quote:this discussion has proven so far that I cannot expect honest or open discussion with him/her at all.
KoM: Honestly, looking back through the thread, I don't see where you've tried to deceive anyone. You've been very up front about your opinions. I believe you've backpedaled (already noted before) and avoided looking at your opinions critically, but I was wrong to accuse you of dishonesty.
Openness connotates a desire to consider the rationality of one's opponents-- even if you are not able to agree with them.
You are not open minded as far as this topic is concerned.
[ March 23, 2005, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I'm making a distinction between the pyschological need that begets religion and the trappings of institionalized religion. I won't argue that religion gives the unscrupulous a handle to manipulate the weak minded but I'll counter that with its ability to work for good when utilized by those with humane intentions.
It appears that you have an axe to grind with the institution of religion. I suggest that you target that instead of an individual and his desire to believe. You'll alienate fewer folks that way.
I will admit that this thread started with an observation on the trappings of religion and that irritated quite a few but it was your tactless disdain of those that choose to believe that really got the blood pumping.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could also be that as we improve as a race the message changes because we are more capable of learning it. It isn't dishonest, or lying, any more than teaching a child differently that a college student would be.
There are often a lot of similarities between religions, true, but now you are saying you get to determine what is and isn't true conversion between them?
Or you sure you aren't Tresopax? He likes to change definitions half way through an argument as well, and no one else usually agrees with those "new" definitions but him...but that doesn't stop him from trying to use those definitions to tell people what they really mean...
There is a HUGE difference between Roman Catholic and agnostic, for instance, but according to you that doesn't count. Neither does becoming an atheist....
posted
Kwea, the question is one of faith in a creator. My contention is that most people believe only because they have been so taught by their parents. I think we may usefully group conversions into four types :
1. Going from atheist to believer. 2. Going from believer to atheist. 3. Major changes in belief structure, such as Christian to Wiccan. 4. Minor changes in ritual, such as from Catholic to Protestant, or Baptist to Methodist.
Types 3 and 4 overlap to an extent; it is not clear, for example, whether a Christian-Muslim conversion should be considered major or minor.
Now, I think all these types of conversion are quite rare, with type 2 being the most common - this last from the link in my previous post, showing that the total number of believers in the US has declined a bit.
So, what are the contending hypotheses, and do they make testable predictions? Mine is that most people believe, not because they have a good reason for doing so, but because they have caught the habit from their parents. If this is true, we should expect to see a large amount of no-conversions, a smaller amount of type-4 conversions as people object to small things in liturgies, and some type-2 conversions as people acquire new habits. This appears to correspond well to the broad patterns of the data.
Conversely, one could hypothesize that people decide their religion on the basis of evidence and logic. In this case, shouldn't the logic be the same for everyone? And the evidence likewise? Then we would expect to see a net flow of people into the religion which fits the evidence best, and over sufficient time, a dying out of other beliefs. I see no evidence of this at the moment, unless the growing popularity of atheism is it. Indeed, the religious spectrum appears to be growing more, not less, diverse over time.
Would you like to suggest a third hypothesis for how people choose their religion, or dispute any of the assumptions? If not, the first hypothesis, 'people choose religion based almost solely upon the religion of their parents' appears to fit the data better. But if indeed religious beliefs are not based on evidence, why should they be given any respect or credence?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I didn't become catholic because of matters of ritual. Nor have I known anyone to convert because of "ritual." It's theology. Generally, if you care enough to leave the religion you were born into, you've thought about the theology of it.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: My contention is that most people believe only because they have been so taught by their parents.
The universal appearance of religion in almost every society is almost unarguable. Given its preponderance it is beyond simplistic to argue that religion is a learned behaviour. Ascribing to a particular sect or belief may be strongly influenced by learning but the desire/need to believe is, in my view, a subsequence of our nature.
Your contention that those that believe are either mentally diminished or brainwashed doesn't account for the widespread nature of religious beliefs. If you can supply examples of societies that have a belief structure that doesn't incorporate a creator of some sort I would be surprised.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I see the problem. I wasn't asserting that people would change because of ritual, but that a change in ritual would be the main effect : The actual beliefs would remain pretty much the same.
