Gee, d’ya think?
slaps everyone with a wet trout
Y’all going to debate someting?
Clearly a wet haddock was the correct fish to use in this occasion. Debate away. 
It would not bother me if the differences were in the colour of altar cloths used in different countries. Or if one place built churches out of stone and another out of wood because of the availablity of materials. That makes sense.
But take the divinity of Jesus and the role of Mohammed.
A) Islam says he was not divine nor the son of god, but just a human being who was a prophet. Islam says that Mohammed was the last prophet and the final word (seal of the prophets) of God. Islam denies that Jesus died on the cross.
B)Christianity (generally) says Jesus was the Son of God, and one of three persons in a trinitarian god. Christianity generally rejects Mohammed and the Koran as false. They say Jesus died on the cross to atone for the sins of all mankind.
These are pretty basic differences. And they are all mutually exclusive. Either Jesus was the son of God or he was not. Either he died on the cross or he didn’t. Either Mohammed and his Koran are truly messenger and message from God or they are not.
Two contradictory propositions cannot both be right.
So if religion is not just a matter of childhood indoctrination and societal pressure, why did the vast majority of people in Muslim countries believe A) and the vast majority of [people in Christian countries believe B)?
Wrong answer. You’ve made yet another provocative post, supported by absolutely nothing. When come back, bring credible cite.
I’ve seen the same point made about stories of alien abductions. They tend to have aspects in common, like sexual assault and paralysis, but the details vary by region and historical period. The “aliens” and their ships vary from place to place, and in earlier times weren’t even space aliens, but other nonhumans; elves, djinni, demons. Instead of space ships, in other times it would be a flying carpet or a demonic horse, say. Human minds seem to prone to this particular hallucination/false memory, and the culture fills in the details. I believe the same is true of religion; it’s a form of psychological breakdown very common in humans, but the details are completely arbitrary.
Or - religions are appealing to the same set of psychological characteristics that are universal in humans, so those aspects of religion are also universal. However, since religion is made up, the details all differ. Rather like governments, which have close similarities all over the world and through time, because they are formed according to human psychology, but the details vary according to culture. And just like religion, it’s silly to pretend that, say, the Electoral College represents some sort of deep truth, or is anything but a human construct.
No, they see the same things, work with the same physical laws, and therefore discover the same things. A scientist who studies atomic physics in Berlin or Moscow or Beijing doesn’t just get results that fit the same theme that other scientists do; he gets the same results, down to multiple decimal points. This is because science is based on objective reality, which is the same for everyone; not at all the same as religion. Your analogy doesn’t work at all.
Of course I was being sarcastic. But I can’t believe you actually have never come across a religious person who has maintained that their religion is a reasonable and logical belief and not just a matter of indoctrination and societal pressure.
But since you insist, I can give you an exact source. I went through 13 years of Catholic education, including several courses in “apologetics” given by the Oblate Fathers in Ottawa, Canada, between the years 1953 and 1967. Now, while I do not have the excat textbooks to hand to quote them, I was told on many, many occasions that the Catholic faith is reasonable, rational and logical, and can be defended and explained in debate.
Also, I studied Thomas Aquinas extensively in University. And if Aquinas is NOT a Christian who claims that religion can be rationally and logically defended, what the hell is he?
None of that qualifies as a cite. Chapter and verse, preferably with a link, will suffice. And be sure to read whatever you provide carefully. There may be questions to follow…
JUst for the record, I have never even heard of Dawkins until I read about him on some posts here yesterday. I know that I can probably find out about him from Google or Wiki, but the point is that I do not get my ideas from him.
But if we both have the same ideas, it is because logical and critical thinking about religion would obviously lead us to the same conclusions.
No doubt Dawkins expresses these ideas far better then my poor power to do so.
As Oak and Tomndeb point out with great regularity, my powers of logic and argument leave much to be desired.
Ah yes, I remember first reading about that in Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World. I had never really thought about it before and saw it as very illuminating.
Of course, there are those who think the aliens are real and inspired the old demons/witches/gods and vice versa (Grays from the dog star? NO! They’re from HELL!).
If that doesn’t qualify as a cite in your opinion, tough. I have learned to draw the line with you, Oak! If you don’t like this thread don’t participate in it.
There’d be nothing wrong if you did. It’s just he puts them in a very eloquent and straightforward way with clever analogies that leave an impression. Try searching for him on youtube – you can view a ton of his old lectures I was referencing, plus more modern interviews/debates/book review speeches, etc.
Personally, I could listen to him all day just for the accent.
**Valteron: ** Doesn’t work that way, either. If you wish to advance an assertion, you must provide a cite when requested. Stuff you were told by nuns back in the day, or a general reference to everything Thomas Aquinas wrote just doesn’t cut it.
Again, I want to know precisely what people you refer to in the OP, what they actually said, when they made the statements you allege they made, and where can I review those statements for myself. This should not be difficult, if, as you stated earlier, this is common knowledge.
Nobody else on this thread seems to have trouble accepting the commonly known fact that people of religion generally hold that their belief is logical and reasonable, and not merely the result of childhood indoctrination and societal pressure. I suppose I could go searching in the internet in site after site to find exact quotations in which religions claim that their belief is rational, but I am not your lap dog or your search engine.
Participate in the debate like the others or go somewhere else.
I have learned to distinguish debate from . . . . well you know.
Look closer. Might they be two bronzed strawmen? Pope Alexander VI is often mistaken for a pudgy strawman, especially in dim light.
[QUOTE=Oakminster
Again, I want to know precisely what people you refer to in the OP, what they actually said, when they made the statements you allege they made, and where can I review those statements for myself. This should not be difficult, if, as you stated earlier, this is common knowledge.[/QUOTE]
And if I don’t jump and get you every cite just as you asked for it, you will beat me up in the schopolyard? 
You forgot the part where some neopagan comes in to bitch about the unstated and irritatingly common assumption that every religious person in the fucking world (or even the fucking United States) is part of an Abrahamaic religion and/or the Abrahamic religion of their childhood.
That’d be this post, conveniently enough.
Valteron: If you are unable to produce a simple cite upon request, then your argument is worthless. You set up strawmen, and knock them over. Anybody can do that. So far, you’ve demonstrated an ability to taunt believers, but not to substantiate much of anything. Sorta like Terrell Owens, except he manages to score a TD sometimes. You’ve yet to cross the 50 yard line.
You are welcome to participate in the debate.
Far from this being a stupid analogy, it is right on, and demonstrates your point. What religions claim is besides the point. Religions evolve in a very similar way to languages. One religion splits into several, just as languages do. There is borrowing from the beliefs of other religions, just as languages borrow words from other languages. Languages far away from each other tend to be more different, just as religions that arose far from each other are relatively more different. There are some basic similarities among languages out of necessity, just as there are for religions (as has been listed.) And finally, languages evolve, as do religions.
Drive down the main street of any American town, and you’ll soon see the dialects of Christianity.