Theist's the Hard Truth

[Sanzbir]

If you were born to a devout Hindu family in Mumbai India, or to a pious Christian family in Atlanta Georgia, would you be a convinced Muslim today? Of course, you cannot answer that question for certain but, statistically there is an extremely high probability that you would be a Hindu or a Christian and you would believe Muslims have got almost everything wrong.

Hindus and Christians can ask themselves a similar question and they will get a similar result.

Meanwhile all us converts just reading this and laughing.

The hard truth is, you are not certain your faith is true because you have determined it is true through evidence and reason; you are certain it is true because you have been TRAINED to believe it is true, and to behave as though it is true.

Such criticism equally applies to the atheist I dated once whose parents were also militant atheists.

The hardest truth of all is, with respect to your faith, you have more in common with a performing dog than with a rational, intelligent human being.

The hardest truth of all - Atheist Alliance International

https://www.atheistalliance.org/thinking-out-loud/the-hardest-truth-of-all/

And to those raised in atheist households, one could say their atheism has more in common with a performing dog than a rational, intelligent human being.

It's annoy a Theist week, or, o

n the road to becoming a militant atheist.

Seems like you're just insulting anyone, theist or not, whose parent's religious views are the same as their own.

So the idea is that you believe because you were train to believe. Can you convince yourself or someone else otherwise?

I've converted twice, so yes.

 

[Augustus]

However, it's also a fact that the vast majority of people stay within the religion they were indoctrinated into as a child.

Humans in remaining part of the culture they were born into shocker!

 

[Sky Rivers]

If you were born to a devout Hindu family in Mumbai India, or to a pious Christian family in Atlanta Georgia, would you be a convinced Muslim today? Of course, you cannot answer that question for certain but, statistically there is an extremely high probability that you would be a Hindu or a Christian and you would believe Muslims have got almost everything wrong.

Hindus and Christians can ask themselves a similar question and they will get a similar result.

The hard truth is, you are not certain your faith is true because you have determined it is true through evidence and reason; you are certain it is true because you have been TRAINED to believe it is true, and to behave as though it is true.

The hardest truth of all is, with respect to your faith, you have more in common with a performing dog than with a rational, intelligent human being.
The hardest truth of all - Atheist Alliance International

It's annoy a Theist week, or, on the road to becoming a militant atheist.

So the idea is that you believe because you were train to believe. Can you convince yourself or someone else otherwise?

As a kid many get trained to think in terms of a God. Even if raised as an atheist it's hard to escape being taught what God is, even as someone else's belief.

So you convert from one religion to another, still thinking in terms of God. Or maybe as a atheist convert to some belief, thinking in terms of a God you were taught not to believe in.

I'm not saying atheists don't have their own issues with being trained in how to think. but, does the belief in God persist because it's is how we were trained to think?

I converted and in my opinion, there is hardly much to compare to the experience of being LHP for most of one’s life and converting to Christianity. It’s profound.

 

[Hawkins]

The hard truth is, you are not certain your faith is true because you have determined it is true through evidence and reason; you are certain it is true because you have been TRAINED to believe it is true, and to behave as though it is true.

The hardest truth of all is, with respect to your faith, you have more in common with a performing dog than with a rational, intelligent human being.
The hardest truth of all - Atheist Alliance International

The hard truth is the humans don't know how to identity a hard truth.

The question should be asked in a reversed order. That is, if God is a truth then what should be done?

The only way such a kind a truth can convey among humans throughout a history of thousands of years is by means of human witnessing via a religion. That's the only way unless God shows up in front of all mankind. However in the case that God has a strong reason to hide behind, then believing in witnessing by employing a religion remains the only way for such a truth to convey.

So in identifying a truth, it is rather similar to how all other humans can identify what you ate in one of million meals you ever had in your life. You eat 3 meals a day, so by the age of 31 you have eaten more than 30,000 meals none of which you can evidence. A certain meal can be identified only when an eyewitness testify what you ate on a particular day. So it boils down on how reliable and credible the claimed eyewitness is. If a close friend of you said the he had a big meal on a Christmas day, you will choose to believe him. That's how such a truth conveys, most of the time it remains the only way.

