Under 30's belief

igotone

Why is it that some of my under 30's friends have the same non questioning belief in christianity as their parents/previous generation. Even when questioned about it they change the subject and are reluctant to defend it.Why is this?

I think it is Blind Belief inherited without question because it is easier to do than question.

Please comment.I am not trying to knock belief, but I need to be helped to see your point of view

Thank you in Advance

PDN

igotone wrote: »

Why is it that some of my under 30's friends have the same non questioning belief in christianity as their parents/previous generation. Even when questioned about it they change the subject and are reluctant to defend it.Why is this?

I think it is Blind Belief inherited without question because it is easier to do than question.

Please comment.I am not trying to knock belief, but I need to be helped to see your point of view

Thank you in Advance

Since none of us know who your friends are, we can hardly comment on their reasons for anything.

Being less specific, many young people still believe in God. The ever growing number of non-Catholic Churches in Ireland are characterised by their young age profile. This segment of believers are usually pretty happy to discuss and defend their faith as evangelism of, and witness to, unbelievers is encouraged in their congregations.

I have discovered that many younger Catholics do have a strong belief in God but are reluctant to 'defend' it. Their reasons vary - it is sometimes because they have experiences of those who are snide and insulting in 'attacking their faith', or due to peer pressure because such faith is unfashionable and it is easier to keep quiet and treat it as something private.

Fanny Cradock

igotone wrote: »

Why is it that some of my under 30's friends have the same non questioning belief in christianity as their parents/previous generation. Even when questioned about it they change the subject and are reluctant to defend it.Why is this?

I think it is Blind Belief inherited without question because it is easier to do than question.

Please comment.I am not trying to knock belief, but I need to be helped to see your point of view

Thank you in Advance

If I was your friend and you were of the opinion that my belief in God was "Blind Belief inherited without question" then I wouldn't be bothered to discuss the matter with you.

Some people are of the opinion that those professing belief in God have not looked at the evidence ("Blind Belief") and are leading an unexamined life. Conversely the same people are often under the smug assurance that those rejecting God's existence have carefully examined the evidence and are leading an examined life. It might be helpful for you to consider this when engaging people of faith.

robindch

igotone wrote: »

Why is it that some of my under 30's friends have the same non questioning belief in christianity as their parents/previous generation. Even when questioned about it they change the subject and are reluctant to defend it. Why is this?

There will always be people who will believe what they are told to believe by those whose authority they accept, largely because it makes their life comfortable and secure, or at least, seem comfortable and secure.

I don't think you can do much about it, and it's probably not all that wise to try for reasons that are probably best explored elsewhere.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

There will always be people who will believe what they are told to believe by those whose authority they accept, largely because it makes their life comfortable and secure, or at least, seem comfortable and secure.

Indeed! Comfort and security where but two of the promises offered by the failed Utopian societies of the last century. And it remains the promise of a many to this day and, I guess, will do until the end of the earth. No doubt there was no attempt by your good self to infer that such naive willingness to believe in these things without questioning is a trait in any way localised to the religious.

thetoken

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If I was your friend and you were of the opinion that my belief in God was "Blind Belief inherited without question" then I wouldn't be bothered to discuss the matter with you.

Some people are of the opinion that those professing belief in God have not looked at the evidence ("Blind Belief") and are leading an unexamined life. Conversely the same people are often under the smug assurance that those rejecting God's existence have carefully examined the evidence and are leading an examined life. It might be helpful for you to consider this when engaging people of faith.

There is no evidence.

Its down to where you are born, your parents ability to rationalise, and who got to indoctrinate you first, otherwise we would have Irish catholic children becoming hindu or rasta scientologists etc

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No doubt there was no attempt by your good self to infer that such naive willingness to believe in these things without questioning is a trait in any way localised to the religious.

Not in the slightest. As I've posted here many times before, the problem isn't so much with the average punters who can be lead relatively easily by means that are well-understood, but with the central authorities which, in their own separate ways and in broad terms, are inclined do whatever's needed to preserve their own privileged position at the top by, consciously or unconsciously, manipulating the honest beliefs of their client populations.

People's brains work in pretty much the same way whether you're talking about people in the Roman empire 2,000 years ago, Germany 70 years ago, or these days in North Korea or the USA's bible belt.

peakpilgrim

igotone wrote: »

Why is it that some of my under 30's friends have the same non questioning belief in christianity as their parents/previous generation. Even when questioned about it they change the subject and are reluctant to defend it.Why is this?

I think it is Blind Belief inherited without question because it is easier to do than question.

Please comment.I am not trying to knock belief, but I need to be helped to see your point of view

Thank you in Advance

From a personal point of view, although my faith is important to me as a lay-Catholic and I do go to Church, I never discuss religion outside my family; unless on a forum like this.

There are several reasons for this:

Fundamentally your Faith is down to yourself, your conscience, and God. Although there are certain duties you are obliged to perform conscience plays a huge role in the Catholic Church however many rosaries you say or crosses you wear or however many times you bless yourself with Holy Water; these items help some people feel closer to God and there is nothing wrong in that. .

