People who believe in God are "NOT" broken

[zapatos]

Let me clarify something based on the responses I got. When I say "a number of people telling me the same thing" I do not simply mean they're wandering around spouting anything at all. They need to have something to back up the claim they're making - and to clarify even further, it needs to be something tangible that I can then take to someone else and say "Hey, what do you think of this?" The doctor, in my example, would use CT Scans, MRI's, etc, which I could take the results of to another doctor and say, "So, is that an aneurysm?"

Well sure, but that is science. You cannot expect to get scientific evidence when the question is about God. Similarly I will not get scientific evidence to my belief that vanilla is the finest of the flavors.

 

God spoke to you? Great! He's never even sent me a Get Well Soon card. More importantly - how do you know it's God?

Either he made it clear, or I found out by speaking to the holy men who know those things.

 

There's no evidence that it actually is God speaking to you - for all we know, everyone that's heard the voice of God is really just receiving signals from an NSA satellite and should probably invest in a quantity of tin foil.

For all you know it is not an aneurism. The CIA could be surreptitiously messing with your medical records.

[Greg H.]

Well sure, but that is science. You cannot expect to get scientific evidence when the question is about God. Similarly I will not get scientific evidence to my belief that vanilla is the finest of the flavors.

I'm not trying to get scientific evidence about the existence of God. Mostly because it doesn't exist - which is how we get back to faith.

 

 

For all you know it is not an aneurism. The CIA could be surreptitiously messing with your medical records.

While that's certainly possible, the principle of Occam's Razor leads me to suspect it's not the case. And my skepticism on that claim is justifiably high.

[John Cuthber]

OK, fair enough. Here's the razor.

"Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate"

 

Plurality is never to be posited without necessity.

But a universe and God is plural while a universe without God is singular.

And there's no evidence for God so He's unnecessary.

 

Seriously, isn't it just as reasonable to be sceptical about God as it is to be so about the CIA?

[zapatos]

I'm not trying to get scientific evidence about the existence of God. Mostly because it doesn't exist - which is how we get back to faith.

Right, but you pointed out the type of evidence you required. I was just indicating that type of evidence was not possible for a supernatural being.

 

While that's certainly possible, the principle of Occam's Razor leads me to suspect it's not the case. And my skepticism on that claim is justifiably high.

Of course. Same thing for the NSA satellites. Although I admit God talking to us seems equally absurd.

[doG]

 

How did you come to know what 'they' believe?

 

 

And how did you come to know that they believe it only because someone else told them so?

 

I see no reason to believe they were born believing in any god and everyone I've ever met that was a theist believed so because that's what they were taught. Most of them were also taught that the bible itself is factual evidence of god. It's part of growing up in the southern baptist bible belt, propagation of faith over rationality

[zapatos]

I see no reason to believe they were born believing in any god and everyone I've ever met that was a theist believed so because that's what they were taught. Most of them were also taught that the bible itself is factual evidence of god. It's part of growing up in the southern baptist bible belt, propagation of faith over rationality

I assume you were taught that stealing is wrong. Is it safe to assume then that you only believe stealing is wrong because someone else told you that was so?

[Greg H.]

Seriously, isn't it just as reasonable to be sceptical about God as it is to be so about the CIA?

More so, in my opinion. The CIA, at least, can be proven to exist, regardless of their impact (or lack thereof) on my medical records.

 

I hope I wasn't conveying the idea of having some kind of proof of God. If so, then I apologize - that was certainly not my intention.

[Didymus]

While popular opinion certainly doesn't prove correctness, it would be foolish to assume that a belief in God is inherently a negative thing.

 

...now, fanaticism in general has lead to many wars... And many fanatics tend to be religious.... But religion itself isn't the common denominator. Most religions teach peace and mildness and modesty.... Something religious fanatics who start wars do not have....

 

But there are plenty of fanatics outside of religion. And the majority of the religious people out there are not fanatics.

 

Good thread crispy bacon.

 

For the people who are just looking for reasons to hate... Try looking at yourself and wondering why you feel that need. This is a sign of being broken.

[John Cuthber]

While popular opinion certainly doesn't prove correctness, it would be foolish to assume that a belief in God is inherently a negative thing.

 

...now, fanaticism in general has lead to many wars... And many fanatics tend to be religious.... But religion itself isn't the common denominator. Most religions teach peace and mildness and modesty.... Something religious fanatics who start wars do not have....

 

But there are plenty of fanatics outside of religion. And the majority of the religious people out there are not fanatics.

