Depends highly on what “society” you happen to hang out in. If your “society” consists of professional circles, academia, or certain parts of the internet (such as this very board), there is considerable pressure not to subject oneself to ridicule. Who wants to publicly “out” themselves as believing in the equivalent of pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters?
Speaking from experience, no it’s not indistinguishable. In my “passing” years, I had very little passion for church, prayer, or reading the Bible. It was all very mechanical to me. Bow your head, close your eyes, mutter some words, say amen. My lack of emotion for these rituals was actually my first clue that I wasn’t quite like others.
If there is one thing I’ve learned in my 38 years of life it’s that the human mind is boundless in its capacity for self-delusion. People lie all the time intentionally, but probably equally often it’s exaggeration or rationalization. A guy might have a 4" penis but he tells himself its 5" because “it’s almost that long when hard”. A woman might’ve had two abortions but she only claims one because “the first one happened when 14 and so it doesn’t really count”. The 300-lb person puts down 275 lbs on their driver’s license application because “that’s how much the scale sometimes says after a good shit.” Nevermind the fact that this “good shit” scenario last occurred ten years ago.
This is what people do all the time.
It doesn’t matter. The human mind is boundless in its capacity for irrationality. Doesn’t matter if there is tangible incentive for lying. If all of your life you’ve been conditioned to fear faithlessness, then it’s given that you will fear admitting (even to yourself) faithlessness. I speak on this from direct experience, and I’m not so arrogant as to think I’m a unique and special snowflake in this regard.
Judging by the poll being discussed, the societies that you’re talking about are pretty damn rare. Probably almost as rare as gay enclaves where people feel pressured to hide their straight proclivities.
I think I agree.
I think I disagree. The people who have doubts usually hedge, lead a basically secular life. For the most part, only if you’re really certain are you going to be willing to pick up a sword and slaughter the Canaanites or whatever.
Malthus, I may not agree with your perspective as to the existence of pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, but I am ready to steadfastly refrain from oppressing you as you express your belief in such.
As other jeer and throw their byproducts at your swollen, bruised corpse, you may take comfort in knowing that I was not among your abusers. Instead, I hope to be many miles away enjoying noodles and beer in your honor, regaling the locals with tales of your bravery, and, possibly, wondering why you’d picked a pink unicorn for battle rather than one of a more traditional color - a nice green, perhaps.
But, yours was a unique vision, unencumbered by societal pressures or (unnatural) lust for money. And we, your crew, loved you for it. (in a totally socially acceptable way) Thanks, Big Guy.
This is a really great analogy. Imagine four types of people:
- Theists who have personally have always believed
- Self-reported theists who have, in the present or past, disbelieved, but covered it up, and have returned to the faith or remain closet atheists
- Atheists who were theists, felt doubts, covered it up, and eventually came out as atheists
- Atheists who were never theists, or never covered up doubts
I think it’s very easy for people in groups 2 or 3 to reason, “Hey, I was once in that 86%, and I didn’t believe in God, so a bunch of other people are probably like me and lying about their faith, too.” People in groups 1 and 4 are less likely to apply this type of reasoning.
Personally, I’m in Group 4, and I generally take people at their word if they say they believe in God. But I’m open to the fact that I could be wrong.
You know what a ‘blue dog’ Democrat is, right? 
I wouldn’t be shocked if a blue dog voted for Trump, as I’m sure we’ve all known people who’ve jumped ship in an election (for instance, I know moderate Republicans who voted Obama in 2008) and moderates are the most likely to jump ship once. I don’t think they don’t renounce their political affiliation if they do so.
As in a tangential response to words meaning something to you (they do to me as well but in other ways), not being judgmental of others means something to me.
I would judge anyone harshly for voting for Trump.
Yes, I know what a blue dog Democrat is, which is why I used that term. Trump might have been a blue dog’s choice five years ago. But today? I’m more doubtful. A person who is siding with Trump but still thinks he’s a Dem needs to explain himself to me. That doesn’t mean he won’t be able to convince me. But we will need to have discussion of terms first.
I don’t take anyone’s word about anything when it comes to matters that are important to me. Does this make me arrogant? Maybe, but I think I’m like 86% of the rest of the world population who have two brain cells to rub together.
Can we also not automatically equate theist with Christian? It seems that happens a LOT around here, and it’s really freaking annoying.
Alas, yes, all too often. It isn’t any less obnoxious than any other form of ideological bigotry.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
To be clear, I’m sure you get zealots of both flavours (and indeed a third flavour: people with no actual belief whatsoever using religion as an excuse to persecute people).
But the reason I suspect the hedgers may be more aggressive is because, if you really believed that God was going to deliver justice in the end, and it would last an eternity, why would you care about atheists or apostates or whatever in this life?
ISTM at least some of the hate is because some people are trying so hard to silence internal voices of dissent, that they must also silence external voices.
