|
Post by Moose on May 12, 2013 19:12:04 GMT
I was raised in church of England schools but, tho we sang hymns and had scripture lessons each day plus mandatory prayers, I never really believed any of it was true and that opinion has not much changed. I was raised to look for answers for myself, and I remember my mum telling me that tho she personally thought there was a God she did not know what form it/He took and she did not think that any religion had it right. Other than that religion did not play much role in my upbringing so I suppose you could say I was raised agnostic and still am
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on May 12, 2013 19:25:03 GMT
Raised Muslim.. became a pantheist at the age of 14, then an agnostic atheist around the age of 16-17.. I'm more like an ignostic apatheist at this point.. I only have a problem with religious institutions, particularly in the Islamic world, where they still hold too much power (won't last forever though)..
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on May 12, 2013 19:28:58 GMT
I wasn't raised any particular way regards religion. Possibly because of our emmigration to Australia which meant we left behind any influence from my maternal grandma who was catholic and went to church. My paternal grandma does not go to church, not sure if she is agnostic or does have some belief in god but my father was never christened I think. And certainly my brother and I never were. I can never remember having any discussion whatsoever about religion or gods until I was well into my teens and my mum complained that I was too anti religious. I was an atheist by the time I was in first grade because I remember being curious about going to church and seeing what it was like for all those brain washed and old people who didn't realise science had the answers. The only change from then until now is that I realise now it's not just a few old and brain washed people but unfortunately too many people who still choose religion over reality and would rather fill the blank with god than with nothing. And that now I don't mind describing myself an atheist whereas when I was younger I hated any sort of labels.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on May 12, 2013 19:32:01 GMT
Despite not being raised religious I can never quite lose the feeling that there MIGHT be something out there, even though I generally think that it is completely impossible from a scientific point of view. But I can't call myself atheist, because I am aware that I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on May 12, 2013 19:38:15 GMT
I don't need to prove there is no god. Burden of proof is with the person saying there is one. Until that proof comes around, I'm an atheist. I equally do not believe in all gods or spiritual things of any sort. If some proof comes to light, I'll eat my hair brush as my mum would say (no, I'll change my stance and no longer be an atheist).
|
|
|
Post by Moose on May 12, 2013 19:40:12 GMT
I wasn't asking you to prove it It's just that I think that it is unprovable. I believe that there is no God but I cannot say that with complete certainty.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on May 12, 2013 19:42:59 GMT
There is no raised agnostic now atheist...
That might be the closest, though I was raised with a sort of " it's given that God is probably real but nothing is sure, so let's just behave as if he is, but not too actively".
I don't remember ever believing, so I probably threw gods out with the myths I was supposed to discard at around age 7. But I do remember trying very hard to believe those years after that, and praying, and feeling extremely guilty for not being able to believe. Until I discovered there were, in fact, other non-believers in the world and then I stopped even thinking about it much until well into adulthood when I was confronted with self-righteous theism on the net and reacting by becoming an angry/active atheist for a while until I again settled into more serene non-belief. Though I still have flare-ups.
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on May 12, 2013 19:43:46 GMT
That's what the label "agnostic atheist" is for.. but in the end it depends on how you define "agnostic" and "atheist"..
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on May 12, 2013 19:52:21 GMT
Yeah, when I was growing up I would have just called myself agnostic, as I was too uninterested in the topic to even look up the definitions, and later realized that by most actual definitions I had been an (agnostic) atheist all along. But I actually have no idea what my parents believe. I suspect my father is largely atheist and my mother sort of a semi-Christian deist.
