People who believe in God are "NOT" broken

[John Cuthber]

"

 

John... You're comfortable with saying that the big bang "doesnt defy physics, we just don't understand it yet".... But people are inherently foolish/broken for applying the same logic to a different source of a universal explosion of creation?

Do you see the fundamental flaw?"

Yes, the fundamental flaw is that some people don't understand that there's evidence for the big band, but none for God.

 

Strictly change isn't the purpose of science, but it's the method.

Religion's method is to refuse to change if at all possible.

That too is a fundamental flaw

You say "Science without religion is lame."

It seems to walk just fine to me.

What did you think that quote meant?

[Iggy]

I think where the three of you are going wrong is that you are judging others based on your standards. You are educated, critical thinkers who have debated the existence of God in terms of clear rules of logic, historical records, philosophy, empirical evidence, an understanding of the significance of the scientific method, a background in the natural sciences, an understanding of physics/biology/chemistry, a working knowledge of evolution, etc.

 

And also... if you've heard of dual process theory... it isn't exactly that 'the three of them' are critical thinkers, and other people might not be -- but, rather that everyone with a healthy mind both thinks critically, and thinks intuitively.

 

Daniel Kahneman is a superstar in psychology (Nobel prize and whatnot). His latest book says something that I find very relevant to the thread:

 

To set the quote up... psychologists call judgments based on emotion and intuition System 1, and judgments based on critical examination and logic System 2:

 

The question that is most often asked about cognitive illusions is whether they can be overcome. The message of these examples is not encouraging. Because System 1 operates automatically and cannot be turned off at will, errors of intuitive thought are often difficult to prevent. Biases cannot always be avoided, because System 2 may have no clue to the error. Even when cues to likely errors are available, errors can be prevented only by the enhanced monitoring and effortful activity of System 2. As a way to live your life, however, continuous vigilance is not necessarily good, and it is certainly impractical. Constantly questioning our own thinking would be impossibly tedious, and System 2 is much too slow and inefficient to serve as a substitute for System 1 in making routine decisions.

 

Thinking, Fast and Slow

 

 

So... constant rational thought, and an inability to think without logic, would be psychologically unhealthy. It says elsewhere in the book:

 

 

Mood evidently affects the operation of System 1: when we are uncomfortable and unhappy, we lose touch with our intuition.

These findings add to the growing evidence that good mood, intuition, creativity, gullibility, and increased reliance on System 1 form a cluster. At the other pole, sadness, vigilance, suspicion, an analytic approach, and increased effort also go together.

 

So... yeah, I'm afraid cognitive illusions are all too normal.

[Didymus]

Yes, the fundamental flaw is that some people don't understand that there's evidence for the big band, but none for God.[/font][/color]

 

Strictly change isn't the purpose of science, but it's the method.

Religion's method is to refuse to change if at all possible.

That too is a fundamental flaw

You say "Science without religion is lame."

It seems to walk just fine to me.

What did you think that quote meant?

 

... And that's why I believe ins science, not math. Science is all about learning and change. There's proof for science. Math is just an arbitrary system for counting and manipulating theoretical numbers.... Meanwhile there is no proof that numbers exist in the first place. So, I believe in science, rather than math.

 

...get it?

[Thorham]

Math is just an arbitrary system for counting and manipulating theoretical numbers....

... which works perfectly fine, or nothing that requires math to work would actually work at all. A very good example is JPEG compression. Without math this doesn't work, and that's just one thing.

 

Meanwhile there is no proof that numbers exist in the first place.

Numbers exist simply because we invented them.

[John Cuthber]

Yes, the fundamental flaw is that some people don't understand that there's evidence for the big band, but none for God.[/font][/color]

 

Strictly change isn't the purpose of science, but it's the method.

Religion's method is to refuse to change if at all possible.

That too is a fundamental flaw

You say "Science without religion is lame."

It seems to walk just fine to me.

What did you think that quote meant?

 

... And that's why I believe ins science, not math. Science is all about learning and change. There's proof for science. Math is just an arbitrary system for counting and manipulating theoretical numbers.... Meanwhile there is no proof that numbers exist in the first place. So, I believe in science, rather than math.

