There’s another option. “I don’t know.”
Why do you have to “believe” something when there is no evidence to support it? Why must you use faith to “answer” the question? There’s nothing wrong with saying you don’t know the answer and you’re still searching. Why would you settle on any answer when you really don’t know? Because it’s easier?
Also, what would make you think that YOU have the answer when so many others have searched and have thus far failed to definitively answer the question?
In the thread we’re talking about people who might accept the spiritual beliefs just because of tradition. It’s what their parents said was true. What I imagined was this type of person who didn’t have deep seated beliefs won through soul searching but only inherited beliefs, going to the situation you described and being so impressed with the group and wanting to be a part of it they make the shift, again without any soul searching. It was the desire for group acceptance form of peer pressure I was thinking of. Until an individual does that personal examination of “what I believe” I think they can be swayed simply by association either way. Perhaps that’s to shallow to qualify for this discussion. In that case I plead temporary insanity.
Come on… really? You make a statement when you use money with God on it? So if you are in England and use money with the Queen on it, you are making a statement in support of Royalty? It’s just money… if you dont like using God money, write a check, use a debit card. if this is what gets you in tizzy, you have a quiet life.
But there is no debate here, that is my problem. I can say I’m a Christian, but not because of my parents, but if my parents are Christians how do I prove myself? I can’t. So whats the debate? There isn’t one, its just another badchad way of trying to find new and inventive ways to insult those who don’t believe as he does.
I don’t wish to hijack this thread, but what about non-religious indoctrination? - patriotism and cultural influences like diet, dress, behaviour and other social norms. It would be hard enough to objectively measure which country is better than which, yet there are patriotic individuals in many different countries who hold the opinion that the best is theirs (I realise of course that this is not a complete or universal description of patriotism).
I’m not trying to get religion excused on similar grounds as these (so please don’t assume that), I’m just wondering if some of these other, non-religious things that people impress upon their children - without much reason other than ‘it’s what we’ve always done’, or ‘it’s who we are as a people’ - should be critically examined and perhaps discarded?
How would you like it if the money said “We Support Apartheid!” It doesn’t bother you when people put words in your mouth? Newsflash: “We” put our trust in lots of things. For many of us, God doesn’t even make our list of the Top Million things we put trust in. Sorry… the whole concept lacks appeal.
If your parents raised you christian, don’t you think they’re the ones that planted the seeds in your brain that make it appealing to you?
Horrible comparision, as Apartheid was a cruel system that punished people for being a different color. “In God we trust” is a phrase used by the christian founders of this country as way to honor the God they believed in, it wasn’t put there to convert you. This country was founded by some very relgious people, they left their mark in many areas. So? I still dont see the “force” you mentioned earlier.
Now, if you had to cross yourself or kneel or something whenever somebody took money out of their pocket, I would agree with you. But until that day it is a simple reminder by people hundreds of years dead of what they believed.
And thank you for making my point.
I think there’s a big difference between an organization (or church or cult or system) in which no one is “allowed” to think for themselves, and one in which the mindless followers are there alongside at least a few thinkers and questioners (to keep the authorities honest).
I’ve got one. It’s quite simple, and comes directly from the Bible.
The First Commandment:
You would have to admit that this statement at the very least suggests the possibility of “other gods”. I would argue that it explicitly tells us that other gods exist. If not, the commandment would not need the clause concerning the “order” of gods. It would simply state that there were no other gods.
So there are many gods. Of those, the God of Abraham is numero uno. As for why this god rather than some other god? That is another discussion altogether.
How’s that?
The god gap argument is rediculous. It not only does not provide answers but gives much bigger questions. If you are uncomfortable with the logic lapses in the creation and maintainence of the universe, to accept that some amorphous creature is running it is silly.
Where does this creture come from.? Are there others.? Do we have families of these cretures running around?.Do they vote republican?
If you are uncomfortable with how the universe starts,how does introducing god solve it? How did god start? So nothing accomplished.
This is an accurate representation of my belief in God, as well. In my opinion, actually, belief that random chance allowed all of this to happen shows just about as much credulity as belief that God did it…it is just as unprovable that it could happen by random chance, and people who would not buy a lottery ticket because the odds are too small somehow believe that the world we are sitting in, and our own consciousness, could have happened that way? Seems to me that saying “someone must have done this” makes MORE sense than that! 
Can you point to any founder of the country who expressed that sentiment?
