A couple questions for believers

[Binkie The Clown]

I was thinking about this recently, and I wondered what answers I might find to these questions:

1) When did you decide to become a believer?

2) Out of the thousands of gods that have been worshiped over time, what lead you to choose the particular god that you worship over all the other available deities? Why did you reject all of the other deities?

3) Having picked one particular god over all the others, what lead you to choose the particular sect/denomination/form of worship that you chose? Why did you reject all the other alternatives?

[Cartoonist]

1. If they were honest

They would admit it was their parents who chose their religion for them. It was their parents and inner circle who applied the brainwashing and indoctrination that made it difficult for them to make their own choice.

[Binkie The Clown]

3. When I was a kid I asked my father "Why am I a Catholic?"

My father was always very good with straight answers. He said "Because you were born into a good Catholic family. If you had been born into a Hindu family you'd be a good Hindu right now."

Even at seven or eight years old it occurred to me to wonder if "faith" was really as accidental as that. My conclusion was that it was, indeed, accidental. For a while I became a Mormon, and I could literally feel the strength of faith surging through my body. It was tangible and powerful. Just as tangible and powerful as the faith I had felt as a Catholic taking first communion. Later I dabbled in Buddhism, Theosophy, Christian Science, and various "new age" religions. In each case I felt the tangible strength of that faith surging through my body. That's when it dawned on me that "faith" is a psychological phenomenon, unrelated to the object of that faith. Therefore, to use the strength of faith as a gauge of the truth of the thing believed was utter nonsense. My faith in several mutually incompatible things had been equally strong at the time.

I suspect that those who experience strong faith in their particular god/religion have never felt that equally strong sense of faith for some other god/religion. And because of that lack of experience with the unreliability of faith as a measure of truth, they accept that their faith must mean that what they have faith in must be true. They forget that believers in other gods and other religions have faith every bit as strong as their own. I'm sure the ancient Romans had faith in their own gods that felt the same to them as the faith of today's true believers.

[Chemisse]

53. That's an important point, particularly in terms of religious tolerance.

If people of all religions are feeling the same kind of powerful energy, which is then attributed to the deity of choice, then as believers, they need to accept that they are all tapping into the same energy, and that the particular religion is just window dressing.

[cbayer]

56. I really like the way you put that.

If a god existed, it could be the same elephant, everyone is just seeing it from a different perspective or not seeing it at all.

The specific religion is just the window dressing.

Nice to see you around, Chemisse.

[cbayer]

5. Did your parents choose atheism for you?

If not, how in the world were you able to make your own choice after all that brainwashing and indoctrination?

Oh, by the way, about 50% of people change their religion during their lifetime. It's dishonest to state otherwise.

[Cartoonist]

9. They sent me to parochial school

It took me several hard years of self doubt to overcome the brainwashing. Many of my classmates were unable to escape.

[cbayer]

11. So, it's quite possible for people to overcome the "brainwashing" then.

As 50% of people change religions at some point, it seems like it might not be that hard at all when it comes down to it.

Brainwashing may be what you experienced, but your experience does not reflect the experience of others and there is absolutely no data to back up your use of that term to describe what goes on for the most part.

Your poor, poor classmates. Are they writhing masses of agony that are barely making it in life? Or are they fairly happy and healthy individuals who just happen to have stayed with their religion?

Data would support the second.

Your take on religion is becoming almost, well, religious.

[Cartoonist]

13. 50%?

Changing from one brand of Christianity to another is not a change. Changing from one God to another God is not change.

[hrmjustin]

14. Oh?

[Cartoonist]

18. Yeah

Your conversion is a sideways shift. Jesus is still your savior. Net change: 0

[hrmjustin]

21. Well it was a change to me.

[Cartoonist]

25. Like changing a shirt

Big Deal.

[hrmjustin]

26. Oh really?

How the hell do you know anything about my life?

You don't!

It was not as easy as you make it out to be. I did get flack from some family members.

[cbayer]

28. Wow. This is really low.

You don't know anything about justin or what he has done or been through.

Maybe yours is the change that was like changing a shirt. Going from what you describe as one brainwashing, indoctrinating belief system right into the arms of another.

Big Deal.

[enki23]

29. This was alerted on. Because that's how the godly roll, I guess.

Jesus means you will never have to feel shame. Or be able to, apparently.

[hrmjustin]

30. For your information I did not alert.

And the "Godly" are not the only ones who alert!