 

...get it?

No, I'm afraid I don't.

Please explain why you think maths doesn't work but science, which is largely based in maths, does work.

 

Also, it might be easier if, rather than just quoting my questions, you answered them

So, once again, what do you think that quote meant?

[Didymus]

First, if you wan to be taken seriously, don't pluralize "math" unnecessarily.

 

Second, that corrélation was the answer to your question. This is what Einstein meant. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. He was referring to Romans 1:25 and acknowledging that science is the study of the created universe... Science cripples itself without acknowledging the one who set forth all of reality to be discovered. Religion blinds itself by worshiping the creator, but ignoring the logic behind the creation. Both are sides of the same coin to find truth, so to decide between the two is to deny both.

 

A dichotomy between science and religion is as faulty as rejecting math in favor of science. Knowing one increases your understanding of the other.

[iNow]

A dichotomy between science and religion is as faulty as rejecting math in favor of science. Knowing one increases your understanding of the other.

In what specific ways do you propose does religion increase ones understanding of science?

[WWLabRat]

A dichotomy between science and religion is as faulty as rejecting math in favor of science. Knowing one increases your understanding of the other.

 

In what specific ways do you propose does religion increase ones understanding of science?

 

The only way that I could see this being true is if you make the assumption that if it weren't for religion, or the belief in a "higher power" then our ancestors may never have asked "How did we get here?" But after that point, there's no more need for one to exist for the other to thrive

[John Cuthber]

First, if you wan to be taken seriously, don't pluralize "math" unnecessarily.

 

 

LOL

Maths isn't plural, if it were I'd have written "maths don't..." rather than "maths doesn't..." Learn the difference before you try to "correct" others.

 

The rest of your post also didn't make sense.

 

For example you say

". Science cripples itself without acknowledging the one who set forth all of reality to be discovered."

What has science been prevented from discovering? (please don't cite things that don't exist.)

​Also, as others have said, you claim that religion increases understanding of science. Again- cite examples.

[pears]

 

Unity+, on 12 Aug 2013 - 8:54 PM, said:

 

In fact the Bible states that unicorns are real, do you believe in unicorns?

 

 

 

For one thing, that is a St. James translation, which gives different translations of meaning. The "strength of a unicorn" is simply referred to as a measure of strength. At the time at which that particular Bible was written they decided to reference such as a measure of strength.

 

 

Nice try, but that's irrelevant to the point. There are unicorns in the bible. That was the assertion made. You asked where, and you were answered. Here's more (since the version seems to matter to you): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn#Biblical

 

 

No the original point was that the Bible states that unicorns are real, not that it mentions them.

But the idea of non-overlapping magisteria fails because religion DOES make positive assertions about the reality in which we exist, and is only too happy to suggest that material evidence from science supports their beliefs.

 

Whether you realize it or not, you're here now referencing an argument put forth by Stephen Jay Gould called "non-overlapping magisteria." It is deeply flawed on a very fundamental level.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

"A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without."

 

Quite possibly. How do we know this? Do we have multiple universes to compare against? What is the justification for this statement. Does it show that this universe is not influenced by a supernatural presence?

 

 

 

So you give equal respect to Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Neo Paganism, Jewish, and all other god concepts?

 

 

I have respect for those people yes.

 

 

 

I did not ask about people, Do you respect their beliefs enough to admit they are as justifiable as yours?

 

 

In any case, yes if you put it that way.

 

 

I should have asked if you respect the validity of those other gods as much as you do yours....

 

In that case i would refer you to the 1st commandment...

 

What is the point of this exchange in relation to the topic title?

 

[Moontanman]

 

 

 

 

 

No the original point was that the Bible states that unicorns are real, not that it mentions them.

 

Quite possibly. How do we know this? Do we have multiple universes to compare against? What is the justification for this statement. Does it show that this universe is not influenced by a supernatural presence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is the point of this exchange in relation to the topic title?

 

 

 

Unity+ asserted he thought all points of view were worth respecting, I asked him if all religious world views were equal in his eyes...

 

The unicorn idea is not the original question he asked about, I went back and read the posts again. I think it was the genocide and keeping female children for their own pleasure he was questioning as demands of god.