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on May 12, 2013 20:01:34 GMT
I wish I didn't know what my parents believe.. they make sure to remind me of it everyday.. -__-
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on May 12, 2013 20:02:46 GMT
I wasn't asking you to prove it It's just that I think that it is unprovable. I believe that there is no God but I cannot say that with complete certainty. I know, but you said because you don't know you're not atheist. I don't know either but in my view it's not my problem because there are plenty of things out there that I can't know either but haven't been proven and I am an atheist on all those things until there is some proof. I'm not going to go round saying I"m agnostic about fairies or vampires or flying teapots. To me that is just stupid. I'm perfectly content to believe there are no gods and see that as a statement of fact until there is some evidence and then I can change my mind if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on May 12, 2013 20:04:31 GMT
It's just that special pleading again that religion always takes. Somehow when talking about gods and religion they have a special case and we should say "it might be so therefore I'll be agnostic". No. It's just like any of the billions of things that people can come up with in their imaginiation which are also not true but can't be proved not true.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on May 12, 2013 20:06:32 GMT
I think that religious belief in some shape or form has a longer tradition than belief in flying teapots though, which is why I can't entirely discount it - that and the fact that a lot of intelligent people in the world do seem to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on May 12, 2013 20:09:27 GMT
Slavery and homophobia also have a long tradition. Should we then, just in case, support those ideas?
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on May 12, 2013 20:13:16 GMT
I think that religious belief in some shape or form has a longer tradition than belief in flying teapots though, which is why I can't entirely discount it - that and the fact that a lot of intelligent people in the world do seem to believe it. I don't think it has to do with intelligence or lack thereof, although in general it seems the average IQ in the non religious/atheist community is higher than the average IQ in the religious section of the population.. which only indicates that people with higher IQs tend to be non religious, but they're not necessarily so (Kurt Gödel, a great mathematician specialized in Logic, was a very superstitious person).. as biological machines, we are not only "intelligent", but we also have motivations expressed by desires and emotions.. that's the main basis of belief I think..
|
|
|
Post by Moose on May 12, 2013 20:14:40 GMT
But slavery and homophobia are societal views and as such very much open to interpretation. God really is an either or thing. I admit that I do not believe, but I also am aware that a significant proportion of the humans who have ever existed did or do and I can't just write that off.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on May 12, 2013 20:16:40 GMT
I don't honestly know whether IQ is higher among the non religious than the religious - have there been any actual studies done on the subject? I know stupid religious people and clever ones, just as I know stupid none religious people and clever ones. Though it does seem - someone correct me if I am wrong - that most top scientists are not religious.
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on May 12, 2013 20:24:35 GMT
But slavery and homophobia are societal views and as such very much open to interpretation. God really is an either or thing. The nature of "god" is open to interpretation as well.. and that could change whether it exists or not.. Which could just mean that we evolved to have such belief as a means to control our fear of the unknown.. if you lived 50.000 years ago, and did not have some belief in spirits and gods and such, you probably couldn't survive, as you'd easily make some big mistake under so much pressure and fear.. there may be other reasons why the meme "god" spread easily and rapidly among the human population..
|
|
|
Post by Moose on May 12, 2013 20:26:06 GMT
I don't disagree in general .. just saying that I don't think that I will ever be able to say with complete certainty 'there is nothing out there'
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on May 12, 2013 20:41:28 GMT
Religion is also like culture in that it is very difficult to shake off. We become so entrenched in our own cultural views and tend to only notice them when we encounter alien cultures and even then it is difficult to conceptualise that the other culture might be equally as valid as your own. I think religion is essentially the same. Whatever reason we initally started believing in gods, it is now so deeply entrenched in our psyches that most people will never be able to step out of it, even if they know with all logic and reason that there is no evidence, reason or need for a god. I also agree that religion is just another form of social view and open to interpretation and the view has indeed changed significantly over the years. Slavery, homophobia etc are tied up with religion and culture, they're all part of the same thing and all subject to interpretation. And none of them are justifiable just because they have a long history. Besides, it's not all that long in terms of the history of the planet.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on May 12, 2013 20:44:42 GMT
There is no 'raised religious, still religious, same denomination' option. Though denomination doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me. If I want a good sermon, I'll go to my church, if I want to sing happy songs, I'll visit the baptists and if I'm in the mood for lots of kids around me, I'll visit another church.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on May 12, 2013 20:45:40 GMT
What do you think about people who believe because they say they have had genuine personal experiences with a divinity? Again, I take that one with a pinch of salt because it seems to me that most people have had experiences that tie in with their own particular culture and there might be a rather large amount of wishful thinking going on there. That said, I know people both online and in real life who say that they have personally experienced God .. though they tend to be extremely vague when asked to explain what they mean.
