Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mictlantecuhtli]

One does not simply believe a religion because their body tells them to. It comes from an outside source in every instance. Unless the person creates their own theology [I.e. Crazy; John Smith]. That's pretty much the bottom line. That's why it's called converting.


Also; los Faith gene can [speculatively- with solid science involved] have a rather huge impact on people's susceptibility to faith-based reasoning.

[lemon10]

Obviously it is coming from a outside source. Everything that you learn comes from a outside source (except things that you have thought up from first principles, which no one does at all at any reasonable level of difficulty anymore).
Saying it comes from a outside source is rather irrelevant.

It is quite different from conditioning, because someone chooses with their full intellect to believe in it, rather then being raised to believe in it.

[Glowcat]

They just seem to follow whichever faith has the most social influence in their area more often than not. Quite a mystery how something so open can be just happen to be mostly determined by geography and culture groups.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Most people who are religious are so because their parents told them to be at a young age. That really is it. Those early reinforcements tend to stick, and when they don't, it tends to cause an emotional crisis since you come to believe that your own parents deceived you at your most gullible, regardless of if that is actually true or not. 

[i2amroy]

Most people who are religious are so because their parents told them to be at a young age. That really is it. Those early reinforcements tend to stick, and when they don't, it tends to cause an emotional crisis since you come to believe that your own parents deceived you at your most gullible, regardless of if that is actually true or not.

There are a fair amount of converts at older ages in many religions too, those people who have the whole "I was dealing drugs and with a bad crowd and then somebody reached out their hand and god saved me", stories. Strangely from what I've seen those who convert later often tend to be much more religious then those who are born into a religion. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the majority of these people:
1)Make a conscious choice to become part of a religion. After all many people may question the religion they were born into, but those who decide to be in a religion are much more likely to be in it because they want to, not because that was how they were raised.
2)Their situation is many times worse before gaining religion. This creates a positive reinforcement for the idea that being in their chosen religion is a good thing and promotes obedience to the ways of that religion more.

[Bauglir]

If you already believe in God, why should you stop?

Because there's no reason to believe it over any other theory with no evidence (at least, no reason that's been presented - please present one if you think one exists).  You can't logically justify a position like that unless you decide to believe every other unfalsifiable theory, many of which are mutually exclusive.  So the reason to stop is that the position is logically unjustifiable unless you can construct a reason to believe in god over all the other idea.

Sure, there is a reason. You already believe it, which isn't the case with virtually all competing theories that lack evidence. What there's no reason to do is modify your belief structure without evidence that indicates it is wrong - as opposed to a complete lack of evidence one way or the other.

[Leafsnail]

So... you believe it because you already believe it, and you already believe it because you already believed it?  I can't argue with circular logic I suppose.

[palsch]

Sure, there is a reason. You already believe it, which isn't the case with virtually all competing theories that lack evidence. What there's no reason to do is modify your belief structure without evidence that indicates it is wrong - as opposed to a complete lack of evidence one way or the other.

There is a reason the most important principle of scepticism is to ask yourself, "why do I believe what I believe?"

Applying scepticism other ideas - even just in the sense of demanding positive proof - without applying the same principle to your own beliefs is just arrogance and wilful ignorance. You should be able to make as strong a case for what you believe as you would demand from someone else to accept a similar ideas validity.

This is doubly true of when a belief informs the way you live your life and interact with others. If a set of actions are dictated by a belief then it's hard to examine those actions in an independent critical light. If you can't or won't examine that underlying belief then trying to change those actions (as with trying to reduce religious homophobia) is pretty hard going.

[Grek]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the majority of these people:
1)Make a conscious choice to become part of a religion. After all many people may question the religion they were born into, but those who decide to be in a religion are much more likely to be in it because they want to, not because that was how they were raised.
2)Their situation is many times worse before gaining religion. This creates a positive reinforcement for the idea that being in their chosen religion is a good thing and promotes obedience to the ways of that religion more.

Alternative sociological explanation:
When someone is raised with a religion, they learn it from their parents who in turn learned it from their parents, back through the generations to the first convert in your family history. Each generation alters the religious message a little bit, like a game of telephone. Except, instead of making errors, they just omit the more extreme or complicated or, well, goofy-sounding bits of the religion that they don't think their kids can handle being told about without doing something socially inappropriate. As a result, more and more family mores saying things like, "It's OK to ignore the passages saying to [stone adulterers|shun nonbeleivers|not eat pork]; that's not what's really important." until the fires of fanaticism die down to a comfortably lukewarm tradition that just so happens to match the cultural zeitgeist of wherever it is the family lives.

When someone converts to a religion, this doesn't happen. They don't have the long tradition of family mores reassuring them that it's OK to ignore certain parts of the religion as unimportant or outdated. Generally speaking, them read the dogma and accept it at face value, thinking that if they try to ignore some of the less reasonable-sounding provisions, they're failing their new religion and then they'll be just as bad off spiritually as if they'd never converted in the first place. So they go all in with their faith, start stoning adulterers, preaching in the streets and telling more moderate beleivers that they're doing it wrong or that they're not being faithful enough.

[EveryZig]

Besides, most religions apart from deism or some forms of buddhism do make claims that can be disproved, which casts doubt on the reliability of the entire thing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Deism is interesting because it leaves one with the impression that God is either extremely apathetic or an absolute dick, and as an apathetic entity would have little reason to create a universe, we are left with the likelihood that God is malevolent and created us to suffer. But if that is the case then it doesn't make sense either, because there could be way more suffering than this. We could have been like aphids, dying by the millions and devouring the corpses of our fallen as uncaring giants try to exterminate us.

See, I could be a way better malevolent god then the one we'd have under deism. Vote MetalSlimeHunt for Deity 14,500,000,000.

[Hanslanda]

*votes for MSH*

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Your support is appreciated.

*transforms Hanslanda's chairs and bed into life-sustaining hateful meshes of razor wire*

[EveryZig]

Deism is interesting because it leaves one with the impression that God is either extremely apathetic or an absolute dick,

You forget the other options:
- God created the universe, but doesn't have any actual control over how it turns out (incompetent/powerless god)
- God acted for utterly incomprehensible or nonsensical reasons (lovecraftian god)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I can't ascribe godhood to an incompetent or powerless being. Then it's just a universe spawner.