Skepticism

[SSH]

Why don't we stay on topic and a few believers start telling us why they chose to believe in God, if they DID choose consciously, at a mature age, that is. What I'd like to hear from the other believers is whether they think they'd still believe in their god if they were raised in another environment (an African tribe, or a Muslim/Hindustan country), and if not, why not?

Well, googling can easily turn up testimonies of christian converts from islam, Hindu, etc.

[Nacho]

Hehe... I knew the song, Zoot, it' s great. (IMHO, of course...)

And Misj', I don't  get your point... Do you mean that if everybody followed your source should agree with your point?

I don' t think so, BUT, even with that... (next step in my reasoning) How can we recognise that *this* and not the other is the correct source? How can we know, even if we go to the oldest, most reliable version in theory, that there' s not going to appear another older source saying the opposite? We can' t.

If Religion is like that, it' s basically like science, who constantly re-examinates its believes and is able to change them if something different to the  stablished is prooven... But in the other direction. Science looks the PRESENT to see if something from the PAST was wrong. Religion looks the PAST to see if something in the PRESENT is wrong...

And, as much as I can respect hebrew shepperds, I don' t really think that they have much to tell to me...  

SSH: And much more Christians converting to Muslims as well... Do we go now into "The Religion with most converssions" or "The religion with most followers" win? Then, I think Christianism is definitelly losing (Catholisicsm already did):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3653800.ece

[SSH]

SSH: And much more Christians converting to Muslims as well... Do we go now into "The Religion with most converssions" or "The religion with most followers" win? Then, I think Christianism is definitelly losing (Catholisicsm already did):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3653800.ece

Well, Islam becoming the worlds largest religion doesn't mean its getting more converts, necessarily. It may be that more Christians are becoming agnostic, etc. Anyway, the point of those testimonies was to show that it is possible to believe something other than you were brought up with. Khris seemed to be saying that only people with Christian parents became Christians which is patently false. The fact that Christians convert too also proves this point.

[Nacho]

But as you said, individual examples do not work much for assuming something... Some examples googled in the internet do not prove as "patently false" that most of the believers were raised in a spiritual environment (It disproves ALL were, though... A statement I never deffensed, on the other side...)

We should make a world poll to know that: "Which is the percentage of the believers who were raised in a religious envirnment and which is the percentage of the believers who did convert when they were adults".I googled for it and I didn' t get any approppiate entry... If you can find one, I would be pleased if you post it here.

Told that, I just can trust in my perceptions... And that perceptions tell me that the percentage of believers that were raised as believers is very high (All the ones I know, to be honest) and the percentage of converted when adults is very few (None of the ones I know, actually). The range might be a bit limited, but let' s say that I am wrong for how much... 20%, even 30%? Okay, then the percentage of religious raised in a religious environment is 70%. A lot. And assuming that I am 30% wrong (Which is assuming a lot...)

How many of the believers do you know are so because "converted"? Only 20 examples in the internet? Any personal one?

Let' s make a small poll here... SSH, Misj', Miguel, LGM... Were you raised in a religious environment or in a neutral one?

I am quite sure that, the most religious the education was, the most "degree of believing we have"

[Misj']

And Misj', I don't  get your point... Do you mean that if everybody followed your source should agree with your point?

No, I say - and said from the beginning - that everybody is entitled to his or her own interpretation of the data, and that one persons interpretation is not necessarily more rational or logical just because it comes to another conclusion than someone else. This was also reflected in my example of the Jewish idea of 70 interpretations.

If Religion is like that, it' s basically like science, who constantly re-examinates its believes and is able to change them if something different to the  stablished is prooven...

While I do not consider religion a science (neither is mathematics, philosophy, art, technique or medicine...but I should also say that I do not add some extra 'mythical' value to the word science. The scientific approach is not more valid than the philosophical approach...it's just different), there are similarities in that there are developments. Many recent books on religion (by religious people) present a different image than the ones from ten years ago...and many of these books are a lot more critical than most atheists that I've heard/read on religion (because they still seem to think that religion is stuck one to two thousand years ago...which apparently isn't the case if I read those other books). Now I do believe that there is a difference between the institute of religion and religion itself. Because if I read books that are written by institutions I feel that they are - indeed - stuck in some dogma. But the same is not only true for religion...it seems to be a common problem with institutionalization, which is why I think everyone should be sceptical about the institutes (no matter their vision of the world).

