Religious Beliefs

[immhotep]

And then indoctrinated in to believing in a particular set of beliefs. Faithor believe in god is not an inbuilt, it is a physcological accident stemming from child -parent relationships.

[Womble]

Faithor believe in god is not an inbuilt, it is a physcological accident stemming from child -parent relationships.

So is not killing. And your point is?

Besides, why do you assume that only those born from religious parents come to believe in God?

[AvatarIII]

Wrong. If you mean naturalism then say it, Atheism is not a belief system, you don't even need a position on 'God' or even heard of one to be an atheist, it's just the natural human default setting. You were born an atheist.

i'm pretty sure we're all born Agnostic, to be Atheist you still have to believe in the non-existence of God or a higher power, and when you are born, you really don't have an opinion either way yet.

what you are refering to is Apatheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

So is not killing. And your point is?

Besides, why do you assume that only those born from religious parents come to believe in God?

i agree with Wom, there are a lot of people bought up in families of one faith that choose to take on a new faith, and going from Atheism to Christianity/Judaism/Islam is no different

if it was the case that people only ever stopped believeing in what their parents taught them instead of choosing to believe something their parents didn't teach them, it wouldn't be long before there were no religions left.

[Gibsnag]

well Atheism IS a belief, because it is a belief against the existence of a higher power, where no evidence exists to proove either way, Agnosticsm is the lack of belief. but Atheism is NOT a religion

No, Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. It is entirely to do with knowledge A-Gnostic. Its a claim that it is impossible to know anything about a deity. Not a statement of belief.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the default position. Without proof "either way" the only logical position is disbelief. Otherwise you'd have to believe in any unprovable entity, of which there are an infinite amount. Look up the Celestial Teapot argument (Bertrand Russell).

i'm pretty sure we're all born Agnostic, to be Atheist you still have to believe in the non-existence of God or a higher power, and when you are born, you really don't have an opinion either way yet.

what you are refering to is Apatheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

No, I really don't have to believe in the non-existence of God. Until someone gives me evidence to suggest that a Deity exists I'm going to not believe in one. Its that simple. I don't care about fancy Theological arguments, give me some empirical evidence for the existence of a deity which proves not only the existence of the deity, but also the particular attributes of this claimed deity.

[Womble]

Atheism is not a belief, it is the default position.

Atheism is only the default position until the question is asked. After that, it's a belief. A person who has never been aware of the concept of God existing is an atheist by default. A person who consciously rejected the idea of there being a God is an atheist by choice, therefore a believer.

Without proof "either way" the only logical position is disbelief.

The only logical position? One would have thought that in the absence of proof "either way", both positions would logically be equally legitimate.


The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a God or not.

(Eric Hoffer, one of the most remarkable 20th century philosophers).

[Ltcolshepjumper]

And then indoctrinated in to believing in a particular set of beliefs. Faithor believe in god is not an inbuilt, it is a physcological accident stemming from child -parent relationships.

An ACCIDENT?! How in the world is it an accident? it's a choice.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

No offense intended, but I honestly believe most that cling to religion do so out of fear or indoctrination. Maybe not you, but many others. I think they look at the possibility of a God, of a way out of death and into something more, and force themselves to believe with every fiber of their being so they have a chance to cheat the end.

I mean, think about it. Most people that are religious will stuff their ears to avoid theological debate, mainly because they don't want to hear anything that may sway them. And why would they be swayed unless they themselves doubted their faith?

My own belief is that a God in our texts is simply illogical to the point of dumb. I mean, there's a whole universe out there so vast that we're less than a grain of sand on an Earth-sized world. Why, why, why would any God bless only one planet among the billions with life? Why would he limit the greatest gift of all to just one place in all Creation? There is no reason. We were just a lucky accident here on Earth, one that hopefully got repeated elsewhere.

First, I am a christian. I'll state that openly right now. Those who affiliate themselves with a religion are not merely indoctrinated. They do not seek to merely cheat the end. That is the most ignorant statement I've read. Rather, it is those who refuse to listen to the beliefs of certain religions that are close-minded. For myself personally, I do not thnk of the universe as filled with billions of life scattered among the stars. There is a large difference between capable of sustaining life and actually having living organisms when it comes to Christianity, as we believe God Himself created life, and without Him, there is no life.

Tell me, how much do you know about theological debate, seeing that you by admittance don't even acknowledge any theology? I for one will listen to theological debate. I'd love to just sit down and debate with someone my beliefs.

As for your second argument. You have missed the entire mark.

