Religion and Atheism

[A Vestigial Mote]

A tool that you can't get, or use, is of no practical value to those who can't get and use them.

Hence the reason we (even the religious) attempt to disseminate knowledge of the tools we have found work best.

I don't know. But I would think that the more of them we have available to us, the better off we all are. Whereas you only seem to want us to have those that you approve of.

Not that I approve of, but those that I have seen achieve the greatest efficacy, with the least ill-will effects. For example, all around me I hear constant complaining about how life is so hard, even mild comments like "story of my life." I never think in these terms, and honestly they sound completely foreign to me when people use them. I can only sort of barely relate, but mostly these quips, caviling and complaining are all symptoms of what I see as a poor take on life and an expectation of purpose/more/destiny/greatness. It is a kind of weakness. And I am of the opinion (however unpopular this opinion is) that it tends to be people's most fundamental subscriptions to ideology/principles that leave cracks in their perceptions into which can seep discontent/pessimism/unhappiness... and religion is one that I have seen offer the greatest potential for unease. Many religious believers tend to be some of the worst offenders of the type of thinking I am talking about. Praising God one moment, and then having to question everything when the blessings run out. It's a sad sort of roller-coaster, that seems to leave many frazzled and unsure... until the next surge of confidence comes from some happening of chance - and then they are (apparently) "fine" again. I don't experience this. I get a fantastic night's rest... every night - fall asleep within 5 minutes, guaranteed. I don't stress, do not frighten easily at all, stay level headed in hectic situations, work well under pressure, etc. etc. etc. And I attribute it all to the fundamental ideas I hold about life. I could never subscribe to a religion for that reason alone. It is too full of unknowns that I would have to pretend I know... and that sounds entirely too erratic to me. And so, it is fully and completely what I have witnessed as the disposition of those around me who are religious, or hold absolute ideas about what "life" is that have all these problems. Problems I, myself, used to have, mind you. But I hated it... so I searched until I found something that did away with it all.

Science is a tool. And a very useful one. But it's true that it's only useful regarding our material experiences. And for most humans, that is not the main event.

Well, this alternative "main event" you hint at is certainly fine for having fun with a bit of fiction... but not at all a good idea to live your life by.

My point was that delusion is endemic to the human condition. It's unavoidable. And that being the case, isn't the more logical goal to pursue the delusion that provides us with the highest quality life experience? I'm not saying we should ignore or deny logic, or reason, but I do seriously question those who put so much emphasis on pursuing a "truth" that they will never attain, to the point where they are disparaging anyone who is not compliant with their hopeless cause.

But even you have to admit that there are "delusions" (as you seem to want to call EVERYTHING) that are a heck of a lot more compelling than others. Am I right? Haha... rhetorical question... of course I am. And if one is in the business of just patently accepting "delusions" as "good for quality of life" then why stop at just belief in God? Why not believe in the tooth fairy? I mean - she gives MONEY for teeth for goodness sake! Or Santa Claus? Free presents? Awesome! You see my point? There should be a line drawn... and everyone - EVERYONE DOES draw a line. It would be wholly idiotic not to.

Faith in God is not based on knowledge, or even on the presumption of knowledge. It's based on the possibility that our profound human ignorance affords us: that a God of our understanding could exist, because we have no way of proving that it couldn't.

I can't believe that people can write such terrible sentences and not see how profoundly flawed they are. Here... let me try:

Faith in Barney the Dinosaur as a real creature is not based on knowledge, or even on the presumption of knowledge. It's based on the possibility that our profound human ignorance affords us: that a dinosaur named Barney of our understanding could exist, because we have no way of proving that it couldn't.

Seriously now... that set of sentences is no different from yours. Prove to me that Barney the Dinosaur doesn't exist somewhere as a real talking dinosaur. Go ahead, I'll wait. And if I got utility out of this belief, you'd be just fine with it right? I mean, why not? I'm not hurting anyone. Until Barney informs me that the taste of human flesh is the most delectable of all. And then it's "Oh damn... probably should have nipped that in the bud when we saw it." And this is the position that religious belief has put the secular world in time and time and time again. Does it do good? Sure. Is it the only way to do good? No.

