Why are there religious people?

[bhsmte]

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.

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

The OCD connection may be spurious. I'm not too sure. It was a significant turning point in my life in many ways, but it did not appear to alter my religiosity, which remained consistently high throughout my adolescence up until I turned 20.

 

[Architeuthus]

I never implied that the nones consisted entirely of atheists.

No, but GrimKingGrim's original post did.

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

According to that survey, exactly the same as the general population. At 15%, "Consulted psychic" is also exactly the same as the general population.

"Spiritual energy in physical things like mountains, trees, crystals" and "Yoga as spiritual practice" are slightly higher among "nones" than among the general population (30%/28% of "nones," and 26%/23% of the general population).

It does seem that "new age" religion is a large part of the "nones"... as large or larger than the atheist/agnostic component. Forms of Christianity unaffiliated with formal religious groups are presumably also a large component, given that 26% of the "nones" attend church services monthly or yearly.

 

[TillICollapse]

The OCD connection may be spurious. I'm not too sure. It was a significant turning point in my life in many ways, but it did not appear to alter my religiosity, which remained consistently high throughout my adolescence up until I turned 20.

It may be spurious ... however in my opinion, I see strong connections between scrupulosity, OCD, OCPD ... and certain types of believers with serious spiritual/religious tendencies. I was reminded by your response.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

No, but GrimKingGrim's original post did.

He's right, but I did make sure I acknowledged this error.

 

[Architeuthus]

He's right, but I did make sure I acknowledged this error.

And kudos to you for doing that, although you still suggested that "nones" meant atheist/agnostic/deist, when in fact it's more like atheist-agnostic/new-age/unaffiliated-Christian... (with "new-age" at least as large as atheist and agnostic put together).

 

[Eyes wide Open]

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.

Which one won? Lol, there's a few out there, all beating a different drum in case you hadn't noticed. Spirituality has its place amongst the melee, but religion just adds to it.

 

[TheBarrd]

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

How could anyone not love pink unicorns?

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.[/QUOTE]

Fearful? Oh, you are precious! Why would you imagine anyone would fear a silly screen name?
You are not "Death"...although you might be a little "grim". You certainly are not frightening.
A little confused, perhaps.
As for the face...you've used some sort of filter or something. You do not look like Death...I've seen death, and you ain't it. Grim, maybe.
Mostly sad.

Fun Fact: This nickname is alluded to in my signature.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I saw that. Not impressed. Today's just an ordinary day, and you aren't frightening anyone.

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! [/QUOTE]

You've been busy, I see. Getting many hits on all those sites?
Just curious.

Only in my mind.[/QUOTE]

You're young yet.


If you've seen my signature I've lost it quite a few.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I noticed that. I think that's why I'm interested.

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?[/QUOTE]

Not really. Should it?

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



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



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.



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.



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. [/QUOTE]

 

[TheBarrd]

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

How could anyone not love pink unicorns?

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.

Fearful? Oh, you are precious! Why would you imagine anyone would fear a silly screen name?
You are not "Death"...although you might be a little "grim". You certainly are not frightening.
A little confused, perhaps.
As for the face...you've used some sort of filter or something. You do not look like Death...I've seen death, and you ain't it. Grim, maybe. You look like one of those old old old black and white movies...all grainy. Not scary at all.
Mostly sad.

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

Yeah, I saw that. Not impressed. Today's just an ordinary day, and you aren't frightening anyone.

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!

You've been busy, I see. Getting many hits on all those sites?
Just curious.

Only in my mind.

You're young yet.

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

Yes, I noticed that. I think that's why I'm interested.

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?

Not really. Should it?

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

God of the sun. Yeah, I do love summer.

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

Up to you of course.

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.

Yeah, I got the concept. Obviously I don't agree...

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.

Ahh. OTOH, how quick are you to blame "religion" for things like witch burnings, for instance? And, of course, everyone knows that religion is what causes war, right? *rolls eyes*

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.

God can use even the most reluctant. I love the story about the elderly Christian lady who prayed for something to eat. Her atheist neighbor went and bought her some groceries and left them on her porch...when she found them, she praised God for His benevolence. Of course, the neighbor told her that he had bought the groceries...God, he said, had nothing to do with it. She smiled, thanked him, and raised her eyes to heaven and added, "And thank you, Lord, for using this man to do Your will."

