god?

philologos

5uspect wrote: »

Isn't that conclusion often simply life after death? If you can substantiate any part of your particular faith then you somehow indirectly help prove life after death!

I don't hold life after death as the most important part of my faith. If there was no heaven or hell I still would believe in God. God is a positive force for good in the world for me. The notion that religion is derived from fear of death is inaccurate in my case.

5uspect wrote: »

I'm not certain about you and your fellow Christian posters on Boards. (I regard you as a separate species to your bog standard believer in that you take it very very seriously probably for more complex reasons). But in general I think most people believe because they would like to have the dream of heaven. They indulge Pascal's Wager because they have nothing to lose.

There's nothing complex about it. I read the Bible, and I found that I was changed by it and I found that it made sense in reality. That's it.

5uspect wrote: »

Back to yourself. The reasons that you have become a devout Christian are likely complex. But the belief that there is evidence to support this position more than likely came after your decision to embrace religion. Your brief flirtation with creationism probably shows this search for evidence. Did you adopt your world view (based on some personal revelation etc) and then go in search for evidence or was there initial evidence that convinced you?

I adopted my worldview when I introduced myself to the Scriptures as someone who doubted heavily the existence of a God in a world where there seemed to be a lot of pain. I soon learned that the pain that I and others have and sometimes do experience, can have a positive role in our lives at the end. Reminds me of Paul in Romans " We know that all things work together for good[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose" (8:28). So I adopted it based on the understanding of God making sense to me while understanding what the world was like.

Stev_o

An File wrote: »

do you honestly believe this "decline of faith" is the cause of a world-wide financial crisis, of which the root causes appear far more likely to have grown from poor lending practices and false valuations by banking executives?

Bah just saw this here. I for one disagree with you on this, if you look today at the areas that have the strongest faith in Christianity you'll find they are mostly 3rd world based countries or other developing countries. This country itself has been a Catholic State since it's creation and goes back for hundreds of years. Do you not think there is a coincidence that the decline in popularity with the CC in this country coincided with the Celtic Tiger?

Teutorix

Stev_o wrote: »

Bah just saw this here. I for one disagree with you on this, if you look today at the areas that have the strongest faith in Christianity you'll find they are mostly 3rd world based countries or other developing countries. This country itself has been a Catholic State since it's creation and goes back for hundreds of years. Do you not think there is a coincidence that the decline in popularity with the CC in this country coincided with the Celtic Tiger?

That is the most nonsensical statement I have ever read.

Lets try an example.

Ireland has the highest rate of Cystic Fibrosis in Europe (possibly the developed world, im not sure) It is also one of the strongest catholic countries in europe and has one of the lowest amounts of other religions.

Using your reasoning I come to the conclusion that either Catholicism causes Cystic Fibrosis or Islam (for example) cures it.


Please try and think about what you are saying and make sure it makes some form of sense.

QueenOfLeon

Stev_o wrote: »

Bah just saw this here. I for one disagree with you on this, if you look today at the areas that have the strongest faith in Christianity you'll find they are mostly 3rd world based countries or other developing countries. This country itself has been a Catholic State since it's creation and goes back for hundreds of years. Do you not think there is a coincidence that the decline in popularity with the CC in this country coincided with the Celtic Tiger?

Teutorix wrote: »

That is the most nonsensical statement I have ever read.

I thinks stev_o had a point tho...well, the way id see it, as people get richer they become more materialistic and have higher priorities than religion. Dunno if this is what he meant but i agree that its the people living in poverty that seem to have more faith than developed countries.

Teutorix

Anne-Marie!! wrote: »

I thinks stev_o had a point tho...well, the way id see it, as people get richer they become more materialistic and have higher priorities than religion. Dunno if this is what he meant but i agree that its the people living in poverty that seem to have more faith than developed countries.

Yes but being materialistic has no bearing on religion, look at the priests and other "holy men" that syphon money from the church. And historically the leaders of the catholic church were the most greedy men around.

So don't dare say anything about religion having an effect on anything for the better as it usually makes things worse.

QueenOfLeon

Teutorix wrote: »

So don't dare say anything about religion having an effect on anything for the better as it usually makes things worse.

I didnt...

Teutorix

Anne-Marie!! wrote: »

I didnt...