Another reason is that there is a lot of cynicism out there and, indeed, hatred of The Catholic Church; particularly in the current climate where there are so many scandals. There are, also, huge areas of disagreement between Christians; you only have to take a quick glance through this Forum to see that. There is often no point in discussion in such circumstances.

I, personally, have no desire to be regarded as a 'Holy-Joe' which, in some peoples eyes, is tantamount to being 'touched' and may affect the way I am perceived at work. Most people I work with know that I am a Practicing Catholic but they also know that I actively discourage talking about it.

There are plenty of websites to log-on to and phone numbers to ring if people want to talk about religion.

Although there are evangelizing orders within the Catholic Church, as a lay-Catholic you set an example by the way you live your life and that is enough; you don't have to go around spouting Scripture all the time.( Some Christians choose to do so and there is nothing wrong with that )

Hey! Is that why a lot of my friends don't go to Church?

Fanny Cradock

thetoken wrote: »

There is no evidence.

Its down to where you are born, your parents ability to rationalise, and who got to indoctrinate you first, otherwise we would have Irish catholic children becoming hindu or rasta scientologists etc

Now that is blind faith! I suggest you look up the definition of evidence before stating there is none available. There exists plenty of evidence for God, but fortunately it's left up to the individual, and not people like you, to decide if it's any good or not.

Now, if one decides that the evidence is as reliable as the reports of Evils flipping burgers in Cork then that is just fine, and if one thinks that there is excellent evidence for the existence of God then even better, IMO. But to suggest that none exists is quite frankly a terribly biased, intellectually dishonest and ignorant claim. That you seemingly believe such a thing leads me to the conclusion that you have never bothered to look seriously at the evidence - certainly not with any objectivity. Whatever about your friends, in a not so ironic twist it seems to me that you are the non-questioning person here.

Really, one of the many big questions that should drive anyone's honest inquiry into the claims of Christianity should be: "but what if there is a God?".

JimiTime

peakpilgrim wrote: »

From a personal point of view, although my faith is important to me as a lay-Catholic and I do go to Church, I never discuss religion outside my family; unless on a forum like this.

There are several reasons for this:

Fundamentally your Faith is down to yourself, your conscience, and God. Although there are certain duties you are obliged to perform conscience plays a huge role in the Catholic Church however many rosaries you say or crosses you wear or however many times you bless yourself with Holy Water; these items help some people feel closer to God and there is nothing wrong in that. .

Another reason is that there is a lot of cynicism out there and, indeed, hatred of The Catholic Church; particularly in the current climate where there are so many scandals. There are, also, huge areas of disagreement between Christians; you only have to take a quick glance through this Forum to see that. There is often no point in discussion in such circumstances.

I, personally, have no desire to be regarded as a 'Holy-Joe' which, in some peoples eyes, is tantamount to being 'touched' and may affect the way I am perceived at work. Most people I work with know that I am a Practicing Catholic but they also know that I actively discourage talking about it.

There are plenty of websites to log-on to and phone numbers to ring if people want to talk about religion.

Although there are evangelizing orders within the Catholic Church, as a lay-Catholic you set an example by the way you live your life and that is enough; you don't have to go around spouting Scripture all the time.( Some Christians choose to do so and there is nothing wrong with that )

Hey! Is that why a lot of my friends don't go to Church?

Good post PP. Just wondering if you could clarify the point in bold? What does 'actively discouraging' entail?

prinz

thetoken wrote: »

Its down to where you are born, your parents ability to rationalise, and who got to indoctrinate you first, otherwise we would have Irish catholic children becoming hindu or rasta scientologists etc

robindch wrote: »

There will always be people who will believe what they are told to believe by those whose authority they accept, largely because it makes their life comfortable and secure, or at least, seem comfortable and secure.

My parents as long as I have known them have never practiced. I had little exposure until a number of years ago. I was never 'told' what to believe, so how do I fit into your picture? Trust me, as a mid twenties Irish lad, it's neither comfortable nor secure to change your life, to live in a Christian manner. In case you haven't realised it in your 'I'm enlightened, I'm rational' self satisfaction, being committed to Christianity, especially as a young person marks you as the odd one out, not the other way around.

Fanny Cradock

prinz wrote: »

My parents as long as I have known them have never practiced. I had little exposure until a number of years ago. I was never 'told' what to believe, so how do I fit into your picture? Trust me, as a mid twenties Irish lad, it's neither comfortable nor secure to change your life, to live in a Christian manner. In case you haven't realised it in your 'I'm enlightened, I'm rational' self satisfaction, being committed to Christianity, especially as a young person marks you as the odd one out, not the other way around.

Well said!

robindch

prinz wrote: »

In case you haven't realised it in your 'I'm enlightened, I'm rational' self satisfaction, being committed to Christianity, especially as a young person marks you as the odd one out, not the other way around.

I don't think that calling other posters self-satisfied really adds much to the debate.

prinz wrote: »

robindch wrote:

There will always be people who will believe what they are told to believe by those whose authority they accept, largely because it makes their life comfortable and secure, or at least, seem comfortable and secure.