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."

You are aware that Al Capone was a Catholic? S'true.

Are you serious? Dear man, that is hardly "secret knowledge". I've been hearing it all my life.

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.

Truth is truth....

 

[Ana the Ist]

How could anyone not love pink unicorns?

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.

Fearful? Oh, you are precious! Why would you imagine anyone would fear a silly screen name?
You are not "Death"...although you might be a little "grim". You certainly are not frightening.
A little confused, perhaps.
As for the face...you've used some sort of filter or something. You do not look like Death...I've seen death, and you ain't it. Grim, maybe.
Mostly sad.

Fun Fact: This nickname is alluded to in my signature.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I saw that. Not impressed. Today's just an ordinary day, and you aren't frightening anyone.

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! [/QUOTE]

You've been busy, I see. Getting many hits on all those sites?
Just curious.

Only in my mind.[/QUOTE]

You're young yet.


If you've seen my signature I've lost it quite a few.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I noticed that. I think that's why I'm interested.

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?[/QUOTE]

Not really. Should it?

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



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



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.



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.



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. [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

So are you going to share what your special powers are? What can a christian mystic do?

 

[Cearbhall]

So religious people are in denial? Why are they in denial? Not a lack of education? Maybe a lack of courage? Are atheists simply more courageous? Is that the difference?

I view it more as two different mindsets rather than a lack of something. The world needs both ways of thinking, in my opinion, though I personally tend to favor analytical thinking over intuitive thinking. It's my opinion that theism and science are compatible, so two people who approach the big questions from different angles may end up with very different conclusions about the existence of deities, despite having the same grasp of reality.

 

[Colter]

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.

Thanks for sharing that Arch.

 

[Colter]

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.

Maybe one day you will become skeptical of your own skepticism. Anyway, I'm not limited by your way of thinking and for that I am very grateful.

Contempt prior to investigation guarantees a life of perpetual ignorance......very much like your circular display about the bible.

 

[Colter]

It's the exact same as classic atheism.

I concede that point, I see it as a religion of doubt.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I concede that point, I see it as a religion of doubt.

I don't know how you derived a 'religion' from that. There are no doctrines that must be believed, no rituals that must be followed, no holy texts that must be read and studied (no, The God Delusion does not count), no churches that one must attend regularly. Yes, there are atheists who do attend organisations that are remarkably "church-like," for lack of a better word, but this is not something that they must do because of some intrinsic religious obligation. So I'm struggling to see what aspect of their activities is considered 'religious'.

 

[Colter]

I don't know how you derived a 'religion' from that. There are no doctrines that must be believed, no rituals that must be followed, no holy texts that must be read and studied (no, The God Delusion does not count), no churches that one must attend regularly. Yes, there are atheists who do attend organisations that are remarkably "church-like," for lack of a better word, but this is not something that they must do because of some intrinsic religious obligation. So I'm struggling to see what aspect of their activities is considered 'religious'.

I understand your point, and you are right, I'm not calling it a religion in the traditional sense of that word.

The reason I use the term is that we all have beliefs about life, origins, meaning and destiny. We cannot escape that. We are all philosophers; we have a working philosophy for how we approach reality, a philosophy that is in flux. When your faith crashed, your inner life, your operating assumptions, your world view, changed, yet the world was still the same. You now operate under a decidedly different, unproven belief about the world, the non-existence of the Universal Father, God.

For each one of us a great many questions remain unresolved, so we operate with basic assumptions (unproven beliefs) going forward we act accordingly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I understand your point, and you are right, I'm not calling it a religion in the traditional sense of that word.

The reason I use the term is that we all have beliefs about life, origins, meaning and destiny. We cannot escape that. We are all philosophers; we have a working philosophy for how we approach reality, a philosophy that is in flux.

Yes, that's right. Wondering about the cosmos and our place in it is a very human activity, but it's not a religious activity per se. Religion attempts to answer these sorts of questions (it does poorly, in my view), but it does not own the questions themselves; they belong to everyone who has a mind capable of contemplating them.

