Religion as a coincidence of where you are born

liamw

One of the most obvious ways in which religion is ridiculous is that your religion is determined as a coincidence of where you are born and what your parents believed. I think Dawkins said he was about 9 years old when he figured this out...

Whenever I ask a religious person this, they just seem to be basically fine with accepting that their God and beliefs are the truth.

It's so bizarre to me. Anyone else think that this observation makes it painfully obvious that any one religion probably isn't true?

(I would post this in the Christian forum, but they'd probably ban me again)

Dades

Someone usually brings up the case of someone who converts from their default religion.

Not particularly convincing given that type of conversion is very much the exception, rather than the rule.

marco_polo

It is just that he hasn't revealed his true glory to all mankind because *mumble mumble*

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

Someone usually brings up the case of someone who converts from their default religion.

Not particularly convincing given that type of conversion is very much the exception, rather than the rule.

And there are converts to and from all religions. The fact that some people convert would only be significant if there was a large number of them and if they were all, or at least mostly, to one religion. Because the numbers are small and in random directions it just means some people pick the one they like best, not the one that's most likely to be true

ChocolateSauce

The same is true of nationalism (being proud of the achievements of other people in just the part of the world in which you happened to be born doesn't make sense to me).

liamw

It's not like nationalism at all.

fitz0

liamw wrote: »

It's not like nationalism at all.

How so? Pride in the place you were born just because you were born there as opposed to pride in your religion just because you were born into it... No, not similar at all.

liamw

fitz0 wrote: »

How so? Pride in the place you were born just because you were born there as opposed to pride in your religion just because you were born into it... No, not similar at all.

Religion isn't about 'pride'. Religion is the belief in something that you believe to be factually true, as opposed to a DIFFERENT belief of another religion. Pride for one's country, is something that people of different nationalities have in COMMON.

Now if you were to say, it's similar in the sense that humans naturally tend to want to be part of a group, then I would agree with you. But we are talking about literal truth...

Think we're gone off topic now

fitz0

liamw wrote: »

Religion isn't about 'pride'. Religion is the belief in something that you believe to be factually true, as opposed to a DIFFERENT belief of another religion. Pride for one's country, is something that people of different nationalities have in COMMON.

Now if you were to say, it's similar in the sense that humans naturally tend to want to be part of a group, then I would agree with you. But we are talking about literal truth...

Think we're gone off topic now

Ive found theres very little to be described as "literal" in any religion. :pac:

But believing yours is the one true religion above all others, that no other religion has a grasp on the truth, that sounds like pride to me. Its directly comparable to nationalism. Poeple fight over religion as much as they fight over their lands, case in point - the North, a hideous mix of the two.

As for religion as coincidental to where you were born, I've always thought of this as one of the main faults in the one true religion claims. Just because you happen to be born into a Chinese Buddhist family you're going to hell? Not very merciful of the almighty, all-loving, infinitely merciful sky man, now is it?

fisgon

Absolutely this observation makes it clear that there is no such thing as the one true religion. I think most people who belong to a religion tacitly accept this, as most are not real believers in the absolute sense but rather use their religion as a badge of identity, they are cultural Catholics rather than practicing Catholics, in this country at least.

Where this isn't true is in parts of the world where there is no real access to other view points, or other ways of living, due to poverty, lack of education, etc. Or else the system of education in schools or the home is so overwhelmingly indoctrinational that all perspective gets lost. Whatever, trying to reason with a true believer is a complete and utter waste of time, it's so patently obvious that an accident of birth determines people's religious affiliations but this is irrelevent, religions have built-in logic destroyers. Believers can explain any inconsistency or contradiction by bizarre and twisted justifications, as the whole thing is simply a story anyway, one more invention or imaginative explanation doesn't endager anyone's belief, on top of so much other fiction. Faith will always swallow reason whole, people will believe what they want, truth has nothing to do with it.

