An observation about Religion....

[KaneKungFu123]

People tend to have the same religion as their parents.

Another observation:

Religous people dont like to admit this to be true.

[BZ_Zorro]

So true.

How many Christians suddenly became Muslims/Hindus/Paganists/whatever because "God spoke to them"?

How many Muslims suddenly became Christians/Hindus/Spiritualists/Hindus/Dreamtime warriors because "Krishna spoke to them".

Hell, how many Catholics became Protestants or Jehovah's witnesses because of the inherent truth in that version, or vice versa?

It's a fing joke.

Religion is a disease, you catch it from your parents, your friends and your neighbours. The cure is critical thought and plenty of fresh air.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
People tend to have the same religion as their parents.

Another observation:

Religous people dont like to admit this to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

its called ethnocentrism and social anthropologist are highly aware of this phenominal trend.

[David Sklansky]

That's been mentioned a lot. Here's one that hasn't. Many of the most vociferous defenders of their faith on this forum are quick to admit that the vast majority of those who share their sect are uninformed about it. And that these uninformed brothers would therefore not be able to refute my anti religion arguments. In fact without my having all the "information" most don't even blame me for my disbelief. In other words my disbelief is reasonable, given my lack of study.

But that attitude indicates that most of those who share their belief do so for no good reason. Perhaps mainly because of the influence from their parents, as the OP stated, rather than through any kind of studying or critical thought. But people like that aren't really believers then. At least not the kind that you would expect God to welcome. They are like the people who voted for Clinton because he was more handsome than Dole. Surely Clinton has contempt for them.

But this means that the true believers of any religion mentioned is only a small fraction of the number who claim that religion. So we can't say that anywhere near even 20% of the world are say Catholics (or whatever). Put another way, all informed religious people think an awful small fraction of the world is pleasing God at all concerning religious beliefs.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
Put another way, all informed religious people think an awful small fraction of the world is pleasing God at all concerning religious beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

But so what? As Orwell said, sanity is not statistical.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps mainly because of the influence from their parents, as the OP stated, rather than through any kind of studying or critical thought. But people like that aren't really believers then.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is simply not true. While they may lack intellectual rigor in their beliefs, God says faith is enough and furthermore, in the Catholic faith we understand the Church as the teacher and holder of the lessons of Jesus. For many people that is enough. Obviously you have some disdain for people dont truly understand something they learn. But the fact is that is a fact of how people learn. We dont have time to intellectually explore everything we are taught. Sometimes we have to take it on "faith" that the teacher is teaching us correctly. I suspect that is what many people on the poker forums do when they read one of your posts on poker or math. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Also you are making huge assumptions about what God might find pleasing in a believer. Have you been on the phone with Him? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[KaneKungFu123]

The people who take the line you mentioned are always the ones who never take a stand. They just float all of your questions with answers like:

"Well God is complicated and we can never fully understand his plans...then they make some quotes from the bible... And then they answer Yes and No to your question..."

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps mainly because of the influence from their parents, as the OP stated, rather than through any kind of studying or critical thought. But people like that aren't really believers then.

[/ QUOTE ]

God says faith is enough

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to go on the record now and say that I believe in God. (just incase i kill anyone before I die).

[fluxrad]

As Stephen Roberts said:

"I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Idunno - I just thought it was mildly relevant to the conversation.

[David Sklansky]

"We dont have time to intellectually explore everything we are taught. Sometimes we have to take it on "faith" that the teacher is teaching us correctly. I suspect that is what many people on the poker forums do when they read one of your posts on poker or math."

Sorry, but the above is simply terrible stuff. Notice for one that you are in essence agreeing with the OP that people choose their religion purely because of the happenstance of their parent's religion. Knowing full well that other children are choosing other religions because their parents share it.

Put another way how can anyone take on "faith that their teacher is teaching them correctly" when they know the subject they are learning is taught so many different ways around the world? And that if they happenned to live elsewhere a different teacher would be teaching them something else. Maybe something completely different. (Bet even Not Ready agrees with my point though he is cringing.)

As for those who take my poker advice on faith, firstly I strongly discourage that. That's why I almost always give reasons that they should be able to follow. Secondly, the analogy is totally flawed because I am a recognized expert, few things I say are seriously disputed, and those who take me on faith can choose anytime they want to stop doing that by checking me out more thoroughly (Through poker results, doing the math, or even asking other recognized experts.) You can't do any of that with your religion teacher.

Meanwhile your comment that some people may only have time to intellectually explore only some of the things they are taught leads natuarally to the question "Shouldn't this be one of those subjects?"