And if we choose to live by that possibility, how does doing this effect the value of our life experience?

That obviously depends. I've already shared my testimony above about how I see religion as having a detrimental effect on people's outlook on life. Believing you have an absolute knowledge does a few negative things off the top of my head:

1. makes you openly chastise others when they don't conform - even though you have no rational justification
2. can make you believe you don't need rational justification for just about anything
3. sets you up for a very large crash when you someday (if you do) come to the realization that you have no freaking clue the true reality of any of it

I know you're probably chomping at the bit about point number 1 above, and you think that that's exactly what I'm doing - but it isn't about me having positive/absolute knowledge about anything. It's about me denying you (and others) claim to this sort of knowledge when you have no sufficient basis for it.

Mutual delusion is still delusion. "Reality" is what we imagine to be going on, from it's effects on us; not what is actually going on. There is no escaping this, not even with science. Science just helps us to quantify and relate those effects.

See above about some delusions being more compelling than others.

What I am saying is that there really isn't much of a difference. Because it's a;; imaginary, whether it's one's imagination or many. And it's all delusion whether we imagine and label it be the 'truth", or not.

There is so much difference even you must admit to. I honestly feel this is just you trying to maintain an optimism about religious belief - looking at it through rose-colored glasses. There is no way you can possibly feel that religious "delusion" is exactly the same as the "delusion" you experience when tasting a nice, ripe strawberry. No possible way that the "delusion" of the effects of gravity on your body is only on par with the "delusion" of believing in God. Give me a break.

I don't think you get to decide what is necessary or unnecessary to other people's experience of the struggle to transcend ourselves. I don't see how you could possibly know.

I would argue that there is no such thing as "transcending yourself" - nor do I think you could even sufficiently define this nonsensical term.

Religions are the methodology of how humans carry out their chosen theological positions in their actual lives. So their religion informs their political behavior, their commercial behavior, their social behavior, their goals in life and how they pursue them, their ... everything.

Which is exactly why I deem it a problem.

 

[ecco]

I believe that all the Messengers of God are evidence that God exists. There are many Messengers of God but I believe God exists because of one Messenger in particular.

Baha’u’llah, right?

I have no proof that “messengers” are actually “Messengers of God”. I never said that I had proof. I said I have evidence. Evidence is not proof.

Indeed evidence is not proof. However the evidence you have for Baha’u’llah is only evidence the believers. For the most part it is all verbose writings and third hand stories. None of which can truly be considered evidence.

What Muslims believe about Baha’u’llah has nothing to do with that is true, because beliefs do not determine reality.

Their beliefs are, to a large degree, based on the evidence that an illiterate man came back from treks to the desert with the written Word of God. That is stronger than your evidence for Baha’u’llah.

Baha’u’llah was either a Messenger sent by God or not. That can never be proven as a fact but it could still be true, or it could be false. Those are the only two logical possibilities.

As you said, we should go by evidence. There is very little for Bahai.

 

[ecco]

I do not believe in the Great Flood. I am of the hook because regarding what has been written about the flood in the books of old, Baha’u’llah wrote...

“Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.” Gleanings, pp. 174-175

In other words - believe Me - everything else is fake news. There are similar things written in the OT. There are similar things written in the NT. There are similar things written in the Koran. It's pretty meaningless when you think about it.

 

[Workman]

. I have no idea of the context you are using "things" and "tools".

Exactly my point!..you know nothing!..

 

[Workman]

Then have fun doing whatever it is that you do.

Thank you..ditto!

 

[wandering peacefully]

Where did you get the idea that atheists find "Marriage, sexual preferences" to be repulsive?

You misinterpreted my poorly written post. I was talking about the repulsive religious attitudes towards those topics is something atheists reject. And I don't get the rest of your message. Let's just start over next time.

 

[wandering peacefully]

That is true, I tend to forget that most atheists were formerly believers, mostly Christians. But why would they have "more wiring" in the god dept than a theist?