[enki23]

31. Update. Hide failed (obviously) but only 4-3.

Three people voted to hide this. My effing god, these people are pathetic.

[hrmjustin]

33. "these people"?

[cbayer]

35. Yeah, you know. Those pathetic godly people who are incapable of feeling any shame

because they believe in Jesus and avail themselves of the alert system or vote how they feel when called to a jury.

Those people.

[hrmjustin]

36. Have we no shame!

How dare we have opinions!

[cbayer]

38. Imagine this.

Someone alerts on your post and someone on the jury comes in and makes the following comments:

"Someone alerted on this post, because that's how the godless roll, I guess.

Atheism means you will never have to feel shame. Or be able to, apparently.

Update. Hide failed (obviously) but only 4-3.

Three people voted to hide this. My effing god, these people are pathetic."

What? You can't imagine it? That's because it wouldn't happen.

[enki23]

43. If they're abusing the jury system, please do.

I guess you don't share this "opinion." But personally, I'd want to know if my fellow travellers were being rules-abusing assholes.

[cbayer]

46. You disagree with the alert. Four out of seven people agree with you.

The other three don't. That is hardly an indication of abuse of the jury system.

Some of your fellow travelers are rules-abusing assholes, but that has nothing to do with whether they are religious or not.

You don't even know who sent this alert, but I would suggest something here. There are some atheists that don't like this kind of religion bashing and would like to see it stop. One of them might have sent the alert.

I didn't send it, by the way, but I certainly had the right to if I wanted.

[enki23]

50. There was nothing even vaguely against the rules in that post.

It should never have been alerted. Failing that, it should never have had three people voting to hide it. Why, in holy fucking hell, do you feel so smugly justified in pretending this swing-vote bullshit was okay because I was picked instead of another one of you all?

It's not a fucking opinion poll. It's a micro-exercise in jurisprudence. Jury nullification should not be used to convict someone who can't even have any actual charges leveled. Juries don't exist to make sure innocent people can be convicted anyway, so long as over half the jury doesn't like them. The entire fucking point of juries, at least in the real world, is for exactly the opposite fucking reason.

I am absolutely gobsmacked that you feel you have a goddamned leg to stand on in this.

[cbayer]

51. This seems to be terribly difficult for you, but not everyone shares your POV.

You are not the final arbiter of what should or should not be alerted nor of how people should vote.

Who is this "you-all" you refer to?

If you don't like the way the jury system works, take it up with the admins of the site. Your tantrum about this is really over the top.

I am absolutely gobsmacked that you feel you have a legitimate complaint here. The system actually worked exactly as you had hoped…. except for that part where not everyone agreed with you.

But, as I said, that seems to be a terribly difficult thing.

[okasha]

58. As a member of the jury, you saw the alerter's comment.

Care to share?

[pinto]

67. You realize that juries are a randomly selected group of 7 DU members, right? There's no conspiracy.

(aside) I find this assumption of some nefarious alert / jury activity pretty pointless. There's no there there. Just my 2 cents and I've no interest in further discussion about this. ATA may be a good option for some feedback to your concerns about the alert / jury system -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259

[okasha]

41. None, my dear. None.

[enki23]

42. Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

In a sub-thread where you and yours are being criticized for abusing the jury system, you seem to believe criticism of that activity is actually criticism of your right to "have opinions."

That's... yeah. At least you're consistent.

[hrmjustin]

45. Three jury members did not consider it abuse.

You can say what you want but you should expect pushback. I do when I post here.

And I remind you I did not alert but the alerter alerted in good faith imho. We can disagree on that just like the jury did according to you.

[cbayer]

48. You and yours? Who in the world are you talking about?

43% of the jury pool apparently didn't think this was abuse, and you are most certainly saying that the person who felt this was avertable and those that agreed don't have a right to have opinions.

You've claimed that they are abusing the jury system and are rule abusing assholes, just because their opinion is different than yours.

[enki23]

47. Vote how they "feel?" Jury nullification isn't cute when it's used in reverse.

"Well, it's not against the rules... but I don't like him. So fuck him."

Anyone who is okay with that is an asshole.

[cbayer]

49. If 4/8 people (the alerter and the 3 concurring jury members) are all doing it because they

don't like you, you have a serious problem.

However, that is not the case. They alerted and voted on what they thought was right.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. Isn't this a fun forum?

Religious privilege runs very deep here.