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but the above is simply terrible stuff. Notice for one that you are in essence agreeing with the OP that people choose their religion purely because of the happenstance of their parent's religion. Knowing full well that other children are choosing other religions because their parents share it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldnt I agree with that? Its obviously true much of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
Put another way how can anyone take on "faith that their teacher is teaching them correctly" when they know the subject they are learning is taught so many different ways around the world? And that if they happenned to live elsewhere a different teacher would be teaching them something else. Maybe something completely different. (Bet even Not Ready agrees with my point though he is cringing.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in my own case the Church's lineage can be traced directly back to its founder, who charged his apostles to continue his message. Therefore the leaders of the Church are "recognized experts".

At any rate, my main points were that sometimes we do learn things by believing the things experts tell us. May not always be completely correct, but thats a fact. Secondly, youre assumption that God would somehow not be pleased with believers who didnt have intellectual understanding of the theological details of the Church.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile your comment that some people may only have time to intellectually explore only some of the things they are taught leads natuarally to the question "Shouldn't this be one of those subjects?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont completely disagree with you here. But given that the basic messages of the Church and God arent that hard to comprehend, I dont have too much of a problem with people who accept these basic messages on faith alone.

[Steve00007]

[ QUOTE ]
People tend to have the same religion as their parents.

Another observation:

Religous people dont like to admit this to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit that it's true. It doesn't tell us much of anything.

[Steve00007]

[ QUOTE ]
That's been mentioned a lot. Here's one that hasn't. Many of the most vociferous defenders of their faith on this forum are quick to admit that the vast majority of those who share their sect are uninformed about it. And that these uninformed brothers would therefore not be able to refute my anti religion arguments. In fact without my having all the "information" most don't even blame me for my disbelief. In other words my disbelief is reasonable, given my lack of study.

But that attitude indicates that most of those who share their belief do so for no good reason. Perhaps mainly because of the influence from their parents, as the OP stated, rather than through any kind of studying or critical thought. But people like that aren't really believers then. At least not the kind that you would expect God to welcome. They are like the people who voted for Clinton because he was more handsome than Dole. Surely Clinton has contempt for them.

But this means that the true believers of any religion mentioned is only a small fraction of the number who claim that religion. So we can't say that anywhere near even 20% of the world are say Catholics (or whatever). Put another way, all informed religious people think an awful small fraction of the world is pleasing God at all concerning religious beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think God can be very welcoming of believers, even if they don't possess a single good reason for their belief. If God exists, then things such as the thoughts, deeds, and the heart of a person are far more important than reasons for belief IMO. If a badly supported belief in God causes a person to do great deeds, for example, then I think God would be quite likely to welcome that person, especially if he is a loving God. In short, God is likely to look at the whole picture of a person, and not just one particular thing. Some people are not critical thinkers, and they may even be stupid, but that doesn't mean they should be rejected by God.

In your analogy, I'm not even convinced that Clinton would feel contempt for those people. He may be indifferent to why those people voted for him. Moreover, Clinton doesn't know nearly as much about those people as God does about the people who believe in him for no good reason. Unlike God, Clinton doesn't know what's in our heart, he doesn't know every one of our deeds, and he doesn't know all of our thoughts. In other words, even if Clinton feels contempt for those people, he feels that way based on a very limited amount of information. The same cannot be true for God.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
As Stephen Roberts said:

"I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."


[/ QUOTE ]

The thing about this quote is that the belief in the existence of one god precludes the existence of other gods, if you want to believe that the god is omnipotent.

[fluxrad]

But why that god? Why not Vishnu, or Brahmen, or Zeus?

I think you misunderstand the point of the quote.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
But why that god? Why not Vishnu, or Brahmen, or Zeus?

I think you misunderstand the point of the quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think you misunderstand it. Asking why that god is a completely different question to asking why one doesn't believe in any god.

The point is, once you chose to believe in one omnipotent deity, this means you cannot believe in any other deity. So the reason that Stephen Roberts dismisses gods that he does not believe in is not at all the same reason that monotheists dismiss all gods other than their own.

[fluxrad]

Why do believers, then, dismiss all other gods?

Why do mormons belive in one god and dismiss all others?
Why do wiccans believe in another set of gods and dismiss all others?
Why do krishnas do the same?

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do believers, then, dismiss all other gods?

Why do mormons belive in one god and dismiss all others?
Why do wiccans believe in another set of gods and dismiss all others?
Why do krishnas do the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

I already explained this in both of the last posts that I replied to you with. Note that I was only talking about monotheists who believe in an omnipotent deity.

I'll try to elaborate. The point is, if a god is all-powerful then by definition there can only be one god because the existence of two omnipotent gods is impossible as the power of each would be limited by the other. So once someone chooses to believe in one omnipotent god, this is a very valid reason for not believing in any other gods.

