Religions have succeeded

[Nearly Sane]

You have me at a disadvantage sir, who are you?

It's trentvoyager.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's trentvoyager.

I didn't know he was into telepathy and mindreading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But I'm 'blind', according to you so my inability to see ot cannot be 'dodging', and you still end up thinking that athiests are 'disabled'.

Maybe they should stop poking themselves in the eye.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe they should stop poking themselves in the eye.

Now you think atheists are lying and 'disabled'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now you think atheists are lying and 'disabled'.

Some atheists could be or are you suggesting they can't lie?, Others don't really want a God(Krauss, Nagel). I don't really know what people who allege themselves to be agnostic but choose to act as atheist which seems to include posting ostensibly antitheistic sentiment are properly up to, but they seem to have taken a decision to action somewhere along the line.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

What he said was he sensed god's presence in his consciousness. Which part of that is objective testable evidence?

None of it. 

So no  the analogy didn't fail for the reasons already explained. Vlad didn't claim to have objectively testable evidence that god was present. He stated a subjective belief based on an inner experience.

That’s a non sequitur. The fact that Vlad doesn’t have “objective testable evidence” (or any evidence at all for that matter) for his god does not imply that he doesn’t think his god is objectively real nonetheless – that is, he thinks that his “inner experience” (albeit justified with some very bad arguments) is a reliable guide to objective truths for all of us, only some of us haven’t had his good fortune of “encountering” it.

If you don’t believe me, ask him yourself.   

What do you mean by 'turning up', given Vlad said he didn't believe in a physical god?

Another non sequitur. He thinks he “encountered” an objectively real, ie non-imaginary god – that god would therefore have had to have made itself available by some means for that to be the case – ie, “turned up”.     

That's illogical. How can people retrieve information that their brain is not already familiar with? Where is the source of this information they reach for other than their brain?

And that’s the non sequitur hat trick! That’s not what I said. What I said was that when anyone having an “experience” turns only to knowledge they are already enculturated to for their causal explanations for it there’s no reason to take those explanations seriously.       

Can you link to where Vlad has claimed objectively testable evidence? He said the presence was in his consciousness. How is that a claim for having objectively testable evidence?

Why are you doing this? Try to focus here: he DOESN’T (to my knowledge) claim to have objectively testable evidence; he DOES though claim his god to be an objective fact for all of us nonetheless.   

A belief in "god" just means that someone holds the idea that their concept of god is true. Whereas a fact is something that has empirical evidence to support it, until new evidence comes along that amends the fact. You do know the two are not the same right? The belief that something is true is subjective, whereas facts can be objectively tested.

Sometimes you post something so dim witted (as here) that I seriously wonder whether you’re just trolling. VLAD THINK HIS SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE THAT HE ASCRIBES TO “GOD” IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS THEREFORE A GOD.   

It doesn’t matter for this purpose that he jumps straight from the subjective to the objective with no logic (or very poor logic) or evidence to bridge the gap – the salient fact is that he does it nonetheless.

You still haven't explained what's remarkable about it, despite me asking many times. Any sense he makes of an experience he has will be based on information already stored in his brain. What's remarkable about that and what's the alternative?

FFS. Try to focus here: the point that was made to him was that he (like all theists) explains his “experience” solely by reference to the information he has already about a “god”. He doesn’t though suddenly reach for information about, say, an Amazonian tribe’s animal spirit god or one of the gods of ancient Rome for his explanation. All these claims of god(s) are also claims of objective fact – there really is the Christian god; there really is an animal spirit god; there really is Neptune etc. They are claims about the objects of beliefs. They are claims of objectively true entities.   

What you did though was to flag the effect of environment on subjective responses (tastes and preferences) to objectively true phenomena (tea, music etc). The statement “I prefer coffee to tea” is a claim of the subjective, but it’s not a claim about the objective fact of tea or coffee.

And that was your category error.           

[Nearly Sane]

Some atheists could be or are you suggesting they can't lie?, Others don't really want a God(Krauss, Nagel). I don't really know what people who allege themselves to be agnostic but choose to act as atheist which seems to include posting ostensibly antitheistic sentiment are properly up to, but they seem to have taken a decision to action somewhere along the line.

Your generalised positive claim, your burden of proof. And I note you've accepted that you think atheists are 'disabled, Agnostic doesn't mean unsure, it's abour a claim to knowledge. . You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

It is very clear that atheists lack a certain ability for subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment.

How would you propose to justify that unqualified claim?

It is like born blind people denying the existence of light.