Indeed, I've seen people on this board looking for a church that would suit them socially. Theology, apparently not.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:would you like to suggest a third hypothesis for how people choose their religion, or dispute any of the assumptions? If not, the first hypothesis, 'people choose religion based almost solely upon the religion of their parents' appears to fit the data better. But if indeed religious beliefs are not based on evidence, why should they be given any respect or credence?
Because they are not your puppets, that they have to believe things for the same reason you do...or that you don't, as the case may be. They have a ton of reasons for converting from one to another, and the fact that you dismiss some very important differences with a wave of hyperbole again shows how little YOU know of religion, not anything else.
They have reason that are good for them, and they don't have to justify their faith to you at all, nor will most of them even try because of your obvious bias and scorn.
quote: or dispute any of the assumptions?
How about all of them? Assume all you want, you still have not done anything but to try and define things so that they fit your preconceived notions of religion and beliefs. I don't buy any of your assumptions, nor do I see any data to back any of them up.
quote:dkw
"*snort*
You think the differences between denominations are changes in ritual?"
King of Men
"Yes, well? How many people really know anything about theology?"
Not you, that is painfully obvious to anyone who does. BTW, when I converted I had to attend classes that described in detail what the differences were, and why.
Also, originally you weren't challenging any one religion, or any one type of religious beliefs....you were challenging all of them at once. That is why most of my posts are directed at belief in a God rather than any specific belief system.
I remember the point of this thread, even if you have backpedaled a bit...
I do think that people raised in a religious family have better chance of being religious themselves, in part because of conditioning....I never said that wasn't at least a little true. What I DID say was that that isn't good reason to say it is only a learned behavior.
All this thread really is saying is a very poorly thought out argument about nature vs nurture. Most people who actually know anything about this would say it is a combination of both...that is how we are wired to learn things that matter to the survival of the species. If religion works of course it would be taught to children.....reading works too, should we stop teaching that because it is only a learned behavior?
What you have repeatedly failed to do is show why each religion has sprung up in various places and various times if all it is is a learned behavior. You also have not proved how rare conversions are or that those conversions are meaningless.
As a matter of fact, I have yet to see you prove anything at all, other than your willingness to insult others to prove yourself somehow superior.
posted
Buddhism doesn't have a creator, nor gods as such. And some countries are rather heavily secularised, with only small percentages of church-goers. 2.9% of the Norwegian population regularly hears mass, for example. Source; Norwegian only, sorry.
But really, I see no need to ascribe a phenomenon to a universal need just because it's common. Warfare is as universal as religion; does combat, then, fulfil some deeper need of the human psyche? Sinilarly, slavery once was very common indeed, in spite of being rather inefficient economically. Perhaps religion, likewise, is a way to structure human society that we are now outgrowing technologically.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Kwea. The nature of religion is such that it will be taught to children whether or not it works; it is a parasite meme, capable of diverting valuable resources from useful tasks into its own maintenance. Now that religion is in competition with atheism on a large scale, we should be seeing it fade into nothingness, which indeed appears to be happening.
As for nature versus nurture, surely you cannot be asserting that people have a gene making them religious? I think it is more a case of nurture versus nurture : Teaching by parents versus thinking things through. And I have yet to see you make a convincing claim that most people have seriously thought about their religious beliefs. If they have, it's really amazing how many of them agree completely with their parents, wouldn't you say? And, by the way, the burden of proof is definitely on you to show that conversion between faiths are significant. Just consider how many countries remain predominantly Catholic / Protestant / Hindu / Moslem through many generations, and tell me again that many people convert each day.
Edit : And, finally, the original post was not to attack religion, but the total lack of self-consciousness of our friend the cardinal. "There is a great danger that people will believe this pack of lies," quoth he. Well, of course, a cardinal would know.
[ March 23, 2005, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, secularization theory is overrated. I can dig out a few articles on that if you'd like.
