should be happy with its lot in life because that is simply the way it is and how it has always been. You often talk of not limiting possibilities, yet you insist on remaining fixed in the current system. I don’t get that.

I’m going to pass on debating whether psychedelic drugs cause hallucinations or open windows into an alternate reality. Maybe we can take that up another day. I think you can guess my short answer.

 

[F1fan]

You are merely projecting your own opinion of why people believe..
It is MUCH more than a "gut feeling".

There is the conditioned reasons why believers end up as believers. Few can state how they made an objective delibration of religious claims and concepts and concluded them true, or likely true. I think I recall you admitting that you converted from Christianity to Islam and it would be interesting to hear your explanation. You are a person living in the UK and adoted a kind of Islam that is more prevalent in the Middle East, so that would be an interesting thing to hear explained. Would I expect a lucid and factual explanation about yourreligious experiences? No, I would exvect very personal motives and reasons that are tied to your pychology and life experience in England. The social sciences do have explanations how and why people believe in the religious norms of their social experience. Now that we are in the internet age believers can shop around for grameworks that are more suited to their personality traits and state of mind. We read reports of Muslims being radicalized online, and this is usually explained as vulnerable people looking for significance.

There is no need to falsify the underlying principles of evolution.
There is a lot more to discussion that evolution v creationism.

The discussion is only the well educated explaining the science to the badly indoctrinated. Nothing is debated ecept why believers opened themselves to bad faith, and why they won't accept the fact that they have been taken advantage of.

Most believers today do not believe in a literal reading of Genesis.

That is due to good education, and wise humans. That you acknowledge this is just a subject of all believers admits the religious fraud that goes on to this day.

Well, is creationism a religion? No.

It is a Christian idea, and some Muslims have been fooled to accept it as well. No atheists are creationists, and that's because it is a bad interpretation of Genesis.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, it isn't. You forget that I have personal experience with that feeling and its misinterpretation. You are where I was then.

I doubt that very much.
We are all unique, in as much as we have experienced different things,
and live in different environments.

One experiences pleasant to euphoric mental states and falsely attribute them to something outside of his head - the very definition of projection. An astute observer and critical thinker will understand that he is sensing the output of own mind just like when he dreams, another mental state that the unsophisticated frequently misinterpret as a message received from somewhere out there rather than having been generated de novo by the mind.

Not all believers call on the Holy Spirit, and speak in tongues.
Some of us actually have studied theology, and have religious knowledge.
This knowledge strengthens belief, as does the practise of good deeds..
..such as regular prayer, fasting and charity.

You seem unaware of and uninterested in the academic standards for debate and dialectic. You have no interest in trying rebut anybody, meaning you have no chance at persuasion.

I doubt very much whether I can persuade anybody to believe. That is not my intent.
Belief is more about a person's soul [state of mind], than it is winning debates.

Nothing you write that doesn't attempt to explain why the beliefs of others are wrong can be expected to make them think they are. My comment was correct when I made it, and nothing you wrote even attempts to show how and why it is not.

It is a sweeping generalisation, and not accurate .. do not assume that you have experienced
all that there is to experience, about belief in G-d.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is a Christian idea, and some Muslims have been fooled to accept it as well. No atheists are creationists, and that's because it is a bad interpretation of Genesis.

I think you''ll find that "creationist" is a derogatory term for those who believe in the Bible,
and is designed to attack it on the basis that Genesis is false myth.

 

[F1fan]

I think you''ll find that "creationist" is a derogatory term for those who believe in the Bible,
and is designed to attack it on the basis that Genesis is false myth.

None of this is true.

I am noticing more theists claiming a sort of victimization in their comments.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We are all unique, in as much as we have experienced different things, and live in different environments.

Why do you think that matters? What I am saying is that like you and millions or billions of people do today, I once understood my religious experience as evidence for a god.

Some of us actually have studied theology, and have religious knowledge.

Same question. So what?

Incidentally, I don't consider any idea that isn't demonstrably true knowledge, and that includes what I call theology, which is based in and dependent on the truth of a belief that I don't share.

I doubt very much whether I can persuade anybody to believe.

You could if you were correct and could demonstrate it.

It is a sweeping generalisation, and not accurate

This comment? : "Nothing you write that doesn't attempt to explain why the beliefs of others are wrong can be expected to make them think they are. My comment was correct when I made it, and nothing you wrote even attempts to show how and why it is not." As always, if it were inaccurate, you could rebut it.

I think you''ll find that "creationist" is a derogatory term for those who believe in the Bible, and is designed to attack it on the basis that Genesis is false myth.

Creationists' beliefs aren't accepted by critical thinkers, but that doesn't make the term inherently derogatory. It's neutral and descriptive, and many creationists use the word to describe themselves. You called me a materialist, and I understand that you disesteem that, and I didn't consider it accurate, but I also didn't take it as an insult and I don't think you meant it as one.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why do you think that matters?