 

Good thread crispy bacon.

 

For the people who are just looking for reasons to hate... Try looking at yourself and wondering why you feel that need. This is a sign of being broken.

I'm not assuming that belief is an intrinsically bad thing, I'm demonstrating it. Dead children are not an assumption: they are the outcome of parents trying to "pray away" treatable diseases. Faulty logic is a real effect and it seems well correlated with religion.

 

Nothing convinces fanatics that they have the right to harm others as well as the belief that "God is on their side".

Most religions seem happy to supply the equivalent of the Army Chaplain who is happy to say that "thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply.

 

It's not a good thread, it's pointless because it's redundant.

 

Who are these people "looking for reasons to hate"?

Do they exist or is that a straw man argument?

That is a sign of exactly the sort of poor reasoning that belief leads to.

[Didymus]

You asked what sort of hate I was referring to.... While demonstrating it. Yes, some people don't seek sufficient medical help and suffer for it. This happens for many reasons, and is not caused by religion. Some people also take too many drugs and suffer as much.

 

I'd be more than willing to bet that you only take evidence selectively.

 

First you have a false dichotomy that assumes people must cholee between prayer and medicine. Most people pico both. Second, id bet you ignore any evidence to support prayer just happens to be coinsidence. If you can't pray for God to pop up on your terms, you assume it to be evidence that prayer has no effect. Thing is, God's a bit smarter than you and doesn't have to give you what you want how you want it when you want it.

[John Cuthber]

You asked what sort of hate I was referring to.... While demonstrating it. Yes, some people don't seek sufficient medical help and suffer for it. This happens for many reasons, and is not caused by religion. Some people also take too many drugs and suffer as much.

 

I'd be more than willing to bet that you only take evidence selectively.

 

First you have a false dichotomy that assumes people must cholee between prayer and medicine. Most people pico both. Second, id bet you ignore any evidence to support prayer just happens to be coinsidence. If you can't pray for God to pop up on your terms, you assume it to be evidence that prayer has no effect. Thing is, God's a bit smarter than you and doesn't have to give you what you want how you want it when you want it.

"You asked what sort of hate I was referring to.... While demonstrating it. "

Who do you think I hate and do you really think that I'd not notice?

Are you acting under the delusion that you know my mind better than I do?

How broken is that?

Or is it just some bit of dogma you have picked up somewhere?

For the record, I'm laughing at the irony. On the other hand, you seem so riled that you can't type properly. Might be hate, might be anger, might be something else, but it's not helping you put a message across.

 

 

" This happens for many reasons, and is not caused by religion. "

Yes it is caused by religion, that's well documented.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23729684

Ignoring such evidence is, shall we say, "broken".

Thinking that this

"Some people also take too many drugs and suffer as much. "

has anything to do with the question isn't rational either.

 

"First you have a false dichotomy that assumes people must choose between prayer and medicine."

Nope, the pastor does that.

 

" Second, id bet you ignore any evidence to support prayer "

Show me some and we can find out.

Better yet, show these people and get a million dollars.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

 

Similarly, if you have any evidence then please provide it, otherwise this "If you can't pray for God to pop up on your terms, you assume it to be evidence that prayer has no effect. Thing is, God's a bit smarter than you and doesn't have to give you what you want how you want it when you want it. " is pointless drivel.

.

[Didymus]

You'll have to forgive me. Typing on my phone on a road trip in the back of a pretty full van.

 

Yes, there are people who object to certain medical treatment for many reasons. Religious reasons being one of them. There are many other reasons. For example, Jehovah's witnesses abstain from taking blood transfusions. A lot of people have had problems with that.... But now medicine is catching up and there are over a hundred hospitals across the US who've found that doing away with transfusions leads to fewer complications, infections, and speedier recovery times. There are about a dozen transfusion free hospitals in Washington state alone.

 

Religion objection people thought were cruel.... And finally realized was medically superior all along.

 

Now, sometimes, transfusions are necessary as a last resort.... and most JWs would take one in an emergency.... They just don't want to risk infection for "just to be safe" transfusions when other non-blood products are medically superior than stored blood.

[imatfaal]

You'll have to forgive me. Typing on my phone on a road trip in the back of a pretty full van.