That bit was not directed at you. sorry

QueenOfLeon

Teutorix wrote: »

That bit was not directed at you. sorry

Thats ok if i was more awake i probably would have realised that

Teutorix

Anne-Marie!! wrote: »

Thats ok if i was more awake i probably would have realised that

Yes it isn't easy to think straight at this hour of night


EDIT: I just wanted to add, that Marx socialism which could be called the complete nemesis of materialism, also advocates a secular, if not a religion-free society. Now tell me that atheism leads to greed and materialism. (not sure who stated that as it was a few pages back)

alegrabaroque

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Ok, you're going to have to explain what you mean more clearly, read over your posts before you hit submit and make sure they make sense.

Every emotion we feel is a chemical reaction, yes. That is a miracle in itself, it's just not the product of anything supernatural.

Why not believing that we are the product of something supernatural makes us greedy and materialistic I don't know....

If someone calculated how likely it is that we would exist, how likely everything would be so perfect to support our existence like some beautiful symphony...its just so perfect. I would think it would be an infinetely small possibility, they`d have to invent a new number for how small it would be. Every atom of you comes from a perfect sequence of events to make you exist. If someone gave you a chance that small to live what would you call it if you survived? Miracle is just a work call it what you will - Its Awsome

I know I`m a crack pot but read this it changed me near death experiences can`t be scientifically explained -
http://www.mellen-thomas.com/mellon-thomas.htm

Teutorix

alegrabaroque wrote: »

If someone calculated how likely it is that we would exist, how likely everything would be so perfect to support our existence like some beautiful symphony...its just so perfect. I would think it would be an infinetely small possibility, they`d have to invent a new number for how small it would be. Every atom of you comes from a perfect sequence of events to make you exist. If someone gave you a chance that small to live what would you call it if you survived? Miracle is just a work call it what you will - Its Awsome

I know I`m a crack pot but read this it changed me near death experiences can`t be scientifically explained -
http://www.mellen-thomas.com/mellon-thomas.htm

Yes the chance is infinitely small, but the amount of "chances" is infinitely large.

Therefore making it unlikely that we wouldn't occur.


And i would suggest leaning something about life in general. because this "symphony" is far from perfect. there is so much room for error in the requirements for life that it is much more than likely that there are a million other intelligent species in the milky way alone.

Near death experiences? Just because one website claims they cant be explained does NOT make it fact.

Even if they cannot be explained as of yet, does not mean that they wont be in the future. In the past it couldnt be "scientificly explained" why wood doesnt conduct electricity, or why tides occur, or even why the sun sets.

Just because we dont currently understand something does not make it proof that it must be caused by something supernatural.

"God" "Allah" "Ghosts" "Aliens" "Daemons" and "The Supernatural" are all the greatest cop outs in history. Just because people didnt/dont understand something they assume that it is something "beyond our world" rather than something that hasnt been worked out yet.

Religion and superstition are "ANTI-SCIENCE" by deffenition

philologos

Teutorix wrote: »

Yes but being materialistic has no bearing on religion, look at the priests and other "holy men" that syphon money from the church. And historically the leaders of the catholic church were the most greedy men around.

So don't dare say anything about religion having an effect on anything for the better as it usually makes things worse.

Really Teutorix? Can I ask you what religion has been behind a large portion of aid programmes in the world both at home and abroad?

I'd argue that Christianity has made a huge mark for the better in the world, and I'd argue that the Biblical text has had a positive influence on Western civilisation up to the point where people are trying to scrub it away frantically.

Christian ideology promotes self-development, challenging yourself, trying to be a better person each day, and when you fail to pick yourself back up and try again. Just take a read of the New Testament to see this in particular. David's Psalms and the wisdom book of Proverbs also provide a solid set of social morals.

As for the Catholic Church? You are basing your views of all religion on the Catholic Church? For a start, Christianity is much broader than the Catholic Church. Secondly, you'd need to back up your accusations if you are to accuse the Catholic Church, otherwise it would be merely smear tactics.

So yes, I will dare to say that Christianity has a hugely positive role in the world.

Teutorix wrote: »

EDIT: I just wanted to add, that Marx socialism which could be called the complete nemesis of materialism, also advocates a secular, if not a religion-free society. Now tell me that atheism leads to greed and materialism. (not sure who stated that as it was a few pages back)

Marxism encourages the government taking funds from one person, and shifting it to another. Why can't we organise a system where people voluntarily do this? I personally used to advocate socialism a lot, however I think there is a means where we can encourage in the current system for people to give. Even if it means giving slightly less tax for someone who donates above a certain amount each year.

Stev_o

Teutorix wrote: »

That is the most nonsensical statement I have ever read.

Lets try an example.

