Skepticism

[Nacho]

Probably saying 99% is pulling out... But definitelly saying "some tendency" is also a bit too kind... ^_^

Anyway, the important data, for me, is the other. How many "atheistic raised" become believers. Very few. Even the example you posted is the example of a man who was raised in a religious family.

If "God" is a supernatural being, and he has the power to put religion in every newborn baby, shouldn' t the percentage of kids believing in God, without parental intervention, even, be 100%? It isn't. It is not even close...

[SSH]

How many "atheistic raised" become believers. Very few. Even the example you posted is the example of a man who was raised in a religious family.

Yes, but to be fair, how many people in their 30s have 2 atheist parents? Not that many, I bet. And I notice that you're pulling the old Christian trick of "Ah, but he wasn't  REAL athiest"

And surely atheist parents indoctrinate their kids that there's no God just as much. In fact, 99% of them do (to do a Khris ). So I don't think "without parental intervention" is fair, also.

Now here's something to discuss: why do my finger keep insisting on spelling atheist athiest?

[Nacho]

Probably for the same reason why I have been typing "Enviroment" in spite of "environment".

[Khris]

SSH:
Come on, seriously, where else do kids get religious ideas from other than the people that raise them (parents, relatives, school, church)? I'm talking about the average believing teenager here, nothing else.
I just meant to say that the religious stuff young people believe in doesn't come out of thin air or from religious experiences (like angels talking to them), so it's probably actually 100% and not 99%.
(If you're convinced I'm wrong here, I'd like to know where else they get them from, unless of course you've misunderstood me. English isn't my first language as you know, so that's probably the reason if you did.)

I've read that testimony in its entirety, and I can say - completely subjectively - that that person must have a serious social disorder. I've been a more or less strong atheist for many years now and neither do I lose all my friends nor do I feel I have to pursue science professionally, let alone regarding all people as walking meat bags or being plagued by a rage of questions about our existence or purpose.
There are millions of atheists leading perfectly happy lives with tons of friends, simply enjoying themselves without being selfish pricks all the time. This isn't just evidence but almost proof that the Christians' statement "atheism leads to loss of all morals" is complete, steaming BS.

If atheist parents indoctrinate their kids that there is no god, they didn't really understand what atheism is (or rather: should be) about: about being a skeptic, about questioning everything. The "ideal" atheist hands them a biology book and the Bible when they're like, 15, and lets them make up their mind themselves. Not every atheist sees it that way, another reason why there shouldn't be a label like that for a person who doesn't believe in a god (people who don't e.g. bungee-jump aren't called "non-bungee-jumpers", right?).

[Nacho]

Talking of "converssions"... Hehehe... Apparently Gramsci, founder of the Italian communist party, also found "Faith" before dying It' s a funny story. ^_^

[SSH]

Come on, seriously, where else do kids get religious ideas from other than the people that raise them (parents, relatives, school, church)? I'm talking about the average believing teenager here, nothing else.

So hang on, you're changing your argument to be that 99% or more of Christian teenagers get their religion from either parents, relatives, school or church. Well, DUH! Hang on, I've got another stunning revelation here: 99% or more of all teenagers ENTIRE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE is based on relatives, school, parents and (possibly) church.

[Nacho]

And TV.

[Phemar]

And internet.

[Misj']

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:

I thought that I was quite concrete as to what a religious person would answer. Of course if you define mysticism as 'the search through various prayers and practices to achieve unity with God in life' then every argument that includes a religious world view is part of mysticism. So if you use that definition, and at the same time do now allow mysticism, than I fail to see the purpose of the thread you started.

-Is that "Coming from God" moral  indistinguishable from non-God inspired moral?

A religious person will say that there is no such thing as a non-God originating/inspired moral. But while the moral might originate from God, so he will say, that does not mean that the moral is still a good reflection of God. He will continue to say that to assure whether your moral is a good reflection, you can check the Bible. And while he is talking to you, he will probably say something along the lines of: good people have a moral that is less degraded from how God originally intended it. He might even add that this does not imply that someone with a moral closer to God's will automatically be saved. He might argue this by saying either of the following: A. since no one's moral is exactly God's, you need to accept Jezus' grace, or B. since it's not only about being a good person, it is also about having a relationship with God. -- This is how I imagine an average Christian might respond to your question.

-Can bible work as a moral guide if anyone reading it can take completelly different teachings?

I've addressed this question, and answered that a religious person will say 'yes'. Even more so: he might even say that is there were only one explanation that it would not suffice as a moral guide. So why do you keep bringing this up? - Sure, I will continue giving the same answer (with different words maybe). And it will continue to be not the answer you are looking for, so you will continue bringing it up until I admit to you, which won't happen, since I think the answer you're looking for is irrational and illogical.

-How many believers here were upbrought in a religious environment?

I've asked this before, but why do you think I'm a believer (in the non-Monkey-song way)?

The "ideal" atheist hands them a biology book and the Bible when they're like, 15, and lets them make up their mind themselves.