5uspect

I think fitz0 has a point. It is very like nationalism.

Taking it a bit further many Nationalists take the state faith as being an important part of their national identity.

Many folks how would describe themselves as religious. (I'm not talking about those with deeply thought out convictions just your ordinary believer)
These people when questioned say "obviously" don't believe certain parts or don't agree with certain parts of their particular faith. Condoms and the RC for example.

Yet for say an Irish person to wear the badge of Catholicism is to wear the badge of being Irish. They may rarely go to Mass, ignore all the rules but that appears irrelevant to them and have no problems with this dissonance.

Those that believe a literal truth perhaps tend to be from more extreme nationalistic backgrounds. Hard core Loyalists, Zionist Jews or Bible belt Republicans. The religion promises them what they want politically and they therefore accept it in whole.

Of course which leads to the other is open to debate but I think there is a pretty strong correlation between literal religious views and extreme nationalism.

ironingbored

I pointed this out to a creationist on youtube (Franks Voice) who's reply was that even had he been born elsewhere he would have chosen christianity because Jesus revealed Himself to him. I just hope it wasn't in a park late at night.

It's so glaringly obvious that religion is a geocultural lottery.

liamw

ironingbored wrote: »

Jesus revealed Himself to him.

I wish I knew what that meant.

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

I wish I knew what that meant.

It means that he saw something that his brain didn't process properly (or saw nothing and was having a waking dream type thing brought on by tiredness) and the word Jesus got thrown up because it was in his understanding and it was the best explanation his brain could come up with. It's no different to looking at a pile of clothes on a chair in the dark and seeing a burglar

CerebralCortex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...It's no different to looking at a pile of clothes on a chair in the dark and seeing a burglar

Yes a fat and out of shape burglar.

ChocolateSauce

Just to develop my stand: I'm not proud of the achievements of the Irish, per se, but I admire the achievements of humanity in general and of nations and individuals from wherever. I do however think that we should only take pride in our own achievements (although as an olive brach, I'd offer that being the guardians of the successes of previous generations is something to be proud of in and of itself).

getz

liamw wrote: »

One of the most obvious ways in which religion is ridiculous is that your religion is determined as a coincidence of where you are born and what your parents believed. I think Dawkins said he was about 9 years old when he figured this out...

Whenever I ask a religious person this, they just seem to be basically fine with accepting that their God and beliefs are the truth.

It's so bizarre to me. Anyone else think that this observation makes it painfully obvious that any one religion probably isn't true?

(I would post this in the Christian forum, but they'd probably ban me again)

its called brainwashing,and most of us have at one time or another have been banned on the christain forum,they are very intolerant if their views are questioned

bluefinger

don't really get this argument tbh. Dawkins uses it quite a bit.

Saying you're religion is an accident of where you're born is probably useful to illustrate a point, ie the multivariety of possible religions you might have been lumbered with but i think it's lost on a lot of religous types. I've often said it to muslims i've encountered and they can't/dont/won't grasp it. It's akin to saying imagine you were born into an atheist family and didn't believe anything that you believe in imo.

Dades

getz wrote: »

its called brainwashing,and most of us have at one time or another have been banned on the christain forum,they are very intolerant if their views are questioned

We prefer people not to discuss (or make generalisations about) the practices of the Christianity forum here.
Their forum, their rules.

robindch

liamw wrote: »

I would post this in the Christian forum, but they'd probably ban me again

getz wrote: »

most of us have at one time or another have been banned on the christain forum,they are very intolerant if their views are questioned

Folks, comments on the tolerance or otherwise of forum moderators should be taken to feedback.

Thanks.

robindch

Snap!

Húrin

liamw wrote: »

One of the most obvious ways in which religion is ridiculous is that your religion is determined as a coincidence of where you are born and what your parents believed. I think Dawkins said he was about 9 years old when he figured this out...