Ireland has the highest rate of Cystic Fibrosis in Europe (possibly the developed world, im not sure) It is also one of the strongest catholic countries in europe and has one of the lowest amounts of other religions.

Using your reasoning I come to the conclusion that either Catholicism causes Cystic Fibrosis or Islam (for example) cures it.


Please try and think about what you are saying and make sure it makes some form of sense.

Dew to our genes im afraid, science has told us that so really your giving a sh1te example. Seriously what are you trying to say? You seem to being rambling about complete and utter nonsense to me.


If you have money why would you need God (or any religion). Religion gives people hope, faith and that they will be looked after, money eliminates this need. Come on this country has been poor ass land of nothing for hundreds of years deep routed in the Catholic faith and suddenly when the country suddenly gets a substantial amount of wealth it's populace decide to forget it's faith altogether! Why? How can a nation's faith be whipped out in a couple of years? If you lived in the arse end of nowhere with no money, no clean water or food and lived in danger i very much doubt you'd have the view that world is what it is. I bet that you'd pray to someone or something that they can look after you and hopefully lead you to a better future.

philologos

Stev_o wrote: »

If you have money why would you need God (or any religion).

For your salvation? To have guidance in the world, when you are only left to stumble around in the darkness yourself? I could think of a number of reasons why society could benefit from God.

Maybe Paul was right:

1 Timothy 6:10 wrote:

" For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains."

Stev_o wrote: »

Come on this country has been poor ass land of nothing for hundreds of years deep routed in the Catholic faith and suddenly when the country suddenly gets a substantial amount of wealth it's populace decide to forget it's faith altogether! Why?

Even Moses copped on to this:

Deuteronomy 32:15-18 wrote:

Jacob ate his fill;[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL]
Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked.
You grew fat, bloated, and gorged!
He abandoned God who made him,
and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation.
They made him jealous with strange gods,
with abhorrent things they provoked him.
They sacrificed to demons, not God,
to deities they had never known,
to new ones recently arrived,
whom your ancestors had not feared.
You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you;[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL]
you forgot the God who gave you birth.

It is nothing new. God punished Israel for it's disobedience following this. Why? It's human nature. People become greedy and corrupt. There may well be some truth in God's word.

Stev_o wrote: »

How can a nation's faith be whipped out in a couple of years? If you lived in the arse end of nowhere with no money, no clean water or food and lived in danger i very much doubt you'd have the view that world is what it is. I bet that you'd pray to someone or something that they can look after you and hopefully lead you to a better future.

Greed and corruption. Man becoming arrogant, and thinking that they indeed are gods.

Mind you I think if you had everything you ever needed in your life, and if you had so much money you didn't know what to do with it. You would become deluded and arrogant, you'd have a skewed view of the world too wouldn't you?

I personally think the poor and the humble are far superior to the rich and the arrogant. The truth and the meaning of why we are the way we are is far far superior to any finance or pleasure that we can go and seek after.

JC 2K3

Yup, and targetting the poor is a fundamental tenant of Christianity. Jesus targetted the poor fishermen, because it was much easier to get them to leave their nets and follow him than to prise the wealthy from their riches.

When people have nothing to lose, they're much more easily led.

Insect Overlord

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yup, and targetting the poor is a fundamental tenant of Christianity. Jesus targetted the poor fishermen, because it was much easier to get them to leave their nets and follow him than to prise the wealthy from their riches.

When people have nothing to lose, they're much more easily led.

/argument

Stev_o

An File wrote: »

/argument

Where you and your family poor when you were christened? Or when you had your first confession and communion?

I always loved this quote from Malcolm in the Middle.

Dewey: [to the Bible teacher Helen] Like Pastor Roy said, how God is so much bigger and wiser than us, and trying to see what He's thinking would be like an ant trying to see what I'm thinking.
Helen: Yes, exactly. But we can trust in His wisdom, and have faith that He is watching over us.
Dewey: Like me with the anthill in my backyard. I spent days watching the ants, trying to figure out which ones were good, and which ones were bad, but they all just looked like ants, so I started smiting all of them.
Helen: Well that's not -
Dewey: I was smiting them with the garden hose, and with lighter fluid, and with the lawnmower, and to be perfectly honest, I think I went a little crazy with the shovel. Those ants could have been praying to me all day, I wouldn't have heard them.
[ponders]
Dewey: There was nothing they could do about it.
Helen: But, I don't think -
Dewey: Really, it's the same with us. There's nothing we can do about anything either, so why worry about it? Hey, this is making me feel better.
Helen: Well, that's good, but -
Dewey: I guess all we can do is live our lives with as much kindness and decency as possible, and try not to dwell on God standing over us with a giant shovel. Bye!