Similarly, a true religion should be identified this way. Christianity is established by eyewitnesses testify by martyring their own lives. There's no a better way to make this more reliable and credible! To put it another way, even when Jesus is a truth, you can't find a better way to convey such a truth!

Humans divide themselves into various societies. This is a normal establishment. It is because so that a true God must urge to "preach the gospel to the every corner of the world". So if the god of a religion didn't do so, he can't be a true god. Preaching a truth and to invite for faith to believe is the only way for such a kind of truth to convey.

Other than the reliability and credibility of witnessing, the reason why the god of a religion must hide behind is another factor worth examining (or reasoning). In Christianity, there is a final covenant between God and men saying that humans need to be saved by faith. So if the God of Christianity shows up, humans can no longer be saved. If on the other hand, He doesn't show up at all, humans don't even know that such a covenant exists. The only way which works is for God to show up to His chosen eyewitnesses for such a truth to convey through valid human testimonies based on those eyewitnesses accounts.

That being said. The only hard truth is that humans don't have the intelligence to work out a hard truth. They think that they are intelligent but they aren't. They think that the OP is an intelligent and plausible reasoning but it isn't. One day when they find out that they wind up in a kind of hell, it's because they are actually stupid!

 

[Augustus]

There are some fantastic statements on that site. My current favourite comes from the article, Six things atheists do wrong.



Love it.

The other five are, predictably, about how the Bible is wrong. Spoiler alert: it turns out telling theists the Bible is wrong won't make them change their mind. Again, culture definitely informs people's perception of what a god is.

*edit* Oh yeah, for extra points here's one of the things an atheist should do:

At times like this it's always good to remember that there are actual human beings who believed it was a good idea to label themselves as "Brights"

After coming up with the term they pitched their idea to friends and decided to unveil their idea at an Atheist Alliance International conference in Tampa, Florida. They called the organizers and got permission to present the idea

 

[Brickjectivity]

However, it's also a fact that the vast majority of people stay within the religion they were indoctrinated into as a child. This is why christianity has been the dominant religion in the west for millenia.

Its a little more complicated since the majority of people grow and change during their lifetimes, so their religion doesn't stay exactly the same. Cultures and religions are tightly related items as are political contracts, and that is a good thing overall.

However, it's also a fact that the vast majority of people stay within the religion they were indoctrinated into as a child. This is why christianity has been the dominant religion in the west for millenia. This is why islam has been the dominant religion in arabia and elsewhere in the middle east. This is why hinduism is very present in India.

It is one good explanation, though it is not the only explanation. Lets also not treat all religions as if they are the same, because they are not the same in my opinion. Maybe the people are. Maybe the people want to trust in their friends, their loved ones and their social leaders. That is a good thing, so how does it disprove theism? Rather it upholds theism. If people did not do this, then they would show distrust of everyone around them. Society would fall apart. Its better that only some question and ponder though it be difficult for them. I guess one thing to consider here is that people are not always so close to God as we would like to think. The distinctions we make between us are not as solid as they appear.

 

[atanu]

If you were born to a devout Hindu family in Mumbai India, or to a pious Christian family in Atlanta Georgia, would you be a convinced Muslim today? Of course, you cannot answer that question for certain but, statistically there is an extremely high probability that you would be a Hindu or a Christian

Only partially true. I was born in an atheist family. But I changed.

and you would believe Muslims have got almost everything wrong.

No. Some may do so. But many will not.

 

[viole]

Ohhhh so you are an atheist because of science and reason?

What scientific evidence or line of reasoning convinced you that atheism is true? @Nakosis

BTW
The reason why I believe that the heliocentric model is true is because I was born in the 20th century.... If I would have been born in the 1400s I would probably have been a geocentricist. .... But I am sure you would not accept this argument to support geocentricism.