Because as a person thinks, certain connections are made in the brain. New neural pathways are formed. In this case the thoughts about God stories and if they make sense or not. When a person thinks about all of the evidence or lack of it, eventually new pathways are formed in the brain where a person has now decided the stories about gods don't make sense and are rejected as false. Theists don't have that pathway.

 

[wandering peacefully]

so much so that much of modern atheism seems to be a reaction to religious values instead of a simple lack of belief in a God or gods

No

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, this has gone on for millennia. Even now, atheistic naturalism, the unofficial State Religion (in America), indoctrinates their religious beliefs into hapless children, who emerge convinced of the 'progressive!' belief.

This is just the new, 'Religious Indoctrination,' from the current majority belief. How is it any different from the past?

That certainly is the other side of the coin, what Christians continually being accused of doing by atheists.
However, atheists are NOT in the majority...

 

[Trailblazer]

So am I to assume that whenever you make a truth/fact claim, that there may be caveats and other hidden stipulations that will be revealed to us later? This seems like a confusing and intellectually dishonest method for honest discourse.

I never made a fact claim, I made a belief claim. I believe it is the truth, but it is not a claim to truth because I cannot prove it – to anyone else except myself.

Stating that we can't prove that God exists, because God doesn't want us to prove that He exists, is not only circular reasoning, but is also an argument from ignorance. Not only can't you demonstrate why this claim is true, but you can't even demonstrate the rationale supporting the claim.

No, it is logical reasoning because IF God is omnipotent God could make it possible for us to prove He exists – if God wanted to do that. Since God has not made that possible, I conclude that God does not want us to be able to prove He exists. That is my rationale although I cannot prove it is true.

You keep saying that you don't know what a God thinks, needs, is, and wants, yet you keep making assertions that imply that you do. How do you know why a God is avoiding human detection?

I do not know why God is avoiding human detection but I surmise that God is avoiding human detection because God does not want to be detected, since as I said above, an omnipotent God could make it possible for us to detect Him IF He wanted to.

How do you know if God knows more than humans? How do you know that God gave you free will? How do you know that this God is a moral God? How do you know that He even exists. In short, you don't have a clue. You simply believe because you want to believe. Yet you continue to make these claims, as truth claims.

Those have easy answers. I know all of that because it was revealed by Baha’u’llah, et al.

Again, you are absolutely wrong that I WANT to believe. I tried to escape belief in God for 42 years, that’s how I know that. That is the evidence. But I finally decided it was not in my best interest to keep trying to run away from God, so here I am. But I’d much rather be sunning myself on a beach somewhere than living on forums 24/7.

These are beliefs that I believe are true, they are not claims. I cannot claim what I cannot prove as a fact.

My theory that God cannot exist, is based on science, logic, common sense, and observation. My theory is predicated on the idea that a God must have some material properties, that can interact with the material properties of our 4 dimensional reality. There are 4 basic forces in the universe, with a possible 5th to accommodate for the addition of constants in formulas. How do God properties interact with quantum fields and waves? How do God properties affect the Uncertainty Principle, Gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, spacetime, or wave mechanics? Is God a neutrino, that do not interact with anything(other than the weak nuclear force). I can certainly present a case why a God property would create a causal cascade of natural events that could lead to the destruction of our Universe. I sincerely hope that your evidence does not include these poorly thought out false tautologies.

I do not know how God properties interact with anything...
That is quite an interesting theory you have. Can you prove it? If not it is just a belief.
You sound like you think you know more about God than I think I know.

Things that are imagined in the mind, will always be conceptually real(mental construct). Things that exists outside of the mind will always be perceptually real(physical constructs). No matter how much imagination you have, you will never cause it to physically appear. But if you really mean bringing your imagination to fruition, by using material means, then I completely agree with you stating the obvious. Evidence does not make something real, but it will support claims that something is real. Since you can't support your supernatural claims with evidence, you must make evidence inconsequential. If you don't have any intentions of providing any evidence to support your supernatural claims, then you are only proselytizing your beliefs and opinions. Especially, since you have zero evidence, despite the many claims that you do.

