I don’t know about Lib but Polycarp’s personal experiences were, as I recall, little more than surviving a heart attack and a feeling of elation while singing a hymn. I would offer that these feelings were attached to the religion which was most proximal to him and in no way bolster his beliefs in particular. Much of his beliefs seem more due to contamination with modern day liberalism/humanism rather than anything he obtained from his “personal experiences with god.”
But then what we have is a situation in which the claim becomes that NO religious belief system is ever honestly and sincerely arrived at and is always the product of social indoctrination. The OP becomes transformed from a hard-to-dispute “Being brainwashed into a belief [notice no qualifier as to religious, political or philosophical] is not a good reason to hold said belief” into just a confrontational "There is no good reason to hold a [specifically]* religious belief"*, and then it does opens the gates for what I mentioned about people now arguing as to the validity of their frame-of-reference for what is or is not a “good reason” (and of course drawing fire from the “Religion, BAD!” brigade).
Just as you have no opinion on religions of which you have no knowledge, so, too, do atheists generally have no “belief system” regarding the religions of which you do have some knowledge.
Actually Lib’s God didn’t seem Christian, and how he got Christianity out of it is beyond me. I suspect you’re correct about social influence. But what one sees in these experiences might be a second order “brainwashing.” The closest thing I’ve had to a hallucination, coming from sitting through a boring seminar while being very tired, had nothing to do with religion. Nor sex, alas.
Are you actually claiming that you are now and always have been completely rational in every action and belief? We are all irrational. We all harm the world. This is irrelevant.
Nobody has been able to come up with such a proof in the last two thousand years. I doubt that you have any new insight on the matter.
Let me see if I get this straight. I believe in God. Because some other people who claim to believe in God commit atrocities, that implies that I support all evil acts that are committed “in the name of religion”. That logic is so bad that even my eight year old can see through it.
Some people who claim to be Christians are lunatics. Some people who **are **Christians are lunatics. This does not imply that all Christians are lunatics. Again, this is Logic 101.
I was once Christian, indoctrinated as such, and my beliefs were irrational. If I stayed as I was I would genuinely think killing Muslims and discriminating, if not killing gays was desired by god. The bible does say as much. Also, it’s not irrelevant, you wanted to know why I care that you hold irrational beliefs. I answered you.
What issue should we address first? The problem of evil is pretty good proof to start with which shoots a fatal hole in the commonly held Christian concept of god.
I’m truly sorry if my argument went beyond your comprehension skills. Let me make it short and easy. You promote faith as a virtue. People who commit atrocities do so in the name of faith. If faith were seen as the vice that it is, the fundamentalist who commit atrocities would be marginalized and largely sapped of their power.
But you all believe in faith as a virtue and you all bolster your irrational beliefs with faith over reason. The exaltation of faith over reason is the true enemy and you feed this.
I noticed you didn’t answer any of my numerous questions. I’ll assume it’s because you either can’t or are quite cognizant of the fact but know doing so will only do further harm to your argument. I understand, my response to you was a bit of a slam dunk.
You make a good point. Of course the decision as to which religion to follow was based in part on the culture in which I was raised. But the objections being raised in this thread are not to one particular religion; they are to the idea of religious belief itself. The “problem” is not that I believe in the Christian god, it is that I believe in *any *god.
There are those who consider all of the words in the Bible to be directly inspired by God. I am not one of those people. I believe that the book of Genesis is not a literal history of the beginning of the world, but rather a collection of fables. The fact that it is inconsistent and contradictory is not of concern to me; it imply reflects the fact that the stories were written by different people at different times, translated into new languages, and finally collected into a single book several hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of years later. The same applies to much of the Old Testament, and somewhat to the New testament as well, though to a lesser extent.
It is a mistake to assume that just because something is found in the Bible, that all Christians believe it literally and without question. Although the Bible does hold much of the foundational material of the Christian faith, it is by no means all inclusive, nor is “The Bible” universally accepted by all Christians. Take a look at the number of “versions” of the Bible to get an idea of how controversial it is even among Christians.