But in the other direction. Science looks the PRESENT to see if something from the PAST was wrong. Religion looks the PAST to see if something in the PRESENT is wrong...

Science is a tool to examine the mechanisms of the universe (or in the case of biology of specifically life, and in the case of chemistry specifically interactions between molecules). The scientific approach tries to unravel these mechanisms by means of objective measurements. Nothing more, and nothing less (this is also why the before mentioned subjects are not science...even though they rely on science and science relies on them).

[Nacho]

Okay, Misj', this is how the arguments between you and me go:

M-There are as much interpretations for the bible as readers:

No, I say - and said from the beginning - that everybody is entitled to his or her own interpretation of the data, and that one persons interpretation is not necessarily more rational or logical just because it comes to another conclusion than someone else. This was also reflected in my example of the Jewish idea of 70 interpretations.

N-But then, Bible is invalid as a "manual of morale".
M-But I have a version of the Bible that says that God was punishing Onan not for wasting the seed, but for not wanting to continue his brother' s line. ***(Which is weird, because if Onan pregnants her brother' s wife he shouldn' t be continuing his brother' s line, but Onan' s, but it' s ok...)***
-N: But that has nothing to see with what I said about the Bible validity as a manual of morale... Let me try to know what you are thinking... Do you mean that Bible, if we go to one unique source IS valid as a manual, because everybody should take the same teachings from it?
-M: No; M-There are as much interpretations for the bible as readers:

No, I say - and said from the beginning - that everybody is entitled to his or her own interpretation of the data, and that one persons interpretation is not necessarily more rational or logical just because it comes to another conclusion than someone else. This was also reflected in my example of the Jewish idea of 70 interpretations.

N-But then, Bible is invalid as a "manual of morale"....

And go on till the infinite. I think we should FOCUS in one aspect of the discussion and not "moving sticks" (The chinese equilibrism exercise with sticks and plates... That what you are doing to me...). And those aspects, as far as I remember, are:

-Can bible work as a moral guide if anyone reading it can take completelly different teachings?
-How many believers here were upbrought in a religious environment?

Two yes or noes, and explanations of both replies, thanks...

[SSH]

I am quite sure that, the most religious the education was, the most "degree of believing we have"

But of course most countries in the world have large quantities of religious people in them (especially Spain). Therefore saying "Ahah, most religious people have a religious parent" doesn't prove anything as its actually quite hard to NOT have religious parents. I could just as well say "How many atheists do you know with atheist parents?" Very few? Well, that must prove that having atheist parents makes you religious. Correspondence in numbers does not prove causality. For someone who worships science, you don't seem to know much about the scientific method.

As for different interpretations invalidating the source, the orbits of the planets were interpreted by Newton into Newton's laws. Then Einstein came along an interpreted them differently. The motions of the planets must be invalid! Someone tell Saturn to stop moving in such a stupid way!

Or another analogy: Judges and juries keep interpreting the US constitution in different ways in different states. The whole constitution must be invalid and hence the USA reverts to a British colony...

[Nacho]

Now those countries start to do have large quantities of religious people (Spain, for example). Since they parents were religious, in a degree, or definitelly more religious than kids, we can say that yeah, the less religious you uprise a kid, lesser religious he/she is.

And... Hehe... That' s funny. Why you said "Someone tell Saturn to stop moving in such a stupid way!"

If you said "Mercury", you' ve nailed it. Newton' s theories were inconsistent with Mercury' s movement.

Actually... Einstein proved that Newton was wrong. Newtonian physic do not work under circumpstances of high gravity, like happens in Mercury' s orbit. Newton was never able to explain the weird things Mercury' s orbit was doing.

Newton discovered a consequence of the theory of relativity that worked under most of the circumstances... So, basically, yes... Someone should have told Mercury to stop moving in such stupid way!

EDIT: Yes, American constitution, another good example that you think is going to help your cause, but actually doesn' t. The american constitution is reintepreted by judges everyday. When there are problems of interpretations, the problem raises till the Constitutional Court, which emmits a veredict that must be followed by anyone under the constitution. A veredict that can' t contradict any other paragraph of the constitution, and if it does, constitution is changed. A veredict that is published and publicitated so anyone can follow it. Most of the counties include a referendum if something in the constitution has to be changed.

