which is easier? theism or atheism?

[stvdv]

13 jul 2018 stvdv 017 45

While theism can never be a philosophical default, in practical terms, it’s pretty common situation for kids to be indoctrinated in theism from birth so that, by the time they’re old enough to start making decisions on their own and reflecting on what they ought to believe, theism is ingrained and hard to shake.
And once it’s ingrained, abandoning theism can be traumatic... and not just in Riyadh:
http://www.babcp.com/Review/RTS-Its-Time-to-Recognize-it.aspx

Glad this finally gets in the open

I see evangelizing and proselytizing as brainwashing using "emotional manipulative blackmail tricks" to put it mildly. Which is unhealthy IMO

Freedom of Speech is good IMO
Freedom of Religion is good IMO
Proselytizing is not good IMO

Just let everyone decide what to believe for him/herself

 

[shunyadragon]

: ↑
which is easier? And which is more rewarding?

Which is more rewarding is problematic, because 'rewarding' is a self serving concept. The desire for the 'rewarding' semse of community and belonging would make any belief easier than the alternative possible choices even to the extent to give ones life for a belief.

 

[Valjean]

I see evangelizing and proselytizing as brainwashing using "emotional manipulative blackmail tricks" to put it mildly. Which is unhealthy IMO

Just let everyone decide what to believe for him/herself

All very good -- with a caveat:
I wouldn't present complex issues to a child too young to evaluate data. First master critical analysis and dialectic, then consider the issues.
Present religion before these firewalls are installed and its tenets will be incorporated into the operating system.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just let everyone decide what to believe for him/herself

This a naive view assuming everyone has free will to choose for themselves without the overwhelming influences that determine what most people believe.

 

[stvdv]

13 jul 2018 stvdv 017 54

I see evangelizing and proselytizing as brainwashing using "emotional manipulative blackmail tricks" to put it mildly. Which is unhealthy IMO
Freedom of Speech is good IMO
Freedom of Religion is good IMO
Proselytizing is not good IMO
Just let everyone decide what to believe for him/herself

All very good -- with a caveat:
I wouldn't present complex issues to a child too young to evaluate data. First master critical analysis and dialectic, then consider the issues.
Present religion before these firewalls are installed and its tenets will be incorporated into the operating system.

That is a good additional point:
1: do not evangelize
2: do not expose to wrong data at all, unless firewalls are installed [hence beware of "brain washing" or better "brain overloading"]
3: even after firewall is installed, excess data is not useful

Sometimes I think "I wish I didn't know this fact". Knowing too much is not always good.
IF nobody knows about "Hell" and "Guilt if not believing in Jesus" etc. how much more peace we would have on earth
What is the advantage of knowing about "Hell"? apart from inducing fear, so the person can be controlled and coerced?

 

[stvdv]

13 jul 2018 stvdv 017 55

This a naive view assuming everyone has free will to choose for themselves without the overwhelming influences that determine what most people believe.

You took my line out of context. It was specifically talking about "evangelizing" etc
There is no need to evangelize or proselytize whatsoever IMO

 

[syo]

which is easier? And which is more rewarding?

Atheism is easier. I don't see anything so I don't believe in anything.

Theism is more rewarding. It makes you understand the Cosmos.

 

[Valjean]

Atheism is easier. I don't see anything so I don't believe in anything.

Theism is more rewarding. It makes you understand the Cosmos.

But theists have got the cosmos, and even out own solar system, completely wrong pretty much forever. When presented with the correct configuration of Earth's place by Galeleo, they were less than welcoming, as I recall.
It seems to me, theism seeks to prevent you from understanding the cosmos

 

[syo]

But theists have got the cosmos, and even out own solar system, completely wrong pretty much forever. When presented with the correct configuration of Earth's place by Galeleo, they were less than welcoming, as I recall.
It seems to me, theism seeks to prevent you from understanding the cosmos

What wrong do they believe in?

 

[Valjean]

What wrong do they believe in?

They believe God created the heaven and earth by magic. They believe He did this 6,000 years ago. They believe He made each plant and animal by magic in its present form.

 

[syo]

They believe God created the heaven and earth by magic. They believe He did this 6,000 years ago. They believe He made each plant and animal by magic in its present form.

What is magic? Something irrational, I guess? 6,000 earthly years? Do they have reasons to believe all these?

 

[Valjean]

What is magic? Something irrational, I guess? 6,000 earthly years? Do they have reasons to believe all these?

Magic is effect without cause.
Note that religious texts don't explain the mechanisms by which God creates, they just have Him say: "LET THERE BE _______," and a thing just materializes. That's magic, in my book.

Yes, they do have reasons. The discovery of actual facts threatens their faith and seems to undermine the role of God. Scientists had to tread carefully to avoid charges of heresy.
The age of the earth was arrived at through several different strategies, the most famous being Archbishop James Ussher's addition of the ages of people in various biblical lineages to yield a creation date of October 23, 4004 BC.

 

[syo]

Magic is effect without cause.
Note that religious texts don't explain the mechanisms by which God creates, they just have Him say: "LET THERE BE _______," and a thing just materializes. That's magic, in my book.

I don't think you do magic justice. Effect without cause?

 

[Valjean]

Yes, with no apparent mechanism -- and when some scientist proposes a mechanism he's charged with heresy.
Historically, the church has opposed any scientific inquiry that might undermine God's omnipotence.