This is why an athiest can't claim for the same reason as a monotheist not to believe in other gods.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll admit that it's true. It doesn't tell us much of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that a joke or are you serious?

[Steve00007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll admit that it's true. It doesn't tell us much of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that a joke or are you serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm totally serious.

[scarr]

Religion is but one belief we get from our parents. There are many others, like you need to make money to survive, or follow the rules and you will be OK.

Beliefs come from those you trust. It's an idea planted in your head by someone you trust.

I don't know what the OP implied by stating his observations about religion, but obviously he is attacking the religious people. First on the grounds that they (religious people) don't like the idea that a religion is so easily passed on from their parents. This concept is not liked by religious people because it seems to be-little the omnipotence taught by most religions. Second, stating that people tend to have the same religion as their parents, seems to imply that religion is weekly based on beliefs obtained when a person was only a child. Therefore placing religion of any kind on shaky ground.

The idea that beliefs are obtained from your parents is discussed thoroughly in the book "Thought Contagion" by Aaron Lynch. This book expounds upon the idea (recursive warning!) of memes first invented by Richard Dawkins in the book "The Selfish Gene".

Clearly the parents are at an advantage when it comes to propogating a belief system to their children. They have the trust, the environment, and the communication. Hi-fidelity idea copying for sure.

And for those who didn't "get" the religion idea from your parents, checkout "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. There you will see how the other beliefs from your parents (mentioned above) are flawed also.

-scarr

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do believers, then, dismiss all other gods?

Why do mormons belive in one god and dismiss all others?
Why do wiccans believe in another set of gods and dismiss all others?
Why do krishnas do the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

I already explained this in both of the last posts that I replied to you with. Note that I was only talking about monotheists who believe in an omnipotent deity.

I'll try to elaborate. The point is, if a god is all-powerful then by definition there can only be one god because the existence of two omnipotent gods is impossible as the power of each would be limited by the other. So once someone chooses to believe in one omnipotent god, this is a very valid reason for not believing in any other gods.

This is why an athiest can't claim for the same reason as a monotheist not to believe in other gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe his point isn't the one you address. He isn't asking why do christians believe in their god and no others. It's why do christians choose their god to believe in instead of others. They are free to choose only one, but why must it be one particular god?

[David Sklansky]

"Well in my own case the Church's lineage can be traced directly back to its founder, who charged his apostles to continue his message. Therefore the leaders of the Church are "recognized experts"."

Of course they're not. Not in the way that I obviously meant it. Namely someone who the great majority of students on the subject believe will almost always give you the correct answer (if he does answer). Because there are so many religions, along with so many disbeleivers there can be no recognized expert on the subject of "which religion is accurate". That is an indisputable fact that almost eveyone realizes.

So getting back to my point. How can it be reasonable for someone to take on "faith" the answers given by their teacher when they know full well that at least 80% of the other teachers out there will tell them something different. This is especially true when their original choice of a teacher was almost certainly based on chance (their parents and where they lived) rather than through any more discerning criteria.

On a slightly different note, allow me to point out that if you don't admit my point you are actually hurting your own (and even more so Not Ready's) case. You see in your zeal to forgive Christians who believe in their religion almost solely because they trust the teacher thrust upon them by circumstances beyond their control, you didn't think about the fact that your stance means you must feel the same way about all the OTHER RELIGIONS. If it is OK to accept a teacher on faith just because he seems knowledgeble and your parents tell you to, how can you possibly ascribe any blame to those who, because of their faith in their teacher, believe other than you do? Only if you think it is incumbant on people to look at more of the details of their own and other religions (and also, of course, think that if they do, they will choose yours) can it be fair in any sense of the word to expect people born into another religion or in a country permeated by that religion, to come to your religion.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
But that attitude indicates that most of those who share their belief do so for no good reason. Perhaps mainly because of the influence from their parents, as the OP stated, rather than through any kind of studying or critical thought. But people like that aren't really believers then. At least not the kind that you would expect God to welcome. They are like the people who voted for Clinton because he was more handsome than Dole. Surely Clinton has contempt for them.

But this means that the true believers of any religion mentioned is only a small fraction of the number who claim that religion. So we can't say that anywhere near even 20% of the world are say Catholics (or whatever). Put another way, all informed religious people think an awful small fraction of the world is pleasing God at all concerning religious beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence is not required for entry into the kingdom. It's just a nice bonus. Even less important is the ability to articulate one's viewpoints. This is fortunate for many 2+2ers who are either too dumb or too inelegant to elude your traps.