Do religion do that? I am not sure if it has some kind of equivalent to the Constitutional Court. I guess it has, but I don' t know... There must probably a ecumenical or teological "curia" (I don' t know the English name) which takes the bible and says "Okay guys, let' s focus in this episode... Onan". After years of deliverations, arguments, consults reading different sources they came with something: "That episode means this and this".

And then it comes a difference I really know about religion and Constitution. When the constitutional says something, the message is spread so any judge at any court can know what to do, how to judge and which punishement to apply to those not following the rule. If sames happens with religions, message does not arrive, and, if arrives, most of the believers do not care. "If they say masturbation is bad but I do like it, I will go on doing it... God has an inmense mercy, he will forgive me... and those guys in Rome can be wrong, anyway!" Some priests marry gays. Some others fall in love and get married (Yeah, renouncing to go on being priests, because they can't go on being it, but doing something seen as a "sin" anyway...). Some others can even get annoyed with the central authority, nail 95 thesis in a door an start their own interpretation of religion... Yeah... all very simillar to the american judicial system...

[Misj']

Well...our argumentation is slightly different in my opinion:

M - There are more interpretations possible of a verse, and - as long as they are (honestly) based on that verse - these interpretations are equally valid (and rational, and logical). The same is true for any text, whether religious or not. --> The Jewish argument of 70 explanations of every verse.
N - But then, the Bible is invalid as a 'manual of morale'.
M - No, because multiple interpretations keep the discussion alive and therefore - in this case - religion alive. --> The Karaite argument against intolerance (The reason for this tolerance is that we know that it is more important to do the right and moral thing than to do the same thing as everyone else.)
N - But if there are multiple interpretations than you cannot know which is the truth, so that makes the Bible invalid as a 'manual of morale'.
M - No, because if life is not black and white, then a manual of morale shouldn't be either.
N - But if it isn't black or white than you can find arguments for whatever you want, and then the Bible is not valid as a 'manual of morale'.

And that brings us back to Do do do do (to reference the Sound of Music).

Sure, the bible - or any book for that matter - can be misused is someone wants to. And that is - of course - a big weakness of (non)religious people who are not sceptical. But on the other hand, that does not - by definition - make the bible invalid as a moral guide. I know enough theists and atheists who have misused what they claim to be science to serve their own purpose. But that doesn't mean that science is invalid because of this. It just means that if someone is telling you something you have to be sceptical.

And that brings us back to the subject of this thread: rationality, logic, and scepticism.

***(Which is weird, because if Onan pregnants her brother' s wife he shouldn' t be continuing his brother' s line, but Onan' s, but it' s ok...)***

This is still a nice example on sceptic reading of a text. You argument here makes sense: it is illogical that it would be his brother's line. Which means that I have to have a good argument for the interpretation. So I sceptically looked at the Hebrew word yabam, which is translated as levirate (= to marry a (deceased) brother's widow), and looked for other occurrences, which I only found in Deuteronomy 25:5-9 (as I mentioned earlier), where it says in verse 6: "And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel". So yes, it may be weird, and no, it's not my cup of tea. But based on the text it's a valid explanation, because that is what the text is (from an objective point of view) about. The fact that you did not know Deuteronomy 25:6 (even though I specifically mentioned it) is poor fact-checking...and it does make me wonder whether this is a general flaw or not.

Ps. I must add that I do not know many atheists where I work. Lot's of agnostics (they don't know whether or not there is a God, and - frankly - don't really care either), some religious people (Christians, Hindu, Muslim), and only one whom I know to be an atheist (although not to extremes). I've had discussions will all of them, and I have disagreed will all of them (and agreed with some at times). I have defended either side in the past, depending on the best angle for a discussion. In this thread the best angle for discussion was to see whether logic, scepticism, and rationale can be part of researching a religious text or not. I approached this angle objectively, and presented only knowledge, not believe. From that objective point of view I can only conclude that I see no reason why 'Bible literalism is irrational or illogical', even though I may not agree with their conclusions. Objectivity is - however - the key. And I believe (no pun intended) that I've managed to remain objective thus far (concerning this problem).