I was never 'told' what to believe, so how do I fit into your picture?

There are lots of ways that you can acquire a religion (or, in the words of some of the more extreme sociologists, that a religion can acquire a new propagator). "Vertical" transfer from parents to kids is just one of these means, and it's one which happens to be pretty common in catholicism. As the OP implied vertical transfer, well, many vertical transfers result from a wish not to rock the boat in any sense.

"Horizontal" transfer is another, but it happens peer-to-peer, and that's more common in the more recently-evolved protestant variations of christianity. There are other transfer modes too which are more complex.

As to what convinced you, well, I've no idea -- but I'd certainly like to hear.

prinz

robindch wrote: »

I don't think that calling other posters self-satisfied really adds much to the debate.

I didn't think your insinuation that religious people are 'easily led' or that they only tow the party line so to speak for a comfortable and secure life really added much to anything. I resent the fact that some people believe because I choose to engage with Christianity that for some reason I simultaneously relinquished my free will, individuality, maturity, rationality or intellectual capabilities.

robindch wrote: »

As to what convinced you, well, I've no idea -- but I'd certainly like to hear.

I looked around me and realised there had to be a better way. Then I found it. Simple as.

JimiTime

If my advice means anything, what I'd say to most Christians, is not to fall into the trap of trying to justify that its more than parental pressure that has you as a Christian. Sure, alot of folk posit that 'Ahh, you're just a Christian because yer ma was'. Its presented by some as this negative quality. That your reasoning was compromised or some such. I'd leave such folk to their lazy minds tbh.

robindch

prinz wrote: »

I didn't think your insinuation that religious people are 'easily led' or that they only tow the party line so to speak for a comfortable and secure life really added much to anything.

I think it gave a fairly good answer to the question that the OP posed. You may not like the answer, but as I clarified to Fanny Craddock who pulled me up on exactly this point too, I certainly was not referring only to religious people, but to the population at large.

prinz wrote: »

I resent the fact that some people believe because I choose to engage with Christianity that for some reason I simultaneously relinquished my free will, individuality, maturity, rationality or intellectual capabilities.

I've no idea if you're referring to me here -- perhaps you are -- but I certainly don't think that you have abandoned any of these. As I've written elsewhere, religion and many other belief systems, are deeply interesting human contexts, and to treat them with the unsubtle contempt that some very few people do, is to miss the point entirely.

prinz wrote: »

I looked around me and realised there had to be a better way. Then I found it. Simple as.

At this point, it's off-topic, but I don't quite understand what actually happened -- what did you see that made you think there must be something better? And why did you settle on the christian denomination you did? With the religion, have you resolved the issue that caused you to go looking for a better way?

prinz

robindch wrote: »

There will always be people who will believe what they are told to believe by those whose authority they accept, largely because it makes their life comfortable and secure, or at least, seem comfortable and secure.

robindch wrote: »

the problem isn't so much with the average punters who can be lead relatively easily by means that are well-understood, but with the central authorities which, in their own separate ways and in broad terms, are inclined do whatever's needed to preserve their own privileged position at the top by, consciously or unconsciously, manipulating the honest beliefs of their client populations.
People's brains work in pretty much the same way whether you're talking about people in the Roman empire 2,000 years ago, Germany 70 years ago, or these days in North Korea or the USA's bible belt.

robindch wrote: »

I certainly was not referring only to religious people, but to the population at large.I've no idea if you're referring to me here -- perhaps you are -- but I certainly don't think that you have abandoned any of these.

robindch wrote: »

I think it gave a fairly good answer to the question that the OP posed.

You answered the question, so presumably you answered it in the context of religion......as that was the question, in doing so you referred to people believing what they are told to believe, being manipulated, and being led relatively easy, and you managed to throw in a comparison to NAZI Germany, being the duped masses led along a merry path no doubt. Sorry if I was mistaken, but I figured you were answering the question I read.

robindch wrote: »

At this point, it's off-topic, but I don't quite understand what actually happened -- what did you see that made you think there must be something better? And why did you settle on the christian denomination you did? With the religion, have you resolved the issue that caused you to go looking for a better way?

I saw the world, and the societies I have lived in. I haven't settled in any denomination yet, and I didn't have any issues that needed resolving.

postcynical

PDN wrote: »

Being less specific, many young people still believe in God. The ever growing number of non-Catholic Churches in Ireland are characterised by their young age profile. This segment of believers are usually pretty happy to discuss and defend their faith as evangelism of, and witness to, unbelievers is encouraged in their congregations.

I suspect many of these young people are 'converts' in the sense that they have chosen a church into which they were not born?

I have discovered that many younger Catholics do have a strong belief in God but are reluctant to 'defend' it. Their reasons vary - it is sometimes because they have experiences of those who are snide and insulting in 'attacking their faith', or due to peer pressure because such faith is unfashionable and it is easier to keep quiet and treat it as something private.