The Revelation of Baha’u’llah is the evidence that God exists, as far as I am concerned. YMMV.

I may be intolerant, or an elitists, but at least I'm open-minded. I am not so entranced and enraptured in blind faith, that my moral compass has become skewed. I have always believed that women should have the right to make all decisions regarding their reproductive system. No one else should make decisions for them, especially since it is not them that has to live with them. It is because of your own intolerance, apathy, and religious bias, that you lack any understanding of the trauma caused by a decision to terminate the pregnancy. You may think you are taking the moral high ground, but you are not the one that will be looking after the child for life, or be forced to give the child away. You remind me of the indifference felt by politicians, as they send our young men/women off to die in never-ending regime change wars. What if the fetus endangers the life of the mother? What if the fetus is deformed or mentally handicapped? How about a pregnancy as a result of rape or incest? To bad and tough luck, right? Do you really think that the maturity and sex drives of a teenage girl, is the same as yours? Clearly it is you that is selfish, under the guise of religious fundamentalism.

I walked right into that trap and I do not care. You call it terminating a pregnancy, I call it taking a life, because life comes into being at the moment of conception. That is a scientific fact, not just a religious one. I am talking about routine pregnancies, not pregnancies where the mother’s life is endangered or pregnancies where the child would have serious deformities or mental handicaps. Abortions might be warranted under those circumstances.

Are you going to argue that this baby would not get a good home with a family that desperately wants a child but cannot conceive? Nine months of being pregnant is a minor inconvenience for some woman who slipped up and slept with a man without using foolproof birth control. Moreover, had she been married she would probably not be needing to get an abortion, but that opens up a whole different can of worms. I do not believe in premarital sex. I have always been this way, long before I had a religion or believed in God. This has nothing to do with “religious fanaticism.”

I was once a teenager and I never had sex, not until I got married at age 32. My husband did not have sex until he married me at age 42. It is possible, but this society is so morally depraved that it is not very common to wait till marriage to have sex. Teenagers can control themselves. I was a hippie and around free love so I had plenty of chances to have sex, I simply declined because I knew it was wrong. I was not raised in a religious home so my morality did not come from religion.

Keeping it in perspective, a 7% world population of Atheists is 200 Million more people than the entire population of the US. But consensus is never proof for the existence of anything. That requires evidence. Otherwise, the belief in Santa Clause by 85% of young children, would be evidence of the existence of Santa Clause. If you are having some conjectured crisis of faith, might I suggest the default position?

No, consensus does not prove that God exists, so God does not exist because most people believe in God. There is a red car in my driveway because there is a red car in my driveway, not because I believe there is a red car in my driveway. If I denied that there was a red car in my driveway, it would still be there.

God exists because God exists. If nobody believed in God, God would still exist. I know this sounds like a claim, but it is a belief, a belief I know is true.

I don’t know why some atheists want to make me into an atheist, I have no interest in making any atheists into believers.

 

[Trailblazer]

How about "I don't know if a god or gods exist, so I don't believe that they do"? That agnostic atheism. A person holding such a position (and I am one) is an atheist for not believing in gods, and an agnostic for not claiming to know either way.

I think that is a respectable position to take. I would call that an agnostic, but labels are just labels. In my mind, atheists are people who say “God does not exist” but I guess that would be considered positive atheism or hard atheism.

In my opinion, religion is evidence that humanity has a predilection for creating religions and nothing more, just as the Bible is evidence of nothing more than that it was written.

Whereas it is possible that the entire Bible was written by men who had nothing to do with any god (s) I find that highly unlikely. The primary reason I say that is because of the effect the Bible has had on millions of people.

Some of the events in the Bible might have taken place, but we cannot know unless we have other sources by which to verify them. Regarding the bodily resurrection, it is just a story, and a story is not evidence that the story is true; that is circular. Anyone can write a story. Unless there were eyewitnesses outside the story that can confirm that the events took place, it is not factual history. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to base their entire life on a story.