That made me laugh...although choosing the right biology book and right Bible translation might prove difficult (and 15 years is a little too old in my opinion...the kids I know aren't that dumb when they younger than that...on the other hand, maybe you should wait giving them any kind of book until they are old enough to drink alcohol. That might help them decide).

[SSH]

If atheist parents indoctrinate their kids that there is no god, they didn't really understand what atheism is (or rather: should be) about: about being a skeptic, about questioning everything. The "ideal" atheist hands them a biology book and the Bible when they're like, 15, and lets them make up their mind themselves. Not every atheist sees it that way, another reason why there shouldn't be a label like that for a person who doesn't believe in a god (people who don't e.g. bungee-jump aren't called "non-bungee-jumpers", right?).

Well, you get "strong" atheism when people believe there isn't a God and "weak" atheism where people don't believe there is a god. Most atheists are the former but argue from the point of the latter because its easier.

[miguel]

Most atheists fight their entire life against something so simple only to regret at the end of their lives.
Let me say that I really don't see the point in discussing if kids are influenced by their parents or not because decisions like believing in God, marriage or even homosexuality is something that people need a bit of life experience to get those answers. Life itself will lead people and build their personalities.
By the time you are 17 you want rock & roll and to party and there is nothing wrong with that. You really don't have a clear opinion on those subjects. But knowing Jesus and his life may keep young people on a special track, setting some boundaries and limits. And that can only be good.
I know atheists that are some of the best people I have encountered in my life and I am proud to be their friends, don't get me wrong, for a man to be good it doesn't mean he has to be a christian and I think we all agree with that. At least I hope so.
With my posts I try to explain and clarify why I am a believer without preaching because it could sound like I am selling something, at least I try.
 

[Khris]

SSH:
How am I changing my argument?
I wrote:

the obvious fact that 99% (bear with me) of believers have a particular belief because they were raised by people having the same belief

No need to mock it as stunning revelation, the above was brought in as a premise, not as an argument / mind-blowing conclusion.

Most atheists are actually weak atheists, afaik. Dawkins himself says the existence of a good is possible, just very, very improbable.

Oh, and why didn't you address my paragraph about the psycho going Christian?

Misj:
What exactly made you laugh?
And choosing the right biology book is much easier than choosing the right bible translation, just take the newest you can get.
Having said that, the point I was trying to make isn't about choosing the right book or doing it at the age of 15. The gist is that 2000 years old superstition is forced on kids who don't have the tools to make an educated decision about whether to question said superstition or not.
The fastest way towards the model describing our universe best is to question everything; and Religion is a fat road block right in the middle of the street.

[Snarky]

Yeah, but Dawkins has an active belief that God doesn't exist, so he's a strong atheist. A weak atheist is someone who has no faith, but who has not actively concluded that God does not, or probably does not, exist. So that would include people who have never really thought about the question, as well as people who have never been exposed to the idea, and many agnostics (as that term is commonly understood).

Strong atheism is a belief, while weak atheism is a lack of belief.

I wrote a whole bunch of stuff about what I myself believe, but who the hell cares? The Great Space Chicken will come and eat you all before this thread is over anyway.

[Khris]

Would you say that Dawkins has an active believe that there's no easter bunny? It's just semantics anyway.

[Misj']

What exactly made you laugh?

I see irony

(still working on rest of the post, so I removed it temporarily...sorry)

[SSH]

Would you say that Dawkins has an active believe that there's no easter bunny? It's just semantics anyway.

There's no such thing as a Dawkins anyway.

[Tuomas]

They told us at school, that pages with purple background are not to be trusted 

I never thought of religion and atheism as something more than believing and not believing. believing is such a vague word anyway. The way I coprehend it, it doesn't require any kind of proof and that's all fine by me. I just decided I don't believe as some do. I did spend my time on a religious camp before getting my confirmation. We all do. And I felt good, I felt united with the lot and I felt like I was part of something, and I wanted to go back. A few days I realised it was just me as a teenager on a camp alone with people like me, and that's the thing I wanted to go back to, not the church part of it. Thinking back to it, it kind of reminded me of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave . In the sense, that the collective feeling was close to the one here. But I never went back because I just couldn't force myself in believing... and at that point, it gave me this repulsive feeling. A lot of my friends did go back though.

[InCreator]

The fastest way towards the model describing our universe best is to question everything; and Religion is a fat road block right in the middle of the street.

I couldn't express this better.
Amen!

[Misj']

The fastest way towards the model describing our universe best is to question everything; and Religion is a fat road block right in the middle of the street.

I have met very few people who question everything that are atheists...they become agnostic because: they just don't know (which is the entire basis of questioning). So if you consider yourself an atheist, and you say that religion is a fat road block, than - by logic and reason - I can only conclude the same about you and your believes (because as an atheist you think you know the answer (to the existance of a god), and therefore do not question EVERYTHING). That brings us to Socrates: "I know nothing, but I know that I know nothing, and that makes me more knowledgeable than he who thinks he knows something".

Ps. Still working on that previous post...if I can find the time

[Nacho]

That' s because someone brought the words "Agnostic" and "Atheist" to the discussion, which I don' t really understant or differenciate... A Skeptic does question everything.