how to turn a believer

[Strange]

51 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Do all of those hundreds of religions actually hold mutually inconsistent and contradicting beliefs?

And not all of them claim to be the one true religion. 

[beecee]

I was raised as a good Catholic boy, in fact at one time I was also an Altar boy! But when the Parish priest caught myself and another, behind the altar, drinking the altar wine, I was quickly dismissed.

As a member of the human race, I see the need of human kind to explain his existence and the many awe inspiring wonders that surround him. Religion and other mythical explanations evolved and had their beginnings when ancient man saw "Gods" in the Sun, rivers, mountains etc. As the scientific discipline evolved, and  explanations  were forthcoming to explain these wonders scientifically, the need for supernatural and paranormal myths gradually diminished. In other words science has pushed the need for any deity back into near oblivion. So convincing has been the science that now even the Catholic church now see the BB and evolution as reasons why we are here. From there though, they then again depart from scientific explanations at put such beginnings down to the work of God. In the meantime science continues to research, experiment, and search for more natural answers as to the how and why.

In saying all that I believe a person has the right to chose [or reject] his religion of choice as an answer to the big questions and to maintain his or her apparent comfort zone...afterall I have now been married for 42 years to a very religious woman and actually a true Christian in every sense of that meaning. Her greatest attribute, [and probably mine also] has been toleration of each others beliefs.

What does really irk me though is the fanatical religious folk, and sometimes closeted supporters of some form of ID explanation, forever getting on their white chargers, and conducting baseless anti science or anti GR crusades. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by beecee

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, koti said:

I agree as to the fact that not all religions are equally evil all the time. As far as inconsistency goes its hard to quantify which tenet or myth is more or less contradicting, how do you quantify whether reincarnation is more/less inconsistent than ressurection. As far as the OP question is concerned its a dead end...

Only true if you hold that belief in the supernatural is one of the defining features of religion (which i know many here do). Beliefs in Confucianism, for example, might focus on the correct relationship between parent and child - the parent is obligated to provide for the child, the child is obligated to respect the parent regardless. This is a belief, but not one that is objectively true or false. You might not need or want a religion to have a say on such matters, but some people do. And nor do I think these are so obvious that we could have worked them out without the guidance of cultural developments and the occasional person with deep insight into the human condition. We didn't come down from the trees thinking maybe women are the equal of men: it took thousands of year and hopefully just a few more. The stories we have accumulated, including the myths, are all part of this heritage: without them i think we'd be back to stone age thinking with regards to morality.

Not that i'm saying there isn't deep and too often catastrophic thinking from the religious - usually because they take the myths literally - i just think the religion = evil vibe is far too simplistic. That said, monotheism is possibly the worst idea any human has ever come up with...

As far as the OP question is concerned its a dead end...first of all you do not turn a believer, he/she is already turned into their faith.

But people do turn away from their faith, there must be reasons for it. I stopped believing in god when i started thinking about it a bit - i was educated well enough to spot loads of problems with it. That's one way...

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Prometheus

[Moontanman]

On 5/13/2017 at 6:49 PM, ScottThompson said:

Jfoldbar.... for me, the bible never made sense... never seemed to be some God inspired word.... until i sincerely cried out to JESUS..and believed on him... at age 43. And to be honest...i have found no contractions inn the bible... only one truth after another after another. Not that it doesn't make me scratch my head at times.... but usually it's only a question of "why would God do this or that".

I guess this would depend on how you view contradictions but a great number are listed here, I would like to know how you can say there are no contradictions after reading this...

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

On 5/13/2017 at 6:49 PM, ScottThompson said:

 

To believe he was God... came down from heaven... to earth as a man WITHOUT ANY SIN...and was sacrificed on a cross... as a payment for our sinful nature.... so that we could therefore be considered perfectly righteous... so that this God would take us back... now and for eternally... if we truly believed in this Jesus..... is actually quite a leap of faith I will admit. But my life certainly changed when I did just that. When I didn't just "believe in a God"... but truly believed Jesus was that God!

So God came down to Earth and was born of a virgin and then sacrificed himself to himself to atone for the crime of a man and woman who ate a fruit he allowed Satan to troll them into eating and they had no idea about why they shouldn't eat it? 