 

Yes, there are people who object to certain medical treatment for many reasons. Religious reasons being one of them. There are many other reasons. For example, Jehovah's witnesses abstain from taking blood transfusions. A lot of people have had problems with that.... But now medicine is catching up and there are over a hundred hospitals across the US who've found that doing away with transfusions leads to fewer complications, infections, and speedier recovery times. There are about a dozen transfusion free hospitals in Washington state alone.

 

Religion objection people thought were cruel.... And finally realized was medically superior all along.

 

Now, sometimes, transfusions are necessary as a last resort.... and most JWs would take one in an emergency.... They just don't want to risk infection for "just to be safe" transfusions when other non-blood products are medically superior than stored blood.

 

JW do not refuse transfusions from fear of infection - that may or may not be an added benefit in their eyes - there is a strict dogmatic restriction against the ingestion of blood and the Watch Tower Society make it quite clear refusing that blood transfusions is a vital part of the faith.

 

And most bloodless surgery uses autologous post-surgical and mid-surgical transfusions - the kicker (that might well be a very good idea) is that they eschew allogeneic full blood transfusions. It's great practice if you can afford it and your have the wherewithall to prepare for it.

 

It really isn't that medicine has caught up with a bonkers religious belief - it is that the stupid amounts of money that westerners can throw at healthcare cost allows expensive and time-consuming techniques to be feasible. If you had asked a surgeon throughout the decades - whose blood should we use: the patient's own blood carefully filtered, tested and stored; or some guy's who we dragged off the street and paid to donate which we haven't even screened for hep?

[John Cuthber]

You'll have to forgive me. Typing on my phone on a road trip in the back of a pretty full van.

 

Yes, there are people who object to certain medical treatment for many reasons. Religious reasons being one of them. There are many other reasons. For example, Jehovah's witnesses abstain from taking blood transfusions. A lot of people have had problems with that.... But now medicine is catching up and there are over a hundred hospitals across the US who've found that doing away with transfusions leads to fewer complications, infections, and speedier recovery times. There are about a dozen transfusion free hospitals in Washington state alone.

 

Religion objection people thought were cruel.... And finally realized was medically superior all along.

 

Now, sometimes, transfusions are necessary as a last resort.... and most JWs would take one in an emergency.... They just don't want to risk infection for "just to be safe" transfusions when other non-blood products are medically superior than stored blood.

If refusal of blood transfusions was the only stupidity in which they engaged and if avoiding transfusions was always possible then that might be a valid point, except that medical practice didn't change for the benefit of a few JWs.

And, of course, there's no cruelty involved with blood transfusions so that's a bit silly too.

 

In the meantime you seem to have distracted yourself from my questions.

 

Why did you falsely assert that I was demonstrating hatred?

Why do you think there is evidence for prayer?

 

This is a scientific discussion forum: you are expected to provide evidence for your claims.

 

Are you unable to do so?

Edited August 23, 2013 by John Cuthber

[doG]

I assume you were taught that stealing is wrong. Is it safe to assume then that you only believe stealing is wrong because someone else told you that was so?

Strawman!!!

 

Anyone that learns what it is like to be stolen from can easily learn from experience how it is to those they would steal from.

 

Lets take the strawman out of it and compare apples with apples. Should all of the children of the world that are taught that Santa Claus is real continue believing that for life without question just because the were told Santa Claus is real? If you don't want to use Santa feel free to substitute the tooth fairy, leprechuans, unicorns or any other mythical being children are misled about.

[zapatos]

Strawman!!!

If you are going to claim 'Strawman!!!' you really should learn what the definition is.

[Moontanman]

I assume you were taught that stealing is wrong. Is it safe to assume then that you only believe stealing is wrong because someone else told you that was so?

 

 

Maybe not a strawman but probably not relevant either, more likely if you can't see stealing as wrong then you lack empathy not knowledge...

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822085804.htm

 

"The correlation between self and friend was remarkably similar," Coan said. "The finding shows the brain's remarkable capacity to model self to others; that people close to us become a part of ourselves, and that is not just metaphor or poetry, it's very real. Literally we are under threat when a friend is under threat. But not so when a stranger is under threat."

Coan said this likely is because humans need to have friends and allies who they can side with and see as being the same as themselves. And as people spend more time together, they become more similar.

"It's essentially a breakdown of self and other; our self comes to include the people we become close to," Coan said. "If a friend is under threat, it becomes the same as if we ourselves are under threat. We can understand the pain or difficulty they may be going through in the same way we understand our own pain."