 

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

 

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

 

[pears]

My point about the unicorn post was not related to my question to you. I had intended for them to go in separate posts but they were merged, which perhaps made who I was addressing and about what, unclear.

[Thorham]

Unicorns? Really? What's next? Pink, flying elephants?

[Didymus]

Btw, "unicorn" does not necessarily mean the magical beast invented in Europe long after the bible. This was likely the name of a single horned rhinoceros, but is also sometimes translated as "auroch", referring to an African cow who's horns look fused together.

[Iota]

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?

 

I don't think 'why can't they?' is the right question to be asking. I think a better question is, 'what's the chances they have been taught something as children then drawn their own conclusions as adults, just like you?' And the answer is that the chances are very thin (and very thin is being generous, but I'll refrain saying 'nil' because it would be unscientific to do so), and here's why:

 

If you were to colour label a map, country by country, according to which religion is followed in a clear majority, in each, you'd see a very clear trend. There will be zones where people follow Islam (Middle East, nearby parts of Africa, and surrounding regions), zones where follow Hinduism (India), zones where people follow Christianity (Europe, USA, Australia...) (just as rough examples.) This trend has an important significance. It shows us that populations generation after generation are subscribing to the same belief systems as their parents, and their surroundings, whereas other regions in the world subscribe to another belief.

 

Let's say people in Pakistan compared to people in the USA. If the people in the USA 'drew their own conclusion' to remain Christian, and the people in Pakistan also 'drew their own conclusion' to remain Muslim... how could they both have done so, when each religion has equally zero evidence? Why is it that Islam seems to be a plausible conclusion to people in Pakistan, yet not in USA (and vice versa)? How is it possible that they are making their own informed decisions to believe a select religion, when geographical evidence shows clearly that it seems illogical to come to the conclusion of Christianity in some parts of the world, yet not in others? What I'm asking you is, why is the conclusion of Christianity geographically variably a good conclusion?

 

The reality is: that to come to the conclusion of theism isn't really doable in the first place, because to come to a real conclusion, you need evidence combined with reasoning to do so. With religion you believe it because you want to -for whatever non-evidence driven reason that may be- not because of a rationale.

 

You can argue otherwise but you'd be kidding yourself if you believe these trends are mere coincidence or down to something other than thoughtless subscription to one's indoctrination, in the vast majority of cases.

 

Your belief is not evidence driven, therefore you must believe purely because you choose to. To do this is not an informed or rational or thought-out decision. It's belief for the sake of belief, and you have no plausible reason for believing what you currently believe over any other religious or mythical beliefs, for which there is equally zero evidence supporting them.

 

The decision to choose to be atheist is different, because you make the decision not to believe because of the zero evidence for all religions, and hence you make the informed decision to follow evidence over the irrational, faith-based superstitious consensus of your region. At most you can make your own decision to continue subscribing to your life long religion, in spite of hearing alternative views, and learning that god is not evidence supported. But you can't called it an informed decision in the same sense as an atheist converting out of religion due to finding out the same revelations. There's a clear difference, with all due respect.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Iota

[Thorham]

Btw, "unicorn" does not necessarily mean the magical beast invented in Europe long after the bible. This was likely the name of a single horned rhinoceros, but is also sometimes translated as "auroch", referring to an African cow who's horns look fused together.

You're probably right, but hey, it's the bible we're talking about here, so can you blame me for writing that?

 

The decision to choose to be atheist is different, because you make the decision not to believe because of the zero evidence for all religions

It can also be the fact that religions such as Christianity and Islam seem to have only one purpose and that is to control people (which both seem to excel at). They tell you what to think, believe, do, eat, wear and so on, and if you don't then you're going to hell. How obvious is that?

Edited August 31, 2013 by Thorham

[WWLabRat]

You're probably right, but hey, it's the bible we're talking about here, so can you blame me for writing that?

 

 

It can also be the fact that religions such as Christianity and Islam seem to have only one purpose and that is to control people (which both seem to excel at). They tell you what to think, believe, do, eat, wear and so on, and if you don't then you're going to hell. How obvious is that?