Whenever I ask a religious person this, they just seem to be basically fine with accepting that their God and beliefs are the truth.

Since atheism is also determined as a coincidence of where you are born, don't atheists who make this argument shoot their own truth claims in the foot somewhat too?

NothingMan

Húrin wrote: »

Since atheism is also determined as a coincidence of where you are born, don't atheists who make this argument shoot their own truth claims in the foot somewhat too?

I would have to say that a majority of Atheists, especially in Ireland, where brought up surrounded by religion and only became Atheists after growing up and logically looking at the beliefs that were instilled when they were young and susceptible and realising that it's not for them or that it sounds like a lot of BS, and by age 12 found it hard not to giggle at people kneeling down in church and chanting to a omnipitent being in the heavens and offering it gifts and drinking it's sons blood.(come on, if this was in a movie it would come across as weird"

And if an Atheist that was brought up as such probably would agree that it is to do with the circumstances of his birth, but I accept they may also argue that they would have turned Atheist if they were born into a religious family, because once you have firmly settled in your beliefs it's hard to picture yourself not believing them.

Húrin

NothingMan wrote: »

I would have to say that a majority of Atheists, especially in Ireland, where brought up surrounded by religion and only became Atheists after growing up and logically looking at the beliefs that were instilled when they were young and susceptible and realising that it's not for them or that it sounds like a lot of BS, and by age 12 found it hard not to giggle at people kneeling down in church and chanting to a omnipitent being in the heavens and offering it gifts and drinking it's sons blood.(come on, if this was in a movie it would come across as weird"

And if an Atheist that was brought up as such probably would agree that it is to do with the circumstances of his birth, but I accept they may also argue that they would have turned Atheist if they were born into a religious family, because once you have firmly settled in your beliefs it's hard to picture yourself not believing them.

Given that most people in my generation are atheists, I find any argument that it isn't geographically determined to be unconvincing. Nor have I been convinced by experience that most atheists are particularly "logical" about it. There are plenty of emotional reasons to be an atheist too. In wealthy countries people feel less of a need for God because they are more comfortable and have more opportunities - this is confirmed in every rich country except the USA. It's in the poorest countries that people tend to be most religious.

The fact that most atheists' parents are casual Catholics is not an argument. Your parents bringing you to mass every sunday is not the #1 influence on your mind when every element of popular culture is guiding you towards secularism and consumerism.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Given that most people in my generation are atheists, I find any argument that it isn't geographically determined to be unconvincing.

I don't get why that's an argument towards atheism being geographically determined, tbh.

But then again atheism is just a lack of belief which doesn't require justification, so I think it's incorrect to subject it to the same questions as we are we applying to actual "faiths" here.

Atheism =/= religion.

NothingMan

Húrin wrote: »

Given that most people in my generation are atheists, I find any argument that it isn't geographically determined to be unconvincing.

The fact that most atheists' parents are casual Catholics is not an argument. Your parents bringing you to mass every sunday is not the #1 influence on your mind when every element of popular culture is guiding you towards secularism and consumerism.

I do agree, it is much more acceptable to be Atheist nowadays than say a Mormon or Born Again christian, However the difference between Atheism and lapsed Catholics are pretty big.
Most people have no problem with me not going to Church, but when I say outright that I have absolutely no belief in God, and I have officially defected from the Catholic Church and hence unable to Marry in a church or Baptise my child I am still met with shock and non understanding.

A relaxed attitude to religion is certainly promoted in all popular culture, but so is an ultimate belief in God or spirituality. So yes modern day culture does promote consumerism, but not an Atheist view of the world.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Since atheism is also determined as a coincidence of where you are born, don't atheists who make this argument shoot their own truth claims in the foot somewhat too?

I can accept that if someone is born and raised without being told that a particular god is real they will be far more likely not to believe in a particular God. Someone in that position should question whether they don't believe in god because the existence of god is unlikely or because their parents didn't teach them that there is one. Any way of thinking can be geographically determined.