Secondly, it's a parasite? Humanity derives no benefit from it at all?
And third, I do remember reading about a study which claimed that "religosity" can be influenced by genetics. I could try to hunt that one down too, if you want. I might even have gotten the link from Hatrack.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it isn't..you made a claim, and didn't really back it up...as a matter of fact you admitted you MADE UP percentages!
Nice try though...about as well thought out as the rest of your arguments.
Also, you tried to change the debate subject, then attempted to define the terms under discussion to something that no one here but you agrees they should be.
And you think I have failed to do what? lol
quote: The nature of religion is such that it will be taught to children whether or not it works; it is a parasite meme, capable of diverting valuable resources from useful tasks into its own maintenance.
Not true at all, as evidenced by so much material that I am not even going to bother linking to it.....look up any standard sociological text. Or anthropology book. Or psychology text.
All I see is more unsupported claims again...not that I am surprised.
Next time do you homework before trying to waste my time.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was perhaps hasty/not thoughtful enough when I challenged you. Buddhism may not espouse a creator but it still attempts to explain the universe and subsequently incorporates a belief in the continuation of the "soul".
Slavery, while perhaps commonplace is not nearly as prevalent as religion. I have no source for this so I am merely guessing but I would surmise that there were/are groups, tribes, whathaveyou that exhibited pacifistic traits until threatened. If self-defense falls under your definition of warfare then I would suggest that yes it is a bonafide pyschological need.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Buddhism in its purest form rejects attempting to explain the universe. It thinks that's pointless until we can deal with temporality.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you even read what I am writing? Where did I say a gene was involved at all? Did I post anything with a gene, or DNA, even mentioned?
We were talking about religion, and how you think we are all idiots. One point made, more than once, is that people all over the world have used religion, and that religion doesn't just exist in specific families in remote locales.
Religion fills a universal need in humanity, it is in our nature. Not all of us believe in the same God, but that isn't surprising...we don't speak the same languages, or live in the same cultures, so I don't find it surprising at all that there are differences in religious thought.
You claim that it serves no purpose and is a function of mental conditioning....in other words, nurture.
Forget homework, try reading all the posts, what is really written there, not what you want to be written there.
posted
Kwea, My attitude here is pretty close to what I expressed in this thread, where someone was claiming that Marx's Capital was an EVIL book. The things you're claiming about Freud's writing are, based on my extensive reading, innaccurate. He's officialy writing doesn't contain a conspicuous amount of circular justifications. His personal correspodence and others' recollections of his practice and interactions are a different matter entirely, but i'ts not a characteristic of his writing.
But you pulled him into a discussion that had nothing to do with him and claimed things about his writing that weren't true. I can see little purpose for this except to try to give reasons why people shouldn't read him. I'm not a huge fan of Freud as a person nor of his fully articulated theories, and the "theory before fact" orientation of the psychoanalytic school, even up to the current day, in my opinion, is irresponsible and counterproductive. But the man was also a freaking genius who has some extremely important things to say. If people are going to choose not to read him, I'd prefer if they did it for reasons that are actually accurate and not based on socially accepted prejudices about him.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now that religion is in competition with atheism on a large scale, we should be seeing it fade into nothingness, which indeed appears to be happening.
Appears to be happening in your country, maybe, but not as a world-wide phenomenon.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Not so much about his material, we have the same feelings about his signifigance, really....but I do see circular reasoning in several of his theories, and I am not the only one as you implied earlier.
The repression argument is fairly famous, and was the argument I was talking about in the first place.
quote:Now that religion is in competition with atheism on a large scale, we should be seeing it fade into nothingness, which indeed appears to be happening.
posted
Also, before anyone else makes this comment without following up on it, that site is adherent.com,but it uses a number of non-biased sources which are cited to determine those numbers, such as the EB.
Just thought I would cut of the inevitable remarks before they occured Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now that religion is in competition with atheism on a large scale,
Perhaps a better way of saying this is that atheism is "out of the closet."
