Beliefs in God and Religions

[Rooster_DAR]

I had a question for you. You mention not wanting this "cult" to be indoctrinated with religion. For the purposes of true and accurate science will you also include that they not be indoctrinated against religion as well.

 

Absent this, there is really no point in doing such an experiment IMO.

 

 

Absolutely!

 

It would have to be a carefully unbiased experiment. It should be overseen by both scientists, scholars, theologians, religious experts, and whoever else qualifies.

 

This thread was really just a what if, I think it would be an extremely costly and daunting task to actually follow it through.

 

Regards,

[NoIDidn't]

Absolutely!

 

It would have to be a carefully unbiased experiment. It should be overseen by both scientists, scholars, theologians, religious experts, and whoever else qualifies.

 

This thread was really just a what if, I think it would be an extremely costly and daunting task to actually follow it through.

 

Regards,

 

Don't forget the ethicists. It doesn't sound very ethical as it would cause the subjects to be forcibly isolated from others.

[quankanne]

you're making atheists out to be closed-minded people.

 

AAACCKKKK! that honestly wasn't my intention! What I'm very badly trying to say is that once a person comes up a idea or theory he accepts wholeheartedly, it's pretty hard to give up that theory when evidence contradicting it is presented. It would be just as difficult for me to say "nope, no God here" when I've experienced otherwise as it would be for a non-believer to have an "a-ha" moment and switch gears completely and become an instant believer. Because this subject is a biggie, and therefore not considered lightly.

 

I struggle to understand how faith can be a gift. hey, good to see you back, moai! see response to TM's post below:

 

Faith is a gift? I believe that it is, because not everyone is hardwired to believe. Much like my ability to see raw written data and shape it into news copy is a gift, or my dad's ability to draw and paint was a gift.

 

Faith in what? to what end? in this particular threat, faith in God, as applied to OP's initial thread

 

What's in it for me, that I could benefit from now? your relationship with the Big Guy is a highly personal one, and only YOU can discern the benefits from said relationship. My needs and experiences might mirror yours somewhat, at some point, but they're not yours, nor are yours mine ...

 

Or do I have to wait until I die to open it? And what use is it then? Guaranteed? Really? Prove it. I personally don't think you have to wait, because it's part and parcel of the relationship one has with God. And again, it's use (or application) is highly subjective to your particular needs, desires, etc. Can I guarantee this? Nope, because I'm not living out your relationship, therefore I don't know what your needs are to say that I can guarantee you're going to get what you want/need – but I can tell you that *I* am getting what I need through this relationship of faith in Him. Can I prove it? Prolly not to your liking, but that's okay ... it's not about you, it's about me. And Him.

[Enema]

Faith is a gift? I believe that it is, because not everyone is hardwired to believe. Much like my ability to see raw written data and shape it into news copy is a gift, or my dad's ability to draw and paint was a gift.

 

 

...or your ability to believe something for no reason was a gift.

 

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

[disgracian]

if God himself knocked on every atheist's door and said, "here I am. You have no choice but to believe in me now. I need you to change your life, because I have a mission for you." the majority of them would tell Him to go to Hell. From that perspective, there not much point in arguing the values of faith or religion with them.

If you could manage to refrain from making presumptuous waffle posts like this, you might enjoy some credibility. It's really not your place to presume to speak on behalf of millions of people you don't know and clearly do not understand.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

interesting theory, but one I've got to disagree with: If someone has convinced himself there *can* be no God, for whatever reason, no amount of "evidence" is going to sway him.

I have highlighted your error in trying to define what an atheist is. Pick up a dictionary some time.

for most non-believers, even if God *did* materialize on their front doorstep and perform the most amazing miracles, it would never be enough to bring them around, simply because they are mired in their disbelief.

I'd really like to know where you and johan get this nonsensical idea from. "Most" non-believers? You've really taken the time to get to know and understand enough of them to make this claim, or is this just a case of confirmation bias among religious people?

 

Cheers,

D.

[TaraMaiden]

All that these wonderful questions say to me is that you don't value faith. So its a gift that you would not accept.

 

On the contrary. I value faith probably more than you do, because I have a faith in Buddhism - based on Confidence and evidence - that is unshakeable.

many Christians have their faith shaken.

The more I practise Buddhism, the more Faith - Confidence - I have.

 

I can't say that I agree that its a "gift", but I can say that it does benefit one in the HERE and NOW, not just in some hoped for afterlife.

How?

 

And the only way to prove it, is for you to prove it to yourself. That's the biggest conundrum concerning faith. No one can prove it to you. You have to prove it for yourself.