I can justify my atheism by looking at the overwhelming lack of evidence of the existence of any particular god. Atheism is not about faith, it's about evidence or lack thereof. But in a world where the vast majority of people believe the religion of their parents I don't see how anyone can justify having faith in one over all others. Find me a christian who 100% believes in his particular version of god and I'll find you 10 who 100% believe in theirs.

Just as someone who is raised an atheist should question their upbringing, so should religious people and until they can objectively explain why their particular version of god is more likely to exist than any of the other thousands, without using the very same arguments that the believers of the others use, their faith is essentially baseless, they're believing for no other reason than their parents believed. It's one of the main arguments I use against religion, that there are so many of them and none of them have any more evidence than the others. I see no reason to pick one and declare it to be the truth just because my parents did so I rejected them all and became an atheist

Atheism is what happens when you realise that religion is geographically determined

getz

i am relaxed with my beliefs,nothing could ever be said about my religion that would ever bother me,because i know i am right,so i find it hard to understand why other people get worked up when somebody says something negative about theirs.is it because they deep down they are not fully convinced about their own convictions ? the first sign that things go wrong is when the dominant church/or religion of the countries pressure their goverments to bring out blasphemy laws to try and clamp down on anyone who may have different opinion and be foolish enough to speak it

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

I don't get why that's an argument towards atheism being geographically determined, tbh.

Well, is the fact that my grandparents' generation were overwhelmingly Catholic not an indication that Catholicism in Ireland was geographically determined? What's so special about this generation that their atheism is not determined? Frankly I think most people in this forum only want to point out other worldviews as being determined - their own couldn't possibly be.

But then again atheism is just a lack of belief which doesn't require justification, so I think it's incorrect to subject it to the same questions as we are we applying to actual "faiths" here.

It's not a faith, but it does make truth claims.

We could also point out numerous beliefs that have nothing to do with the God question that are geographically determined.

NothingMan wrote: »

I do agree, it is much more acceptable to be Atheist nowadays than say a Mormon or Born Again christian, However the difference between Atheism and lapsed Catholics are pretty big.
Most people have no problem with me not going to Church, but when I say outright that I have absolutely no belief in God, and I have officially defected from the Catholic Church and hence unable to Marry in a church or Baptise my child I am still met with shock and non understanding.

Is that atheism or anti-Catholicism? Atheism is simply lack of belief in God. It's possible and I would argue, common, to be atheist but not oppose Catholicism as a cultural meme, or institution.

A relaxed attitude to religion is certainly promoted in all popular culture, but so is an ultimate belief in God or spirituality. So yes modern day culture does promote consumerism, but not an Atheist view of the world.

Ummm, yes it is: "Make what you can in this life; it's the only one you've got" is a sentiment used to sell anything and everything.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

Since atheism is also determined as a coincidence of where you are born, don't atheists who make this argument shoot their own truth claims in the foot somewhat too?

Haven't you threaded this ground before?

You are correct, a person could become Atheist by a coincidence of their birth.

Now what? You are failing to grasp the argument by using these tired diversionary tactics you roll out whenever this argument comes up. The whole "I know you are, but what am I?" argument needs to be put to rest.

Atheism teaches questions. Religion teaches answers. That is the difference. Atheism has no mantras or tenets, it is simply the lack of belief in the supernatural due to it's irrelevance. That which must be scrutinized is that which claims to hold the answers and truths on subjects it can't possibly be privy to.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

Ummm, yes it is: "Make what you can in this life; it's the only one you've got" is a sentiment used to sell anything and everything.

Non sequitur.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Haven't you threaded this ground before?

Yes, this topic has been posted on this forum before.

You are correct, a person could become Atheist by a coincidence of their birth.

Now what? You are failing to grasp the argument by using these tired diversionary tactics you roll out whenever this argument comes up. The whole "I know you are, but what am I?" argument needs to be put to rest.