When your faith crashed, your inner life, your operating assumptions, your world view, changed, yet the world was still the same. You now operate under a decidedly different, unproven belief about the world, the non-existence of the Universal Father, God.

But that's not my worldview. You are assuming that because I once centred my worldview on belief in the Christian God, that I must now centre my worldview on the nonbelief in God. That isn't the right way to think about my shift in perspective. Atheism describes only what is not part of my worldview; it does not describe what my worldview does consist in, which is why it is always necessary to ask. When someone says "I am a theist," there is only one thing I can infer from that: that belief in a god (or gods) is part of their worldview. That statement alone doesn't tell me how important their belief in god is to them, whether they believe god is personal or impersonal, whether they are Christian or Muslim, whether they accept Divine Command Theory or not, etc. The label 'atheist' is very similar. It doesn't actually tell you that much; it only tells you what isn't part of my worldview. If all you know about someone is that they are an atheist, then all you know is that they lack belief in gods; any further inferences you make about their worldview are purely speculative. You don't know until you ask.

Am I committed to "godless ideals"? That depends on how you define 'godless'. As I explained a while ago, deconverting theists is not one of my primary goals. An intellectual culture that embodies curiosity, openness to learning, and epistemic humility is what I value, and not atheism per se. (I don't consider these "godless ideals"). In practice, however, as people develop these characteristics they tend to examine religious dogmas and practices more critically, which may undermine religious institutions in the long-term.

Is that such a bad thing in the end? If certain religious ideas have merit, then surely they could withstand scrutiny? If they cannot, then perhaps they deserve to be discarded. You seem to accept this, often claiming that religion is "evolving". Have you considered that perhaps we - atheists, purveyors of the "godless ideals" - are, in many ways, the catalysts for its evolution? Who else tests the 'fitness' of a religious claim more rigorously than someone who is skeptical of it?

 

[quatona]

The reason I use the term is that we all have beliefs about life, origins, meaning and destiny. We cannot escape that. We are all philosophers; we have a working philosophy for how we approach reality, a philosophy that is in flux.

That´s true. If, however, you are assuming that someone´s philosophy is circled around something he does NOT believe in, you are terribly mistaken. Wouldn´t work, doesn´t work, can´t work.

 

[Colter]

Is that such a bad thing in the end? If certain religious ideas have merit, then surely they could withstand scrutiny?

Yes with reservations

If they cannot, then perhaps they deserve to be discarded. You seem to accept this, often claiming that religion is "evolving". Have you considered that perhaps we - atheists, purveyors of the "godless ideals" - are, in many ways, the catalysts for its evolution?

Religion on it's own has been periodically improved by revelations great and small which has been tumultuous in itself apart from the influence of the age of the renaissance.

Yes, I agree that science and sincere questioning has sped up the mortality of false Gods, false concepts etc., but I object to throwing out the God of Love altogether and replacing that with the presumed values of secular totalitarianism. Its the same kind of thinking that a bible worshiper uses when they claim that just because one thing may be true, then all things in the bible are true and written by God. A skeptic might see one claim as wrong and then claim all things in the Bible are wrong.

Who else tests the 'fitness' of a religious claim more rigorously than someone who is skeptical of it?

I'm a skeptic of claims but also religious. I'm a reformer not an abolitionist. The difference should be clear.

 

[Colter]

That´s true. If, however, you are assuming that someone´s philosophy is circled around something he does NOT believe in, you are terribly mistaken. Wouldn´t work, doesn´t work, can´t work.

Understood, I assume Atheist or honest doubters are sincere. Lukewarm belief can sincerely change and become lukewarm disbelief. A strong belief could fall apart and become a strong disbelief.

I'm not accusing people of insincerity, just that it is belief of one sort or another.

In my theology (psychological world view) Lucifer was a very high and trusted administrator who fell into disbelief in the unseen Father. He literally became and Atheist. [The unseen Father is a matter of faith for higher intelligences as well. They know and see the Son but not the Father. They rebelled against the Sons rule in the name of the Father that they determined was a fraud]. There was "war in heaven".