“In God We Trust” was first stuck on coins four score and six years after the Declaration of Independence as the result of a vigorous campaign by a group of zealots who wished to modify the Constitution to make various forms of Protestantism the Law of the land and had to settle for one inscription on some coins.
Later, it was used by agitators who so feared “godless Communism” that they had to make a big deal of overriding the nation’s actual (and better) motto E Pluribus Unum with a catchphrase, (one that had been soundly condemned by Theodore Roosevelt as blasphemous), while ignoring the fact that many of their fellow citizens did not share their beliefs.
It has nothing to do with the “founders” of the country.
But you are missing the point of my example. My example is NOT to compare my mother’s love for her children with God’s love for his children, or show that one is a metaphor for the other. The point is to show what we do when we are faced with question that can’t be proven through objective fact.
In this example, we CAN’T assume she is not lying. We have certain observable facts (my mother took care of me, fed & clothed me, made sure I was educated, etc.), and we have various possible explanations for that behavior. Why do we decide that her motivation is love? Mostly because we can’t imagine a better explanation for this kind of behavior. I personally don’t believe her motivation has been proven through all of this, beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that doesn’t stop me from believing that she loves me (damn, she better after all this!)
Likewise, there are various explanations for how the world came to be. I accept most of the explanations of science…but science leaves big gaps. There are various possible explanations for what happens in those gaps. I have decided in my mind that this is where God’s hand is at work. I, personally, do not see a better explanation for how these things might have happened.
If you are of the opinion that christianity is, for the most part, a cruel system then the comparison is appropriate.
They don’t have to use a community system to declare their devotion to god. It’s personal and the sentiment isn’t shared by all Americans. It’s antiquated and marginalizing.
You said "I can say I’m a Christian, but not because of my parents, but if my parents are Christians how do I prove myself? I can’t. " The obvious answer is that you didn’t come to it on your own, so why would you say you did? If they raised you as a christian, why would you try to say you came to it on your own?
All very reasonable - but it still doesn’t explain how you can use cosmology to justify the belief in any god by a weak deistic one. You have two stages of belief. One, some god exists, as justified by the universe. Two, this god has some specific desires and properties - wants you to rest on Saturday, wants you to worship Jesus, doesn’t want you to do the naughty, whatever. The first step you’ve kind of justified, the second I contend you get only from your social milieu. If you were born in India you’d be a Hindu for exactly the same reasons you’re a Christian being born where you were, or that I was a Jew when I was a kid.
It’s good that you accept evidence over what was written 3500 years ago - but why couldn’t god inspire spmething close to being correct? It isn’t hard to write an accurate Genesis story at the same level as the one we have - no equations needed. It’s quite odd how religious people consider a book that gets it all wrong still evidence in favor of their beliefs.
But you admit that there is no way of knowing. So why bank on one and not the other?
Very true. Not just patriotism - I can imagine how someone coming from an environment with a lot of vegetarians feeling about raising kids where it is rare. (My daughter went through a vegetarian stage so I’m sensistive to this.) In London McDonalds had decent vegetarian choices, not here. Vegetarian parents might feel that others raise their kids to eat meat without thinking much or at all about the moral implications. I wonder if being a vegetarian is analogous to being an atheist, in that you’re awash in the culture of the other way. Vegetarians have better reps than atheists do these days, but atheists are not confronted by religion quite as often as vegetarians are confronted by meat.
“Banking” on it is not exactly the way I would phrase it. If I’m completely wrong, and there’s no god, certainly I haven’t harmed myself in any way by being religious. I guess the worst thing you could say about it is that it has taken up my time, but considering the benefits I enjoy from that time I have spent, I am not complaining.
It also depends on your definition of love. If love is defined as taking care of a person, feeding and clothing them, ensuring their education, etc., then she loves you by definition and you have proof, whether you believe it or not.
She may believe she doesn’t love you because she once told you she was sorry for something, and to her, love is never having to say you’re sorry. There has to be a mutually agreed-on definition before a thing’s existance can be debated.
You are correct, I was wrong. I should have done my research better. The jist of my argument still stands tho… It is just a motto, nobody is holding you to them, or testing you, or requiring proof that you believe it before you spend the money.
Regardless… my ignorance on this was fought, and I thank you for that!
Really, all you’re doing here is making my point, why do you persist? You have basically setup a no-win situation and now want to debate it with me?
And the “obvious” answer is only obvious to you because it happens to be what you think.