Largely as a result of the internet, atheists are able to find each other and discuss a shared experience. We're beginning to organize in a way that would have gotten us killed a few centuries ago. That creates the opportunity for the memes that support atheism to spread.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: we should be seeing it fade into nothingness, which indeed appears to be happening.
Consider the source. Norway has the highest rate of atheism in the world, despite the fact that it still has church/state connections.
The 15% figure is for the United States. Europe in general has a higher rate of non-belief than the U.S. does. And the figure is rising.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, quid, in just what way is 14% of the population not a large scale?
AntiCool and Dagonee, as has already been suggested, take a look at the trend.
Kwea, if by 'nature' you didn't mean inheritable traits, just what did you mean? And as for the conversion bit, let me try to make this simple for you. If people do in fact make decisions about what to believe, based on something other than their parents' faith, how does the majority religion of nations remain stable over many generations?
And punwit, let us for a moment assume that there is some deep-rooted need to believe. How does that make religion either true, or a good thing? Compare with the 'programming to rape' that some people have suggested for males.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KofM, what trend? You haven't shown there is any trend of any kind. For that matter, you haven't shown proof of any kind to support anything you've said. Why don't you try providing proof to support your claims?
You're just blowing smoke, nothing more.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trend shown in this article, which, incidentally, I also posted on the previous page. In particular :
quote:76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
(...)
About 16% of adults have changed their identification.
For the largest group, the change was abandoning all religion.
posted
I missed the atheist percentage climbing in that study, KoM, especially since the article specifically mentions people leaving their religion but still believing in God.
Interesting that you interpret this a 'we should be seeing it fade into nothingness, which indeed appears to be happening."
Nothingness is a long way from 84%.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
For the largest group, the change was abandoning all religion.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990.
And these data are for America; the fading into nothingness bit, admittedly, is more from my Norwegian experience. However, you might be interested in this table :
code:
Outlook | All adults | Young (18-34) | Senior (over 64)
Religious | 37 | 27 | 47
(...)
Secular | 10 | 14 | 7
In other words, the religious types are found predominantly in the oldest part of the population. Expect to see the 84% drop rapidly as that demographic dies. Edit : Also, I looked at the study that the 14.1% number is taken from. In the original, 'does not follow any organised religion' is worded more strongly, as 'does not identify with any religion'. Here is the article in question.
[ March 24, 2005, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
While the growth rate of Islam is increasing, the worldwide growth of persons professing no religion, whether agnostics, freethinkers, atheists or non-religious humanists appears to have plateaued since the collapse of communism. Statistically speaking, the non-religious population of the world is holding its own at 15% of the world's population, and will continue so as we enter the 21st century.
Since I believe religion is not only wrong, but harmful, I hope it will fade away, much as I hope that nazism has been discredited for good.
But in any case, my motivations have nothing to do with whether or not atheism is in fact gaining ground. Argue about facts by citing studies, or even anecdotes, if it please you. Changing the subject is not helpful.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since I believe religion is not only wrong, but harmful, I hope it will fade away, much as I hope that nazism has been discredited for good.
Is this it? Has Godwin's Law been invoked? Because I was gonna try to add to the discussion.
I don't have any particular investment in believing that atheism is growing or shrinking. But if Biblical prophesies about the end of the world are to be believed, I expect that as time goes on more people will abandon God *and* morality both.
But I also remember 'round the time of the election here in America, lots of people were making mention of the Christian trend in this country. It was usually agnostics making the observation. They were saying that people here were getting more and more Fundamentalist Christian and thus they were feeling more and more out of place living in this country. Is this actually true? I have no idea.
I can believe that it is possible that people in America are getting more Christian while people in Norway or elsewhere in Europe are getting more atheist.
In fact, I *could* make the outrageous claim that if "being religious" is genetic and runs in families, all the religious genes ran off to America, first because of the oppression towards various Protestants and later when Mormon missionaries came through and large numbers of people converted and came to America. (If you look at the facts, it seems that there was a crazy-high number of conversions for the first few decades, but it later dwindled and now there are few converts there indeed.)
From whence come the people in these studies? (Has not yet bothered to look.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
