Why are there religious people?

[quatona]

The more I look into this term "New Atheist" the more it seems to be a refernece to the current pop atheist books and notoriety like Dawkins. While some may be more aggressive, it doesn't appear to be a mo ment depart from just plain atheism.

You may want to update your terminology then.

 

[jacknife]

Some parents do try to shove their religion down their kids' throats, unfortunately.
We see the results of that every day, don't we? So many of the angry young atheists I have spoken with are angry for this very reason. Their atheism seems to be more of a rebellion against that early "indoctrination" than anything else.

Most religious parents, however, while they do teach their kids what they believe, leave it to the kid to decide for himself. We do understand that forced faith is not real faith at all. We expose him to our faith, trusting him to our God...and most of the time, the kid chooses God.
I have seven kids, and seventeen grandkids, and every single one of them is a Christian. I also have three great grandkids, and another "on the way". It's a little early to tell yet...although one little boy does insist that his momma hear his prayers at bedtime. Of course, this is probably a ploy to get to stay up later...

What about atheist parents? Do atheist parents trust their kids to decide for themselves, or do they raise their children to follow their...uh...non-religion?
Sorry, I don't have a better term.

Intresting I have no desire to ever have children, but if I did I would probably never bring religion up unless they did.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

"Magic sky wizard"? "Lucky the leprechaun"? What, no pink unicorns? I really like the pink unicorns.

Eh, I'm not a fan. Pegasus is even a stretch for me.

I do sense a bit of hostility here.
Of course, there is that enchanting screen name "GrimKingGrim". And the stunning avatar. *brrrr*

It's my actual face. And GKG is my most recent name. DeathandGrim is my most well know name. I figured a more devout Christian crowd would be alot more fearful of someone who goes by the literal name Death... and Grim.

Fun Fact: This nickname is alluded to in my signature.

Fun Fact #2: I am the only "DeathandGrim" on the internet and if you google the name you'll find all sorts of my work! Check it out! I design games, write stories, Draw, and other stuff!

I suspect you've walked through a few storms...

Only in my mind.

So have I. And I have questioned my faith, more than once. Almost lost it a few times...

If you've seen my signature I've lost it quite a few.

Who is "Olodumare"? I don't recall hearing about him befor.

African creator God of the Yoruban religion. Olodumare, the creator. Along with Olorun, the ruler of Heaven and Olofi, the conduit between Heaven and Earth make the Yoruban trinity.

Sounds familiar eh?

You have forgotten those other gods...Mithras is a favorite of mine. So sexy with his hat, facing the famous bull...

Whichever gods come to mind I'm sure will be covered. Mine is Helios.

And then there is the Wiccan "goddess". I kinda like her, too.
And no mythology class would be complete without the Greek and Roman pantheon of gods and goddesses. Such fascinating stories!
Why leave out so many fascinating stories?

I won't have to include all of them. You're making this easy.

Will you tell your kid that, ever since there have been men advanced enough to worship, there has been some form of religion?

Since the early pre-homosapian culture. Of course I won't expect them to understand that as a child but I will get the basic concept of religion as a mere mindstate that doesn't affect reality.

Will you point out the good things religion has given the world...like hospitals, homeless shelters, food banks, orphanages, etc?

Man did those. I don't credit Zeus for the lightning rod. I do not credit Jesus for slavery. Man used gods and supernatural as a reason to do those things, not the means to do so. Nothing more than that. A man can have his own separate reasoning for being good.

Now should I bring up the wondrous non-religious people? No. It's not a contest but some examples would do to illustrate the point.

There truly are more than one side to this story. Do you have the courage to present your kid with all of them?

Absolutely. I'll also tell them Al Capone, a famous gangster, started up some of the first soup kitchens. It's not about the belief, it's about the person. I'll tell them "life's about what you make it to be. You can be what you want. Use this knowledge to your advantage because not everyone has it."

Then the *fist bump*

There's more than one side, there's thousands of sides. But only one that matters.

Not Christian reality,
not Odinian reality,
not Yoruban reality,
not Roman reality,
not Catholic reality,
not Satanist reality,
not Wicca Reality (which is just nature),
not Yuletide reality,
not Greek reality,
not Mormon reality.