No it isn’t. You’ve been corrected on this before, so I don’t know why you’ve repeated the mistake. Your cheat here is to pick an established phenomenon (light) that some people can’t identify to draw an analogy with these supposed “patterns” you claim to discern. I may as well claim “It is very clear that a-leprechaunists lack a certain ability for subconsciously discerning leprechauns in their environment” and “It is like born leprechaun-blind people denying the existence of leprechauns”.       

Believers are able to discern these patterns and are able to even discern the presence of higher levels of consciousness within themselves. How they interpret or imagine these experiences is related to their culture and religious background.

No – “believers” are able to believe they discern these supposed patterns, but that’s all. The clue is in the word “believers”. If you want to justify your claim about these supposed patterns then you need to make an argument (and better yet provide some evidence) for it.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I've posted this research many times - the key figure involved is David Voas, who is pretty well the most eminent academic researcher on religiosity in the UK. His research (and plenty of others) suggests that just 3% of children brought up in non religious households (note that is the household it doesn't take account of wider society, schooling etc) become religious as adults.

For completeness - for children brought up in a religious household where both parents are religious, 50% become religious as adults and 50% don't. And virtually all who retain a religiosity do so within the religion of their upbringing.

Where there is a 'mixed' household with one religious parent and one non religious parent the proportion that are religious as adults falls to 25% with three quarters being non religious as adults.

So VG, I think you represent a pretty rare demographic - in being someone brought up in one religion, but ending up an adherent of a different religion as an adult.

But the broad point remains - if a child isn't brought up in a religious household the likelihood of them becoming religious as an adult is pretty tiny - just 3%.

The other key finding is that, contrary to popular myth, people do not get more religious as they get older. In fact there is virtually no change in overall population-level religiosity as people get older, with overall religiosity pretty well set at early adulthood.

And this understanding of the almost perfect generational transmission of non-religiosity, and the 50:50 (at best) likelihood of transmission of religiosity is the reason why the numbers of religious people in the UK is falling and (barring the effects of immigration) will continue to fall for decades to come.

Given the number of people I personally know who have changed religion, it's a strange definition of rare. Including me, just among my sister-in-laws alone, there are 4 converts to Islam (1 Hindu, 1 Christian, 1 Buddhist and me who was atheist but brought up Hindu until age 12 or 13 yrs).

Then there are whole FB groups for converts to Islam - not that I have gone on them. It has been reported that religious conversion in Sri Lanka is common enough in Sri Lanka to lead to increased communal tensions https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/are-religious-conversions-taking-place-in-sri-lanka/

None of this explains what tips someone into belief.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

How would you propose to justify that unqualified claim?

No it isn’t. You’ve been corrected on this before, so I don’t know why you’ve repeated the mistake. Your cheat here is to pick an established phenomenon (light) that some people can’t identify to draw an analogy with these supposed “patterns” you claim to discern. I may as well claim “It is very clear that a-leprechaunists lack a certain ability for subconsciously discerning leprechauns in their environment” and “It is like born leprechaun-blind people denying the existence of leprechauns”.       

No – “believers” are able to believe they discern these supposed patterns, but that’s all. The clue is in the word “believers”. If you want to justify your claim about these supposed patterns then you need to make an argument (and better yet provide some evidence) for it.

You want me to copy Post 969 here again for you?!!

[Aruntraveller]

You have me at a disadvantage sir, who are you?

Trentvoyager of old. I'd have thought the number of times you've changed names you would have been able to work out my recent transformation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your generalised positive claim, your burden of proof. And I note you've accepted that you think atheists are 'disabled, Agnostic doesn't mean unsure, it's abour a claim to knowledge. . You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

It's worse than saying atheists are disabled, your word introduced to portray me as anti-disabled perhaps?, I'm saying everyone needs Christ.
Did I define agnosticism? I don't think I did. I think agnostic atheism on here has led people to post the antitheist sentiment/bollocks that they do. I am not talking about their agnosticism but their stated commitment to the atheism as demonstrated on Religion ethics year after year after year after year etc.

[Sriram]

All minds discern patterns subconsciously, this is not a special talent that theists alone have.  Almost all mind function is subconscious, remember ?

I am not talking of theists or any specific belief. I am talking about a general and secular faith about some form of hidden intelligence that is working behind the scenes in our lives and in the entire environment. Refer to my thread on 'Faith'.

This basic 'faith' could later get translated into religious belief ....which is a different matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trentvoyager of old. I'd have thought the number of times you've changed names you would have been able to work out my recent transformation.

Ahoy there, Artist formally known as Trentvoyager. I thought name changes were only performed by Aholes like me.
May one ask the derivation of yer new handle?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You want me to copy Post 969 here again for you?!!