On 5/13/2017 at 6:49 PM, ScottThompson said:

 

I have put much time into this since I believed. Actually trying to disprove it... via reading all the atheists posts... Scientific stuff, etc. I get challenged, but I keep coming back to God. Not a reason for my faith... but I have found it interesting how people seem to cry out "God help me!!" when about to die (think of the stories of the people on the planes on 911).

People most often cry out "shit" just before impact, an expletive at that point is simply what we do. 

On 5/13/2017 at 6:49 PM, ScottThompson said:

 

I just keep coming back to the fact that people are certainly sinful... greedy, murderous, hatred, etc etc etc. But we are also loving too. It "makes sense" to me, that there is a creator God all about love... we rebelled... he can't have anything to do with people like that... and there's only one way back to relationship with that creator God....a sacrifice of a sinless man...JESUS CHRIST.

Some people might be that way, religion doesn't seem to be a factor one way or another. He created us that way yet he can't have anything to do with us? Again with the sacrifice of himself to himself for breaking rules he created for people who have no way of knowing the rules?  

On 5/13/2017 at 6:49 PM, ScottThompson said:

 

God bless you in your decision.

And I thank you scientists for challenging me.

In His love, Scott

Whose love Scott? the same being that creates evil? 

http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm

Quote

5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

[Bender]

57 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

We didn't come down from the trees thinking maybe women are the equal of men: it took thousands of year and hopefully just a few more. The stories we have accumulated, including the myths, are all part of this heritage: without them i think we'd be back to stone age thinking with regards to morality.

It took taking a step back from religion to think maybe women are equal to men. Even buddhism is far from perfect in this regard, depending on the flavour.

The notion that religious myths are required for morality is arrogant, ignorant, and slightly offensive.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Bender said:

The notion that religious myths are required for morality is arrogant, ignorant, and slightly offensive.

Indeed. It seems to me that religion only provides a post-hoc justification ("god") for the morality that people in a society would have developed anyway.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Strange

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I guess this would depend on how you view contradictions but a great number are listed here, I would like to know how you can say there are no contradictions after reading this...

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

 

I honestly have no clue how I haven't seen all these before.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Do all of those hundreds of religions actually hold mutually inconsistent and contradicting beliefs?

You’re right. My formulation also still needs refinement. The focus was on those claiming to be the one true path, whether Abrahamic or not. 

[koti]

2 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Only true if you hold that belief in the supernatural is one of the defining features of religion (which i know many here do). Beliefs in Confucianism, for example, might focus on the correct relationship between parent and child - the parent is obligated to provide for the child, the child is obligated to respect the parent regardless. This is a belief, but not one that is objectively true or false. You might not need or want a religion to have a say on such matters, but some people do. And nor do I think these are so obvious that we could have worked them out without the guidance of cultural developments and the occasional person with deep insight into the human condition. We didn't come down from the trees thinking maybe women are the equal of men: it took thousands of year and hopefully just a few more. The stories we have accumulated, including the myths, are all part of this heritage: without them i think we'd be back to stone age thinking with regards to morality.

Not that i'm saying there isn't deep and too often catastrophic thinking from the religious - usually because they take the myths literally - i just think the religion = evil vibe is far too simplistic. That said, monotheism is possibly the worst idea any human has ever come up with...

But people do turn away from their faith, there must be reasons for it. I stopped believing in god when i started thinking about it a bit - i was educated well enough to spot loads of problems with it. That's one way...

 

Bender & Strange beat me to posting on my view of morality within religion, I can only add that in my opinion, if you take away the belief in the supernatural you’re no longer dealing with a religion but with a philosophical/ethical/moral system. As far as I know it isn’t clear whether Confucianism is a religion or a philosophy, or both depending on versions of it. 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

I honestly have no clue how I haven't seen all these before.

I think it is also worth taking a look at the Skeptic’s Annotaded Bible and Quran here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Edited February 25, 2018 by koti

[Prometheus]

32 minutes ago, Bender said:

It took taking a step back from religion to think maybe women are equal to men. Even buddhism is far from perfect in this regard, depending on the flavour.

That particular point was just to to highlight that morality isn't something so obvious that we would spontaneously start doing it: it took centuries of cultural development to reach the point we have today, and hopefully we'll never stop. I was anticipating a counter argument of 'it's obvious not to murder your neighbour to take his wife'.