Sure, there were stories told about the Bab and Baha’u’llah, but they are verifiable from sources outside the Baha’i Faith. The life of Baha’u’llah is not called into question, what is called into question is whether He actually got communication from God. As I tell all the atheists I post to, nobody can prove that so it is a matter of faith, but it is a reason-based faith since there are many reasons to believe he was telling the truth about His claim.

The reason that religion is not evidence for a god is that evidence for a god would be something that made the existence of a god more likely, such as a bona fide miracle. We would expect religion to exist given humanity whether gods exist or not, so the presence of religion does not help us answer questions about the existence of deities.

Can you explain why you would expect religion to exist absent a God? Why would humanity invent religion? That makes no sense to me.

Even if a miracle happened how could anyone prove it was God who was responsible for it?

Yes, in my case.

When I decided to try out Christianity at about age 20 (I had been an atheist until then), I agreed to put my critical thinking skills on hold, that is, to suspend disbelief long enough to give God a chance to make Himself known, as one might test a pair of shoes to see how well they fit.

At first, the experience was ecstatic - euphoric. Surely I was filled with the Spirit. But then I moved cross-country following discharge from the military, tried a half-dozen other congregations that were all lifeless.

Eventually, I realized that what I had been feeling in my first congregation was the effect of a very gifted and charismatic preacher, and I had been mistaking my own mental state for a deity, and so, I returned to atheism after about ten years as a Christian.

Wow, that is quite a story. Thanks for sharing. You were raised as an atheist and decided to try out Christianity? I guess that happens but I consider it out of the norm, although I know of fallen away Christians who became atheists and later came back to Christianity as “born again” Christians. For example, my carpet installer was raised Catholic, became atheist, and then became the member of a small Protestant church.

I understand the psychology behind becoming a spirit filled Christian given my academic background id in psychology and I listen to “spirit filled” Christian radio a lot. It is emotionally appealing to think that the Holy Spirit is living inside you and that God is watching out for you all the time, guiding your every move. Sure would be nice if life was that easy. I get almost jealous of them sometimes but then I wake up to the reality that a body rising from the grave after being dead for three days, and later hen floating up into the sky, only to return from the sky some day after which time bodies will rise from graves en masse is not rational. I could never be a Christian unless perhaps it was an obscure sect that is associated with very early Christianity, before Paul and the Church entered the picture and changed the Revelation of Jesus Christ to something virtually unrecognizable.

I never came into the Baha’i Faith by way of emotions, it was all intellectual. My formerly Christian atheist friends laugh when I tell them that but it is the very truth. I am a very compassionate empathetic person when it comes to other people and animals, but when it comes to deciding what to believe I am very analytical. That is why I do not go in for mysticism either. Being “close” to God has its appeal but I do not think that is even possible and that is why I like Baha’i theology that states that it is impossible, since God is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things, transcendent and independent of all His creatures. God is not going to have anything to do with humans directly. God remains in His own High Place, wherever that is. I am fine with that because I have no need to see God or even experience God. Knowing God exists and His Purpose for my existence is enough for me. Maybe I will know more in the afterlife. NDEs report that they experience God in some way.

The above might help you see that. You might say that I never really believed in God, but I would disagree.

I would never tell you that you didn’t because that was YOUR experience, not mine. I have discussed this with other atheists who simply lost faith that the promises in the Bible were true.

A disciplined critical thinker doesn't choose what he or she will believe. He simply finds some things believable and others not. I can choose to jump off a building, but I can't choose to believe that I will fly if I flap my arms or that I won't die.

I hear you. I consider myself a critical thinker even though I am a believer. Now I had better put on my flak jacket, as some of my atheists call it.

As I just explained to this Hindu poster I cannot believe that Jesus rose from the dead after three days because it is incongruent with what is scientifically possible. He does not get it because he is a mystic who believes “God can do anything” and that Jesus said and did everything that is written in the New Testament. I see no reason to believe this, although maybe Jesus did do and say some of it.