..because your reasons for believing are quite likely different than other people's for believing.

Incidentally, I don't consider any idea that isn't demonstrably true knowledge, and that includes what I call theology, which is based in and dependent on the truth of a belief that I don't share.

Well, many people would disagree with you .. including many atheists.
Knowledge is not confined to the physical sciences.

Creationists' beliefs aren't accepted by critical thinkers, but that doesn't make the term inherently derogatory. It's neutral and descriptive, and many creationists use the word to describe themselves.

Use of the term "creationist" in this context dates back to Charles Darwin's unpublished 1842 sketch draft for what became On the Origin of Species, and he used the term later in letters to colleagues. In 1873, Asa Gray published an article in The Nation saying a "special creationist" who held that species "were supernaturally originated just as they are, by the very terms of his doctrine places them out of the reach of scientific explanation."
Creationism - Wikipedia

..so there we have it .. the "superior" scientist, making derogatory comments about religious people.

 

[Valjean]

There is .. there is more in common with beliefs of Christians and Muslims than differences.
i.e. G-d created the universe, and we return to Him upon death

You're comparing apples and apples; two Abrahamic religions with pretty much the same God and afterlife concepts.

You are merely projecting your own opinion of why people believe..
It is MUCH more than a "gut feeling".

Yet most people end up believing in whatever religion they're raised with. This isn't what one would predict if critical thinking were involved.

 

[Valjean]

There are no studies that can rule out the possibility of God's participation in the effect.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We don't actually know that faith in God is a placebo. It could simply be a form of medicine or self-healing that science can't grasp.

A placebo is a pharmacologically inactive substance presented as an active medication. If faith has a beneficial physical effect with no clear pharmacological activity, placebo seems apt.

Theistic faith is already very dynamic, and adaptable. If people are choosing to hold tightly to tradition, we must assume they are doing so because that's what works for them. The whole point of the placebo is that it works. Not that it's adaptable, or to anyone's personal liking.

Yes, religion does change, but much more slowly than scientific knowledge or technology. The utility of its laws and doctrines lags behind social needs, and is often counterproductive.
Religious doctrines, particularly in abrahamic religions, are divine command based, not utilitarian or consequentialist. Their purpose isn't social benefit, but to please God or avoid His wrath.

Yes. And I personally think we have wandered way too far in the direction of individuality, to the point of becoming absurdly selfish and collectively destructive. And if we do not find a way of correcting this error, soon, it will be the end of us.

Good point.

 

[Bird123]

You like your fuzzy definitions to suit your beliefs.

Who cares how people learn to behave in their social experiences? It's observed that children in most global cultures are taught the religion of their society, and the children adopt that behavior. No one coms to a reasoned conclusion that a God exists. There were once hundreds of thousands of KKK members, so they must have been onto something true as well? White supremacists like their attitudes that target minorities, so we should accept them?

Yes, and your posts indicate you suffer from an unwillingness to see anyone's views that aren't religious.

If theists all over the world and all through time had an amazingly similar set of experiences and beliefs That would suggest they are all tapped into something genuine and real. But we don;t see this ata ll. We see a hugely diverse set of beliefs, rituals, and attitudes. And the social sciences explain why humans evolved the way they did, and why religion served a huge advantage for early humans. Why do modern people believe in old religious ideas? Not because it is knowledge that is fact-based, but due to social and personal reasons.

Well I'm not. Do you prefer I lie? It's the problem theist have to deal with when they engage with critical thinkers. You have two options: either avoid debate, or bring actual evidence for your claims and beliefs to debate. The religious status quo is not only unconvincing to atheists, but to theists of other religions.

The lack of facts is the problem, no one can know anything without facts. Thus we are all agnostic.

That is the natural response to anyone who claims truth about something. Christians aren't convinced Hindus have the truth. So this isn;t just an atheist versus theist dispute, it is all over the many believers of the many religions. Look at how protesants aren't convinced Catholics are "real Christians".

You didn't explain why anyone would assume a God exists.

But sure, maybe the Tooth Fairy does exist and we are missing out.

There is no reason to assume any gods exist, and believers offer no reason why they do. It's certainly not rational.

Not a shock since there are no facts about any of the many gods. Don't confuse the descriptions of gods as evidence of them existing. So no theist can really claim to understand a God. If they do, they can't offer any factual basis, so we throw it out.

It's quite evident that religions don't add up to critical thinkers. It takes little brain power to observe inconsistencies and suspicious claims. My own doubt emerged at around 7 or 8 as I watched my Catholic and Baptist cousins conflict on religious holidays. If they were going to set differences aside I figure it would be over holidays, but they split the family. It was bad enough that a young kid could see something wrong going on. These memories were the basis of me doubting religion later in life. I never could reconcile the lofty claims of salvation and love to seeing my family divide over dogma that promoted those ideals.