There is no proof whatsoever, Hope comes to pass.

There is every proof Confidence occurs every waking millisecond.

[Taramere]

Perhaps a good field test would be to establish a cult of people away from modern civilization who are born without indoctrination and no common belief system. Would they or future generations begin to look for spirituality as well? Would they adhere to new superstitions?

 

I suppose that without the benefit of any scientific knowledge communities would look for supernatural explanations for certain phenomena. What the moon, sun and stars were, what thunder and lightning from the sky meant and whether dangerous weather conditions were inflicted as some kind of punishment from a higher authority.

 

The notion of various gods in charge of different aspects of life...or one head God in charge of everything is like some paranoid, deluded individual's projection of their power fantasies. "I can't make it rain or stop raining on command, but I've got a special knowledge of, and relationship with, the entity who can...which does mean I have significant influence over what happens in this world. If you do anything to anger me, you anger God in the process. I can assure you of it. He might deliver a tsunami to kill your children in righteous retribution."

 

When this planet, and all its unpredictable weather systems, was an infinitely more mysterious thing to the people dwelling on it, notions of a team of gods having various matters delegated to them probably seemed quite sane. No doubt there were lots of skeptical individuals in communities who didn't really believe in any of it, but it was probably dangerous for them to speak up.

 

So on that basis...I think that even if there was no indoctrination of your hypothetical isolated tribe, between them tribe members would come up with explanations for the world's mysteries - and doubtless those explanations would work to the advantage of the group's strongest/most aggressive members.

[Vertex]

I dare say there'd be little to no difference. I think religion is just a natural result of our evolution -- it's easy to believe in something that gives so many people comfort and falls in line with many other psychological biases. It's much more difficult to get into the scientific rigor, which arguably takes a lot longer to develop. A completely isolated tribe would probably resort to the short-term optima of delegating explanations to a mysterious force, but over the long-haul, they'd slowly push that notion out of the picture.

[Rooster_DAR]

I suppose that without the benefit of any scientific knowledge communities would look for supernatural explanations for certain phenomena. What the moon, sun and stars were, what thunder and lightning from the sky meant and whether dangerous weather conditions were inflicted as some kind of punishment from a higher authority.

 

The notion of various gods in charge of different aspects of life...or one head God in charge of everything is like some paranoid, deluded individual's projection of their power fantasies. "I can't make it rain or stop raining on command, but I've got a special knowledge of, and relationship with, the entity who can...which does mean I have significant influence over what happens in this world. If you do anything to anger me, you anger God in the process. I can assure you of it. He might deliver a tsunami to kill your children in righteous retribution."

 

When this planet, and all its unpredictable weather systems, was an infinitely more mysterious thing to the people dwelling on it, notions of a team of gods having various matters delegated to them probably seemed quite sane. No doubt there were lots of skeptical individuals in communities who didn't really believe in any of it, but it was probably dangerous for them to speak up.

 

So on that basis...I think that even if there was no indoctrination of your hypothetical isolated tribe, between them tribe members would come up with explanations for the world's mysteries - and doubtless those explanations would work to the advantage of the group's strongest/most aggressive members.

 

Very good points here!

 

This cult/tribe should be devoid of any prior human knowledge for this experiment to hold some ground. With that said, it seems that what (at the time) cannot be explained would have to lead to some explanation. The easiest answer would be divine intervention or higher powers. Hmm, well this is very interesting.

 

I would almost bet you are right on the money with your ideas. We humans have to have an answer to everything, but what happens when that answer cannot be answered without the knowledge to understand it?

 

Good post,

 

Regards,

[D-Lish]

What bothers me the most is that so many people have this misconception that Atheists are morally bankrupt. I have always found this really insulting. Honestly, in the book of D-lish, it's harder to be a good person for no other reason than to be a good person, than it is to be a good person out of fear of eternal punishment.

[FleshNBones]

Wrong!

 

I believe almost anyone with common sense (even atheists) would finally accept god if he/she/it truly made himself observable. And the reason that God has not presented him/her/itself is most likely due to the lack thereof.

 

You are making atheists out to look like bad people, when in reality they are some of the kindest, brightest, giving, and loving people on this planet.

 

Regards,

Maybe God holds himself to a higher standard.

[FleshNBones]

Absolutely!

 

It would have to be a carefully unbiased experiment. It should be overseen by both scientists, scholars, theologians, religious experts, and whoever else qualifies.

 

This thread was really just a what if, I think it would be an extremely costly and daunting task to actually follow it through.

 

Regards,

Unbiased experiment? Perhaps... But it my opinion it would be highly unethical.