Insect Overlord

Stev_o wrote: »

Where you and your family poor when you were christened? Or when you had your first confession and communion?

My family has never been "poor", but neither have we been "priveleged". My parents forewent many things to give me and my siblings as good an upbringing as possible. There has always been an emphasis on us achieving our potential, to become whatever it is that will make us happy in the long-run. We have had our talents nurtured and our needs met (for the most part). I was christened as the first of 3 children to my parents, but unfortunately I don't remember much of the sacramental ceremony itself...

I sang in the choir at my own communion and sang solo in the mass following my brother's communion the following year. I used to do prayers of the faithful for local Scouts masses, school masses, etc. I once got involed in a re-enactment of the stations of the cross. I did readings at mass from the ages of 11 to 13.

Jimmy Carr wrote:

When I was a kid, I used to have an imaginary friend. I thought he went everywhere with me. I could talk to him and he could hear me, and he could grant me wishes and stuff too. But then I grew up, and stopped going to church.

Stev_o

An File wrote: »

My family has never been "poor", but neither have we been "priveleged". My parents forewent many things to give me and my siblings as good an upbringing as possible. There has always been an emphasis on us achieving our potential, to become whatever it is that will make us happy in the long-run. We have had our talents nurtured and our needs met (for the most part). I was christened as the first of 3 children to my parents, but unfortunately I don't remember much of the sacramental ceremony itself...

I sang in the choir at my own communion and sang solo in the mass following my brother's communion the following year. I used to do prayers of the faithful for local Scouts masses, school masses, etc. I once got involed in a re-enactment of the stations of the cross. I did readings at mass from the ages of 11 to 13.

Well your introduction into the Church wasn't them "targeting" you because of the size of your wealth so i don't see how you could say J's argument is /argument.

Most of us are brought into the Church through our parents and i say alot of us in the future will bring our own children into the Church the same way. Like in 10 years time or something if you had a kid would you have them baptised?

JC 2K3

I wouldn't have my child baptised, no.

And yeah, it's not /argument, because I didn't talk about indoctrination at all. But yeah, that's the other prominent reason for people believing in God. However, indoctrination becomes a less powerful force as people become more comfortable and no longer a reason to seek happiness in a delusion.

But the majority of adult converts to Christianity are the poor, alcoholics, drug addicts etc. It's attractive to someone who has nothing in their life.

Insect Overlord

To be honest? No, I probably would not have them baptised. It would have to be a joint decision with this hypothetical child's hypothetical mother, of course, but even then I don't see myself having a long-term future with a deeply religious partner. It is perfectly possible to grow up "normal" without having been indoctrinated into a faith.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

And yeah, it's not /argument, because I didn't talk about indoctrination at all. But yeah, that's the other prominent reason for people believing in God. However, indoctrination becomes a less powerful force as people become more comfortable and no longer a reason to seek happiness in a delusion.

JC 2K3, didn't you yourself acknowledge in another thread that there was such thing as the "God part of the brain", as referenced in the following:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html

How could something that biologically predisposes people to a general belief in God, be attributed to "indoctrination"?

Secondly, how is predisposing a child to Christianity different to atheist or agnostic parents predisposing their children towards disbelief?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But the majority of adult converts to Christianity are the poor, alcoholics, drug addicts etc. It's attractive to someone who has nothing in their life.

Really? You'd need to provide statistics if you are going to be taken seriously on this time.

I think Christianity is attractive to all people in all demographics, merely for the reason that people often don't explore questions of meaning in their lives and suppress them. Christianity makes sense, that's why you have had academics such as C.S Lewis (converted from atheism to Christianity aged 38), and Francis Collins who converted to Christianity in adulthood as a doctor amongst others accept it.

Teutorix

Jakkass wrote: »

Secondly, how is predisposing a child to Christianity different to atheist or agnostic parents predisposing their children towards disbelief?

Indoctrination requires forcing a particular doctrine upon someone.

Atheism is the complete lack of religious doctrine so therefore you cannot indoctrinate the lack of something.

philologos

Teutorix wrote: »

Indoctrination requires forcing a particular doctrine upon someone.

Atheism is the complete lack of religious doctrine so therefore you cannot indoctrinate the lack of something.

Ah come off it. Children have the choice to choose whenever they want, and this is legally afforded. There is nothing wrong with being introduced to a religion, just as children are introduced to humanism by atheist / agnostic parents. The "child abuse" claim is pure nonsense.