This likely is the source of empathy, and part of the evolutionary process, Coan reasons. "A threat to ourselves is a threat to our resources," he said. "Threats can take things away from us. But when we develop friendships, people we can trust and rely on who in essence become we, then our resources are expanded, we gain. Your goal becomes my goal. It's a part of our survivability."

 

[zapatos]

Maybe not a strawman but probably not relevant either, more likely if you can't see stealing as wrong then you lack empathy not knowledge...

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822085804.htm

I don't see how asking a person about their position could possibly be construed as a strawman.

 

And since doG feels that everyone he's ever met that was a theist believed in God only because that's what they were taught;

...everyone I've ever met that was a theist believed so because that's what they were taught.

...it seemed reasonable that he only believed in things because he was taught that way. Unless of course he thinks he is capable of deciding things for himself as an adult, whereas the theists cannot.

Edited August 23, 2013 by zapatos

[Moontanman]

I don't see how asking a person about their position could possibly be construed as a strawman.

 

And since doG feels that everyone he's ever met that was a theist believed in God only because that's what they were taught;

...it seemed reasonable that he only believed in things because he was taught that way. Unless of course he thinks he is capable of deciding things for himself as an adult, whereas the theists cannot.

 

I don't see how asking a person about their position could possibly be construed as a strawman.

 

And since doG feels that everyone he's ever met that was a theist believed in God only because that's what they were taught;

 

...it seemed reasonable that he only believed in things because he was taught that way. Unless of course he thinks he is capable of deciding things for himself as an adult, whereas the theists cannot.

 

 

Actually I am quite sure he is correct, I see no evidence to support theism as anything but what we are taught unless of course "you" just happen to be born in the time and place of believing in god, the correct god, and in the correct way and I see no connection between what an adult does or does not decide is connected with babies being born theists... If you had been taught your whole life that Cthulhu was real you would no doubt believe it, believe it was the correct belief and tend to reject any other religion and it would be just as difficult to divest your self of the belief that Cthulhu was real as it is that Krishna is real or Jesus...

[zapatos]

 

 

 

Actually I am quite sure he is correct, I see no evidence to support theism as anything but what we are taught unless of course "you" just happen to be born in the time and place of believing in god, the correct god, and in the correct way and I see no connection between what an adult does or does not decide is connected with babies being born theists... If you had been taught your whole life that Cthulhu was real you would no doubt believe it, believe it was the correct belief and tend to reject any other religion and it would be just as difficult to divest your self of the belief that Cthulhu was real as it is that Krishna is real or Jesus...

This is the same problem I have with what doG said. If I recall correctly, you were brought up a theist. Then, at some point down the road as you matured and understood more, you came to the conclusion that you were not a theist.

It seems rather bold to suggest that you were capable of coming to a conclusion on your own (atheism) but that they were not capable of coming to a conclusion on their own (theism). That you believe what you believe because of maturity and logic, but they only believe what they do because they were taught it as children. Not to sound rude, but why are you special? Why can't they have been taught something as children then drawn their own conclusions as adults, just like you have?

[doG]

I don't see how asking a person about their position could possibly be construed as a strawman.

 

When someone tries to substitute a belief in morals that is taught to bolster support for the belief in mystical beings I see it as an evasive attempt to steer the debate elsewhere in order to claim that the belief in mystical beings is valid because a belief in morals is. There is no comparison whatsoever in telling kids that stealing is wrong and telling them that gods or Santa Claus is real.

It seems rather bold to suggest that you were capable of coming to a conclusion on your own (atheism) but that they were not capable of coming to a conclusion on their own (theism). That you believe what you believe because of maturity and logic, but they only believe what they do because they were taught it as children. Not to sound rude, but why are you special? Why can't they have been taught something as children then drawn their own conclusions as adults, just like you have?

Some are taught to be skeptics, to question everything, others are not. Not only are many children told they need to believe in God, they are also told that they are not to question that belief. They are taught that the existence of God is a fact even though there is zero evidence to support such a conclusion.

[Moontanman]

This is the same problem I have with what doG said. If I recall correctly, you were brought up a theist. Then, at some point down the road as you matured and understood more, you came to the conclusion that you were not a theist.

It seems rather bold to suggest that you were capable of coming to a conclusion on your own (atheism) but that they were not capable of coming to a conclusion on their own (theism). That you believe what you believe because of maturity and logic, but they only believe what they do because they were taught it as children. Not to sound rude, but why are you special? Why can't they have been taught something as children then drawn their own conclusions as adults, just like you have?