And yet you cling to the most far-fetched portions of the bible as being The Truth. What makes “walking on water” less believable than “the resurrection” or “the embodiment of god in christ?” How do you determine which parts to discard? My guess is that someone told you which ones to hold onto as fact, because without the Big Ones, the entire story would unravel.
I could be wrong, but I do not think it was the founders that put "In God We Trust on our money. But I have often wondered if people’ Trust In God’ why is our country in the shape it is in?
Now days it seems to be the thing to say God Bless You (or America). Not many years ago one seldom heard it said but there was less crime,one didn’t need locks on their doors as they do now. We seem to be less civilized then we were back in the 40’s and 50’s.
Monavis
I snipped your repeating that you are not a literalist, which I thought I had acknowledged. If we were all deists, on the order of Tom Paine, I think the world would be a better place. My point is that you can’t get from the cosmological argument to any particular religion - and that this jump is unjustified (and is a belief, so falls under the OP quite nicely.)
My point about the Bible is not that you consider it correct, but you need to explain why it is evidence if the creator God did not bother to tell the creation story in it. Either there is some mysterious reason for this, or the author/inspirer of the book had nothing to do with creation - and is thus not god. (Far more likely.)
There are plenty of arguments against the cosmological argument, but I think it is far more interesting to assume it for the while and see where it really takes us. The answer is, not far.
Exactly which “far-fetched portions” do I “cling to”? I don’t recall telling you which portions of the Bible I believe and which portions I don’t (other than my previous post concerning the book of Genesis). Unless when you (Kalhoun) use the word “you” you do not mean me (Suburban Plankton), but Christians in general. In that case, you are making a sweeping generalization, which is obviously false.
I was speaking of christians in general. I’m pretty sure christians in general have to accept that jesus was the earthly embodiment of god. If that’s not the case, I’ll stand corrected. I’m also pretty sure they have to believe that he came back to life after three days of death. Again…correct me if I’m wrong.
General christians aside, do you discard parts of the bible as fables? If you do, what is the process you use to make those decisions? Do you believe that christ and god are the same being? Do you believe that the ressurection occured?
Sigh. Just because the phrase “belief system” occured in an unrelated point at the end of the same post that this came up in, does not mean that I ever said the the mere disbelief in the existence of God is a “belief system”. Also, your analogy is bad. I have no information, so I choose not to draw a conclusion. Atheists do choose to draw a conclusion: they choose to believe that no gods exist. Which is a belief. Religious in nature. Ergo: a religious belief. (I’m getting tired of repeating this.) Atheists may choose to believe that they live in a belief-free state if they wish; that’s their affair; I do not have to agree with them.
With regard to the OP, for sheer hours of indocrination in my young life, nothing beat out public school. And I assure you, we were to take on faith that numbers could be negative, that the revolutionary war occurred, that there was such a place as “china”, that water was made of gas molecules…
My years of experience had told me that gravity always pulled down, that salt was not made of a mix of poisons, and that the sun went around the earth. Was it wrong and/or dangerous of me to believe secular education?
Was this indoctrination inherently bad?
My point is, I think that the original question of this thread has an unspoken but important premise: that the beliefs in question must be false. In actual fact I have confirmed very few of these secular beliefs personally: never been to china, never traveled to either the south or the past, never split a water molecule.
I’ve never been to prison, yet my belief that it’s awful in there helps keep me moral. Am I wrong and/or dangerous for not having independently confirmed the belief in the discomfort of being in prison before believing in it?
Actually, it’s not that religious beliefs must be FALSE; it’s that there is no reason to believe they’re TRUE.
You may not have been to China…but SOMEONE has. It’s been photographed. People can give first hand reports of its existence. And actually, you could GO to China if you wanted. Your argument is insulting.
That’s OK, we’re getting tired of reading it. 
There are, indeed, some number of atheists who have embraced the concept of “denying” gods or the divine or the spiritual to the point of evangelizing others on the topic. I have no problem with looking at the actions of some atheists and drawing a conclusion that those individuals have something like a faith in that view.