Taking a step back from religion is one way. Or the religion could change: it does happen, and we should encourage it. The problem i have with these debates is that 'religion' is treated as a homogenous thing when the reality is that they do differ. I just want to highlight these distinctions to offer another perspective. 

 

32 minutes ago, Bender said:

The notion that religious myths are required for morality is arrogant, ignorant, and slightly offensive.

Did i say that? Let me check...

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

The stories we have accumulated, including the myths, are all part of this heritage: without them i think we'd be back to stone age thinking with regards to morality.

I don't think so, but let me try to clarify as my claim is certainly not that religious myths are required for morality. The path of morality is not just some straight line towards a correct answer - it's something we have to work out for ourselves. One of the strongest ways every culture has explored the human condition is through story: any story from Aesop's fables through to Wonder Woman. This obviously includes many religious myths. They are all part of our moral heritage, and extremely valuable for that.

For instance the myth of Genesis, through Paradise Lost to Frankenstein can be considered explorations of the same theme, but each time the perspective has shifted, something is added. If we choose to forget the myth of Genesis humanity would be a little impoverished. Forget all three of those stories and we will have lost a lot.

 

54 minutes ago, Strange said:

Indeed. It seems to me that religion only provides a post-hoc justification ("god") for the morality that people in a society would have developed anyway.

Maybe, but we can't perform that experiment (going back to remove proto-religions from developing cultures). I disagree that morality would have developed in the exact way it did without religion though. Morality and the human condition are things cultures have long explored, and occasionally someone comes up with deep insight into these things. Shakespeare is still watched today precisely because that chap had some pretty deep insights and a wonderful way of expressing them. So too, some of the bible stories (my favourite is the Garden of Gethsemane exploring the doubt even a 'perfect' being has in doing the right thing when it is very hard). But if you look at the stories of Chinese cultures they have explored these things in different ways (the story of 3 Kingdoms), and so the Chinese have developed different ethical systems to Western ones. Just a long winded way of saying i don't think moral systems will necessarily converge, though there may be biological imperatives meaning this does happen for some topics.

 

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re right. My formulation also still needs refinement. The focus was on those claiming to be the one true path, whether Abrahamic or not. 

Then i would agree.

5 minutes ago, koti said:

I can only add that in my opinion, if you take away the belief in the supernatural you’re no longer dealing with a religion but with a philosophical/ethical/moral system.

Yes, i've learned it's a common position here. I disagree, but that's another thread...

[zapatos]

46 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I honestly have no clue how I haven't seen all these before.

If you are raised Christian (like many of us here were) no one around you has any interest in sowing doubt, even if they themselves are aware. It is not until you expand your circle of influencers before you begin to understand the world as it is, and not as some would have you believe. Every five years or so I can look back in awe at how naive I was that short time ago.

Five years from now you'll be shocked at some of the things you currently believe.

[Raider5678]

Just now, zapatos said:

If you are raised Christian (like many of us here were) no one around you has any interest in sowing doubt, even if they themselves are aware. It is not until you expand your circle of influencers before you begin to understand the world as it is, and not as some would have you believe. Every five years or so I can look back in awe at how naive I was that short time ago.

Five years from now you'll be shocked at some of the things you currently believe.

I've realized the contradictions highlighted in there are literally all false. I have a basic understanding of the Bible, and can point out some of these are seriously idiotic.

Take any of them you want from the list and I'll explain it to you.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Take any of them you want from the list and I'll explain it to you.

Well why not start with the first one:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

(I read the bible once—the Old Testament, anyway—and was bemused by the fact there are two different versions of genesis. I think my reaction was, “this book needs a good editor”. And all those endless lists of Ahab begat Zebedee who begat Phlumox who begat Sheba who begat Tesla who ...)

[koti]

16 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Yes, i've learned it's a common position here. I disagree, but that's another thread...

I’ve certainly haven’t gotten my views on this from this forum. It’s very simple in my book - Striving not to be a di** in life does’t have anything to do with religion (to me) As I’ve seen your posts on religious subjects in the past year and a half and I think they were very good, I would very much like to hear your view though.

[Raider5678]

36 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well why not start with the first one:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

(I read the bible once—the Old Testament, anyway—and was bemused by the fact there are two different versions of genesis. I think my reaction was, “this book needs a good editor”. And all those endless lists of Ahab begat Zebedee who begat Phlumox who begat Sheba who begat Tesla who ...)