You can if you like, but it doesn’t help you.

First, the article talks about recognising “complex patterns”. Thus the researchers (presumably) made sure there were some complex patterns to be identified, albeit patterns not apparent a sub-set of the participants. That is, no-one doubts the fact of these patterns (including presumably the people who couldn’t initially recognise them for themselves, but perhaps did so once they were explained).

You on the other hand just claim to “discern patterns” with no evidence that you are doing any such thing.   

Second, that article’s tentative conclusion that people “may ascribe those patterns to the hand of a higher power" isn’t a suggestion that there is a higher power. Rather it just confirms that as a pattern- and explanation-seeking species, the more patterns we see the more there is to explain.

Oh, and none of this gets you off the hook of your false analogy with light for the reason I explained to you.   

[Aruntraveller]

Ahoy there, Artist formally known as Trentvoyager. I thought name changes were only performed by Aholes like me.
May one ask the derivation of yer new handle?

The River Arun, which I live in the vicinity of in West Sussex (this may also change) and my hope to travel more. Although, I feel this name-changing thing might be a bit like tattoos. When you've done it once you may want to keep on doing it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Given the number of people I personally know who have changed religion, it's a strange definition of rare. Including me, just among my sister-in-laws alone, there are 4 converts to Islam (1 Hindu, 1 Christian, 1 Buddhist and me who was atheist but brought up Hindu until age 12 or 13 yrs).

Anecdote a go-go.

That's why you need to do proper research to determine the actual facts rather than selected anecdotes. The data I know best are for christian denominations - I'll look up islam but give that their numbers are pretty small anyhow in the UK, I cannot see how their figures are likely to move the overall data much.

So for christianity in the UK, typically less than 1% of current adherents have 'converted' from a non-christian religion of their upbringing. There is some church amongst various christian denominations, but someone brought up non-christian becoming a christian as an adult is actually rarer than someone brought up in a non religious household becoming religious as an adult.

[Nearly Sane]

It's worse than saying atheists are disabled, your word introduced to portray me as anti-disabled perhaps?, I'm saying everyone needs Christ.
Did I define agnosticism? I don't think I did. I think agnostic atheism on here has led people to post the antitheist sentiment/bollocks that they do. I am not talking about their agnosticism but their stated commitment to the atheism as demonstrated on Religion ethics year after year after year after year etc.

I picked up the 'disabled'  from Prof D's reply to Sriram where Sriram introduced the idea of atheists being blind. I put it in quote to emphasise that it is metaphorical. Your idea that it is somehow about making you disablist is a straw man.

Your use of agnostic implied it as not being compatible with atheism. Given your general inability to write coherently, I am happy to accept that was not your intention.

I have no idea why you think that agnostic atheism has lead
 'people to post the antitheist sentiment/bollocks that they do', and given that's just an assertion from you don't see any reason to take it seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VG,

None of it. 

That’s a non sequitur. The fact that Vlad doesn’t have “objective testable evidence” (or any evidence at all for that matter) for his god does not imply that he doesn’t think his god is objectively real nonetheless – that is, he thinks that his “inner experience” (albeit justified with some very bad arguments) is a reliable guide to objective truths for all of us, only some of us haven’t had his good fortune of “encountering” it.

If you don’t believe me, ask him yourself.   

Another non sequitur. He thinks he “encountered” an objectively real, ie non-imaginary god – that god would therefore have had to have made itself available by some means for that to be the case – ie, “turned up”.     

And that’s the non sequitur hat trick! That’s not what I said. What I said was that when anyone having an “experience” turns only to knowledge they are already enculturated to for their causal explanations for it there’s no reason to take those explanations seriously.       

Why are you doing this? Try to focus here: he DOESN’T (to my knowledge) claim to have objectively testable evidence; he DOES though claim his god to be an objective fact for all of us nonetheless.   

Sometimes you post something so dim witted (as here) that I seriously wonder whether you’re just trolling. VLAD THINK HIS SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE THAT HE ASCRIBES TO “GOD” IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS THEREFORE A GOD.   

It doesn’t matter for this purpose that he jumps straight from the subjective to the objective with no logic (or very poor logic) or evidence to bridge the gap – the salient fact is that he does it nonetheless.

FFS. Try to focus here: the point that was made to him was that he (like all theists) explains his “experience” solely by reference to the information he has already about a “god”. He doesn’t though suddenly reach for information about, say, an Amazonian tribe’s animal spirit god or one of the gods of ancient Rome for his explanation. All these claims of god(s) are also claims of objective fact – there really is the Christian god; there really is an animal spirit god; there really is Neptune etc. They are claims about the objects of beliefs. They are claims of objectively true entities.   

