Why do so many still have these religious beliefs?

[Brownie]

Funny you should say that, Humph, but I've known a couple of cases of young men who were seduced into cults.  One gave them all his money and then had a breakdown.

There are extreme fringe political groups that do the same.  Plenty of lonely young people who don't quite fit in with their peers, long to belong and are vulnerable to such influences.

[Hope]

I didn't expect him too, Brownie, since true to form I anticipated he'd decline the invitation - but I do think he is running away having posted somewhat naively: being more circumspect in future would be my advice to him.

Gordon, if I had posted somewhat naively, I'd have done as you suggested in your post - and named names.

[Hope]

I have a suspition English isn't your first language Vlad ...

ip, I suspect that Vlad's first language isn't Essglish.   

[Gordon]

Gordon, if I had posted somewhat naively, I'd have done as you suggested in your post - and named names.

I'd suggest the primary nativity was in your posting in a way that noted you had categorised people here that you weren't prepared to follow-up on: you'd have been better, as I said, to have been more circumspect in the first place.

[ippy]

I doubt it, ippy.  It isn't simply a matter of evidence.  It has to do with belief.  For instance, I believe that science is a very powerful and important part of real life - I just don't believe that it has, or will ever have, all the answers.  After all, pretty well every scientist worth their salt believes that for every answer it provides, it throws up 2 or more questions.

As for the comment 'what you people call an atheist' I doubt anyone has ever called anyone an atheist unless that person has self-defined as one already.

Hope, I'm not an afariest or an aunicornist either,  atheist isn't a very exact description of someone that thinks there is no good reason to think there are such things as gods, that'all, no doubt you'll come out firing all of your semantic guns, but never mind that I know that you get my drift but call me an atheist if you wish I really don't mind.

Yes science doesn't have all of the answers but science unlike religious beliefs it doesn't have the luxury of being able to say goddit for anything it hasen't found the answer to.

Ippy

[ippy]

ip, I suspect that Vlad's first language isn't Essglish.   

Have I performed a typo or spelling mistake? How unusual of me to do something like that, don't go losing any sleep over it Hope, I wont.

Ippy

[torridon]

1. I don't (currently) see any support for e.g. laws always being there, i.e. laws being eternal.

2. Human beings make laws. Behind them is intelligence and purpose. So I see the same applying elsewhere, where laws are discovered.

Are there any natural, non-intelligent processes that have the forethought to create laws?

Firstly, there is no support for an eternal god but that doesn't seem to bother you. People arguing for god as a route out of infinite regress are just committing a tautology instead. This way of thinking defines god as the premise that must be required in order to arrive at the desired conclusion, it's back to front logic.

Secondly, is there any reason why laws should not be eternal ?  If we say that 2 + 2 = 4, did that mathematical rule not apply before the Big Bang ? Did it only come into effect when an intelligent god came along and said 'let it be' ? I think it far easier to create a case for natural laws being eternal than a complex sentient being - his sentience will provide far more paradoxes than his being solves.

[Hope]

Yes science doesn't have all of the answers but science unlike religious beliefs it doesn't have the luxury of being able to say goddit for anything it hasen't found the answer to.

Ippy

ip, you seem to misunderstand religion.  It is generally non-believers who believe that 'religious beliefs ... say goddit for anything it hasen't found the answer to'.  Religious belief says that God is everything - even the things that science has found the answer to.  Until you realise that your caricatures of religious belief are about as far from the truth as science is from leprechaunism, your comments are about as irrelevant to real life as that same leprechaunism.

[ippy]

Ippy nee Iplova

That is plain bollards. Those wanting converts aim for alienated young adults not kids.

Don't tell me convey that to the C of E, at their last synod,  I haven't got the details to hand, if they have an eqivilant of hansard, this very subject was brought up and not quoting verbatim one of those present was promoting extra attention to the school recruiting grounds.

Ippy

[ippy]

ip, you seem to misunderstand religion.  It is generally non-believers who believe that 'religious beliefs ... say goddit for anything it hasen't found the answer to'.  Religious belief says that God is everything - even the things that science has found the answer to.  Until you realise that your caricatures of religious belief are about as far from the truth as science is from leprechaunism, your comments are about as irrelevant to real life as that same leprechaunism.

I indeed do recognise these religious points and see them lacking in the extreem and goddit, a very acurate description of the so sorrowfully inadequate out look of most religionists, how sad.

When you look at the lack of supporting evidence that might support religious magical, mystical and superstition based ideas too, well?

Ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad casually throws out his standard trope of reductionism without bothering first to establish that there's something to reduce from.

Oh well.

Bluehillside you are giving your own definition of reductionism and therefore glossing over the issues with that philosophical position. You just can't help polishing brown ones can you?

[SusanDoris]

1. I don't (currently) see any support for e.g. laws always being there, i.e. laws being eternal.

2. Human beings make laws. Behind them is intelligence and purpose. So I see the same applying elsewhere, where laws are discovered.

Are there any natural, non-intelligent processes that have the forethought to create laws?

Ever heard of the Theory of Evolution (by natural selection, etc)? Altruistic behaviour which was a very useful survival trait? ] Human groups articulating those behaviours and making them into a set of rules?

[torridon]

ip, you seem to misunderstand religion.  It is generally non-believers who believe that 'religious beliefs ... say goddit for anything it hasen't found the answer to'.  Religious belief says that God is everything - even the things that science has found the answer to.

I think you are turning into a pantheist.  Maybe it was that spell in Nepal 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ever heard of the Theory of Evolution (by natural selection, etc)? Altruistic behaviour which was a very useful survival trait? ] Human groups articulating those behaviours and making them into a set of rules?

The problem with altruism is not that it is evolved but that it is not consistently practiced or demonstrated. The type of altruism could be said itself to be selfish behaviour and then since the term selfish behaviour covers all behaviour. The words selfish and altruistic are redundant.

There is really only behaviour.

[Hope]

Ever heard of the Theory of Evolution (by natural selection, etc)? Altruistic behaviour which was a very useful survival trait? ] Human groups articulating those behaviours and making them into a set of rules?

In which way is altruistic behaviour a useful survival trait, Susan?

Incidentally, I subscribe to a site called nfpSynergy which produces reports and blogs about a variety of subjects that concern not-for-profits.  I seem to remember reading one blog a couple of months ago that suggested that many so-called altruistic acts are actually done to bring kudos to the performer.  I suppose that that might therefore answer my question above.

I'll try to find the report/blog.

[torridon]

In which way is altruistic behaviour a useful survival trait, Susan?

See The Selfish Gene

[bluehillside Retd.]

Bluehillside you are giving your own definition of reductionism and therefore glossing over the issues with that philosophical position. You just can't help polishing brown ones can you?

In which the king of re-definitions wrongly accuses a poster of providing his own definition of a term, while simultaneously failing to grasp that even he can't avoid the reality that "reductionism" requires there to be something from which to reduce, and that he's signally failed to demonstrate that something.

Desperate stuff.

[Sassy]

I think one reason is more obvious than a lot of others is the built in requirement to indoctrinate the next generation, they all do this, figures largely.

Or taking on these beliefs as comforting/soma like soporific,  protective blanket that enables followers to blank off the harder side of everyday life we all have to deal with, one thing is for certain no credible evidence needed or, as it seems to me, wanted.

None of them are believable to me.

ippy

It is a singular truth rather than an issue of many things.
GOD... never ceases to exist or stop loving mankind.
God is an experience of a reality you can only come to by a love of truth and an understanding of who God really is.

You look on the outside of you at the world and all which surrounds you.
But knowing God comes from within by the connection of a persons Spirit with Gods Spirit.

You cannot indoctrinate a person.  No more than you can find God by your own understanding.

[Hope]

I think one reason is more obvious than a lot of others is the built in requirement to indoctrinate the next generation, they all do this, figures largely.

If that is the case, the indoctrination isn't very successful, ippy.  Whilst I accept that there will be a handful of religious people who don't introduce the next generation to a wide range of ideas, most Christians - and even Muslims and Hindus today - are willing to let their children hear about and discuss alternative world views and philosophies.  Ironically, from what you and some others I know have said, it seems to be the more atheistic minded amongst us who indoctrinate - 'by omission' - in other words don't discuss religious ideas with their children and don't want them to be introduced to such ideas outside of the home.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

If that is the case, the indoctrination isn't very successful, ippy.  Whilst I accept that there will be a handful of religious people who don't introduce the next generation to a wide range of ideas, most Christians - and even Muslims and Hindus today - are willing to let their children hear about and discuss alternative world views and philosophies.

Then why ghettoise their children in "faith" schools when secular schools do that anyway?

Ironically, from what you and some others I know have said, it seems to be the more atheistic minded amongst us who indoctrinate - 'by omission' - in other words don't discuss religious ideas with their children and don't want them to be introduced to such ideas outside of the home.