Just reality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, that's not true. You make the same mistake bible worshipers make, believe the claim rather than consider the content. Besides, it has fantastic spiritual and philosophical insights regardless of attempts to debunk it.

"You make the same mistake bible worshipers make, believe the claim rather than consider the content."

Well it's the claim of its origins that I'm saying is a hoax. I wasn't making any statement about the validity of its content. I do, however, think it's important to establish by what medium that "content" was found and transcribed. If it was from the mouth of some guy pretending to be someone he isn't because he thinks the deception will lend credence to his "content"'...I think it's important that the reader consider this information before trying to evaluate the content itself.

So you have looked into the evidence for it being a hoax? Or you haven't?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Many intellectuals of yesteryear used to predict that as western culture became more educated and more intelligent that religion would die off - especially Christianity. The assumption was that there were religious people because of a lack of education and low intelligence.

But they were wrong. All of these predictions have always been wrong.

There are equally brilliant, educated, and intelligent people who are both atheists and religious. The difference doesn't seem to be one of education or intelligence. So what is the difference?

Why are there religious people? Christianity has an answer, but what's the secular answer?

Obviously religiosity is evolutionarily advantageous!

Atheists be warned. Your genes are disadvantageous

 

[Colter]

"You make the same mistake bible worshipers make, believe the claim rather than consider the content."

Well it's the claim of its origins that I'm saying is a hoax. I wasn't making any statement about the validity of its content. I do, however, think it's important to establish by what medium that "content" was found and transcribed. If it was from the mouth of some guy pretending to be someone he isn't because he thinks the deception will lend credence to his "content"'...I think it's important that the reader consider this information before trying to evaluate the content itself.

So you have looked into the evidence for it being a hoax? Or you haven't?

Yes, I've been studying the UB most of my adult life. I read Martin Gardners "Urantia The Great Cult Mystery" when it first came out. It was a debunking book wherin he speculated about the "sleeping subject" through whom the revelation was transmitted. He got it wrong as well as a few other facts, but he did say it was well written. I've read both of Larry Mulins books on the history of the UB and the people involved as well as several others. The most recent book by Souix Olivia "Dr. Sadler and the Urantia Book" adds a few more interesting tid bits.

The story of origins is underwhelming and unrevealing. The revelators wanted a book that stood on its content and with no "Paul" type associated with it.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Some parents do try to shove their religion down their kids' throats, unfortunately.
We see the results of that every day, don't we? So many of the angry young atheists I have spoken with are angry for this very reason. Their atheism seems to be more of a rebellion against that early "indoctrination" than anything else.

Most religious parents, however, while they do teach their kids what they believe, leave it to the kid to decide for himself. We do understand that forced faith is not real faith at all. We expose him to our faith, trusting him to our God...and most of the time, the kid chooses God.
I have seven kids, and seventeen grandkids, and every single one of them is a Christian. I also have three great grandkids, and another "on the way". It's a little early to tell yet...although one little boy does insist that his momma hear his prayers at bedtime. Of course, this is probably a ploy to get to stay up later...

What about atheist parents? Do atheist parents trust their kids to decide for themselves, or do they raise their children to follow their...uh...non-religion?
Sorry, I don't have a better term.

No doubt there are Muslim families that can say the same about their children, but what does this say to the casual observer about Christianity or Islam? To me its reflective of children embracing the faith of their parents not the reliability of the information or interpretation of those faiths.

 

[Belk]

Obviously religiosity is evolutionarily advantageous!

Atheists be warned. Your genes are disadvantageous

Last I checked a lack of belief in gods was not an inheritable trait.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, I've been studying the UB most of my adult life. I read Martin Gardners "Urantia The Great Cult Mystery" when it first came out. It was a debunking book wherin he speculated about the "sleeping subject" through whom the revelation was transmitted. He got it wrong as well as a few other facts, but he did say it was well written. I've read both of Larry Mulins books on the history of the UB and the people involved as well as several others. The most recent book by Souix Olivia "Dr. Sadler and the Urantia Book" adds a few more interesting tid bits.

The story of origins is underwhelming and unrevealing. The revelators wanted a book that stood on its content and with no "Paul" type associated with it.

That's a possibility. Another would be that they didn't want anyone to be able to come forward with the truth.