Unfortunately, you have continued to put forth the idea that all atheists have some set of shared beliefs that is religious in nature. For a great many people who have no belief in (a) god, the only time they give any thought to the topic is when they are confronted by religious beliefs being forced upon them. This is the point that you miss. Just as you have utterly no opinion regarding Chu-Bu (regardless whether he can conjure up a tiny earthquake or the Ace of trumps), they have no opinion regarding god or souls or an afterlife. They do not think about them at all, except when someone comes and demands that they give an opinion.
It is your inability to understand that point that threatens to derail this thread with one more tiring discussion about whether atheism is “religious” or not. I attempted to demonstrate just how little belief or thought they give to such topics by asking how much thought you give to religious systems that you generally ignore. I won’t beat this any further into the ground, but I assure you that you are the one who needs to reconsider your views on this topic.
I may not have had a religious experience, but SOMEONE has. It’s been written about in detail. People can give first hand reports of their experiences. And actually, I could HAVE a religious experience if I wanted (or so they say). Your rebuttal is insulting, in it’s failure to address the issue.
And it’s not correct to say that there is no reason to believe in religion, unless you are out-of-hand dismissing assertions delivered by books, movies, images, and individuals; in which case you also annihilate about 80-90% of secular education as well. Only math would survive, except it would be unteachable beyond the basic level since the proofs for many theories are often require a higher level of math to understand than the level they’re used at. (The quadratic equation, for example.)
Again, the OP relies on the unstated premise that the beliefs in question are wrong. Because if the beliefs are RIGHT, then it’s correct and safer to act based on them. (As you will realize if you one day find yourself writhing in hell, should it happen to exist.)
It is exactly the premise of the OP that all religious claims are wrong. (I don’t think that there is much “implicit” in his claims.)
Please do search on “paschal’s AND wager” on this board to note the error implicit in your second sentence. If there is a god of the universe who demands the sacrifice of children, then you are as doomed and damned as anyone who fails to believe in your god.)
And suggesting that one’s opponents are likely to be damned is hardly a legitimate argument. It smacks a bit too much like a very unChristian display of schadenfreude to be a valid argument by a Christian believer–not that we don’t get that sort of thing on more occasions than I enjoy seeing.
(Please note that I am not arguing the position of an unbeliever, here. I think debates on belief are pretty much an exercise in frustration. However, if you choose to argue the position of the theist or Christian, you will serve yourself better if you actually understand the position of your opponents and avoid the errors (of logic and of attitude) into which untutored theists and Christians too frequently fall.)
Someone a few weeks ago asked me if I actually knew people who believe in god because it’s the “safe” thing to do. I had a hard time convincing them that people like that actually exist. Thanks for reinforcing not only the existence of *that * bizarre phenomenon, but also for adding credibility to my theory that most (if not all) religious folks don’t really believe at all. It just makes 'em feel good to say they do.
Well, it’s not typed in this thread’s OP --the claim under examination doesn’t refer to religion at all. Ergo it seemed worth noting (and I’m not the first to note it).
And, I’m not arguing that a claim would be validated if it was religious; I’m arguing that it would be validated if it was right. Pascal’s wager need not apply; if there is a god of the universe who demands the sacrifice of children, and you are out there sacrificing children, then when all is said and done you’re better off than those who offended god with their archaic desire not to be horrible people, hunted by mankind.
Noted; I was a little concerned about that as I wrote it and so attempted to mitigate it with the “if you one day find yourself writhing in hell, should it happen to exist.” bits. The point that is clumsily trying to be made here is that, by amazing long-odds chance, the indoctrinated beliefs happen to be correct, then it’s not “dangerous” or “really wrong” to accept them. Even if they’re crazed and wacky religious ideas unsopported by documented evidence.
(And I’m trying to argue the position of “don’t leave out significant premises in an attempt to slyly imply things; it’s not good argument”, actually.)
Whoops; I overlooked this. Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not a religious person and don’t hold the view that religion-of-your-choice is correct. If it were, though, it would not be wrong and/or dangerous to believe it.
And for your records, I know two “religious” people who actually believe, one who doesn’t (but also don’t care enough about it to derive good feelings from saying so), and lack conclusive information about the other people I know.