If people are biologically predisposed to consider a higher power, then this should happen of a normal accord for quite a few people as they learn about religion elsewhere. And, indeed it has done in the Christian case all over the world.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

JC 2K3, didn't you yourself acknowledge in another thread that there was such thing as the "God part of the brain", as referenced in the following:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html

How could something that biologically predisposes people to a general belief in God, be attributed to "indoctrination"?

Read the article properly:

The researchers said their findings support the idea that the brain has evolved to be sensitive to any form of belief that improves the chances of survival

All that means is that we're predisposed to deluding ourselves if facing reality is likely to lessen our chances of survival. It actually has nothing specifically to do with "god".

Children believe what their parents tell them, people become christians because they've been brought up that way, that's what I meant.

Jakkass wrote: »

Really? You'd need to provide statistics if you are going to be taken seriously on this time.

Meh, any Christian who's ever stopped me on the street and who I've talked to has always had a history of alcoholism or drug use. Many stories you read about conversions to Christianity begin with some negative event in their lives, especially a bereavement. I can't provide stats, so I'll take it back as a statement of fact, but it's still my opinion that people need to be at least slightly unhappy with their lives in order to convert to Christianity (it correlates with the article you posted above, in fact, people believing in things to make themselves happier and thus increasing their chances of survival).

Jakkass wrote: »

I think Christianity is attractive to all people in all demographics, merely for the reason that people often don't explore questions of meaning in their lives and suppress them.

Or they just accept there is no meaning. It works for me, and I'm very happy with my life.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

All that means is that we're predisposed to deluding ourselves if facing reality is likely to lessen our chances of survival. It actually has nothing specifically to do with "god".

This is merely rhethoric. All we are going to get into is stupid rhethorical discussions of who is more deluded than who if we continue down these lines.

As for it having nothing to do with God, that's debatable.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Children believe what their parents tell them, people become christians because they've been brought up that way, that's what I meant.

I disagree with you on this one. As a child, I had an idea of an abstract man in the sky who I never really knew anything about. Except for the childish type relationship where I'd try pray occasionally to see if God would give me what I wanted. That isn't the same thing as fully fledged Christianity in any sense.

I then in my teenage years began to doubt God.

Then upon giving it proper consideration and reading the Bible, I decided that believing in God was reasonable for a start, and secondly that Christian ideology was something that could benefit my life.

I assume that most Christians walk has been like this rather than simply just believing what mum and dad tell you. I'm sure I have some differing theological views to my parents in some respects by now due to influences from other Christian friends that I have and from experiencing a few different ways of doing church to what I would normally have experienced just attending my local.

A while ago a guy was training to be an auxilliary in my church and he gave a sermon which I found very interesting, about having to repackage the faith that your parents may have handed down to you, for it to be relevant to you and your life, by personal study and by personal research into Christianity for yourself.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Meh, any Christian who's ever stopped me on the street and who I've talked to has always had a history of alcoholism or drug use. Many stories you read about conversions to Christianity begin with some negative event in their lives, especially a bereavement. I can't provide stats, so I'll take it back as a statement of fact, but it's still my opinion that people need to be at least slightly unhappy with their lives in order to convert to Christianity (it correlates with the article you posted above, in fact, people believing in things to make themselves happier and thus increasing their chances of survival).

Indeed, a few may have. This is because there is an understanding of repentance and reform in Christianity after accepting it as your own. As for stories with a "negative event" in their lives. Many could have considered these events to be positive in their atheism / agnosticism, but in the light of God's decree they are negative. As for people "needing" to be unhappy, I would put it down to being spiritually unfulfilled, or if you want the cliché a God shaped hole that needs filling.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Or they just accept there is no meaning. It works for me, and I'm very happy with my life.

Fair enough. I have yet to see how it is possible for the earth and my surroundings to be entirely meaningless.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

This is merely rhethoric. All we are going to get into is stupid rhethorical discussions of who is more deluded than who if we continue down these lines.

Heh.

Life in its entirety could be a delusion, but then again, what is real?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for it having nothing to do with God, that's debatable.

No, it's science.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you on this one. As a child, I had an idea of an abstract man in the sky who I never really knew anything about. Except for the childish type relationship where I'd try pray occasionally to see if God would give me what I wanted. That isn't the same thing as fully fledged Christianity in any sense.

I then in my teenage years began to doubt God.

Then upon giving it proper consideration and reading the Bible, I decided that believing in God was reasonable for a start, and secondly that Christian ideology was something that could benefit my life.