And what God would you have believed in if you wre born in ancient Greece?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Well let's be more specific. Ether the fine tuning of the universe was caused by a designer or by some natural cause.... What science or line if reasoning lead you to conclude that a natural mechanism is the cause?

My reasoning is this:
1 I take for granted that the existance of God is at least possible (given that nobody has disproved his existance)

2 all the potential naturalistic explanations that are discussed inithe literaturel for the fine tuning of the universe are demonstrably wrong

3 nobody has show that the design hypothesis is wrong

Therefore design (God) us the best explanation for the FT of the universe .

Note that I am not saying that design is the only and absolute explanation, I am simply saying that is the best explanation of all those that have been proposed.

What is wrong with my reasoning?

Do you think that there is a better explanation than design?

.......

All I am saying is that there are arguments that have been proposed for the helocentric model and for the Christian God. Wether if I would have been a geocentricist or a Muslim if I would have been born in a different context does nothing to refute the arguments that have been proposed in support of the heleocentric model or the christian God.

This is why the claim "if you would have been born in Afganistán you would have been a Muslim " is a terrible and stupid argument against Christianity.

What fine tuning?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

The hard truth is the humans don't know how to identity a hard truth.

The question should be asked in a reversed order. That is, if God is a truth then what should be done?

IMO, this is the wrong way to go about it. One shouldn't assume a truth and then go about trying to prove it. Truth should be self-evident. Sometimes it's is having to accept what is true regardless of whether we want to or not.

The only way such a kind a truth can convey among humans throughout a history of thousands of years is by means of human witnessing via a religion. That's the only way unless God shows up in front of all mankind. However in the case that God has a strong reason to hide behind, then believing in witnessing by employing a religion remains the only way for such a truth to convey.

So in identifying a truth, it is rather similar to how all other humans can identify what you ate in one of million meals you ever had in your life. You eat 3 meals a day, so by the age of 31 you have eaten more than 30,000 meals none of which you can evidence. A certain meal can be identified only when an eyewitness testify what you ate on a particular day. So it boils down on how reliable and credible the claimed eyewitness is. If a close friend of you said the he had a big meal on a Christmas day, you will choose to believe him. That's how such a truth conveys, most of the time it remains the only way.

The number of meal I ate by 31, no one cares. It is not a question of importance. The real answer to that question is I don't know. I would expect anyone else to know. For some question there is no answer for.

Similarly, a true religion should be identified this way. Christianity is established by eyewitnesses testify by martyring their own lives. There's no a better way to make this more reliable and credible! To put it another way, even when Jesus is a truth, you can't find a better way to convey such a truth!

Sure, I understand that many have accepted this as truth but the mere acceptance of something being true by a majority of folks, doesn't make it true.

Also I've no reason to trust accounts of something being witnessed. The NT is partly by unknown authors and Paul. Paul for whatever reasons of his own became an advocate for Christianity. There's no 3rd party credibility for Paul and even normally honest folks make mistakes, make assumption, fill in gaps in their own knowledge. It's best to not take anyone at their word and that not being prejudicial. It's just the nature of humans. Everyone lies and to accept anyone at their word without evidence to back up their claim is a big risk.

Humans divide themselves into various societies. This is a normal establishment. It is because so that a true God must urge to "preach the gospel to the every corner of the world". So if the god of a religion didn't do so, he can't be a true god. Preaching a truth and to invite for faith to believe is the only way for such a kind of truth to convey.

Anyone can preach truth, many do. People for their own reasons decided to accept them at their word. Bad idea. Folks can truly believe they have spoken to, been inspired by God. I'm not arguing against the idea that people believe in the truth of what they preach. Belief doesn't make it true.