My own belief is that a God in our texts is simply illogical to the point of dumb. I mean, there's a whole universe out there so vast that we're less than a grain of sand on an Earth-sized world. Why, why, why would any God bless only one planet among the billions with life? Why would he limit the greatest gift of all to just one place in all Creation? There is no reason. We were just a lucky accident here on Earth, one that hopefully got repeated elsewhere

One, we don't believe there are many worlds with life, so that question is refuted. Two, if we are an accident, and if there is no God, where is your basis for morality? What is the dividing line between good and evil? What is natural and unnatural? can you answer these questions? All of nature points to the existence of a divine creator. How else could something be produced from nothing, except it were supernatural?

[shipper hannah]

So is not killing. And your point is?

Besides, why do you assume that only those born from religious parents come to believe in God?

One, we don't believe there are many worlds with life, so that question is refuted. Two, if we are an accident, and if there is no God, where is your basis for morality? What is the dividing line between good and evil? What is natural and unnatural? can you answer these questions? All of nature points to the existence of a divine creator. How else could something be produced from nothing, except it were supernatural?

erm actually i think not killing is mostly inbuilt. i think that people have inbuilt morals that are a result of evolution that serves to benefit us as a species.
for example, primates in captivity have been observed to feel empathy for other chimps in pain, and will refuse food if eating it will result in another chimp getting a shock. it wouldn't be beneficial for a species if one did not react to another whose life was in danger.

[Womble]

First, I am a christian. I'll state that openly right now. Those who affiliate themselves with a religion are not merely indoctrinated. They do not seek to merely cheat the end. That is the most ignorant statement I've read.

It's as ignorant a statement as it is common. For an actual believing person, it is a completely bizzare proposition.

if we are an accident, and if there is no God, where is your basis for morality? What is the dividing line between good and evil? What is natural and unnatural? can you answer these questions?

Setting up a moral framework on an arbitrary basis is not impossible. The real question isn't what to ground it upon, but why, in the absence of God, should one bother with morality in the first place.

All of nature points to the existence of a divine creator. How else could something be produced from nothing, except it were supernatural?

This is a very, very dangerous and arguably blasphemous argument to use (although I admit that it's a tempting one). When you base your belief in God on what science can or cannot explain, you are in essence canonizing the scientific consensus of your day and age. Not a good idea.

[shipper hannah]

An ACCIDENT?! How in the world is it an accident? it's a choice.

not necessarily, when children are taught from a young age to accept something as truth its not a choice for them its indoctrination. they're children they don't know any better but than to believe what their parents or mentors tell them.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

It's clearly no accident. indoctrination or not, once a human being comes to the age where he or she can make intelligent decisions for him or herself, they either choose to consciously believe in the existence of a god, or they refute the notion of one. There is no accident. indoctrination becomes obsolete once that person has been educated.

[Womble]

erm actually i think not killing is mostly inbuilt. i think that people have inbuilt morals that are a result of evolution that enables our species to survive.

If not killing was inbuilt, there wouldn't have been any killing happening. Feral children, those who grew up in the wild in isolation of human society, not only have no moral obstacles to killing, but exhibit no empathy whatsoever. They simply don't see other living beings as living beings. They likewise have no normal sexual response (they experience sexual arousal, but it is completely undirected, with no preference for a specific gender or even species). These behaviors are learned.

how else would they have arisen in the first place?

That, my friend, is precisely what we are discussing here- the other way they could have arisen.

for example, primates in captivity have been observed to feel empathy for other chimps in pain, and will refuse food if eating it will result in another chimp getting a shock.

First, this is again a social phenomena. Second, their idea of empathy is not the human idea of empathy, and something tells me you wouldn't really want to live by the moral code of the chimp herd.

[shipper hannah]

i think it depends if the person is open to questioning his own 'faith' that he has 'known' since he was a child. a lot of that depends on one's eductation and/or how they think, if they are a 'logical thinker' or a 'creative thinker' for instance.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

If not killing was inbuilt, there wouldn't have been any killing happening. Feral children, those who grew up in the wild in isolation of human society, not only have no moral obstacles to killing, but exhibit no empathy whatsoever. They simply don't see other living beings as living beings. They likewise have no normal sexual response (they experience sexual arousal, but it is completely undirected, with no preference for a specific gender or even species). These behaviors are learned.
That, my friend, is precisely what we are discussing here- the other way they could have arisen.


First, this is again a social phenomena. Second, their idea of empathy is not the human idea of empathy, and something tells me you wouldn't really want to live by the moral code of the chimp herd.

And can you explain why such a moral deficiency (for that is what killing is) is inbuilt?

[Womble]

And can you explain why such a moral deficiency (for that is what killing is) is inbuilt?

Killing isn't inbuilt anymore than not killing is inbuilt. It comes from the lack of an inbuilt restraint on our default selfishness.