 

So by that right, you are also saying that the military seeks to control its members. I choose to follow Christian values, not because I had been raised that way, but because those are in line with my own beliefs that I have formed in my adult years.

[iNow]

If you were to colour label a map, country by country, according to which religion is followed in a clear majority, in each, you'd see a very clear trend. There will be zones where people follow Islam (Middle East, nearby parts of Africa, and surrounding regions), zones where follow Hinduism (India), zones where people follow Christianity (Europe, USA, Australia...) (just as rough examples.) This trend has an important significance. It shows us that populations generation after generation are subscribing to the same belief systems as their parents, and their surroundings, whereas other regions in the world subscribe to another belief.

<snip>

You can argue otherwise but you'd be kidding yourself if you believe these trends are mere coincidence or down to something other than thoughtless subscription to one's indoctrination, in the vast majority of cases.

 

<snip>

 

The decision to choose to be atheist is different, because you make the decision not to believe because of the zero evidence for all religions, and hence you make the informed decision to follow evidence over the irrational, faith-based superstitious consensus of your region. At most you can make your own decision to continue subscribing to your life long religion, in spite of hearing alternative views, and learning that god is not evidence supported. But you can't called it an informed decision in the same sense as an atheist converting out of religion due to finding out the same revelations. There's a clear difference, with all due respect.

 

This was a good argument, and well focused on the point that was made. I just want to supplement the first quoted paragraph with the below. It reinforces visually your comments.

 

 

[Thorham]

So by that right, you are also saying that the military seeks to control its members.

No, I'm not saying that at all, even though for some military organizations that's undoubtedly true. I'm just stating another reason to not be religious.

[Moontanman]

Btw, "unicorn" does not necessarily mean the magical beast invented in Europe long after the bible. This was likely the name of a single horned rhinoceros, but is also sometimes translated as "auroch", referring to an African cow who's horns look fused together.

 

 

I do agree with you, unicorn was probably a mythological rendition of a rhino, but "Auroch" was not an African cow with horns that looked fused together. Aurochs were the ancestors of modern cattle but the original beast was much larger and more powerful than domestic cattle and lived manly in Europe, Asia, and India with a smaller range in North Africa.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

 

 

 

 

Size

The aurochs was one of the largest herbivores in postglacial Europe, comparable to the wisent, the European bison. The size of an aurochs appears to have varied by region: in Europe, northern populations were bigger on average than those from the south. For example, during the Holocene, aurochs from Denmark and Germany had an average height at the shoulders of 155–180 cm (61–71 in) in bulls and 135–155 cm (53–61 in) in cows, while aurochs populations in Hungary had bulls reaching 155–160 cm (61–63 in).^[17] The body mass of aurochs appeared to have showed some variability. Some individuals were comparable in weight to the wisent and the banteng, reaching around 700 kg (1,500 lb), whereas those from the late-middle Pleistocene are estimated to have weighed up to 1,500 kg (3,300 lb), as much as the largest gaur (the largest extant bovid).^[8][18] The sexual dimorphism between bull and cow was strongly expressed, with the cows being significantly shorter than bulls on average.

 

 

 

They were large dangerous beasts.

 

Horns

Because of the massive horns, the frontal bones of aurochs were elongated and broad. The horns of the aurochs were characteristic in size, curvature and orientation. They were curved in three directions: upwards and outwards at the base, then swinging forwards and inwards, then inwards and upwards. Aurochs horns could reach 80 cm (31 in) in length and between 10 and 20 cm (3.9 and 7.9 in) in diameter.^[15] The horns of bulls were larger, with the curvature more strongly expressed than in cows. The horns grew from the skull at a 60° angle to the muzzle, facing forwards.^[8]

 

 

Horns

Because of the massive horns, the frontal bones of aurochs were elongated and broad. The horns of the aurochs were characteristic in size, curvature and orientation. They were curved in three directions: upwards and outwards at the base, then swinging forwards and inwards, then inwards and upwards. Aurochs horns could reach 80 cm (31 in) in length and between 10 and 20 cm (3.9 and 7.9 in) in diameter.^[15] The horns of bulls were larger, with the curvature more strongly expressed than in cows. The horns grew from the skull at a 60° angle to the muzzle, facing forwards.^[8]

 

[zapatos]

I don't think 'why can't they?' is the right question to be asking. I think a better question is, 'what's the chances they have been taught something as children then drawn their own conclusions as adults, just like you?'

