it illustrates the fact that human perception is not concrete. we are forced to assume the existence of an external reality. as a result, atheism is no more or less rational than theism. arguing for either viewpoint is completely futile.
I said that because you and I have gone over this a couple of times, and it always seems to amaze you that I know a bunch of people who became strong theists in adulthood. (So, by “not that rare” I meant that I, an average California person, know quite a few of them. California being a place full of people of all types of belief, I at least get to see a diverse sample!)
Anecdotally, my church congregation of around 150 regularly-attending adults is about half converts. I have friends not of my faith with many different stories; several were raised athiest/agnostic/uncaring before becoming committed Christians/Jews/whatever. My parents, even, were both raised as nothing-in-particular (in fact, I have yet to meet an extended family with as diverse and bizarre a spectrum of beliefs as ours–I’m always meaning to start a poll thread on that).
So, no, I haven’t got GD-worthy survey data for you. But it happens, and it’s not one in a million.
Could you please define “supernatural”? I’m having a little trouble with the concept. I mean, I can accept that it tends to blanket things like werewolves, vampires, “real magick” and so on, but what, precisely are you referring to? I mean, if something occurs naturally, or can occur naturally, doesn’t that make it part of nature, and therefore natural? I mean, a great many things that we use in modern society don’t occur without a good bit of ingenuity, for instance. Does that make them supernatural? Cell-phones certainly don’t grow on their own.
That said, I’m not entirely sure where this thread is going, either. Ideally, Mr. OP, where would you like it to go?
bamf
No, your title wasn’t clear. You simply said “BELIEVERS” without any qualifiers. Again, you seem to be generalizing based up on your own experience rather than any sort of scientific sampling of the belieiving population.
I don’t know. However, you’re the one making the claim, so it’s up to you to provide the evidence for it. Now you’ve just admitted that your claim is based soley upon your own experience rather than being based upon any scientific findings. Isn’t that rather bad science, again?
I wrote the OP after not being able to sleep. It’s the kind of thing that if I get it off my chest I can go to sleep. I obviously wasn’t in a position to cover every ‘hole’ and every angle.
Actually I was being sarcastic. Learning to believe in god in childhood is one of those things you can take for granted. There are things that are so obvious that you don’t need to provide studys or surveys or evidence even. Without being pedantic, surely you agree that most theists have become theists in childhood?
I’m not following you here; both sides of the debate have to make this assumption, so rationality based on that alone doesn’t follow-as they both agree. It’s the extra entity of ‘God’ existing, that is disagreed upon.
Again, I’m not sure why you are saying both sides are equal in rationality in this specific regard, as I’m not suggesting that reality is internal for the theist.
This is as good a place as any…would you elaborate?
Fair enough. But I guess my point is that by calling into question ‘perception’, you call into question any number of truths that we hold self-evident. The idea that an experience is ‘false’ because it is created in one’s head opens a whole can of worms that we seem to be ignoring here, namely: if everything that happens ‘in my head’ is false (or at least questionable), and every single connection I have to reality is filtered through my head, then everything must be questionable. And, if that’s the case, then am I really making any significant point when I say, “ah, but that just happened in your head, how can you trust it so implicitly?” The rebuttal to that would be, “ah yes, but in that case the world is inherrently unknowable in any form, and even simple things like the fact that dirt is dirty and water is wet can have no concrete meaning. I choose to accept the fact that everything on some metaphysical level is questionable, but I also choose to live my life trusting that I perceive things as they actually are, otherwise how could I ever make any choices about anything? And so, in that context, you seem to be arbitrarially making judgments about certain perceptions as being more valid than others, which is your perogative, but I don’t have to listen.” 
Now, don’t get me wrong, I share your peeve, but for me that peeve is based on observing people who ignore the obvioius and terrestrial causes and effects in favor of propping up their beliefs by giving all credit for anything of value to their diety of choice. It’s not about belief or lack of it, it’s about willful ignorance and misdirection. Sort of like how in politics in the States (both sides; I’m bipartisan here) everything good is always the result of one’s own party, and everything bad is the result of actions by the other side, even if neither side had anything to do with it.
Well, to question one I’d say no (though without defining ‘god’ a little better it’s a tough question to answer). For question two, I’d respond with the question, “how can I distinguish the cause of any event?” I mean, what’s a sign of the existance of a god? Here’s a very hypothetical example, but if an evil man gets hit by lightning and is prevented from doing any more heinous acts, is it an act of god? Who knows, but whether or not the lightning strike was an act of god, it is definitely not a sign of the existance of god, because it could have happened naturally.
The subtext I’m reading into your question (which may be wrong, please let me know if it is) is how do athiests explain ‘unexplainable’ things, or things that could ‘only be attributed to god’. And, I would say to that that the unexplainable is just unexplainable, and how do I know what sorts of things a god can and can’t do anyway? Sort of relating to my response to Lobsang, if we take god to be omnipotent and omniscient, then conceivably s/he could be controling everything, with infinite time and energy left over to pursue other god-like recreations. So, it seems that if I believed in god then everything could potentially be under his/her control, and so how could I determine what was from god and what wasn’t? Much like, “it’s all in my head, how do I deal with it,” I choose believe that even if there is a god (which I do not believe), there is no way I would ever be able to see ‘evidence’ of him or her because all of existance, the very fabric of who and what we are, and the very tools (our minds, etc) we use to perceive the world would itself be the ‘proof’.
That last bit could have possibly been more eloquent and well thought-out, so let me know if it doesn’t make sense.
I think it’s an interesting question and one that merits closer study.
I agree that children are taught about God (in whatever form) but when do they sincerely believe what they’re taught? Also, you might want to read about David Hufford’s experiential source hypothsis and try to understand how people come to believe what they do and why. It’s not a simple matter of childhood inculcation. There’s also a great article by Marilyn Motz, The Practice of Belief in The Journal of American Folklore, vol. 111, no 441 about how various beliefs systems have been labeled as superstition or false by academia because they don’t seem “rational.”
Or explicitly reject what they were taught because it doesn’t make sense to them or conflicts with their experiences, for that matter.
Hear hear!
I get tired of taking pains to not be judgmental towards others with diffierent beliefs, only to be told that my beliefs are “delusional.” I don’t say that to other people—all I ask is that they give me the same back. Is that too much to ask? Apparently, for some. It’s like they want to dish it out, but oh, by gum, they’d better never have to take it.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. Rather, Lobsang seems to be implying that children are young and niave and will believe anything that’s taught to them. This “belief” is then carried through into adulthood and is unquestioned. However, I’m questioning the reality of that. Is all (or most) adulthood theistic belief based upon unanalyzed childhood teachings?
Lobsang seems to be saying that and I’d like to see a citation for it.
Not quite. I’m saying that what we learn in childhood, depending on how stressed it’s ‘truth’ is, is harder to shake off than things learned in adulthood.
Children probably learn quite early, from obvious clues, that Santa doesn’t exist. But their parents, if they are theists, are not likely to give them any reason or clues to question theism. So they stay unquestioning theists for long enough for it to stick.
(and yes, children are naive, and usually will believe many things you tell them)
I basically agree with your points, but you’ve admited in this thread that some of what you say is based purely on personal experience rather than factual data. That’s why I’m asking for citations.
I’m not sure about either of these assertions, especially the first.