[cbayer]

16. Yes, it is a change.

Going form a Mormon to a Jehovahs Witness to a Catholic is a change and completely defies your claims about brainwashing and indoctrination.

So the only religious change that counts is going from a believer to a non-believer?

What you are presenting is as dogmatic as any religion.

[Cartoonist]

19. Jesus is the constant in all your examples

Keep trying to make a point. Someday you may succeed.

[cbayer]

20. "Keep trying to make a point. Someday you may succeed."

I accept your surrender.

<<<<<<- you

[Cartoonist]

24. You are running away again

Like I said, your arguments are empty. When you can't support your statements, you declare victory. You must have plenty of imaginary trophies.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. All three of those faiths are abrahamic, so no I agree with cartoonist, its like changing your shirt

Still a shirt.

The leap from an Abrahamic faith to no faith, or from an Abrahamic faith to a polytheistic faith is MUCH greater than jumping from one manifestation to another of the same single god. All three are Christians. They just differ on the fine print, and the manner of the pomp and circumstance in worship.

[okasha]

39. Because the Assembly of God and Hinduism are just alike.

Really, Toons, one of your sillier posts.

One more today, and you'll hit the trifecta.

[Cartoonist]

44. A belief in a sentient being

that meddles in the affairs of humanity Is one form of religion. Please forgive me for seeing no difference. I see it as the difference between a Cubs fan and a Yankees fan.

[okasha]

52. And that makes three!

He did it! By god, he did it!



(My apologies to Lerner and Lowe.)

[Cartoonist]

63. You see things differently

So?

[AtheistCrusader]

75. In this case, since the offered examples are all christians, it's more like switching from coke to p

epsi. Still a cola.

[Cartoonist]

82. I still prefer the baseball analogy.

Each sect has their own gods. The Yankees have Ruth, Berra, and Mantle, while the Cubs have Banks and Santo. They also wear different garb and have their own temple.

[skepticscott]

68. Just above you claimed that all religions are the same

So your claim that 50% of people "change religions" makes no sense at all, does it?

[LostOne4Ever]

61. 50% of people change their religion during their lifetime

Is this including intra-religion changes?

Almost everyone I know is Christian of some kind. While I know a great many of them have changed denominations (some even calling it shopping for a church) I don't know a single person (other than me) who has switched to a non-Xtian sect.

Catholic to protestant. Lutheran to Church of Christ. Baptist to Mormon. Presbyterian to Catholic. All these things I know and have seen.

Catholic to Shia Islam? Baptist to Hindu? Pentecostal to shinto? Protestant to Wicca?

I don't know anyone who has made these changes. I would think with a 50% I would know a ton of people who have done that.

[cbayer]

64. That number comes from longitudinal PEW study that looked primarily at

Catholics, Protestants and the unaffiliated in the US, as those are the biggest groups.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux/

Some of the movement is from one major group to another and some of it is inter-demoninational. There is significant movement from affiliated and unaffiliated and vice versa.

So some of the changes are significant while others may be relatively minor. The paper is very long and I haven't read the whole thing.

Because the numbers are small, I think it's harder to get data on Muslims, Hindus, shinto and Wicca in these kinds of studies.

But I brought it up primarily to say that what you are raised in isn't necessarily what you stay with and that a significant number of people make a change, despite the histrionics about brainwashing and indoctrination.

I would love to see data that was more inclusive and encourage you to look for it if you are interested.

I wasn't able to find it.

[LostOne4Ever]

69. Thanks for the link.

When I hear "change their religion" I think it means changed religions entirely, not simply going from one denomination to another. That is why I was surprised by your statistic and asked you about it.

Going by the chart at the start (cause it is a long read and I fully understand not wanting to read it all) those who are unaffiliated and changed made up about 4% of Americans.

The Christian and non-Christian change data seems more nebulous. The link says that not counting people who change from the same religious tradition the number of people who change faiths is around 28% of the population. However, they seem to be treating Catholicism and Protestantism as different religions and I have a feeling that they would treat Mormonism similarly.

Given that these are all types of Christian I have a feeling that once you take that out, the number people leaving their religion as a whole is much lower than that. Which would be far more in-line with my experiences.

Regardless, it is interesting. Thanks again.



*PS:
I find it striking that they include Catholics who become protestants but not protestants who become Catholics. Maybe as an unaffiliated who is also a former Catholic I am biased, but I can't help but find that omission rather jarring.