I would have to disagree. And the reason is that your question is a bit of a straw man. doG said "...everyone I've ever met that was a theist believed so because that's what they were taught." Since Moontanman was able to draw his own conclusion, I think the question "Why can't they have been taught something as children then drawn their own conclusions as adults, just like you have?" was quite appropriate.

My question address the statement that "...a theist believed so because that's what they were taught." I am asking about the reason.

Your question does not address the reason people remain theists after adulthood, only whether or not they do.

 

I am questioning why doG and Moon felt they were capable to making their own decisions, but that theists were not.

You are questioning if people ever change their religion, which was never in question.

 

The decision to choose to be atheist is different, because you make the decision not to believe because of the zero evidence for all religions, and hence you make the informed decision to follow evidence over the irrational, faith-based superstitious consensus of your region.

Ah, now I know why you might think yourself to be special. It is because you don't belong to that majority of the world's population that is "irrational and "superstitious".

[Iota]

 

 

Your question does not address the reason people remain theists after adulthood, only whether or not they do.

 

My question may not have immediately asked why? which is the reason why I felt my question was more appropriate, because there is no correct answer if you just ask 'why'. At most that can be answered with someone's opinion of 'why', which can easily and without much of an argument be denied again and again. The question of what are the chances? forces both people in the discussion to base their argument on evidence and rationale, which itself answers the question of 'why' you think that. That way, in order to now plausibly deny my conclusion of why, you must counter my rationale by telling me why it's wrong, rather than just suggesting an infinite list of baseless arguments that suggest the contrary to what I said, or anyone else said.

 

You didn't come back at my reasoning, instead you argued a technicality to do with the question I used in order to approach the issue more effectively.

 

 

 

Ah, now I know why you might think yourself to be special. It is because you don't belong to that majority of the world's population that is "irrational and "superstitious".

 

I don't think the rest of the world is irrational and superstitious, I think they are irrational and superstitious when it comes to their religious convictions. I by no means intend to undermine them as intellectuals, there are lots of religious people who are rational about things outside of their beliefs. But I still reject the premise that religion can be a rational belief, based on the reasons I said in my last post.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Iota

[Iggy]

The reality is: that to come to the conclusion of theism isn't really doable in the first place, because to come to a real conclusion, you need evidence combined with reasoning to do so.

4 + 5 = 10 is a mistaken conclusion (a wrong conclusion)

 

4 + 5 = 9 is the correct conclusion

 

Many people make the conclusion that they should convert from atheism to religion later in life. If you look at how someone does it:

 

I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief.

 

-Francis Collins

It is usually either a mistaken personal experience, or a mistaken conclusion drawn from a personal experience.

 

Regardless, the decision not to believe is often just as cultural as the decision to believe. Your point:

 

If you were to colour label a map, country by country, according to which religion is followed in a clear majority, in each, you'd see a very clear trend. There will be zones where people follow Islam (Middle East, nearby parts of Africa, and surrounding regions), zones where follow Hinduism (India), zones where people follow Christianity (Europe, USA, Australia...) (just as rough examples.) This trend has an important significance. It shows us that populations generation after generation are subscribing to the same belief systems as their parents, and their surroundings, whereas other regions in the world subscribe to another belief.

 

<snip>

 

You can argue otherwise but you'd be kidding yourself if you believe these trends are mere coincidence or down to something other than thoughtless subscription to one's indoctrination, in the vast majority of cases.

 

and iNow's map going with it, neglect the fact that eastern Asia and parts of Europe are mostly irreligious. There are areas where people mostly follow Christianity, others where people mostly follow Islam, and others where people mostly don't follow. So, your question can be just as easily turned around...

 

The question of what are the chances? forces both people in the discussion to base their argument on evidence and rationale

 

What are the chances that a non-believer when asked why they don't believe will simply say "My parents weren't religious, so I just grew up never believing." I've heard it at least a few times.