There is a rather simple solution to this alleged contradiction. On the third day of the Creation Week God made certain types of plants: “grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree” (Genesis 1:11). Each of these terms translates specific Hebrew terms for grass (deshe’), the seed-yielding herbs (‘eseb mazria zera), and the fruit trees (ets pariy).

Beginning with the fourth verse of Genesis 2, the writer zooms in on the events of the sixth day. God made Adam (v. 7), the Garden of Eden along with the plants therein (specifically mentioned are the fruit trees, vs. 8–9), and Eve (v. 22).

What about the plants described in verse 5? Why weren’t those created on Day Three when God made the other plants? The context provides the answer. Verses 5 and 6 provide a description of what the world was like prior to the creation of man. Two specific types of plants are translated from specific Hebrew terms: “plant of the field” (siah hassadeh) and “herb of the field” (eseb hassadeh). Hebrew scholar Mark Futato defines these terms as “wild shrubs of the steppe” and “cultivated grain” respectively.

This verse is preparing the reader for what is going to happen next in the narrative. The herbs of the field were not around because Adam had not been created yet, so there was no one to till or cultivate the ground. The “wild shrubs of the steppe” are plants that often have thorns, and these thorns would not have been present until after the Curse.

While announcing the Curse, God said to Adam, “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:17–19, emphasis added).

As a result of the Curse, Adam would no longer have it easy. Instead of eating the abundance of fruit from the trees in the garden, he would need to till the ground and grow crops for food.3 This would be hard work because the ground was now going to produce thorns and thistles.

[koti]

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

but that's another thread...

I agree.

[NortonH]

Science cannot defeat something which is an axiom of faith.

 

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Science cannot defeat something which is an axiom of faith.

Science sets out to explain what we see, and the way the universe is: It does not concern itself with any mythical axioms of any faith.

Religious faith, and all paranormal, supernatural myths, are simply unscientific and a result of early man efforts/attempts in explaining the wonders of the universe. 

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Science cannot defeat something which is an axiom of faith.

 

Of course it can.

[NortonH]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Of course it can.

I think beecee, above, is correct. 

Faith and religion is outside the reach of science and so cannot be tackled. If I say I believe in some entity beyond the universe how do you prove me wrong? You cannot.

 

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Science cannot defeat something which is an axiom of faith.

Adding a bit to the responses above, the process of science often inspires trust due to the consistent and repeatable ways it allows us to avoid our biases. That trust can often erode faith, which itself asks / demands that things be accepted as true in the absence of, and too often in direct contradiction to, the available evidence. 

Science earns that trust, and in doing so provides a point of comparison which reminds us of the inherently charlatan nature of those who merely demand it.  

In much the same way that we learn more as we age and abandon belief in the tooth fairy, or interact with older smarter kids at school and let go of our belief in Santa Claus, science is a candle in the dark helping us discard ancient nonsense and further illuminate how the cosmos actually functions. 

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I think beecee, above, is correct. 

Faith and religion is outside the reach of science and so cannot be tackled. If I say I believe in some entity beyond the universe how do you prove me wrong? You cannot.

 

Not all axioms of faith are outside the reach of science. An axiom of the Aztec religion is the nine netherworlds beneath the surface of the Earth.

[Itoero]

18 hours ago, Strange said:

At best, one could be correct. 

Why? If we do find evidence for a god then that doesn't imply that any of the supernatural beliefs is correct.

Those beliefs (like the creation story in the bible)concern human ideas about the properties and actions of god. Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable...this implies we cant make valid assumptions concerning his actions or properties.

 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Why? If we do find evidence for a god then that doesn't imply that any of the supernatural beliefs is correct.

You said you were using logic. That is all I was commenting on.

Based on the premise that there are N contradictory beliefs, you cannot conclude that there are zero that are correct. You can only conclude that not all of them can be correct (they are contradictory). Therefore, there is a possibility that one of them is correct.

Of course, there is also a possibility that none of them are correct (which is why I said "at best"). But you cannot conclude that to be the case, from the premise, based on logic.

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Why? If we do find evidence for a god then that doesn't imply that any of the supernatural beliefs is correct.

Those beliefs (like the creation story in the bible)concern human ideas about the properties and actions of god. Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable...this implies we cant make valid assumptions concerning his actions or properties.

 

Yet, it's still possible one religion is correct....