God does exist. Facts about God exist all around. On the other hand, if you base all your knowledge about God on the beliefs of mankind, seeking God, truth, and facts are not what you are after.

Everything about God and God's system adds up perfectly. Critical thinkers should have no problem with God unless they are so critical that their only goal is to prove others wrong. This is a far cry from seeking knowledge, truth, and facts.

Why assume God exists or does not exist? One who seeks knowledge and truth does not assume either way. One must be open to all possibilities. Let the cards fall where they will. Putting enough pieces together and going through many doors and it will lead to God.

Science will Discover God before religion will? Science, by studying God's handy work is walking straight toward God. The only limits are created by bias and a limited view.

Sometimes changing oneself is the first step to Discover anything. It should always be about what is and never about what one wants things to be.

Can the ruling, controlling, blaming, judging, condemning, punishing, vengeance, anger, hate, we against they and all the petty things really show you a view of God? Of course not!! God is at a Higher Level above all the petty things mankind holds so dear. How would it be to be around one who carries no garbage or baggage with them. It is a joy. This could be you if you choose.

Everyone already knows God whether they know they know or not. Everyone wants to be like God whether they realize they do or not. Be stubborn and headstrong, Muddle through, for we are all going to end up at the very same place, in time. There has never been a time limit on learning. This fact alone eliminates any excuse to hate at all. All the kiddies are going to make it!! ALL OF THEM!!!

Make your choices freely. It is a part of the plan!! This is the path to Discovering what the very best choices really are.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[F1fan]

God does exist.

Your assertion is meaningless without facts. Let's see if you offer any.

Facts about God exist all around.

Another claim, and yet no list of these facts you claim are all around us.

On the other hand, if you base all your knowledge about God on the beliefs of mankind, seeking God, truth, and facts are not what you are after.

The only knowledge about gods are in historical lore. There are no facts that demonstrate any of the many gods exist outside of human imagination. I understand you believe otherwise, but that's irrelevant. Facts and a coherent explanation of the facts are what we need, and you fail.

Everything about God and God's system adds up perfectly. Critical thinkers should have no problem with God unless they are so critical that their only goal is to prove others wrong. This is a far cry from seeking knowledge, truth, and facts.

Another claim with no facts. So it's irrelevant.

Why assume God exists or does not exist? One who seeks knowledge and truth does not assume either way. One must be open to all possibilities. Let the cards fall where they will. Putting enough pieces together and going through many doors and it will lead to God.

No one has to assume negatives. No one asumes Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't exist. So the focus is on those who do assume any sort of supernatural exists, and why they can't show any facts that justify the assumption.

Science will Discover God before religion will? Science, by studying God's handy work is walking straight toward God. The only limits are created by bias and a limited view.

More claims. You don't even try to explain how your beliefs are true. Who cares?

Sometimes changing oneself is the first step to Discover anything. It should always be about what is and never about what one wants things to be.

You should work to exmine why you believe in ideas that not only have no evidence, but are contrary to facts and reason. Follow your own advice.

Can the ruling, controlling, blaming, judging, condemning, punishing, vengeance, anger, hate, we against they and all the petty things really show you a view of God? Of course not!! God is at a Higher Level above all the petty things mankind holds so dear. How would it be to be around one who carries no garbage or baggage with them. It is a joy. This could be you if you choose.

Odd how so many believers in God are mean, cruel, liars, deceptive, cheaters, murderers, etc. If believers had an amazing consistency of decent and moral behavior that exceeds the norm I would be impressed. Alas, believers are like any other sinner, and many can't even see their own vice.

Everyone already knows God whether they know they know or not.

Here's an example of a false thing a believer says about others. I'm curious why you aren't thinking about your character and integrity by saying false things about otehrs. This is what I just said about believers not knowing their own vice, and that suggests they are not as spiritual as they think.

Everyone wants to be like God whether they realize they do or not. Be stubborn and headstrong, Muddle through, for we are all going to end up at the very same place, in time. There has never been a time limit on learning. This fact alone eliminates any excuse to hate at all. All the kiddies are going to make it!! ALL OF THEM!!!

More false statements. If you are talking about yourself here, then be accurate and avoid trying to control others by dragging them into the dogmatic world you think is real. This illustrates why religious thinking is a failure.

Make your choices freely. It is a part of the plan!! This is the path to Discovering what the very best choices really are.

You can't make a free choice when you have decided an irrational religious framework is absolute truth. You are the one who is trapped and have no free choice beyond your religious walls. Do you know who is free? Non-believers.