Both of these reasons are valid IMO. Also the Catholic church in Ireland has created a lukewarm following. Many young Irish people see the hypocricy which our parents display and assume that all Catholics are like this. I suspect that the next generation of young Irish Catholics will be far more zealous in their faith, as they will have grown up without the social pressure of a state religion and will grow up free to choose their own way spiritually.

I also think the next generation of Irish Catholics will have a lot more in common with their Protestant brothers and sisters.

Also while I keep my faith private (despite public worship most days!) I am happy to chat to anyone who sincerely enquires of me. I don't feel the need to throw pearls to swine though.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

I think it gave a fairly good answer to the question that the OP posed. You may not like the answer, but as I clarified to Fanny Craddock who pulled me up on exactly this point too, I certainly was not referring only to religious people, but to the population at large.

I would think that any confusion or need for clarification might have arisen because it seems we are so often hunkered in our trenches and only emerge to take pot-shots at each other. Still, you have clarified your point, and I think that everybody can be happy that you aren't being biased in your accusations.

Doctor DooM

prinz wrote: »

I saw the world, and the societies I have lived in. I haven't settled in any denomination yet, and I didn't have any issues that needed resolving.

If you don't mind my saying so, this isn't really an answer to his question though!

What is so wrong with society that you feel turning christian resolves?

prinz

SoDoM wrote: »

If you don't mind my saying so, this isn't really an answer to his question though!

What is so wrong with society that you feel turning christian resolves?

Deliberately obtuse, as it is irrelevant to the OP, and largely irrelevant to anybody but myself, and God of course.

Handsome Bob

I think that the younger generations of today are certainly more braver in airing their opinions on religion. Unfortunately, a lot of people can't see beyond their own prejudices and the second they hear someone is a Christian, they immediately throw them into the stereotypical box of

• Fundamentalist
• Homophobe
• Pedophile sympathiser
• Opressor of women
• Racist

Now, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't fancy being labelled any of those. So it's just easier to stay out of any kind of debate about being religious, especially if you are young. Often debates are won by who obnoxiously shouts the loudest so before you can even get a word in, someone has straw-manned you and has accused you of harbouring every single prejudice underneath the sun in front of a room full of people.

prinz

LZ5by5 wrote: »

• Fundamentalist
• Homophobe
• Pedophile sympathiser
• Opressor of women
• Racist
• Victim of a paedophile
• Prude
• Afraid of women
• Gay

Though I'd throw in a few more I've come across.

Handsome Bob

prinz wrote: »

Though I'd throw in a few more I've come across.

You must have been having an argument with some real mature people there prinz!

Victim of a peadophile, if someone called me something as juvenile as that I'd just laugh and say thanks for proving the intelligent Atheist sterotype wrong. :pac:

prinz

LZ5by5 wrote: »

You must have been having an argument with some real mature people there prinz! Victim of a peadophile

That's a fairly common one. If you're waiting until marriage for sex, obviously you have serious hangups, mental issues about sex, therefore you were probably abused as a child...

Doctor DooM

prinz wrote: »

Deliberately obtuse, as it is irrelevant to the OP, and largely irrelevant to anybody but myself, and God of course.

I would say it's directly related, as there is some reason you turned to God but others don't especially as this particular piece of evidence is anecdotal, but you are of course entirely correct- no ones business if you don't want to share.

peakpilgrim

JimiTime wrote: »

Good post PP. Just wondering if you could clarify the point in bold? What does 'actively discouraging' entail?

In my opinion: family responsibility far outweighs any responsibility I have, as a Christian, towards active evangelism on my part. I am not prepared to jeopardise my position at work by engaging in discussions on religion (or politics).

If someone asks if I go to Church then I will tell them but I will not volunteer any information and I will change the subject as soon as possible.

I believe, as a member of the laity, I can fulfil my duty towards evangelism passively; by living as a good Christian; though, poor sinner that I am, I probably set a bad example in that regard.

But there is always room for improvement.

philologos

peakpilgrim wrote: »

In my opinion: family responsibility far outweighs any responsibility I have, as a Christian, towards active evangelism on my part. I am not prepared to jeopardise my position at work by engaging in discussions on religion (or politics).

I don't think it is appropriate to discuss about religion at work. People are there to serve their employer and are on their clock while they are there. Evangelism can be done amongst friends, and in ones free time.

peakpilgrim wrote: »

If someone asks if I go to Church then I will tell them but I will not volunteer any information and I will change the subject as soon as possible.

Do you hold this stance in relation to non-work situations too though? I personally would think that if I didn't discuss Christianity when people asked me about it, and if I didn't honestly say I was a believer that I would be rather closeted. I see my faith as a part of who I am at this point.

peakpilgrim wrote: »

I believe, as a member of the laity, I can fulfil my duty towards evangelism passively; by living as a good Christian; though, poor sinner that I am, I probably set a bad example in that regard.

People will have different roles in the Church, I don't think everyone is a preacher, or an apologist, or is given the gift of elaborate speech. I do think that people are given gifts which they can share with the Church though.

peakpilgrim wrote: »

But there is always room for improvement.