Would you ever stop being so prickly? I'm not coming from a position of making truth claims; Richard Dawkins is. My point is that his argument that a religious worldview is geographically determined, and thus barely credible in its claims to universal truth, should also be applied to an atheist materialist worldview, which is also geographically determined.

Atheism teaches questions. Religion teaches answers. That is the difference.

Scepticism teaches questions. Atheism teaches that the answer to the God question is that he doesn't exist. Furthermore, most atheists on this forum are convinced that this is not only the truth but is actually healthier than religion in anyone's mind.

Atheism has no mantras or tenets, it is simply the lack of belief in the supernatural due to it's irrelevance.

"There is no God" is a tenet. It's the only tenet really, except for the humanist baggage that most atheists add.

That which must be scrutinized is that which claims to hold the answers and truths on subjects it can't possibly be privy to.

Right so atheism is unquestionable but religion is.

Flamed Diving

Húrin wrote: »

Since atheism is also determined as a coincidence of where you are born, don't atheists who make this argument shoot their own truth claims in the foot somewhat too?

Another gem.

Dr Pepper

Húrin wrote: »

...should also be applied to an atheist materialist worldview, which is also geographically determined...

Arg! Stop putting those 2 words together like they are the same thing!

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

"There is no God" is a tenet. It's the only tenet really, except for the humanist baggage that most atheists add.

"There is no God" could be described as a tenet but you'll find most people on this forum at least would use the phrase "I don't believe in a God" or more specifically "I don't believe in God as described by any religion" which isn't a tenet. It's a rejection of someone else's tenet

Húrin wrote: »

Scepticism teaches questions. Atheism teaches that the answer to the God question is that he doesn't exist. Furthermore, most atheists on this forum are convinced that this is not only the truth but is actually healthier than religion in anyone's mind.

Atheism doesn't in fact teach that. Atheism doesn't really answer any questions, all it does is refuse to accept your answer until such time as you can present some evidence for it

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Right so atheism is unquestionable but religion is.

Actually atheism is all about questioning

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

"There is no God" could be described as a tenet but you'll find most people on this forum at least would use the phrase "I don't believe in a God" or more specifically "I don't believe in God as described by any religion" which isn't a tenet. It's a rejection of someone else's tenet

There is no three-headed moon hippo.

Húrin

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Arg! Stop putting those 2 words together like they are the same thing!

What's so offensive? I expect most atheists don't think that there is anything more to existence than material reality.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

"There is no God" could be described as a tenet but you'll find most people on this forum at least would use the phrase "I don't believe in a God" or more specifically "I don't believe in God as described by any religion" which isn't a tenet. It's a rejection of someone else's tenet

That becomes a tenet in itself, especially when confidently underwritten by the person's perception of science.

Atheism doesn't in fact teach that. Atheism doesn't really answer any questions, all it does is refuse to accept your answer until such time as you can present some evidence for it

Absolute nonsense. Go up to the average poster on this forum and ask "Does God exist", and you won't hear "maybe" you'll hear "no" or at least "probably not".

One othe prevailing myths of this forum is that no atheists feel certain in their views. However, a stroll through most of the threads here will reveal that most of you are pretty sure that your views are the truth.

I could bring up examples but at the moment it would just be a waste of everyone's time.

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually atheism is all about questioning

That sounds very virtuous and enlightened but it's just not true. Atheists in general don't question their positivist method of epistemology.

Dades

Húrin the reason you are getting so much resistance to your idea is that you are implying more to atheism that there is.

It's a lack of belief in the gods that are claimed to exist by religions. There are no tenets, it is not inextricably linked with materialism, consumerism - or even secularism.

All of those on their own might have a case to answer for regarding geographical determination, but lumping them in together under the umbrella of atheism is not going to score you any points because it's incorrect.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

That becomes a tenet in itself, especially when confidently underwritten by the person's perception of science.