The science of the book is enough to discredit it alone.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Every kid sooner or later gets to a time when he starts trying to find his own identity, separate from his parents. It can be a very trying time for all involved.
And yes...often it is rebellion. The kid begins to question his faith...it is natural and right that he should do so. But the parents panic, and redouble their efforts to keep their precious progeny on the "straight and narrow". The kid becomes more and more frustrated...yeah. I've met a great many atheists who tell a similar tale. They didn't walk away so much as they were pushed away by their well meaning family. Most of these people do not even know the "doctrines" they can't find a reason to believe. And to be fair, neither do most of the "Christians" they have been exposed to, who had their belief spoon fed to them from behind a pulpit.
Most of the time this could all have been avoided if the parents had bothered to actually read their Bible and make themselves ready to sit down and explore their childrens' questions with them.
Kids know a phony when they see one....

In my case it had nothing to do with "rebellion". My religiosity went beyond what my parents encouraged. Whereas I attended church weekly, they didn't. Whereas I prayed daily, I'm not sure that they did. When I considered becoming a priest, they were supportive but not overly enthusiastic about it. I had no reason to rebel against their religious instruction, because they never instructed me; I learned about the faith on my own. Unlike most other children, I borrowed books about religion from the school library. I studied it in high school, even when it was no longer a compulsory component of the curriculum. I had no reason to rebel against this because I was the one driving the process. No one forced me to go to church, to pray, to read the Bible, or to study the tenets of the Christian religion. I felt compelled to do it on my own.

So you can understand how annoying it is when someone suggests that my deconversion was nothing more than an act of teenage rebellion. Far from being rebellious, I was most devout during my teenage years and my level of religiosity had little to do with my parents.

 

[Architeuthus]

Nones would be the skeptics, deists, and atheists. But I guess I equated them all as atheism but it's not too far a shot down the hall.

Well, the link you posted says that "nones" make up about just under 20%. Of that, atheists and agnostics together make up a bit less than 6%.

The other 14% describe themselves as "nothing in particular" but yet "believing in God."

So equating "nones" with atheism is a rather substantial misrepresentation of the data.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Obviously religiosity is evolutionarily advantageous!

Atheists be warned. Your genes are disadvantageous

It may have conferred some advantages under particular conditions. But now it often stands as an obstacle to the advancement of our species.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, the link you posted says that "nones" make up about just under 20%. Of that, atheists and agnostics together make up a bit less than 6%.

The other 14% describe themselves as "nothing in particular" but yet "believing in God."

So equating "nones" with atheism is a rather substantial misrepresentation of the data.

He didn't equate the nones with atheism. He acknowledged that there are deists in the mix.

There is a widespread assumption, however, that the nones are more-or-less on a similar "wavelength," for lack of a better word - secularly minded individuals who do not endorse the privileging of religion in society. I think this is an interesting assumption to test because it might not be true. We don't really know how different the nones are from each other, making it difficult to forecast what the rise of the nones actually means for society.

 

[TillICollapse]

In my case it had nothing to do with "rebellion". My religiosity went beyond what my parents encouraged. Whereas I attended church weekly, they didn't. Whereas I prayed daily, I'm not sure that they did. When I considered becoming a priest, they were supportive but not overly enthusiastic about it. I had no reason to rebel against their religious instruction, because they never instructed me; I learned about the faith on my own. Unlike most other children, I borrowed books about religion from the school library. I studied it in high school, even when it was no longer a compulsory component of the curriculum. I had no reason to rebel against this because I was the one driving the process. No one forced me to go to church, to pray, to read the Bible, or to study the tenets of the Christian religion. I felt compelled to do it on my own.

So you can understand how annoying it is when someone suggests that my deconversion was nothing more than an act of teenage rebellion. Far from being rebellious, I was most devout during my teenage years and my level of religiosity had little to do with my parents.

Why do you think you were so enthralled (not sure what word to use) at that time ? What was it do you think that drew you or you were drawn to, perhaps would be a better way to ask ?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Last I checked a lack of belief in gods was not an inheritable trait.

You mean it is a relatively common mutation? Maybe brought on by early childhood vaccinations!

 

[Architeuthus]

He didn't equate the nones with atheism.