It sounds like you want scientists to screw up more kids.

[Moai]

Regardless of who is right about human nature, if God himself knocked on every atheist's door and said, "here I am. You have no choice but to believe in me now. I need you to change your life, because I have a mission for you." the majority of them would tell Him to go to Hell. From that perspective, there not much point in arguing the values of faith or religion with them.

 

I must have missed this the first time through the thread. Hilarious!

 

First off, if someone were to knock on my door claiming to be god and demanding my belief I would expect some pretty amazing evidence, certainly not just a claim.

 

From a believer point of view, no such is required. In fact, you don't even have to claim to be god, you just have to claim to speak for him, and you'll get all sorts of followers willing to do whatever you ask--up to and including murder, rape and suicide.

[Ross PK]

What bothers me the most is that so many people have this misconception that Atheists are morally bankrupt. I have always found this really insulting. Honestly, in the book of D-lish, it's harder to be a good person for no other reason than to be a good person, than it is to be a good person out of fear of eternal punishment.

 

That's so true. If religous people think Atheists can't have any morals since they don't believe in God, then according to their logic, it means religous people are only good because they think God wants them to be that way and/or because of fear of punishment, not because they want to be good anyway, which means if they lost their faith, or if God said it was okay, they would be going out murdering and raping people. Which makes then not good people at all, it actually makes them bad people, THEY are the ones who are immoral,

 

But I think it's quite obvious, that if any religous person lost their faith, most of them would still continue to be good anyway. Because being good, being moral, doesn't have anything to do with God telling you you should be that way or threatening you, it's a natural instinct, it's they way you've been brought up, and the fact that most Atheists (including myself) are good moral people, proves it.

 

No offense, but religous people's thinking can be so warped at times.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Ross PK

[FleshNBones]

But I think it's quite obvious, that if any religous person lost their faith, most of them would still continue to be good anyway. Because being good, being moral, doesn't have anything to do with God telling you you should be that way or threatening you, it's a natural instinct, it's they way you've been brought up, and the fact that most Atheists (including myself) are good moral people, proves it.

It is about as natural as the fear of rejection from your peers, and society in general.

[Ross PK]

Are you saying the only reason we don't do bad things is because we care about what society thinks?

 

I don't think that's true, and it certianly isn't the case with me.

[disgracian]

I know this is a little off topic, but you do seem a little selfish and materialistic.

Since when has that ever stopped you from making ad hominem troll posts in the past?

 

Cheers,

D.

[ADF]

Rooster, some academic work on this already exists. Do a google search on J. Anderson Thomson and "Why We Believe in Gods." He explains the belief mechanism in terms of cognitive brain functions. Very interesting.

[TaraMaiden]

I know this is a little off topic, but you do seem a little selfish and materialistic.

What did you expect to get out of nunhood?

 

Nothing.

That's why I didn't follow through.

 

Waste of time.

oppressive, bombastic, judgemental, chauvinistic and mysogynistic.

 

And that was just Mother Superior.

 

In what way am I 'selfish and materialistic'....?

Clarify, would you?

[FleshNBones]

Nothing.

That's why I didn't follow through.

 

Waste of time.

oppressive, bombastic, judgemental, chauvinistic and mysogynistic.

 

And that was just Mother Superior.

 

In what way am I 'selfish and materialistic'....?

Clarify, would you?

Why go through with it in the first place?

[Rooster_DAR]

Short answer: no.

 

Long answer: no, you're an idiot.

 

Ouch! That really hurt....

[Rooster_DAR]

Unbiased experiment? Perhaps... But it my opinion it would be highly unethical.

It sounds like you want scientists to screw up more kids.

 

I fail to see where this would be unethical.

 

 

Science is not screwing up kids, it's just opening their eyes to the real world. Perhaps the human race is finally waking up and the real screw-up is religion.

[disgracian]

I see that neither Quank nor johan came back to substantiate their drivelous "most atheists would do..." generalisations.

 

Cheers,

D.

[deux ex machina]

There's plenty of research that points to religiosity being influenced by your genes, not just your upbringing.

 

One of the more impressive studies I read about was based on about 200 sets of twins. Both identical and fraternal twins.

 

As they got older and the influences of parents and social groups have less impact, the fraternal twins had differing levels of religious belief as you'd expect between me and you, however the identical twins (with identical DNA) almost exclusively had similar levels of religiosity.

 

If anyone's interested, the gene is the vmat2. If you have it, you're 40% more likely to be religious!

 

 

This is intriguing.

 

Thanks Enema, I'll have to check this out sometime.