I assume that most Christians walk has been like this rather than simply just believing what mum and dad tell you. I'm sure I have some differing theological views to my parents in some respects by now due to influences from other Christian friends that I have and from experiencing a few different ways of doing church to what I would normally have experienced just attending my local.

Do your parents have strong beliefs? Did they encourage you to believe and actively discuss God with you etc.?

My dad never really went to Mass, and my mom stopped bringing me when I was 10/11 (partially due to me playing football on a Sunday). I've never discussed religion in any meaningful sense with my parents and they don't hold any religiously influenced views. We were never taught and never discussed theology in depth in school. Christianity in any real sense was never really a normalised part of my life.

Therefore, at 15 when I started to actually investigate Catholicism/Christianity, while it took me a while to come to the conclusion that it likely wasn't real, it wasn't all that earth shattering a revelation to me, and all it meant in practice was that I wouldn't say prayers at assembly in school.

Indoctrination's a bit strong I'll concede, but your world view is going to be shaped by your parents. Amusingly, this is essentially what your auxilliary said:

Jakkass wrote: »

A while ago a guy was training to be an auxilliary in my church and he gave a sermon which I found very interesting, about having to repackage the faith that your parents may have handed down to you, for it to be relevant to you and your life, by personal study and by personal research into Christianity for yourself.

This is wise indeed, though I would replace "faith" with "world view" and remove "into Christianity".

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough. I have yet to see how it is possible for the earth and my surroundings to be entirely meaningless.

"Meaning" is ill defined in this context though.

Language has a lot to do with the evolution of religion, I reckon. Linguistic determinism is fascinating.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Heh.

Life in its entirety could be a delusion, but then again, what is real?

Let's not get too Cartesian about it.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

No, it's science.

Science doesn't rule out God having carried out anything. So just because something is studied in science, doesn't mean that it wasn't ultimately caused by God.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Do your parents have strong beliefs? Did they encourage you to believe and actively discuss God with you etc.?

I tagged along to church nearly every Sunday. I didn't understand it much more than a typical "Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so" type understanding. Both would have had a faith of sorts. However, it wasn't really much of a discussion topic too often. When I was reading the Bible I'd ask questions about it, but that didn't happen until I was 17. I had tried to get through the Torah several times before this, but I gave up.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

My dad never really went to Mass, and my mom stopped bringing me when I was 10/11 (partially due to me playing football on a Sunday). I've never discussed religion in any meaningful sense with my parents and they don't hold any religiously influenced views. We were never taught and never discussed theology in depth in school. Christianity in any real sense was never really a normalised part of my life.

You were predisposed to secularism, if I were to exaggerate it "indoctrination" :pac:.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Therefore, at 15 when I started to actually investigate Catholicism/Christianity, while it took me a while to come to the conclusion that it likely wasn't real, it wasn't all that earth shattering a revelation to me, and all it meant in practice was that I wouldn't say prayers at assembly in school.

How exactly did you investigate it? Nothing wrong with not saying prayers, it's quite honest of you infact.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Indoctrination's a bit strong I'll concede, but your world view is going to be shaped by your parents. Amusingly, this is essentially what your auxilliary said:

Well, I interpreted more as he was introducted to faith by his parents, as I was introduced to faith by my parents, but ultimately you have to decide whether or not you hold Jesus Christ as Lord for yourself, and if you want Him to take a real part in your life.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

This is wise indeed, though I would replace "faith" with "world view" and remove "into Christianity".

Indeed I found it wise because it spoke a lot to me when I was listening to it.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

"Meaning" is ill defined in this context though.

Language has a lot to do with the evolution of religion, I reckon. Linguistic determinism is fascinating.

I don't think so though. The whys of life are crucially important. Religion for me is why I am the way I am, why other people are the way they are, and why the earth is the way it is. There are other means for dealing with the how, but I think any worldview is lacking if it doesn't consider the whys of life.

ShooterSF

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think so though. The whys of life are crucially important. Religion for me is why I am the way I am, why other people are the way they are, and why the earth is the way it is. There are other means for dealing with the how, but I think any worldview is lacking if it doesn't consider the whys of life.

But what if the why is such a smaller less grand answer. What if it was all one accident after another? What if humanity is just another form of evolution, the one that lucked out.
The truth is the question why is an impossible one at this time and while it would be nice for us to be some ultimate beings created and nurtured for by a higher power at this point that is all just wishful thinking. Before we knew better didn't humanity think the sun orbited around us? We like to think we're a big deal.

Why should we be?