Yes, we all have stages to come to before it comes to fruition

Philippians 1:6 wrote:

I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work among you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

I looked around me and realised there had to be a better way. Then I found it. Simple as.

How is that not embracing something comfortable and secure?

I think people misunderstand what is meant by saying that Christianity provides comfort and security.

Much like any religion or cult Christianity offers "a solution" to fears, worries or concerns people have about life.

What exactly the solution is depends on the person and what they are worried or concerned about. But there is a lot in Christianity so there is a lot to offer a solution to something.

I think most Christians themselves would agree with that, though they would say it offers a solution because it is a solution.

Others such as myself would see it as a hollow solution.

Either way it is how it, and most other religions, work.

Zombrex

igotone wrote: »

Why is it that some of my under 30's friends have the same non questioning belief in christianity as their parents/previous generation. Even when questioned about it they change the subject and are reluctant to defend it.Why is this?

What is the alternative?

Atheism doesn't offer anything. Plus it goes against natural instincts and the way our brains naturally assume the world to be. We assume agency in the world around us, concepts like gods or benevolent forces fits nicely into that idea.

Rejecting them requires going against the grain of how we like to view the world around us and doesn't offer anything for doing that. Great, no one greater is looking out for me, the world is indifferent to me, and when I die I'm probably just going to cease to exist. Sign me up.

Even people who reject the structured religions like Christianity as it formally is still tend to hold on to notions of God, or angels, or supernatural benevolent forces acting around them. I know people who would call themselves atheists who still believe seriously in concepts like karma, the idea that the world must operate to some structured set of rules that fits with how we as humans view it. Do something wrong, the world punishes you, do something right the world rewards you. You don't have to believe in an actual God to hold on to these types of concepts. People abstract them back to more vague ideas but still hold that this is how the world works.

It is where the phrase "When you stop believing in God you don't believe in nothing, you believe in everything" comes from. People may reject one religion simply to embrace another one that they feel better suits them.

So the question you should be asking is not why are young people still religious like their parents, but why wouldn't they be religious like their parents. They are after all still human

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

How is that not embracing something comfortable and secure?

Because the best or 'right' way is not always the easiest. I don't have any fears, concerns, or worries about life that Christianity somehow assuages for me. That said, again I feel no need to try to explain myself or defend my choice. The point being I am a Christian because I chose to be.. not because my parents were, not because someone told me to be, not because I was manipulated or cajoled or brainwashed, or because I got offered a security-blankie from the pulpit to keep me feeling safe and worry free at night. Trust me if I was looking for comfort and security I could have left my life the way it was.

PDN

Weasel Words. Christians are embracing 'a comfort blanket' whereas atheists are being 'courageous and honest'.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Weasel Words. Christians are embracing 'a comfort blanket' whereas atheists are being 'courageous and honest'.

I was thinking that. You see that 'reasoning' quite a lot.

Seoid

In fairness, a lot of young people do vaguely accept what they're told, because they never bothered to think about it and question it. But in my personal experience, most of these people call themselves athiests...

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Because the best or 'right' way is not always the easiest.

Well it depends on what you mean by easy. Often Christians use "easy" in the context that it would be easy for me to sleep with lots of women, it would be easy for me to rob my neighbour, it would be easy for me to get drunk each night, it would be easy for me to lie to my parents.

In this context "easy" seems to be the thing that gets me something in the sort term but requires the least amount of physical or mental effort or restraint.

That to me is a bit of an odd way to use the term, it would be like saying that the easiest way to cross the DART line is to run across it. I think a better term would be "lazy". The best or right way is not always the laziest way.

It is easy and lazy to eat a lot of junk food but you will feel terrible and have health problems. There can be a big difference between lazy and "comfortable and secure"

prinz wrote: »

I don't have any fears, concerns, or worries about life that Christianity somehow assuages for me.

Considering everyone has fears, concerns or worries about life, I'm going to say I don't believe you. Not saying you are lying, you may believe that, but I would find it very difficult to believe that it is true. Unless you are a robot of some kind.

prinz wrote: »

That said, again I feel no need to try to explain myself or defend my choice.

I'm not asking you to.

prinz wrote: »

The point being I am a Christian because I chose to be.. not because my parents were, not because someone told me to be, not because I was manipulated or cajoled or brainwashed, or because I got offered a security-blankie from the pulpit to keep me feeling safe and worry free at night. Trust me if I was looking for comfort and security I could have left my life the way it was.

That doesn't make much sense. You are Christian because someone told you to be, the authors of the Bible at the very least. Or Jesus. We can disagree over whether or not you have been manipulated (would you know if you had?) and that all depends on whether what the authors of the Bible are saying is true or not.

As for being a "security blankie" again unless you are a robot you have all the normal human instincts to find structure provided by religions such as Christianity appealing and comforting. I'm saying this independently to whether it is true or not. Even if it is true it is still comforting. I wish more people realised that. Religious people, particularly Christians for some reason, like the idea that their beliefs are difficult and challenging. They may be in how they interact with other people (JW getting told to feck off door after door after door) but mentally they really aren't. Study after study has shown that the human brain defaults to structures such as Christianity at the first sign of trouble. They make it far far easier for our brains to mentally structure the world around us.