I am very down to earth and pragmatic in my approach to religion. My initial attraction to the Baha’i Faith was its spiritual teachings that benefit individual character and its program that addresses the social, political and environmental problems that face all of humanity. I consider it really selfish to believe in a religion for personal salvation or just to have some kind of mystical experience with God.

Isn't that an argument against the religions that teach their god wants to be known, believed, loved, and worshiped?

God does want us to know He exists, but only on His terms, which means by recognizing His Messenger. God does want us to love and worship Him, but not for His sake, rather for our sakes, because it benefits us. This is one part of “being a Baha’i” that I am still working on as it does not come easy for me to love God.

It's not a matter of liking or disliking religion. I have no need of religion. It would fulfill no unmet need, so why bring it into my life?

I do not have religion to meet a need either. Rather, I simply believe that God exists and that the Baha’i Faith is the religion for this age and that it is in my best interest to acknowledge that and try to practice it, moreover in the best interest of everyone. Then again, I am a bit biased. I do realize that not everyone will come to the same conclusions I have, it would be awfully narcissistic if I thought they would. We are all individuals.

I probably already told you this before, but for most of my life as a Baha’i, 42 years, I had hardly anything nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith, and even less to do with God. Only about six years ago I decided to give those two another chance. I guess I just reached that point in my life.

The rational skeptic believes that he needs empirical evidence for a god or gods before believing that such things exist, not that such evidence exists or should exist.

I do not know what you mean by empirical evidence. I consider Messengers OF God the best empirical evidence but that is because I believe that represent God on earth.

I'd say it's illogical to believe without it. I realize that a god may exist and there be evidence of it, but why would I believe that if there is no evidence? Because it's not impossible?

No, absolutely NOT. That is not a good reason to believe, because it’s not impossible. It is not impossible that there is no pink unicorn in my garage, but I am not going to believe that. It is not impossible that my husband will get off his duff, but I am not going to believe that until I have some evidence.

I know I must sound like a broken record, my atheist friends all tell me that, but the only real evidence for God’ existence is the Messengers of God. Some people think that Creation is evidence but I do not buy that because there are other possible explanation for Creation, whereas if we carefully examine the lives of the Prophets/Messengers and what they were able to accomplish and the long-lasting impact they had upon humanity, as well as how they suffered and what they sacrificed, and what they wrote or what scriptures were attributed to them, I am hard pressed to come up with another explanation, other than that they were sent by God.

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273​

If you read this chapter in its entirety you will get a broad overview of the Baha’i viewpoint on religion in general, within the context of history and its relationship to present day society. RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha’u’llah, right?

Yep.

Indeed evidence is not proof. However the evidence you have for Baha’u’llah is only evidence the believers. For the most part it is all verbose writings and third hand stories. None of which can truly be considered evidence.

Not to you, but that is a subjective call.

Their beliefs are, to a large degree, based on the evidence that an illiterate man came back from treks to the desert with the written Word of God. That is stronger than your evidence for Baha’u’llah.

Oh? Why is their evidence for Muhammad stronger than my evidence for Baha’u’llah?
Muhammad did not even write anything with his own pen.

As you said, we should go by evidence. There is very little for Bahai.

You might not LIKE His writings or the stories about Baha’u’llah, but that is highly subjective. What is NOT subjective is that Baha’u’llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies, and that means He has gotta be who He claimed to be, the return of Christ and the Messiah. Also NOT subjective are the predictions He made that all came to pass.

Put all this evidence together, and…..

 

[Trailblazer]

In other words - believe Me - everything else is fake news.

Pretty much.

There are similar things written in the OT. There are similar things written in the NT. There are similar things written in the Koran. It's pretty meaningless when you think about it.

Yeah, all that old stuff that was not even written by a Messenger of God is pretty meaningless.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: That is true, I tend to forget that most atheists were formerly believers, mostly Christians. But why would they have "more wiring" in the god dept than a theist?