**PPS: I know I said I would not use my fonts when replying to you but would it be okay to post in a bigger letter size? [font size=4]I think that makes it easier to read[/font] but if you don't like that I won't do it.

[cbayer]

93. Glad you had the opportunity to look at it.

I agree that there are some major flaws, but, again, I just wanted to point out that people do change.

Just anecdotally, I was completely immersed in a protestant church as a child. I went through multiple religious phases in my life, including Judaism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Paganism and some kind of euphoric rebirth while reading Carlos Castaneda (lol).

Now, I'm a nothing, but I incorporated something from all of them, and feel they were all of value.

I appreciate your not using the fonts and don't mind a bigger letter size at all.

[hrmjustin]

2. I was raised in a in name only Catholic family but was sent to Catholic Grammar school.

I was an Altar Boy starting at 11 and decided to stick with it into HS.

I came out of the closet at 15 years old and decided 17 to look for another church.

I found an Episcopal Church I liked and was received by the local bishop. I have going to the same parish since.

[Binkie The Clown]

7. I, too, left the Catholic church to explore alternatives.

For me, I was looking for meaning. I'm not much of a socializer. I have a handful of close friends and relatives I hang out with, but in most cases, the churches I tried out were more about social life than spirituality.

In the end, I decided that spirituality means finding meaning in life, and that in the end, we all make our own meaning. So for me, spirituality ended up being synonymous with searching for truth, and the most reliable tools I found for that were logical thought and the scientific method. So as odd as it might sound, my need for meaning is fulfilled by reason, and my need for deeper spirituality is amply satisfied by philosophical speculation. I'm just careful to always label my speculations as speculations which are not to be confused with "truth" or "meaning".

In that vein, I speculate that there might exist some kind of "god" in some narrow sense of the world. Some kind of "cosmic consciousness" for example. It's not likely that such a consciousness created the universe, and so that kind of "god" is not a creator god, but an epiphenomenon of matter and energy itself. (or perhaps information/consciousness, like space/time and matter/energy, is elemental and eternal) It's more the kind of "god" that Captain Kirk might have encountered in deep space as a disembodied consciousness.

In the spirit of philosophical speculation I grant that there might be some kind of entity like that. But I don't believe that such an entity exists. Nor do I consider it impossible. Its merely an idle speculation. (To say I don't believe in god is not the same as saying that I DO believe in not-god. I simply have no beliefs one way or the other in the matter.)

[hrmjustin]

8. Thats fine.

I do believe in God and I believe in the Incarnation, ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

[Chemisse]

62. That's pretty similar to me in my questionings over the years.

I wound up - after decades of being an atheist and a lifetime of working with science - becoming a Pagan.

I don't literally believe in lots of gods and goddesses, but I think that there is some collective energy that we are all a part of. I don't really think the energy has an intelligence or a purpose, but I could be wrong.

I spent a lot of time exploring aspects of science, like quantum theory, to try to at least imagine how science could support this belief, and have wound up with an odd mix of science and spirituality that I find satisfying.

[LostOne4Ever]

71. Catholic in name only

My family is the same. As a kid I would always say my family is Catholic, but we just aren't very good at it!

[cbayer]

4. Not a believer, but a few questions back at you.

1) Why do you assume that people choose to be a believer? Did you choose to be a non-believer (assuming you are one)?

2) Why do you assume that the entity described as god over the history of man isn't a single being who has been described or defined differently at different times and by different people?

3) Why do you assume that someone has chosen one particular god over all others, as opposed to just embracing their independently held idea of god?

4) Are you really curious? Truly?

[Binkie The Clown]

10. And some answer back at you

1) I was more hoping to prompt believers to ask themselves whether they choose to be believers, or whether they simply accepted what they were told by family/peers/community.

2) That is a possibility. That implies that whatever "god" is, "religion" is a man-made institution, and as such, should probably not be considered absolutely true or infallible, as some people seem to treat their own chosen religion.

3) I honestly don't think most people give it much thought as far as developing their own independently held idea of god. I believe that it is largely community/peer group pressure that molds what one believes about god.

4) Yes, I truly am curious. So many people over the ages have expressed such strength of faith in so many mutually contradictory versions of gods and goddesses. Having experienced faith myself, and having determined that faith is a poor yardstick of truth, I am very curious about the phenomenon of faith, and how people who have it came to have it. It is said that faith is a "gift" from god. If that's the case (assuming god is real) then those of us who have no faith were not given the gift, so it's not our fault that we have no faith. So in any case, god can't hold anyone accountable for not believing in him (or her, if your god has a vagina rather than a penis).