[Nacho]

So, my friend, my interpretation of what you mean is that Bible finally is a drum to amp your original moral... Then, why using it? Why not going to the original source of moral (yourself).

I do.

And if you believe that my moral is as good than yours, you must recognise that Bible does not work better than not using it.

If you think that your morale is better than mine, then, we are going back to the one of my biggest compliments about religion: Many religious people think they are superior. Quite annoying, to be honest.

Still... moving sticks: SSH and Misj'. Can I ask you about your religious educaction? Were you bred into a religious environment or not?

[Sam.]

SSH was bred in captivity.

[Misj']

Apparently my words are still considered a reflection of my personal believes, so in order to create a more obvious distance, I'll start talking in the third person.

So, my friend, my interpretation of what you mean is that Bible finally is a drum to amp your original moral... Then, why using it? Why not going to the original source of moral (yourself).

I do.

But a religious person would answer you by saying that the source of moral is God (since - according to this religious person - God is the source of everything). He might then continue to say that God placed this morale inside of people, and therefore that your internal morale is a reflection of God's morale. Whether this reflection is a correct or a disrupted reflection is then the question, and that is one that can only be answered by critically going to the source (God). He - the religious person - will then tell you that the easiest way to look at the source is via the Bible (if the religious person is a Christian. if he's a Jew he will say the Tenach, if he's a viking he will say the Edda, if he's a muslim he will say the Quo'ran...but that's besides the point).

And if you believe that my moral is as good than yours, you must recognise that Bible does not work better than not using it.

This religious person will argue that his morale may be equally disrupted as yours. Which - to him - will be exactly the reason why he turns to the Bible: because, he will say, if I cannot trust that my morale is any better than yours, than I - this religious person - needs to have a reference. A reference that he believes to be closer to the original, non-deteriorated, morale as intended by the one who is the source of the morale. In the opinion of this person: God. To this religious person his morale is not better than yours, but God's morale is better than either of you. So in order to try and be the best person possible, he will say, you will have to try and reflect God's morale. A Jew might add, that from a moral point of view it does not matter whether whether you keep God's law from your heart or by education, but - as the Jew is likely to say - the Tenach (Hebrew Bible) is not only about morale, but about a relationship with God. This means, to this Jew, that while doing the right thing is something God asked from you, it is not all he asks, since a relationship is also required.

Phew...it was tiring to write in the third person (and I bet is was tiring to read it as well). But if that's the only way people can see that there is an objective distance between me and the subject, than I'll keep writing it like this.

Ps. If there are religious people here who disagree with my reasoning you may correct me.
Pps. I'm not here on behalf of religion. I'm here merely to show how someone can have a different opinion that is equally valid and thought-out as yours or mine. I defend the strength of diversity. Had I felt that - for example - SSH would batter Nacho's opinion as being irrational, stupid, and 'sheeplike', than I would have taken another approach, and argue the weakness of religious institutions and the problem of non-sceptical religious believers. I won't argue whether God exists or not, because I've never seen any such discussions being fruitful. But anything else goes...

[Nacho]

You are right in some aspects... It is tiring to discuss this. I ask expecting a concrete answer, and all I get is mysticism... I have good stamina, though:

-Is that "Coming from God" moral  indistinguishable from non-God inspired moral?
-Can bible work as a moral guide if anyone reading it can take completelly different teachings?
-How many believers here were upbrought in a religious environment?

[SSH]

SSH was bred in captivity.

Yes, I was bread in captivity. It's yeast the way I was raised! I needed a good roll model. Don't pitta me for it. It might make me quite croissant.   


Nacho, my mother is a Deaconess and my father ran the Sunday School for ages. Now you can leap out and say "ahahaha - you proved my point".

And of course multiple interpretations of anything doesn't invalidate it. As I proved before but you missed the point.

[Khris]

Why don't we stay on topic and a few believers start telling us why they chose to believe in God, if they DID choose consciously, at a mature age, that is. What I'd like to hear from the other believers is whether they think they'd still believe in their god if they were raised in another environment (an African tribe, or a Muslim/Hindustan country), and if not, why not?

Well, googling can easily turn up testimonies of christian converts from islam, Hindu, etc.