Other than the reliability and credibility of witnessing, the reason why the god of a religion must hide behind is another factor worth examining (or reasoning). In Christianity, there is a final covenant between God and men saying that humans need to be saved by faith. So if the God of Christianity shows up, humans can no longer be saved. If on the other hand, He doesn't show up at all, humans don't even know that such a covenant exists. The only way which works is for God to show up to His chosen eyewitnesses for such a truth to convey through valid human testimonies based on those eyewitnesses accounts.

You are begging the question. You start off assuming the truth that humans need to be saved by faith, so the explanations you look for, evidence you will accept are based on what you already accept as truth. I've no idea why "humans need to be saved by faith". This makes no sense and is only supported by a claim that it is something to be accepted as true.

That being said. The only hard truth is that humans don't have the intelligent to work out a hard truth. They think that they are intelligent but they aren't. They think that the OP is an intelligent and plausible reasoning but it isn't. One day when they find out that they wind up in a kind of hell, it's because they are actually stupid!

However all of the clams about God come from humans, folks you say don't have the intelligence to work out a hard truth. If I accept this, then I am still in the same position I am in. You are asking me to trust witnesses but saying humans can't be trusted to work out hard truths. The exception being when what they say supports what you choose to believe.

 

[Nakosis]

Only partially true. I was born in an atheist family. But I changed.

Sure but why assume a God or gods to be behind your experience unless you were already trained to think in terms of a God concept?

Why not aliens or elf machines from an alternate dimension?

 

[Nakosis]

I converted and in my opinion, there is hardly much to compare to the experience of being LHP for most of one’s life and converting to Christianity. It’s profound.

Sure I converted to many different religions. They were all profound.

 

[Nakosis]

Meanwhile all us converts just reading this and laughing.

Having converted many times myself, I suppose I can laugh along with you.

Such criticism equally applies to the atheist I dated once whose parents were also militant atheists.

I'm willing to apply it equally to myself as long as you are.

And to those raised in atheist households, one could say their atheism has more in common with a performing dog than a rational, intelligent human being.

A good idea for everyone to question the reasoning behind their thinking.

Seems like you're just insulting anyone, theist or not, whose parent's religious views are the same as their own. I've converted twice, so yes.

I'm just giving people an opportunity to question the source of their thinking and argue otherwise.

 

[Nakosis]

It certainly is a delightful article that's guaranteed to open up polite discussion!

Putting the article aside though, I think you've raised a good point here. It's undoubtedly true that many people stick with the religion they were brought up with. It's also true that a person's culture heavily influences how you perceive deities. I've seen plenty of occasions in which perfectly intelligent people nonetheless struggle to conceive of a notion of deity different to the one they grew up around.*

So, a few thoughts on why people typically stick with the religion they were brought up with. I suspect that the majority of people have only a passing interest in religion (and politics for that matter. The same principles tend to apply to choice of political party) and so just aren't all that interested in fully dissecting and analysing their religious upbringing. There are other things that take up their attention and so saying your prayers and attending [insert religious institution of your choice] is just something that you do. People on the whole typically stick to what's familiar far more regularly than they're consciously aware of. To give a bit of a frivolous personal example: My wardrobe is packed with clothes that are virtually identical to one another. It's what I know and I'm just not interested enough in clothes to make a radical change.

This doesn't mean that there aren't people who were virtually brainwashed. Nor does it mean that there aren't people who won't change religion because they're terrified of some divine punishment. Those people certainly exist but I suspect they're the minority.

The other component to this is that culture definitely does shape perception. There's often a feeling (among theists and atheists alike) that concepts of deity that don't quite gel with their own cultural background are in some way "not proper gods." For example, on this very forum I've seen some fairly heated debates over whether pantheism and deism really count as theism. In my experience, the people who view them as "not proper gods" invariably come from a background in which the dominant god concept is Abrahamic monotheism.** Such people are probably unlikely to adopt a form of theism that doesn't mesh with their own cultural background.