And it is very hard to escape the fact that the vast majority of people are the religion that is most prevalent in their society. The choice someone makes towards a religion is very dependent on the options presented to them and how happy they will be with what ever religion they look at. Most people are exposed to only a very small selection of religions and tend to be happy with picking one of them.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion (and you are totally free to disagree with me) that most religions work in the same way, provide the same type of comfort and because of this people pick one of the first they are exposed to simply because there is no need to look any further.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I think most Christians themselves would agree with that, though they would say it offers a solution because it is a solution.

Others such as myself would see it as a hollow solution.

A hollow solution? That implies that there is a solution. Funny that! I would have thought you understanding of the universe precluded any meaning. There is simply existence and non existence, and whatever it is that lies in between the thin veil of these two states constitutes your very short life. In this regard, there is no solution (be it hollow or otherwise) because there is no problem.

Your argument boils down to the following. I believe X about existence. But Christianity teaches Y about existence. Therefore Christianity is wrong. Forgive me for not being blown away by this reasoning. It also seems to me you have attempted to dismiss Christianity in your post because it has a rather coddling positive message about existence beyond this mortal coil - that all things will be made good in the universe through Jesus. However, because you think otherwise, the conclusion must be that Christianity is false. The words "circular" and "reasoning" pop into my head at this point.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Weasel Words. Christians are embracing 'a comfort blanket' whereas atheists are being 'courageous and honest'.

LOL :rolleyes:

Please quote the post where I said that.

For someone who gets so worked up at people coming on to this forum assuming the positions of others (Christians hate gay people!!!! You don't need to say it for me to know it is true!!!) you aren't adverse to trying that yourself are you PDN?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A hollow solution? In your world view there is simply birth, death and whatever it is that lies in between the thin veil of these two things constitutes your very short life.

I'm not sure my "world view" would be so dismissive of what lies between birth and death.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In this world view there is no solution (be it hollow or otherwise) because there is no problem.

What? There are tons of problems, from huge global ones (wars, famine) to smaller personal ones (is this girl too drunk for me to sleep with, do I lie to my boss about my job interview)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your argument boils down to the following. I believe X about existence. Christianity teaches Y about existence. Therefore Christianity is wrong. Forgive me for not being blown away by this reasoning.

Well considering that isn't my reasoning, I'm not surprised you aren't blow away by that. :rolleyes:

I have a number of arguemnts floating around these posts but the one that relates to what you just said boils down to

• All humans face a multitude of problems in their lives, some big, some small, some they are aware of some they aren't. Life is one long struggle and then you die, that sort of thing
  
• Various solutions to some or all of these problems are offered by others, from religion to self help books to Oprah.
  
• The solutions that are successful (measured by those who accept them and claim they work) are not necessarily the ones that solve these problems but that appeal to the way our minds believe these problems should be solved. You can have successful solutions that don't actually solve anything so long as the appear to make sense to us.

I believe Christianity is a hallow solution because I don't think it solves things. I appreciate you disagree, but then whether or not Christianity works or not was some what beside my original point that Christianity is appealing because it offers comfort and security to people.

Zombrex

Seoid wrote: »

In fairness, a lot of young people do vaguely accept what they're told, because they never bothered to think about it and question it. But in my personal experience, most of these people call themselves athiests...

Actually young people traditionally never accept what they are told. That is part of the whole rebellion against authority that young people tend to go through.

I've never subscribed to the idea that religious people accept their religion because they are told to by their parents.

They accept the religion of their parents because it makes sense to them, they simply tend to accept the first (there or about) religion they are exposed to since most religions are designed to make sense and appeal.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense. You are Christian because someone told you to be, the authors of the Bible at the very least. Or Jesus. We can disagree over whether or not you have been manipulated (would you know if you had?) and that all depends on whether what the authors of the Bible are saying is true or not.

And most of us accept that there is a force called gravity, there was a historical figure called Genghis Khan and that we are loved by our parents. Why? Because somebody has told us these things. The effect that somebody telling us about such things has upon their truth is quite certain. It has no effect. There is either a thing called gravity or there isn't. Choosing to believe in it or choosing to reject it doesn't have any bearing on its existence. Your above point is rather aimless.

Wicknight wrote: »

As for being a "security blankie" again unless you are a robot you have all the normal human instincts to find structure provided by religions such as Christianity appealing and comforting. I'm saying this independently to whether it is true or not. Even if it is true it is still comforting. I wish more people realised that. Religious people, particularly Christians for some reason, like the idea that their beliefs are difficult and challenging. They may be in how they interact with other people (JW getting told to feck off door after door after door) but mentally they really aren't. Study after study has shown that the human brain defaults to structures such as Christianity at the first sign of trouble. They make it far far easier for our brains to mentally structure the world around us.

But it is quite clear that that you are not saying your piece about Christianity being a security blankie independently of it's truth. Really, less of this pretending to be objective. Even when you pretend to accept the truth of its message your actual intentions are clear. If Christianity is true then it would be utter foolishness to even discuss its figurative likeness to a security blanket.