[cbayer]

12. As to the first question, I ask again.

Why do you assume that believers choose to be believers? Could you choose to be a believer?

I posted above that 50% of people change their religion at some point in their life.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux/

So that says a lot about your assumptions that people just accept what they are told and don't put a lot of thought into developing their own independently held ideas.

As to whether faith is a gift that some of us just didn't get, I think that's possible, but I'm hopeful that we won't be punished for it. But in this alone you make the very strong case for faith/belief not being a choice.

We shall see whether you really are curious or whether you just want to reinforce your own independent position and make the case that religious believers are just mindless sheeple.

I'd take bets if I was a betting person.

[okasha]

15. I'm an occasioal poker player,

and I know where my chips are.

[cbayer]

17. So far, he's doing a pretty good job, to be honest.

I think his responses are thoughtful and respectful.

So I'm going to hedge my bets at this point.

We shall see.

[Binkie The Clown]

37. Based on some of the posts here,

I regret having poked this particular hornet's nest. I do wish people could discuss such important subjects without resorting to name-calling.

I am genuinely interested in people's experiences in finding and/or losing their religion.

As to your asked-again question, I answer again that the question was more meant to provoke thought.

As to people not putting a lot of thought into their religious choices, I wouldn't call it an assumption, but more like an observation. I can't claim a truly random sample, but most of the people I know are pretty indifferent about religion one way or the other, and those who aren't are, for the most part (and with a few exceptions) in the same or similar denomination they were brought up in.

My own position is that I don't really have a position. I would not try to make the case that all religious believers are "mindless sheeple" (A term I wouldn't use myself) but I'm willing to bet that a reasonably large percentage of them haven't really given any deep thought to theology, and fewer still have delved into cross-cultural religious beliefs. To many there are two divisions; "God fearing Christians" and "Heathens". And I'm willing to bet that to most "God-Fearing Christians" the word "theology" is considered to be synonymous with "Bible Study". And without a broader perspective and a better understanding of the choices, one cannot be said to have made an informed choice.

Again, I know, and have known many religious people who are intelligent and thoughtful, and have given these matters much consideration. But they are the exception, not the rule.

[cbayer]

40. I actually think you might be sincere, but there is a history in this group

of similar kinds of posts which really weren't sincere at all.

There are people here that are believers and that are not believers that get along great and have good conversations, but there is also a significant amount of bad blood and your statements about what "a reasonably large percentage of religious believers are" feeds right into it.

And then you double down by saying that religious people that are intelligent and thoughtful are the exception, not the rule.

This does not really support that you want are sincerely interested in what people have to say. It comes off as completely pre-judging them.

[Binkie The Clown]

65. Let me correct myself, then

Like any group of people, about half of religious people are of above average intelligence. I didn't mean to imply that most religious people are not thoughtful. My point was that in my experience most religious people have not given a lot of deep thought to the specific subject of theology. This is not to say that those people are not thoughtful and intelligent in other ways and in other aspects of their lives. They certainly are.

By and large, (again, in my experience) most religious people I know tend to simply take their religion for granted. They don't question it or examine it or search for alternatives. It's simply a part of their life. Just like intelligent, thoughtful people can take their diet for granted, and never question whether they should become a vegan, or follow the paleo diet, or become a zen macrobiotic devotee, or any one of a plethora of dietary alternatives. They just eat what they eat. They just worship in the way they worship. This does not make them unintelligent. Their religion is a water to a fish. Why question what works for you.

Religion didn't work for me, and so I questioned it. (A lot of it probably had to do with physically abusive nuns in the Catholic school that made me doubt that they were "doing God's work" if that meant beating little boys into submission.)

I'm not opposed to the possibility that there may some kind of non-corporeal intelligence (Suppose the Universe is constructed of three kinds of elemental stuff: space/time/ mass/energy and information/consciousness?), and I won't say there is no "after life". (What if those who report near-death experiences are seeing something real?) I won't say there is no soul. (What if the brain is a conduit for consciousness rather than the source?) I don't pretend to have the answers, so how could I push my "answers" on others?