That's backwards I think - in my experience the approach of most parents mirrors that of secular schools: they're quite willing to discuss the religious ideas that various people have, but what they don't do is to assert that the beliefs of any specific faith are factually true.   

[Hope]

Hope,

Then why ghettoise their children in "faith" schools when secular schools do that anyway?

I suspect - having never taught in a faith school in this country, or sent my children to one, that they want religion to be taught 'properly' - not as a mere add-on to the curriculum but with a 'proper' emphasis on its role in people's lives.  OK, some go overboard by wanting creationism taught, but I'm not sure that most faith schools in the UK (as opposed to the Southern States of America) teach that.  State schools teach it as an academic discipline; faith schools teach as a real part of life.

That's backwards I think - in my experience the approach of most parents mirrors that of secular schools: they're quite willing to discuss the religious ideas that various people have, but what they don't do is to assert that the beliefs of any specific faith are factually true.

I'm only going by the reports I've had from atheistically-minded people I know and the odd comment made in posts by one or two folk here.

[Sassy]

I think one reason is more obvious than a lot of others is the built in requirement to indoctrinate the next generation, they all do this, figures largely.

Or taking on these beliefs as comforting/soma like soporific,  protective blanket that enables followers to blank off the harder side of everyday life we all have to deal with, one thing is for certain no credible evidence needed or, as it seems to me, wanted.

None of them are believable to me.

ippy

It is a singular truth rather than an issue of many things.
GOD... never ceases to exist or stop loving mankind.
God is an experience of a reality you can only come to by a love of truth and an understanding of who God really is.

You look on the outside of you at the world and all which surrounds you.
But knowing God comes from within by the connection of a persons Spirit with Gods Spirit.

You cannot indoctrinate a person.  No more than you can find God by your own understanding.

[Sebastian Toe]

That deja vu thing.   

It's for real!!!!!!
 

It is a singular truth rather than an issue of many things.
GOD... never ceases to exist or stop loving mankind.
God is an experience of a reality you can only come to by a love of truth and an understanding of who God really is.

You look on the outside of you at the world and all which surrounds you.
But knowing God comes from within by the connection of a persons Spirit with Gods Spirit.

You cannot indoctrinate a person.  No more than you can find God by your own understanding.

It is a singular truth rather than an issue of many things.
GOD... never ceases to exist or stop loving mankind.
God is an experience of a reality you can only come to by a love of truth and an understanding of who God really is.

You look on the outside of you at the world and all which surrounds you.
But knowing God comes from within by the connection of a persons Spirit with Gods Spirit.

You cannot indoctrinate a person.  No more than you can find God by your own understanding.

[ippy]

If that is the case, the indoctrination isn't very successful, ippy.  Whilst I accept that there will be a handful of religious people who don't introduce the next generation to a wide range of ideas, most Christians - and even Muslims and Hindus today - are willing to let their children hear about and discuss alternative world views and philosophies.  Ironically, from what you and some others I know have said, it seems to be the more atheistic minded amongst us who indoctrinate - 'by omission' - in other words don't discuss religious ideas with their children and don't want them to be introduced to such ideas outside of the home.

What makes you think I would want to either discuss anything about a subject that only exists in the minds of those involved and doesn't really exist either and there's no evidence to be found that would back it up.

I don't discuss Ferripoplism either because by omission I'm trying my best to indoctrinate people against Ferripoplism and at least that one seems to be working.

Seriously god or gods just don't exist for me, I'm not a no godist more a not whatist? A god what's that?

For me Hope all I know or want to know about gods is that there various happy little groups going around trying to stop me shopping when I chose to etc (one of the more benign irritations your lot have to offer), but I have to admit the fact that so many still go for this soppy primitive stuff intrigues me still, why can't you just shrug it off?

ippy   

[ippy]

It is a singular truth rather than an issue of many things.
GOD... never ceases to exist or stop loving mankind.
God is an experience of a reality you can only come to by a love of truth and an understanding of who God really is.

You look on the outside of you at the world and all which surrounds you.
But knowing God comes from within by the connection of a persons Spirit with Gods Spirit.

You cannot indoctrinate a person.  No more than you can find God by your own understanding.

All assertions Sass, not one statement of fact and I would say people like yourself are prime examples of successful indoctrination  where the victim doesn't even realise they've been indoctrinated, even when explaind clearly to them.

ippy