Okay, so there's probably a lot more to be said on this topic but I'll leave it there for now. Hopefully didn't waffle too much



*I'm definitely not the only Pagan who has had to explain to people, "No, I don't view gods as omnipotent, omniscient beings who made humans out of clay."

**Somebody once accused me of cheating since I'm a theist who doesn't believe in an omnimax god.

Pagan in such a way that relies on "lore" created by other folks, or do you perhaps identify and name your own deities?

 

[Erebus]

Pagan in such a way that relies on "lore" created by other folks, or do you perhaps identify and name your own deities?

I have actually done precisely that during my foray into chaos magic

On the whole though, I'm certainly most interested in European mythology.

 

[exchemist]

Well let's be more specific. Ether the fine tuning of the universe was caused by a designer or by some natural cause.... What science or line if reasoning lead you to conclude that a natural mechanism is the cause?

My reasoning is this:
1 I take for granted that the existance of God is at least possible (given that nobody has disproved his existance)

2 all the potential naturalistic explanations that are discussed inithe literaturel for the fine tuning of the universe are demonstrably wrong

3 nobody has show that the design hypothesis is wrong

Therefore design (God) us the best explanation for the FT of the universe .

Note that I am not saying that design is the only and absolute explanation, I am simply saying that is the best explanation of all those that have been proposed.

What is wrong with my reasoning?

Do you think that there is a better explanation than design?

.......

All I am saying is that there are arguments that have been proposed for the helocentric model and for the Christian God. Wether if I would have been a geocentricist or a Muslim if I would have been born in a different context does nothing to refute the arguments that have been proposed in support of the heleocentric model or the christian God.

This is why the claim "if you would have been born in Afganistán you would have been a Muslim " is a terrible and stupid argument against Christianity.

The "fine tuning" argument is bogus, arising from a misunderstanding of probability.

If there is one selection of factors, from a huge range of possible combinations, needed to specify the state of a system, that does not make it impossible for the system to be in a particular state by chance. The system must be in one state or another, after all, even if there are almost infinite other combinations that could in principle apply.

One cannot deduce from low probability that something is impossible. Statistically, the chance of you being born on the day you were, rather than at some other point in history, is infinitesimally small, but that does not mean it didn't happen.

 

[Nakosis]

I realized after I replied that I didn't address this question.

Can I convince myself? Well, I'm not sure if 'convince' is the correct word, but my worldview changed as I acquired knowledge and understanding through logic, reasoning, and experience.

I have no interest in convincing someone else of anything as it pertains to religious and/or spiritual matters. For what reason would one want to aside from satiating one's own ego?

I'm just questioning why we think in terms of god, a god concept. I'll accept that folks experience something that convinces them of some god entity but why a god. Why couldn't there be something else that caused/was behind the experience?

 

[Nakosis]

no

Ok, but then why God? Why not evil magicians, or benenovelent shaman from the planet Xu? Where does your certainty that it is God behind your experiences come from?

 

[Sky Rivers]

Sure I converted to many different religions. They were all profound.

I only experienced one genuine life altering conversion event.

 

[Erebus]

I'm just questioning why we think in terms of god, a god concept. I'll accept that folks experience something that convinces them of some god entity but why a god. Why couldn't there be something else that caused/was behind the experience?

I'm not intending to answer for @SalixIncendium here but this is something I just wanted to jump in on.

We probably think in terms of "god" simply because that's the word that became the most prevalent among English speakers. The exact nature of what a god is remains ambiguous and has led to some debate over whether or not the word is actually applicable to other cultures. There have been a couple of accounts of "atheist tribes" who don't believe in any supreme god but nonetheless believe in spirits or engage in ancestor worship. The point at which a spirit or ancestor can be considered a deity is a hazy one that largely depends on how an individual interprets the word, "god."

To illustrate this, imagine that some immensely powerful extraterrestrial being introduced itself to humanity. This being has the power to create whole worlds and new life. One person might decide this being qualifies as a god, another may conclude it is simply a powerful alien. Both would be right.