Note this is not an attempt to defend religion and say true scotsmen don’t persecute groups. Like I said, zealots come in all shapes, and fyi I’m an atheist.
It could be that pollsters who classify respondents who “claim to believe in God” as self-reported atheists are confused.
I think what you need to do is run an experiment like thus:
Hook someone up to a lie detector, to check for stress, not for lies… to check for stress. Then ask them to say, I believe in God and I believe [proposition XYZ123] about God is true. Check to see what their stress level is. If they truly actually believe there should be no stress.
I would have no stress, for example, if I said “Dallas is a city in Texas” or, “When water gets really really cold it will freeze.” I would not feel any stress if I said, “I believe rock and roll is the best form of music, or, I believe Socialism is the most fair form of government”.
We should use a scientific, empirical method to see if their self reporting about belief is accurate or not.
Fascinating debate, really enjoy the intelligent reasoning coming from everyone of all persuasions!
I am an atheist who believes in Jesus. I believe in the example and meaning of Jesus as a man. I feel that Christianity i.e. jesus-ism should reign supreme as a set of values. I will defend christianity against islam and judaic influences fervently.
I find it sad that America, britain and germany has been spending the past one hundred fifty years killing hundreds of millions of peasants from malaysia to siberia to el salvador and grenada, chasing the spectre of communism, which is pretty close to jesus-ism in content… meanwhile!
islam and judaism-zionism, the two most despicably genocidal, supremacist and xenophobic cults are in full bloom.
Yes to Jesus, no to maccarthyism dressed as piety!
I think that a fair number of the syllogisms here have missed the mark.
To paraphrase: “If you really believed in God, you’d never take any chances doing anything wrong and thus risking everlasting torment; since you do misbehave, your belief is feigned.”
My observation is: what, precisely, is your understanding of Jesus?
Besides turning water into wine, bread and fish into more bread and lots of fish, that is – what role do you think Jesus might have in this discussion?
A Christian believes Jesus died for our sins. That means that His death expiated the punishment that would otherwise be dealt out when we die. His torture, death, descent into Hell, all of that had the effect (in general Christian belief) of taking away the punishment due to us, the rest of humanity.
Ending in hell is still possible, and different flavors of Christianity have different views for how this might occur. But as a general rule, merely committing sins does not condemn the believer to an eternity of Hell: Jesus paid that price, in advance, on our behalf.
This may be an argument that survives against a non-Christian theist, but not as to Christians.
Just a word to the wise: Don’t have heroes. They’re all very flawed people. I could write out a list of common heroes and their known flaws, but, instead, let’s dwell on the positive. Do admire positive personality traits. Admire kindness, admire generosity, admire exploration, admire openness.
Much of what is generally accepted about Jesus was added later, edited, and so forth. I’ve seen estimates that, of all of the text in the Bible attributed to Jesus, only about 20% is likely to have actually come from the man.
Please don’t equate Communism and anything that Jesus said. I could go down that road, explaining about Stalin and the Shining Path, and how they didn’t really bring up Jesus’ teachings all that much. But, maybe, in this case, less is more. Communism is bad. Religious extremism is bad. But, they’re not the same. Not even a little bit.
I think that’s what people admire in heroes. It is very useful to move from the abstract to the concrete.
What evidence is there that such a man even existed? I don’t know how anyone can come up with even 20%.
When people equate Communism/Marxism to Jesus I think they are more talking about an affinity for the poor and the exploited and not so much talking about Joseph Stalin, Shining Path or Pol Pot.
There’s good evidence for his existence. I’d suggest starting with the books of Bart Ehrman.
I’m a secular humanist, so I don’t believe in any gods, much less a Christian one. I believe there is a wide spectrum about belief in America, from those who devoutly believe to those who would say “oh, sure I believe in God” but then never think about that belief unless it comes up somehow (like maybe someone asking them a poll question).
To me, the debate becomes about what proportion of people fall in which section of the spectrum. Many people make good arguments here. I would absolutely agree that one’s assumptions about this will depend on who you know, and where you live. When I lived in the north, weeks or months could go by without anyone mentioning religion. If I still lived there, especially if I grew up there, I would think that most people fall in the “don’t even think about it” end of the spectrum. Now that I am living back in the south, it is rare that a day goes by without me hearing someone say something about their religion. If this was my only experience, I would think that most people who profess to believe in God are at the end of the spectrum of having very deep beliefs.
I also agree with the argument the phrase “I believe in God” really ought to mean more than saying yes to a poll question, but never really thinking about that belief, your own basis for that belief, or using it to guide your life. Like others have said, it takes some courage and thought in America to say that you don’t believe in God. That means there are some people, and perhaps a significant number of people, whose belief in God is nothing more then “I was raised this way and I’ve never thought about it.”