 

 

To be honest I'm not sure I can answer that question, I know my own beliefs took many years to gel and quite a bit of skeptical inquiry, I know in my younger days I waffled back and forth to some degree but ultimately I just couldn't drink the kool-aid. I know many theists who will not even look at the evidence preferring a cocoon of ignorance rather than the hardness of reality. The vast majority of people who think that way rarely stray far from their roots... although I do know of many who have spiraled down the hole of fundamentalism from a more moderate background and some like me that started out being taught fundamentalism but by a young age had begin to see the emperor had no clothes...

[zapatos]

When someone tries to substitute a belief in morals that is taught to bolster support for the belief in mystical beings...

Who did that?

 

You said people are theists only because they were taught to be theists. You left no room for an adult to conclude on his own that there is a God. Since these people don't seem to have the capability to choose for themselves and are simply burdened with what they were taught as children, I was wondering if you were similarly afflicted.Since you aren't a theist I instead asked about your ability to choose morals for yourself.

 

Since you don't seem to be similarly afflicted, I now wonder what it is that allows you to choose morals for yourself, but does not allow any theist you've ever met to choose God by himself.

 

Actually, I guess what I am saying is that it is ridiculous to suggest that theists only believe in God because they were taught that belief as children. We are all taught things as children and we later confirm, deny, or modify those beliefs.

You and your morals are an example of that.

To be honest I'm not sure I can answer that question, I know my own beliefs took many years to gel and quite a bit of skeptical inquiry, I know in my younger days I waffled back and forth to some degree but ultimately I just couldn't drink the kool-aid. I know many theists who will not even look at the evidence preferring a cocoon of ignorance rather than the hardness of reality. The vast majority of people who think that way rarely stray far from their roots... although I do know of many who have spiraled down the hole of fundamentalism from a more moderate background and some like me that started out being taught fundamentalism but by a young age had begin to see the emperor had no clothes...

I really don't find this belief in God to be all that different than believing that the party running this country into the ground is the Democrats. Unless of course you were raised in a Republican family. You have millions of people who think the Israelis are the problem, while millions of others think it is the Palestinians.

People help you form your beliefs when you are young. Probably the majority of people keep that general view while a minority changes completely. We are subject to confirmation bias. We mull things over, some a lot, some not so much, and come to a conclusion.

Doesn't matter if it is religion, politics, or body art.

I just don't see any reason to single out theists as being so screwed up when we all do similar things all the time. To me it seems quite natural and normal.

[iNow]

Is there any doubt that democrats or republicans exist, though? Do we lack evidence that there is a thing called government and that we often disagree with those in power within it? No, of course not.

 

How is it that you think disagreeing with a political viewpoint is somehow equivalent to pointing out the flaws in the reasoning of someone who accepts an extraordinary claim as valid and true in the absence of (and often in direct contradiction to) available evidence?

[doG]

Who did that?

 

You said people are theists only because they were taught to be theists. You left no room for an adult to conclude on his own that there is a God. Since these people don't seem to have the capability to choose for themselves and are simply burdened with what they were taught as children, I was wondering if you were similarly afflicted.Since you aren't a theist I instead asked about your ability to choose morals for yourself.

 

Since you don't seem to be similarly afflicted, I now wonder what it is that allows you to choose morals for yourself, but does not allow any theist you've ever met to choose God by himself.

 

Actually, I guess what I am saying is that it is ridiculous to suggest that theists only believe in God because they were taught that belief as children. We are all taught things as children and we later confirm, deny, or modify those beliefs.

You and your morals are an example of that.

I really don't find this belief in God to be all that different than believing that the party running this country into the ground is the Democrats. Unless of course you were raised in a Republican family. You have millions of people who think the Israelis are the problem, while millions of others think it is the Palestinians.

People help you form your beliefs when you are young. Probably the majority of people keep that general view while a minority changes completely. We are subject to confirmation bias. We mull things over, some a lot, some not so much, and come to a conclusion.

Doesn't matter if it is religion, politics, or body art.

I just don't see any reason to single out theists as being so screwed up when we all do similar things all the time. To me it seems quite natural and normal.

Now you're trying to equate opinions with beliefs. There is no doubt that democrats, republicans, Israelis and Palestinians exist. We know they are real. Our opinions on their ideologies vary but that has no bearing on their existence.

 

OTOH, there is zero evidence to support as fact the existence of deities, leprechuans, unicorns, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. It is understandable that misled children believe in these things but adults should know better and their ability to think rationally should be questioned if they believe any of these things are real.