 

 

 

I should add that there are religious people who recognize that they are a specific religion because of where they grew up, but still don't grant your premise. Dinesh D'Souza (a Christian born in India) answered that charge like so:

 

Question: I can start with a compliment to Dinesh because in one of his books he tells the story of asking his father in India, “Daddy, everyone around here seems to be Hindu, with quite a few Muslims. Why are we Christians?” And his father said, “Because, Dinesh, my lad, the Portuguese inquisition got to this part of India first,” which is, in fact, the full and complete explanation for that.

 

Answer: Here’s the point: my grandfather did say that to me, and I began to read Indian history, and I realized that a handful of Portuguese missionaries (inquisitorial or not) would have a pretty hard time converting hundreds of thousands of people. And, Indian historians who look at it have a better explanation — it’s called the caste system.

 

See, if you were born into the Hindu caste system, and you were one of the guys on the lower rungs of the ladder, to put it somewhat bluntly, you were screwed. It didn’t matter what merit you had, you couldn’t rise up and neither could your children. So along come these greedy missionaries and maybe they had swords, but the truth of it is a lot of Indians were very eager to get out of the caste system. They didn’t need the swords. They rushed into the arms of the missionaries because they promised something that the Hindus couldn’t: universal brotherhood. It wasn’t always practiced, but even the idea of it — the principle of it — was hugely appealing and that’s why there were mass conversions (not only to Christianity, but also to Islam, which makes a similar promise). So, this is the historical landscape.

 

We’re committing here what could be called a genetic fallacy. We do it with religion, we can always see the fallacy if we apply it to any other area. For example, it is very probable there are more people who believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution who come from Oxford, England than who come from Oxford, Mississippi. It’s probably equally true that there are more people who believe in Einstein’s theory of relativity who come from New York than who come from New Guinea. What does this say about whether Einstein’s theory is correct or no? Nothing. The origins of your ideas have no bearing on whether they’re true or not.

 

[zapatos]

My question may not have immediately asked why? which is the reason why I felt my question was more appropriate, because there is no correct answer if you just ask 'why'. At most that can be answered with someone's opinion of 'why', which can easily and without much of an argument be denied again and again. The question of what are the chances? forces both people in the discussion to base their argument on evidence and rationale, which itself answers the question of 'why' you think that. That way, in order to now plausibly deny my conclusion of why, you must counter my rationale by telling me why it's wrong, rather than just suggesting an infinite list of baseless arguments that suggest the contrary to what I said, or anyone else said.

 

You didn't come back at my reasoning, instead you argued a technicality to do with the question I used in order to approach the issue more effectively.

Sorry, I've read your post a couple of times and I am still missing it. How does knowing that the chances of remaining a theist into adulthood are very high, tell you 'why' they are remaining a theist?

[Iota]

Sorry, I've read your post a couple of times and I am still missing it. How does knowing that the chances of remaining a theist into adulthood are very high, tell you 'why' they are remaining a theist?

 

Because it links explanation (the nature of religious belief) to observed trends (how religious groups are distributed) in a way that makes sense and leads to one logical conclusion, and renders your original question of why, redundant anyway.

You're being crafty by avoiding my reasoning, instead repeatedly make vague references to a part of my style of approach towards the topic, and attacking it with your opinion: that it doesn't answer your impossible question of why, which will never be satisfied, no matter what anyone says.

 

 

 

That way, in order to now plausibly deny my conclusion of why, you must counter my rationale by telling me why it's wrong, rather than just suggesting an infinite list of baseless arguments that suggest the contrary to what I said, or anyone else said.

 

I've explained why, just not in the way you're demanding, in a non-scientific way, in an unanswerable way, in a way that manages to avoid admitting something that we all know to be evident, i.e. when it comes to subscribing to a religion, there's no rational reason for doing so, therefore to claim to believe for any reason other than indoctrination, isn't really possible, because there is no reason to believe it, because there's no evidence. It's belief for the sake of belief, so even if you truly think that you're religious for any reason other than indoctrination, or thoughtless belief, that reason is invalid, because its not a reason, because reasons involving reasoning, which purely faith-based beliefs do not do.