The only reason you pin any importance to the comfort that Christianity provides (whilst also batting away the testimony that the Christian life isn't always easy in day-to-day life) is because you believe that it is the prime motivator in its continued existence today. As I said in the previous post, the nub of your posts seems to be that Christianity is untrue not because of X, Y or Z. It untrue because it provides comfort.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure my "world view" would be so dismissive of what lies between birth and death.

It wasn't dismissive of life, it was being concise.

Wicknight wrote: »

What? There are tons of problems, from huge global ones (wars, famine) to smaller personal ones (is this girl too drunk for me to sleep with, do I lie to my boss about my job interview)

You were the one talking about a solution (singular). I'm not sure why you are now talking about solutions (plural) to problems (plural).

Wicknight wrote: »

Well considering that isn't my reasoning, I'm not surprised you aren't blow away by that. :rolleyes:

But that was exactly your point in that particular post. Therefore so I'm unsure as to why you are trying to muddy the waters by mentioning other arguments you have been become involved in.

Wicknight wrote: »

I believe Christianity is a hallow solution because I don't think it solves things. I appreciate you disagree, but then whether or not Christianity works or not was some what beside my original point that Christianity is appealing because it offers comfort and security to people.

Christianity doesn't solve "things"! Rather vague and sweeping, no? Well, I think it does solve things. Even from an indirect perspective - solutions inspired through faith - I've seen it make a difference in peoples lives through aid work etc. I find your blanket statement rather blinkered. I also think that it is the solution (singular) to all "things" gone wrong. So, stalemate, I guess.

Again, what difference does it make if Christianity provides comfort? That doesn't come close to addressing the point of whether it is true or not.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And most of us accept that there is a force called gravity, there was a historical figure called Genghis Khan and that we are loved by our parents. Why? Because somebody has told us these things.

Agreed. So why do some people get a bee in their bonnet about this stuff.

Imagine if someone started saying "No one told me that it is more healthy to eat a salad than a Big Mac, I resent that insinuation! I decided all on my own" You would look at them as if they were nuts.

But for some reason if you say to someone you were told to be a Christian they resent that. Why?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The effect that somebody telling us about such things has upon their truth is quite certain. It has no effect. There is either a thing called gravity or there isn't. Choosing to believe in it or choosing to reject it doesn't have any bearing on its existence. Your above point is rather aimless.

Well that depends on what you think my point was. If you think my point was that Christianity isn't true because someone told you to be a Christian, then good reply. But (for like the 50th time already) that wasn't my point.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But it is quite clear that that you are not saying your piece about Christianity being a security blankie independently of it's truth.

And it is quite clear you hate homosexuals and women .. oh wait, not it isn't.

Read my posts.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If Christianity is true then it would be utter foolishness to even discuss its figurative likeness to a security blanket.

That assumption (and it is your assumption) is clouding what you think my point is.

You seem to believe that if Christianity provides comfort and security and is appealing to people and people are told to believe it and then do because it is comforting and pleasing, then it can't be true.It can only be true if it is really challenging and difficult, or something.

As I've already stated, in like every thread we have ever discussed this topic, that is nonsense.

And it really makes discussing this stuff (the issue of why people believe, independently of whether they should or not) very difficult.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The only reason you pin any importance to the comfort that Christianity provides (whilst also batting away the testimony that the Christian life isn't always easy in day-to-day life) is because you believe that it is the prime motivator in its continued existence today.

It is a prime motivator in its continued existence today, and relevant to any discussion related to why people believe in it.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

the nub of your posts seems to be that Christianity is untrue not because of X, Y or Z. It untrue because it provides comfort.

So when I said the exact opposite of that I was what? On crack?

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it depends on what you mean by easy. Often Christians use "easy" in the context that it would be easy for me to sleep with lots of women, it would be easy for me to rob my neighbour, it would be easy for me to get drunk each night, it would be easy for me to lie to my parents. In this context "easy" seems to be the thing that gets me something in the sort term but requires the least amount of physical or mental effort or restraint.

No, I meant it's easy to follow the crowd. And in case you haven't realised it the crowd are no longer committed Christians :rolleyes:. It's easy to live my life the way I was. It's difficult to make a decision to change. It's easy to tell people what they want to hear. it's difficult to tell your friends that you're no longer interested in what we used to get up to. Luckily I haven't lost many friends, but I did lose some.

Wicknight wrote: »

Considering everyone has fears, concerns or worries about life, I'm going to say I don't believe you. Not saying you are lying, you may believe that, but I would find it very difficult to believe that it is true. Unless you are a robot of some kind.

I never said I had no fears, concerns or worries. What I did say is that I don't look to Christianity as a way of escaping them. Again all your posts point to the fact that you think Christians see Christianity as a means to an end to try, a form of escapism from the world. Once again, the opposite is true.

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense. You are Christian because someone told you to be, the authors of the Bible at the very least. Or Jesus. We can disagree over whether or not you have been manipulated (would you know if you had?) and that all depends on whether what the authors of the Bible are saying is true or not.