His exact words were "I guess I equated them all as atheism," which is incorrect. He also incorrectly suggested that 20% means "1 in 4," when in fact it's 1 in 5.

We don't really know how different the nones are from each other, making it difficult to forecast what the rise of the nones actually means for society.

As the fairly detailed Pew survey indicates, the majority of the "nones" (68% of the 20%, i.e. 14% of the US population) believe in God. They are just not affiliated with any formal religious group. Also:

"More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as 'spiritual' but not 'religious' (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day. ... a majority of the religiously unaffiliated clearly think that religion can be a force for good in society, with three-quarters saying religious organizations bring people together and help strengthen community bonds (78%) and a similar number saying religious organizations play an important role in helping the poor and needy (77%). ... roughly three-in-ten religiously unaffiliated adults say they believe in spiritual energy in physical objects and in yoga as a spiritual practice. About a quarter believe in astrology and reincarnation." (from the report described here)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why do you think you were so enthralled (not sure what word to use) at that time ? What was it do you think that drew you or you were drawn to, perhaps would be a better way to ask ?

I'm not sure. From a very young age I took religion very seriously, and this peaked in my teenage years when I became active in the church. Regretfully, I was disappointed in the lacklustre devotion of my parents and friends, who I felt weren't doing enough to "serve the Lord". My religion became a large part of my identity. I think I was drawn to it because it gave me a feeling of purpose that, at the time, I thought was unobtainable from anywhere else. I also believed that life was either imbued with theological significance or it had no significance at all. It was only later, in university, that I questioned this assumption, among many others.

There is also the fact that I had severe obsessive-compulsive disorder as a teenager, which resulted in my hospitalisation. Perhaps it was no coincidence that my religiosity peaked around that time. I became obsessive about controlling my thoughts, fearful that God would forsake me if I failed to keep them pure. Of course I did fail, which resulted in depression as I considered myself condemned and irredeemable. As my symptoms worsened, however, I reconsidered my feeling of damnation and concluded that I was not unforgivable after-all. I continued to pray and felt some relief because of it. Eventually the symptoms subsided, and I remained as committed to my faith as ever.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As the fairly detailed Pew survey indicates, the majority of the "nones" (68% of the 20%, i.e. 14% of the US population) believe in God. They are just not affiliated with any formal religious group. Also:

Which is in keeping with the spirit of my question. I never implied that the nones consisted entirely of atheists.

"More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as 'spiritual' but not 'religious' (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day. ... a majority of the religiously unaffiliated clearly think that religion can be a force for good in society, with three-quarters saying religious organizations bring people together and help strengthen community bonds (78%) and a similar number saying religious organizations play an important role in helping the poor and needy (77%). ... roughly three-in-ten religiously unaffiliated adults say they believe in spiritual energy in physical objects and in yoga as a spiritual practice. About a quarter believe in astrology and reincarnation." (from the report described here)

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/

About a quarter believe in astrology? There's a red flag. Is that higher or lower than the general population though?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Face it, it's the reality of life, the religious 'gene' won and is still winning. Atheism is a minor variation that has no survival value.

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm not sure. From a very young age I took religion very seriously, and this peaked in my teenage years when I became active in the church. Regretfully, I was disappointed in the lacklustre devotion of my parents and friends, who I felt weren't doing enough to "serve the Lord". My religion became a large part of my identity. I think I was drawn to it because it gave me a feeling of purpose that, at the time, I thought was unobtainable from anywhere else. I also believed that life was either imbued with theological significance or it had no significance at all. It was only later, in university, that I questioned this assumption, among many others.

There is also the fact that I had severe obsessive-compulsive disorder as a teenager, which resulted in my hospitalisation. Perhaps it was no coincidence that my religiosity peaked around that time. I became obsessive about controlling my thoughts, fearful that God would forsake me if I failed to keep them pure. Of course I did fail, which resulted in depression as I considered myself condemned and irredeemable. As my symptoms worsened, however, I reconsidered my feeling of damnation and concluded that I was not unforgivable after-all. I continued to pray and felt some relief because of it. Eventually the symptoms subsided, and I remained as committed to my faith as ever.

Very interesting, the OCD connection. Hmm. Thanks for the response, very insightful