I've skimmed through the very first one, a quite interesting read actually. The guy is brought up Islamic, his business fails, he flees the country, starts over, fails again, has to sleep on the street. He starts attending Christian sermons and ends up as janitor in a Christian church. He starts reading the bible and suddenly notices all kinds of contradictions to his own belief. For a very brief time he's on the right track, questioning his world view.
Then he approaches the pastor, who proceeds to show a few bible passages (from the book of John) aaaaand: "It seemed like if I was blind or covered by a spiritual dark veil then I began to see."
A few days later he sees a bright star that rushes down like a comet, then stops in mid-sky and remains there throughout the night. (I'm not making this up!) And BAM, converted.
Yeeahahaha, right.

It's perfectly understandable to me why somebody with one irrational belief will turn to another irrational belief, given the right circumstances.

The point I was trying to make is this: take a random Christian person and hypothetically erase their memory and put their brain into a baby in a Muslim village. They will grow up to believe in Allah. Put the brain into a baby in the jungles of Africa, and they will be raised to believe in Witches capable of transforming into animals who come out at night to steal children and eat them.

The simple fact that there's so many different beliefs in the world, most of them contradicting each other, together with the obvious fact that 99% (bear with me) of believers have a particular belief because they were raised by people having the same belief; just put those together and you'll end up here: there's a really, really slim chance that your own belief is the correct one, and a very big chance that none of them are.

Btw, that's exactly what made me become a very strong atheist at, I don't know exactly, the age of 10 maybe. Or 12. Until then, I had no idea that the whole world isn't Christian. The plain obviousness struck me hard, it was almost a religious experience. Almost.

[Nacho]

I am not going to say "Mwahahahaaaaa, Andrew, that proves my pointaaaaa!!!" because it' s been brave of you to recognise it (Brave, since that action could prove my point, not for being raised in a religious environment... That' s not a sin, IMHO), but... but... Well... It really reinforces my point, at the moment, and till we have more data. I am sure that if we ask the same to atheistics here, many will say "Yes! I was raised in a religion environment, but went to atheism when adult..."

Without the "Mwahahahaaaaa", but it does open the door to think "Maybe people without religious would see it as irrational if told that when adults", no?

[miguel]

Hi again,
many of you non-believers would be amazed at what modern church is accomplishing as we write this days.
Just a few notes, first:

The Church and the Vatican reach millions of people with different status and quality of life. Some don't even have a bed to sleep. Some don't have education. So, its word must be globalized as it always been. It's meant so that everybody understand some basic points like the greatest order someone has ever told anyone:
Do Not Kill.
We all know what the crusaders, inquisition did and that the Vatican is corrupt and that priest love young kids. They are humans! Like you and me. And lets say you, a non-believer, what guarantee do I have that you're not a paedophile?

Everybody is so afraid of a bit of...I'll use a word someone wrote before some pages again, mysticism? Why?
You guys live in the XXI century and still think the world of christian is something coming out of Oliver Twist?
To like Jesus is ok, do not be afraid.

[Khris]

I like living in the real world better.
If people are comforted by a book or happier if a greedy organization "reaches out" to them, good for them.

[miguel]

The book is just a way to comunicate Khris, and it is kind of old, you know?
So, sure most of the stuff written is very fictional, like a phantasy epic, but it had to be written like that by the church just because they wanted to spread their word.
I wish I could write/speak better or explain myself like LMG did, just to tell you that God, Jesus and Chrisitianity is a personal thing that only You can reach and understand and feel.
I am sure I could never persuade you or anybody, not is that my intent, but I will say it again, christianity is out of fashion right now, it wasn't some decades ago and it will come back, that is my opinion.
cheers

[SSH]

Undoubtedly there will be some tendency for children of parents of religion X to follow that religion, just as they also tend to follow career paths, but I think there's also a tendency for teenagers to rebel against whatever their parents try and push on them, no matter what it is.  Of course, Khris's number of 99% is completely pulled out of thin air and I doubt there's any reliable statistics available on it, especially given the huge number of "nominal" Christians who don't do anything except Christmas and Easter services.

Its interesting how easily Khris dismisses a guy's testimony. And if you want to talk about going from one belief to another, here's an athiest to Christian testimony.