The authors of the Bible never 'told' me to be Christian. (a) Nobody told me to read it and (b) Having read it nobody told me to accept, believe and live it. That was all me. It really is a take it or leave it scenario. Have you read the Bible Wicknight, are you now a Christian because you read it? Or did you read it and chose to leave it, like I read it and chose to take it....

Wicknight wrote: »

As for being a "security blankie" again unless you are a robot you have all the normal human instincts to find structure provided by religions such as Christianity appealing and comforting.

What structure would that be? Christianity is not a silver bullet in my life which removes any worries, stress, problems etc.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is difficult to escape the conclusion (and you are totally free to disagree with me) that most religions work in the same way, provide the same type of comfort and because of this people pick one of the first they are exposed to simply because there is no need to look any further.

There's always need to look further. Christianity is the search for truth. However looking further does not neccessarily mean looking elsewhere.By your reasoning there would never be reformation, there would never be new religions founded.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I believe Christianity is a hallow solution

Amen! Christianity is indeed a hallowed (sacred) solution.

I realise you probably meant hollow, but I'll put that down to a Freudian slip.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But that was exactly your point in that particular post.

My point is that Christianity is appealing to people so young people are not simply going to stop being Christians. Young people are people too, despite what my grandfather might say.

It was in response to the OP's question why do young people follow the religion of their parents.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So, stalemate, I guess.

I guess. Like I said, not particularly relevant to the topic.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, what difference does it make if Christianity provides comfort? That doesn't come close to addressing the point of whether it is true or not.

We are not trying to address the point of whether it is true or not.

We are trying to address the point of why young people believe in it.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Amen! Christianity is indeed a hallowed (sacred) solution.

I realise you probably meant hollow, but I'll put that down to a Freudian slip.

Must be God working through me :pac:

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Must be God working through me :pac:

It takes all sorts

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Must be God working through me :pac:

Very similar to Baalam no? :pac:

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Very similar to Baalam no? :pac:

I don't need to be a prophet to foretell that a poster will soon make a joke about talking through Balaam' ass. So let's consider that quip as having already been made and continue with the thread. :cool:

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

No, I meant it's easy to follow the crowd.

Yes but following the crowd often doesn't provide comfort or security. Crowds tend to be competitive and aggressive and often going with the crowd provides the exact opposite of comfort and security, such as increased nervousness and stress.

Removing oneself from the competition norms can provide quite a relief. OT, but this is often used as a justification for school uniforms

prinz wrote: »

It's easy to live my life the way I was. It's difficult to make a decision to change.

True, but then I didn't introduce "easy" as a measure.

prinz wrote: »

I never said I had no fears, concerns or worries. What I did say is that I don't look to Christianity as a way of escaping them. Again all your posts point to the fact that you think Christians see Christianity as a means to an end to try, a form of escapism from the world. Once again, the opposite is true.

No, and considering I didn't mention escapism at all I think you are just inventing what you would like for me to be saying because it is easier to dismiss.

prinz wrote: »

The authors of the Bible never 'told' me to be Christian. (a) Nobody told me to read it and (b) Having read it nobody told me to accept, believe and live it. That was all me.

The Bible did tell you to accept believe and live it. That is the whole point of the religion, Jesus came to Earth to die for our sins and this message is told to others in order to save them. Why did they write the Bible for crying out loud. Please quote me the Bible passage that said "And it doesn't matter if you don't do any of this, no one cares"

No one told you to be a Christian, what nonsense.

It is so difficult to discuss this topic with you guys when you are so defensive about your religion that you go down such cul de sacs of discussion.

prinz wrote: »

What structure would that be?

There is agency in the world. Things happen for reasons. Someone is looking out for humanity. We exist for a reason. This reason is known and can be understood. Humans are important. We exist independently to the material world. We survive death.

There is more, and I can link to studies that show how humans move towards believing these things, particular in times of stress. But I'm starting to think you aren't really listening to what I'm saying...

prinz wrote: »

There's always need to look further. Christianity is the search for truth. However looking further does not neccessarily mean looking elsewhere.

Well yes, that is my point. If you find what you are looking for why look any where else?

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

You are Christian because someone told you to be.....

Wicknight wrote: »

The Bible did tell you to accept believe and live it.

Wicknight wrote: »

No one told you to be a Christian, what nonsense.

Care to make your mind up on that one, now I'm just confused, do you believe in free will? I've also read Mein Kampf, does that make me a card-carrying National Socialist?

Wicknight wrote: »

It is so difficult to discuss this topic with you guys when you are so defensive about your religion that you go down such cul de sacs of discussion.

I am not defensive about my religion. My religion stands for itself, I have no fear for it. I am defensive about myself, especially when people try to ascribe various assumptions and preconceptions to me.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, and considering I didn't mention escapism at all I think you are just inventing what you would like for me to be saying because it is easier to dismiss.

Comfort and security from life's worries, problems and fears, isn't that what you said Christianity represented. What is that if not escapism?