Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Nearly Sane]

I was going to give as an example one or more people who use those small bags to pick up dog poo, then leave them on the ground near the litter bin on the otherwise clean street where I live. I can't believe someone does that without their conscience telling them it's wrong.

Ridiculously homophobic comment.

[Outrider]

One can know something is morally wrong but still do it, because the desire to do it overcomes the conscience. Seems you are trying to eliminate feeling guilty.

One can, yes.  Do you know of any reason at all why anyone should consider being gay to be 'morally wrong'?

O.

[ippy]

I would have thought that there has always been a percentage of gay people born into any society anywhere in the world, assuming that's correct wouldn't that make it, perfectly normal to be a gay person?

ippy.

[Roses]

As I have said many times, for all we know Jesus could have been gay, the Bible mentions there was one particular disciple whom he loved. It was so terrible to be gay, surely it would be one of the, 'thou shalt nots'.

[Owlswing]

If there is one thing that my intermittent attendance and posting on the Forum, knowledgeable as some of the posters are, to the point that I have to make sure that I have the Oxford handy, it is that there is absolutely no way in which a non-Christian, be they a "never have been a Christian" or "Am I glad I got out of that crowd" or "Iam a Christian but I am not THAT brainweashed", can convince ANY committed (and, yes, they all ought to be) Christian that their beliefs are in any way in error.

They will, if it suits the Christian faith that they hold so dear, tell you that Black is White and white is no colour at all and nothing short of nuclear annihilation will convince them differently, and thus all who are non-Christian are totally wasting their time posting any negative comment on Christianity.

They do however provide the occasional belly-laugh with some of their attempts at justification which do sometimes brighten up an otherwise dull day.

[Roses]

Members of this forum, past and present, who have made a point of trying to convince non believers that their version of faith is TRUE, have failed miserably and will continue to do so.

[SteveH]

Members of this forum, past and present, who have made a point of trying to convince non believers that their version of faith is TRUE, have failed miserably and will continue to do so.

Members of this forum, past and present, who have made a point of trying to convince believers that their version of faith is false have failed miserably and will continue to do so.
Both statements are true, and the reason is that most people settle on their adult world-view in adolescence or early adulthood, and very rarely make a major shift in belief (as opposed to minor modifications) thereafter.

[Nearly Sane]

Members of this forum, past and present, who have made a point of trying to convince believers that their version of faith is false have failed miserably and will continue to do so.
Both statements are true, and the reason is that most people settle on their adult world-view in adolescence or early adulthood, and very rarely make a major shift in belief (as opposed to minor modifications) thereafter.

Agree overall but I think 'world view' is a grandiose idea.

[SteveH]

Agree overall but I think 'world view' is a grandiose idea.

Just be glad I didn't write "weltanschauung"!

[Roses]

I suspect non believers would be more prepared to give the preaching posters a listening ear if they admitted they had no evidence to support their faith, but it gives their life meaning.

None of us can know for certain there isn't any god tucked away somewhere, but as it has never revealed itself in an irrefutable way its existence must be in doubt.

[Nearly Sane]

Just be glad I didn't write "weltanschauung"!

I am ec-fecking-static.

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect non believers would be more prepared to give the preaching posters a listening ear if they admitted they had no evidence to support their faith, but it gives their life meaning.

None of us can know for certain there isn't any god tucked away somewhere, but as it has never revealed itself in an irrefutable way its existence must be in doubt.

That would though be a lie for some. Alan Burns does not believe because of that. He thinks he has evidence, and for many they feel they have had personal revelation so the ides that their god has never revealed itself for them is simply wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

Both statements are true, and the reason is that most people settle on their adult world-view in adolescence or early adulthood, and very rarely make a major shift in belief (as opposed to minor modifications) thereafter.

While that may be true there are major differences in the stickability of belief and non belief as a person moves from childhood to adulthood.

Virtually no people brought up in a non religious household shift in that view as they become adults. So I think that the data suggests that 97% of children brought up in non religious household stay non religious as adults, with just 3% altering their 'world view' as you put it. And this is despite that fact that non religious households rarely (if ever) actively teach 'non religion' - they don't send their kids to Sunday school where they are actively taught that religion is wrong, they don't send their children to schools where they will be taught to be non religious.

However the same isn't true for children brought up in religious households. Where both parent is religious just 50% of those children retain that 'world view' and become religious as adults. Put it another way half of those children change their 'world view' as they become adults and become non religious.

Where there is one religious parent and one non religious parent just 25% of children stay religious as adults with 75% changing their 'world view' as they become adults and become non religious.