Is not being a scientologist a tenet?

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

That sounds very virtuous and enlightened but it's just not true. Atheists in general don't question their positivist method of epistemology.

Yet again you show us your amazing insight into what most atheists think. For a non-atheist you certainly know an awful lot about us and amazingly everything you seem to know about us shows us in a negative light

Naz_st

Húrin wrote: »

Since atheism is also determined as a coincidence of where you are born

The specifics of a belief in God (religion) is quite evidently based on geographical location. The specific of atheism isn't.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Go up to the average poster on this forum and ask "Does God exist", and you won't hear "maybe" you'll hear "no" or at least "probably not".

One othe prevailing myths of this forum is that no atheists feel certain in their views. However, a stroll through most of the threads here will reveal that most of you are pretty sure that your views are the truth.

I could bring up examples but at the moment it would just be a waste of everyone's time.

I don't really have any views with regard to the universe. I don't know nearly enough to be able to confidently say which if any hypothesis is true. So while I am in no way certain that my views are the truth, I am pretty much as certain as a human can be that your views are not the truth. That of course leaves room for the fact that human reasoning is fallible and I could be wrong

gaynorvader

Húrin wrote: »

DrPepper wrote:

Arg! Stop putting those 2 words together like they are the same thing!

What's so offensive? I expect most atheists don't think that there is anything more to existence than material reality.

I think it's along the same lines as Christianity = Creationism.
All materialists might be atheists, in the same way all creationists might be Christians, but it doesn't work the other way round.

Calibos

Nah, not a good analogy. Theres Islamic and Jewish Creationists too and seeing as they are all abrahamic religions its the exact same creation story too. In this case its best to fall back on the old reliable..."All Cognacs are Brandy but not all Brandys are Cognacs"

gaynorvader

Calibos wrote: »

Nah, not a good analogy. Theres Islamic and Jewish Creationists too and seeing as they are all abrahamic religions its the exact same creation story too. In this case its best to fall back on the old reliable..."All Cognacs are Brandy but not all Brandys are Cognacs"

Fair point, I should have said "all creationists are religious, but not all religious people are creationists"

NothingMan

Húrin wrote: »

Is that atheism or anti-Catholicism? Atheism is simply lack of belief in God. It's possible and I would argue, common, to be atheist but not oppose Catholicism as a cultural meme, or institution.


Ummm, yes it is: "Make what you can in this life; it's the only one you've got" is a sentiment used to sell anything and everything.

It's Atheism, full stop. I have absolutely nothing against a Catholic or most religious people. I will not debate with a religious person who tells me they believe in God because they feel he exists and know it despite any other arguments. This is their faith and who am I to argue.

I could be called anti Catholic in the sense that I would be against someone who may try and argue for a belief in God based on nonsensical "evidence" and the literal translation of every aspect of the bible.

"Make what you can in this life; it's the only one you've got" is a phrase even a Catholic could use, refering to this life and not the afterlife. Materialism is not specific to Atheists and you know that as well as anyone here. You don't sound like an idiot so don't degrade yourself by making points that don't apply to your arguments.

Mark Hamill

NothingMan wrote: »

It's Atheism, full stop. I have absolutely nothing against a Catholic or most religious people. I will not debate with a religious person who tells me they believe in God because they feel he exists and know it despite any other arguments. This is their faith and who am I to argue.

Faith is a fancy word for opinion, and should get no more protection than any other opinion. What if someones faith involved the murder of babies? Would you shy away from argument then? Never be afraid to argue, the worst that can happen is you will lose and thats actually a good thing because then at least your opinion will be improved.

Sam Vimes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Faith is a fancy word for opinion, and should get no more protection than any other opinion. What if someones faith involved the murder of babies? Would you shy away from argument then? Never be afraid to argue, the worst that can happen is you will lose and thats actually a good thing because then at least your opinion will be improved.

liamw