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on May 12, 2013 20:47:03 GMT
I don't honestly know whether IQ is higher among the non religious than the religious - have there been any actual studies done on the subject? Yes, check this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligenceVarious studies further suggest that intuitive thinking and inductive reasoning styles tend to increase religious beliefs, but also imply more conservative beliefs in general. Less religious people prefer analytical and deductive reasoning. IQ only measures mathematical and analytical capabilities, so it usually correlates with less religiosity.[1] Yes, well, I wasn't generalizing.. Yes.. social.popsugar.com/Why-so-Many-Scientists-Atheists-6259603
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on May 12, 2013 20:52:45 GMT
What do you think about people who believe because they say they have had genuine personal experiences with a divinity? Again, I take that one with a pinch of salt because it seems to me that most people have had experiences that tie in with their own particular culture and there might be a rather large amount of wishful thinking going on there. That said, I know people both online and in real life who say that they have personally experienced God .. though they tend to be extremely vague when asked to explain what they mean. These people are either mentally ill, lying, or have convinced themselves they saw or experienced something which they haven't. The mind can easily play tricks on us. For example (and this is not in any way spiritual, just a mind fuck up) - when they suspended me from work I tried accessing my email from home and my login details would not work. I tried a couple of times and realising I might just be feeling stressed and not typing correctly I gave up and thought to try again later. Which I did and it still didn't work, I even typed it out in a word document so I could see if I had the password correct and then copied it and it still didn't work. So I assumed my work had blocked me from emails. But about a week later randomly I tried and it did work! Now it's possible my work blocked me and revoked it, but seems unlikely. I guess most likely that I just had a total brain fart. You have the same thing with all those optical illusions. They are basically just your brain not working properly.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on May 12, 2013 20:54:29 GMT
Heh apropos of nothing my guess would be that they HAD blocked you from work and then revoked the block .
|
|
|
Post by Mari on May 12, 2013 20:55:07 GMT
Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on May 12, 2013 20:57:03 GMT
I was not trying to be mean saying that! Just saying that if you try something many times and you feel sure the details are correct and they still don't work then there is usually a logical explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on May 12, 2013 21:02:09 GMT
Oh, I responded to RB I'm sure you can think of all sorts of explanations, logical or not, for all sorts of experiences and dismiss them, but that's rather selling the people experiencing it as such short, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on May 12, 2013 21:04:42 GMT
Well I dunno. I remember someone once posting somewhere that they'd seen a demon, and that the demon was surprised that they could see them. I was really unimpressed by that because there did not seem to be any explanation put forward as to WHY that person was so sure that what they were seeing was a demon, as opposed to someone who iust might have had a surprised expression on their face when glimpsed (or might even have been wondering why that person across the street was looking at them as though they were a demon). If you ask people for proof of their religious experiences what you tend to get is usually subjective, ie 'I was sure' as opposed to 'here is empirical proof'. I have no problem with people acknowledging that but when they don't and persist in saying that they know something was a demon even tho they can't tell you why then..
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on May 12, 2013 21:07:40 GMT
Well in my view we can never get somebody else to experience exactly what we are, experiencing or what we feel. But if we want to make a claim like we've talked to Jesus, people are going to want more than my feeling that it happened. I wouldn't expect anybody to believe it if I couldn't provide any evidence for it. The person expericing it may be completely convinced it is real but that could just be inside their own heads. It doesn't mean it actually happened. If you told me you had a dream about riding a motorbike on the streets of Paris I will believe you as I have no reason to assume you are going to lie about it. But there is no way to prove it. If my experience was that you were a habitual lier, than I would be more skeptical.
|
|