And of course that is despite all that religious upbringing that goes on in those households - attending church, going to Sunday school, being taught to be religious in the home, being sent to faith schools which actively promote a particular religious 'world view' etc etc.

What this tells me is how poor the religious message is - that even if you pump it into kids from birth half (or more) once they become adults will conclude that they don't believe it.

[Roses]

That would though be a lie for some. Alan Burns does not believe because of that. He thinks he has evidence, and for many they feel they have had personal revelation so the ides that their god has never revealed itself for them is simply wrong.

Which makes my point, AB has never produced any evidence, as has been pointed out to him times without number. Each post he makes his take on faith look silly.

[Nearly Sane]

Which makes my point, AB has never produced any evidence, as has been pointed out to him times without number. Each post he makes his take on faith look silly.

No, it is disagreeing with your point entirely. You want Alan Burns to lie about why he believes.

[Roses]

No, it is disagreeing with your point entirely. You want Alan Burns to lie about why he believes.

No I don't want AB to lie, I want him to take on board the fact that however much he believes his faith to be true, he has never produced any evidence to substantiate it.

[SteveH]

While that may be true there are major differences in the stickability of belief and non belief as a person moves from childhood to adulthood.

Virtually no people brought up in a non religious household shift in that view as they become adults. So I think that the data suggests that 97% of children brought up in non religious household stay non religious as adults, with just 3% altering their 'world view' as you put it. And this is despite that fact that non religious households rarely (if ever) actively teach 'non religion' - they don't send their kids to Sunday school where they are actively taught that religion is wrong, they don't send their children to schools where they will be taught to be non religious.

However the same isn't true for children brought up in religious households. Where both parent is religious just 50% of those children retain that 'world view' and become religious as adults. Put it another way half of those children change their 'world view' as they become adults and become non religious.

Where there is one religious parent and one non religious parent just 25% of children stay religious as adults with 75% changing their 'world view' as they become adults and become non religious.

And of course that is despite all that religious upbringing that goes on in those households - attending church, going to Sunday school, being taught to be religious in the home, being sent to faith schools which actively promote a particular religious 'world view' etc etc.

What this tells me is how poor the religious message is - that even if you pump it into kids from birth half (or more) once they become adults will conclude that they don't believe it.

If those figures were accurate, religion would have died out long ago.

[Nearly Sane]

No I don't want AB to lie, I want him to take on board the fact that however much he believes his faith to be true, he has never produced any evidence to substantiate it.

You wanted him to say that he only believes in his religion because it comforts him - that would be a lie for him.
You want him to say there is no contact from god - that would be a lie for him.

[Nearly Sane]

If those figures were accurate, religion would have died out long ago.

Only is they were correct  for all places and all time - and i don't think Prof D is saying that - though he probably needs to be clearer on that.

[Roses]

You wanted him to say that he only believes in his religion because it comforts him - that would be a lie for him.
You want him to say there is no contact from god - that would be a lie for him.

I want a light to switch on in his brain, which gives him the opportunity to see what others see when he posts.

[Aruntraveller]

I want a light to switch on in his brain, which gives him the opportunity to see what others see when he posts.

Yes, but he wants the same for you.

[Nearly Sane]

I want a light to switch on in his brain, which gives him the opportunity to see what others see when he posts.

Which would be a lie for him. You want him to agree with other people when he doesn't

[ProfessorDavey]

If those figures were accurate, religion would have died out long ago.

Yes those figures are accurate, and no it wouldn't mean religion would have died out, but would be declining.

Thee figures are for the UK over the past 60 years or so - what they predict is that religiosity halves every generation (about 30 years or so) and that's exactly what we see in practice.

[ProfessorDavey]

Only is they were correct  for all places and all time - and i don't think Prof D is saying that - though he probably needs to be clearer on that.

The UK for the past 60 years or so. But the basic trend applies to pretty well all countries with freedom of religion and are broadly what we would describe as the developed world.

[ProfessorDavey]

Both statements are true, and the reason is that most people settle on their adult world-view in adolescence or early adulthood, and very rarely make a major shift in belief (as opposed to minor modifications) thereafter.

Cohort analysis also allows us to work out whether, on a population basis, people once they've reached adulthood get more or less religious as they age. This is done by asking the same group of people (e.g. people born in the 1950s) questions about their religiosity during the 1980s (when they were in their 30s) and then again a decade later and so on.

What this shows is that there is a gentle shift away from being religious as people get older (on a population basis). The reason why churches are packed with old people isn't because people get more religious as they get older (they don't) it is because each generation is markedly less religious than the previous one for the reasons I explained in my earlier posts.