Because as a person thinks, certain connections are made in the brain. New neural pathways are formed. In this case the thoughts about God stories and if they make sense or not. When a person thinks about all of the evidence or lack of it, eventually new pathways are formed in the brain where a person has now decided the stories about gods don't make sense and are rejected as false. Theists don't have that pathway.

Who is to say that no theists have those new pathways? I probably have an entire trail system in my brain…. I LIVE in that space, questioning all the “god stories” in the Bible.

I am tired of telling other believers that I DO NOT believe in those stories and explaining why.

 

[ecco]

There was a time, long ago, that I found it exceedingly difficult to believe that any truly intelligent person could believe in God. That included the Pope.

Then I became aware of the tremendous power of early childhood religious indoctrination.

See, you just did it. Apparently, you cannot understand that everyone does not think like you do.

Apparently, you misread my comment. When do you think "Then I became aware..." means?

But you are right about early childhood religious indoctrination. That explains why most people believe in religion, particularly Christians.

Not just Christians in general but Baptists, Mormons, Catholics, Sunnis, Orthodox Jews, etc. All the specific versions of religious beliefs.

But that does not explain why I believe in religion because both my parents dropped out of Christianity before I was born. My father was an atheist but I have no idea what my mother believed when I was a child or after that. My father died before he heard of the Baha’i Faith, but my mother became a Baha’i at age 60, a few years after the rest of the family had become Baha’is.

There are always exceptions. I know some siblings who were raised in a very fundamentalist family. Some are fundamentalist, some middle of the road and one atheist.

Your conversion sounds like a group conversion.

 

[ecco]

Yes, they can both be true. Let me explain.

There was a time – before I became a Baha’i – when I did not believe in God.

Then later – after I became a Baha’i – I tried to disbelieve in God, but I never could.

OK

But why, after years of no beliefs and then "finding god" would you want to try to disbelieve in god?

 

[ecco]

Yes, this has gone on for millennia. Even now, atheistic naturalism, the unofficial State Religion (in America), indoctrinates their religious beliefs into hapless children, who emerge convinced of the 'progressive!' belief.

Please explain how this indoctrination takes place. Please explain who is doing this indoctrination?

I don't know of any families who take their children to the Church of Atheism on Saturday mornings like religious folks take their children to their local church, mosque or synagogue on specific holy days.

I don't know of any families who take their children to Atheism Study classes like religious folks take their children to Bible Study classes.

However, I do see continuous religious indoctrination.

Before the Indy 500 they sang God Bless America, they had a pastor invoke god.

On the news, they talk about the miracle that the hiker was found or that someone survived a tornado. Of course, they never take about God's miracles when the little girl's body is found. Then it's all about God needing another angle.

Go into a courtroom. Behind the judge, on the wall, it says "In God We Trust".

The organization of the progressive religion, in academia, govt, the media, entertainment, and almost every institution is a clear indicator of the 'religion', or at least 'religious nature', of the ideology.

Please tell me more about this organization. I have never heard of an "organization of the progressive religion".

The result is increasing hordes of indoctrinees, unable to spell, do simple arithmetic, or follow any scientific methodology, yet they can zealously defend global warming, common descent, and the glories of socialism..

I think it should be obvious to anyone who posts on this forum that the bad spelling and bad grammar are usually contained in the posts of people identifying themselves as religious. Case in point, what are "indoctrinees"?

A much higher percentage of educated people believe in science, including AGW, than uneducated, homeschooled people. The same is true for evolution. If you think people should revel in their ignorance, that's on you.

 

[ecco]

The question is, what causes a believer to become a nonbeliever? Is it just a realization that the Bible is not true after all?

More specifically, the Bible stories are not even on a par with comic book stories.

 

[ecco]

So it could be that certain atheists do not want to believe in God

Why would anyone not want to believe in God? I wouldn't mind living in paradise. I wouldn't mind getting 72 virgins.

Besides, what God are you referring to? Shiva, Allah, Buntu, Athena?

 

[ecco]

You misinterpreted my poorly written post. I was talking about the repulsive religious attitudes towards those topics is something atheists reject.

Oh, OK.