What I will say is that I lack any belief in any particular or specific god or type of god. And most importantly, I lack any faith whatsoever in the human institutions called "religions". The rest I consider to be open questions. So when I say "I do not believe in god." Please don't take that to mean "I DO believe in not-god." The second does not follow from the first. (I sometimes call myself an atheist deist, as if I knew what that means. )

[Warren Stupidity]

87. Just so you know: this poster is not the judge of sincerity here.

And she routinely posts ops that would completely fit her own category of insincerity, and her general pattern of posting can best be described as contentious.

This forum is open for all opinions about religion, good bad and ugly. It is not a safe haven for the religious, even though a set of self appointed hall monitors act as if it is.

[LTX]

89. I think your questions are well worth asking, and indeed have been the focus of much inquiry.

"Faith" is nebulous term. If the process it describes is considered in sufficient breadth (as, say, a process of jumping over current data boundaries to draw causal connections and conclusions), it seems to be an intricate and curiously effective part of the human computer. I tend to agree with the notion that hypothesizing itself is a product of that very process, and that the revolutionary part of the scientific revolution was the institutionalization of both disproof and a willingness to accept disproof following a "faithful" leap.

The problem, it seems to me, is the very "faith" we tend to have in the initial step. "Jumping to a conclusion" is an extraordinarily satisfying event -- almost a drug in itself. We seem congenitally inclined to indulge the gratification that accompanies these "jumps," and ritualistically re-affirming a "jump" seems to have almost as powerful an effect as making a new "jump."

I'm not sure we can escape this ghost-in-the-macine, and I'm inclined to think that doing so would not be in our best interests, despite its consequential downsides. Tempering the "jumps" with methodological (if gnawingly inconclusive) testing appears, at present, to provide the balancing mechanism needed to permit our co-existence with it.

[cbayer]

92. Your experience is anecdotal and you have some serious investigator bias that

very probably colors your perceptions of what "most religious people" you know think about theology.

Have you considered that people may not be comfortable discussing their beliefs with you due to you have some judgmental prejudice against the religious from the get-go?

You have found your own position. It's no more correct or true or thought out than that of others.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Don't let Cbayer badger you out.

You asked good questions. Cbayer attacking other atheists for asking questions like yours is something of a running gag at this point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=170307
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=176970

An interesting form of entertainment for a supposed atheist. (An atheist banned from the Atheists and Agnostics forum, I might add.)

[trotsky]

90. An atheist (someone who doesn't believe in gods, she claims) who refuses the label for herself...

yet eagerly slaps the label of "anti-theist" on anyone she thinks asks too many questions or is too critical of religious belief.

Mind-numbing, head-shaking, eye-blinking hypocrisy.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Ah, another one for the list. Thanks.

[Htom Sirveaux]

6. 1. When I became convinced that God probably existed.

2. Simplicity. Ockham's razor points to a single creator.

3. I'm a Unitarian Universalist because I agree with UU values and because it's a place I don't have to leave if I change my mind on metaphysical issues.

[longship]

23. A rather great response.

Even though I have been a lifelong atheist, and generally despise organized religions, I do not despise those who believe in god(s).

But, of course, nobody could credibly call UU as an organized religion.


Re 2.: Ockham might gladly slice off the one. Certainly a more parsimonious hypothesis.


My best regards. Love your thoughtful and respectful posts.

[Htom Sirveaux]

99. Thank you!

That's so kind of you!

(P.S. I have further comments on my use of the Razor, but I totally understand if you'd rather not continue that as a discussion).

[phil89]

57. Occam is spinning in his grave right now.

What a misuse of the concept.

[okasha]

59. Probably not.

William of Occam was a Catholic monk.

[cbayer]

60. ...

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Who the hell was William of Occam?

(Ockham)

[okasha]

83. As in Occam's Razor.

The simplest explanation that accounts for all the known facts is most likely to be the correct one.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. I know. It's actually Ockham.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam

Dunno why the alternate spelling is ubiquitous. It's a side point. Nothing serious.

[okasha]

85. No standardized spelling before Boswell's dictionary.

Quite possibly Occam used both versions himself. There are a couple dozen or so variants in Walter Raleigh's own signature, let alone how others spelled his name.

[edhopper]

95. you think that

what the known facts about the Universe were to a 12th Century monk should hold true today?

We should abide by what Occam thought at the time, and not use his Razor to see that an intelligent creator deity that existed infinitely before the big bang adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to the origin of the Universe.

Cause he was Catholic.

[okasha]

96. How you got that bullshit

out of my nine-word post is a mystery to me.