What you did though was to flag the effect of environment on subjective responses (tastes and preferences) to objectively true phenomena (tea, music etc). The statement “I prefer coffee to tea” is a claim of the subjective, but it’s not a claim about the objective fact of tea or coffee.

And that was your category error.           

There are various christian ideas about the gods Plural They exist but are demons through to they are human expressions and ideas of divinity.
Then there is an atheist version where all gods and God are equal and in competition with each other resulting in the atheist being so spoilt for choice not only can he or she not make a choice but it proves somehow that none of them exist. Although they will probably not be able to explain such a position.

[ProfessorDavey]

Anecdote a go-go.

That's why you need to do proper research to determine the actual facts rather than selected anecdotes. The data I know best are for christian denominations - I'll look up islam but give that their numbers are pretty small anyhow in the UK, I cannot see how their figures are likely to move the overall data much.

So for christianity in the UK, typically less than 1% of current adherents have 'converted' from a non-christian religion of their upbringing. There is some church amongst various christian denominations, but someone brought up non-christian becoming a christian as an adult is actually rarer than someone brought up in a non religious household becoming religious as an adult.

Ok - the information I'm pulling up about the numbers of converts to islam in the UK (this will be from both other religions and non religious backgrounds) is approx. 100,000. Given that the muslim population of England and Wales (and assuming all these converts are in England and Wales!) then that means 2.6% of current muslims in the UK (or England and Wales!) are converts - in other words not brought up muslim. So in the same ball park as other religions and I think 2.6% comfortable fits my terminology of rare.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I am not talking of theists or any specific belief. I am talking about a general and secular faith about some form of hidden intelligence that is working behind the scenes in our lives and in the entire environment. Refer to my thread on 'Faith'.

This basic 'faith' could later get translated into religious belief ....which is a different matter.

But you still have the problem of establishing that this faith in "some form of hidden intelligence that is working behind the scenes in our lives and in the entire environment" also has some basis in fact. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There are various christian ideas about the gods Plural They exist but are demons through to they are human expressions and ideas of divinity.

Sorry, but what exist – the “various christian ideas about the gods Plural” part or the “demons” part?

If the former, no doubt; if the latter though, you would justify that remarkable claim how? 

Then there is an atheist version where all gods and God are equal…

Epistemically, yes…

…and in competition with each other…

No necessarily – some religions have pantheons of gods functioning harmoniously.

…resulting in the atheist being so spoilt for choice not only can he or she not make a choice but it proves somehow that none of them exist.

(Yet another) straw man. First, as a general statement atheists don’t claim to “prove” that gods don’t exist. Second, the fact of claims about a multiplicity of possible gods is not the reason atheists in general don’t believe in any of them: it’s the paucity of evidence for any of them that justifies that.     

Although they will probably not be able to explain such a position.

That’s right – but only because no atheist is obliged to explain a position that you’ve just straw manned into existence. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This is obvious VG...  Why would a stubborn born blind man accept the existence of light entirely on someones explanations? How can any  sound or vibration of any instrument (activated by light) convince him that light exists?  He has to accept all this on faith.  There is no way he can experience light by himself directly.

Light might not be able to be converted to electrical impulses by his eyes to his brain, but understanding what someone means by "light" won't just be based on someone else's words alone. Those explanations are backed up by data and instruments to record the data to form theories about light's properties that can be used to make predictions that can be tested. People who aren't blind can see the data and evidence. That isn't to say that everyone will see the same thing. As this article on the perceived colour of a dress explains, perception is inherently idiosyncratic - hence the dress might look white and gold to some people and black and blue to others. https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2617976

In contrast your interpretations of patterns detected by your sub-conscious can only be experienced by you. There is no method of gathering data on what the patterns are evidence for or any predictions that can be tested.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Given the number of people I personally know who have changed religion…

Just out of interest, have you ever known someone who changed to a religion about which they didn’t already have an internal library of information? Has any Christian or Muslim you know of woken up one day converted to the Inca gods (or vice versa) for example, and better yet woken up suddenly possessed of lots of information about them too?     

[Maeght]

It is very clear that atheists lack a certain ability for subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment. It is like born blind people denying the existence of light.

Believers are able to discern these patterns and are able to even discern the presence of higher levels of consciousness within themselves. How they interpret or imagine these experiences is related to their culture and religious background.

You are assuming that the patterns are there and have significance rather than are just a faulty interpretation.