[edhopper]

97. It seems

that your attempted retort that Occam's Razor doesn't support an intelligent creator, cause he was Catholic, didn't fly.

Or was there another reason you answered phil89 that he was wrong about it being a misuse of the concept.

[okasha]

98. Again, I have no idea how you got that out of my post

Try just reading the words on the screen without trying to attach a bunch of extraneous crap to them.

[Binkie The Clown]

66. Enough about Occam's razor.

I want to hear something about Occams' aftershave.A close cut deserves a good skin bracer, after all.

[pinto]

22. Some of these discussions revolve around semantics. Choice, truth, meaning, faith, doubt, etc.

Is anything in the human experience, save life and death, an either / or situation? I think not.

Each of us seems to meld them all in various, often individual ways. As with life and death I think we all share one experience. We all swim in the same ocean. How we experience that is probably as numerous as our numbers.

[pangaia]

27. Looks to me like you really have no interest whatsoever

in hearing the answer's other give. So I doubt your questions are serious.
It seems to me you just want people to say something so you can criticize or ridicule them.
So... why bother with the post in the first place?

[Binkie The Clown]

32. No judgement or ridicule from this quarter.

I don't blame you, however, for feeling that you and your beliefs are under attack. Some who call themselves atheists are quite obnoxiously militant about what they belief (while claiming to not believe anything)

For what it's worth, my questions are serious. I am very interested in what William James called "The Varieties of Religious Experience."

I do have a tendency to poke fun at beliefs I find just plain silly, but I try not to get personal or insulting or judge a person for what they choose to believe.

[pangaia]

55. No, you do not have an interest in others.

Proof in the fact that you just assumed something about me when you actually have no way of knowing anything about my beliefs. And so, you accuse me of believing that MY BELIEFS are.. "under attack?" Huh?

Binkie the Clown...

[Binkie The Clown]

72. I assumed. You assumed. Score is a draw.

You said:

Proof in the fact that you just assumed something about me when you actually have no way of knowing anything about my beliefs.

I reply: You just assumed that you know what I'm thinking and what I have no interest in.

So let's call it a draw and move on.

[Leontius]

34. One question too many.

Feel free to delete.

[guillaumeb]

54. what a web of semantics we have here

When we use words like "truth, or "belief" the problem lies in how we define the terms we use.

First, belief: The definition of belief in sociology is the sharing of knowledge ,ideas and common ideas in a group of people.

So when you talk about beliefs are you talking about ideas that people hold in common? Would democracy be a belief, or atheism?

Second, truth: What exactly is truth?
The truth that the sun revolves around the sun?
The truth that all life in contained in male sperm and the female is an incubator?
The truth that the earth is 5886 years old?

And how does belief intersect with truth?

[Booster]

70. Here's a question you'll never get an answer to.

If God is real why hasn't he chosen to add something to the bible in all these years? Seems to me that something must have come up that he might want to comment on.

[okasha]

73. According to the Latter Day Saints, he has.

Next question.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. And yet the rest of the christians in the US don't believe them.

Funny that.

[trotsky]

91. And some of the most self-proclaimed tolerant and civil folks in this group...

openly mock Mormonism. Go figure.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Yeah, I have to have my special pleading filters replaced monthy, and that is

months ahead of the manufacturer's normal service schedule.

[Booster]

80. You're kidding right?

People have been standing on street corners screaming that God is talking to them for ages. I think Joseph Smith was one of those people. Joseph Smith was no different than Franklin Graham or Joel Ollstein, both of whom preach for nothing more than attention and the almighty dollar. Not really a good answer to my question, but you tried. lol

[okasha]

81. Your question was completely open-ended,

and I answered accordingly.

The buried assumption in your question is that Yahweh is literally the author of the Bible. That's the fundamentalist position, and fundamentalists are the ones that could best answer from that position. You won't find many of them here.

The Hebrew Bible became a closed text when it did because 2nd. Century BCE Jews believed that prophecy had ceased. Writings about the text, of course, continued for centuries in the Mishnah, the Talmud and other commentaries.

The New Testament writings that were accepted as canonical are those the compilers believed to have been written either by authors who knew Jesus or who knew one or more of the Apostles. They believed they were limiting the book to first or at most second-hand eyewitness testimony.
That would preclude adding later theological material, as would sheer size limitations.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. There are plenty of religions that claim prophets and revelations

going right down to modern times. Why would you assume that some ancient text would be the beneficiary of the new "wisdom"?