Religion - genuine belief or educated to believe

Well, there are enough people in the world that there would have to be a couple who could come upon the Bible completely cold and think it the best book of morals ever written, but I would have to guess they are in the slimmest of minorities. Most people who believe the Bible, I would guess, are probably from countries where the Bible is already be lieved by many, forcably made to believe in it through indoctrination at a later time in life, or were in proximity to a small group of people who believed while living in a country that may not have that belief as a majority (China, Muslim countries, etc).This may the argument from incredulity fallacy on my part, but I find it hard to believe there are many out there who are completely unaware of the Bible and who would think the morals portrayed therein were the be all and end all of morality when exposed to them in a neutral way.

you do

some would, others wouldnt. Religion and belief is an individual thing. Some a brought up with religion, but then turn away from it, and others, like myself, were not brought up with any religion.I do believe that some people see the need for religion, and some dont.Some like complete independence and self determination and others dont.

Fine, then since there is no reliable evidence that anything within the entire Bible ever occurred, then the entire compilation is crap. Thank You.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

you're welcome

So the varying level of faith that is inspired is entirely subjective?
That means that that faith is no more (or less) important than my feeling for what ice-cream I prefer.Are you sure you wanted to proclaim that the path of religious faith is as useless for finding truth and answers as the path of finding your favourite colour? That the best it can do is make you feel better... no more or less than any other subjective fancy?I agree.

of course it's subjective.Although I imagine that the definition of 'faith', as I understand it, is most probably different to your'show do you define faith?

In general, I use the basic, simple definition for Faith: "A personal basis to think a certain something is part of reality without any validated information to actually point in that direction." But I didn't mean that specific definition here.Here, I was going from how you were using the term, I was more taking it as a catch-all word for describing the religious experience as a whole. Since you seemed to be focusing on "religious teachings" and using the word faith to mean "whatever makes you feel that those religious teachings are correct."

Hi Stile, Not that I'm promoting faith or religious beliefs, but it would seem to me that subjective experiences which incorporate objective stimuli, such as colors or flavors, differ from subjective experiences which have no objective stimuli, such as the subjective belief of god(s).Colors go through your sensory processing system, as would flavors of ice-cream, so certain "choices" in these situations have more to do with nuero receptors and how they react to these stimuli, rather than, to quote Straggler, wholey-subjective choices.In that sense I would say that "faith" or "beliefs" manifest within the person without any outside stimuli to direct it, and it differs from color/flavor/sound.I quoted this for RAZD in another thread, it explains "color qualia" and why we choose certain colors over others:

quote:

---

Paul Churchland says about color qualia in the book Conversations on Consciousness:

​

I'm happy to use the word qualia to describe, or to index, the fact that there are profound differences between my various visual sensations; sensations of green versus sensations of red, sensations of yellow versus sensations of white and so forth. There are differences in my olfactory sensations, my gustatory sensation, my tactile sensations.

​

furthermore,

​

There is a problem with objective colors, and it's the problem of metamers. To have a sensation, say of the color red, is to have all of your three kind of opponent proccessing cells showing a certain pattern of relative stimulation. They are a blue versus yellow, red versus green, and black versus white, and all of them have heightened activity or lowered activity. The pattern activity for say red will be, say 50%, 90%, 50%, across the three kinds of cells.

---

I would agree with that however, given that other "subjective fancies" require outside stimuli, it differs because nothing objective is involved in directing where your "fancy meter" will go.Which, in my opinion, is the most unique aspect of religious beliefs - it's purely subjective and requires no outside stimuli. Very few subjective opinions have this feature, most, if not all, can be attributed to outside stimuli and sensory receptors that influence the final "subjective" opinion.I guess one could make an argument that bibles and other religious scriptures are the outside stimuli, but then we would have to address situations in which people believe in god(s) but are either illiterate or have never been expossed to any litirature on any god(s).- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Well first off, this is my first post, so please don't rip it apart."Not that I'm promoting faith or religious beliefs, but it would seem to me that subjective experiences which incorporate objective stimuli, such as colors or flavors, differ from subjective experiences which have no objective stimuli, such as the subjective belief of god(s)."Alright, you're arguing that religous beliefs depend on something without any objective stimuli, and therefore through only the supernatural. However, this isn't entirely true, as I know many people who chose to believe in god(s) by looking at the world around them, thus through "objective stimuli." This is also not including any and all people of any religions who believe in religions because they have been brought up that way by relatives or friends- thus keeping with the idea of subjective experience derived from objective stimuli.It doesn't mean that they are right- it just means that their experiences and friends have lead them to continue believing their indoctrination.PS- how do you use the quote boxes? I don't see any buttons......

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen RobertsI'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

Hi Teapots&unicorns (TO) for short, welcome to EvC. I wouldn't dream of it. No, not necessarily. The addition of "supernatural" seems misleading.I would say it like this:"religous beliefs depend on something without any objective stimuli, and therefore through only the...subjective." I think you misunderstood my argument.If I told you I favor red instead of blue, or rock instead of classical, I would be telling you this having seen and heard both, and chose a specific one due to sensory stimulation favoring one -vs- the other.This is not the same as saying "I believe in god because I see the world around me and I believe god created it." - That is a position held from incredulity. Nor does that explain why one would choose to believe in Jesus and become a Christian, while others, looking at the same world around them, choose Allah and become Islamic...or any other religion for that matter. The choice of which "god" to believe in is not made objectively and is solely subjective in nature.You can't point to any specific outside stimuli that gets interpreted as "god." The most you can do is say "look at the planet, solar system and universe, that had to be created by a god." - If you are using an outside stimuli be specific as to which one actually points to god. Traditions carried over from generation to generation do not qualify as being derived from objective stimuli. Someone wrote a story and it was passed on through the generations, and now everyone in the tribe accepts it...how is that not subjective? Well that just says something for the power of persuasion. Use the "peek" button on the bottom right to view how I quote. Also, use the "dBCodes" to the left of the reply box to see how other functions work.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

I can't do much with your argument. This, and Bible stuff, is the kind of thing I lurk with. Not that I don't think it's of value, but because I can't figure out how to make heads or tails of it. Some day I'll catch on.Typing[qs]However, this isn't entirely true, as I know many people who chose to believe in god(s) by looking at the world around them, thus through "objective stimuli."[/qs]gives I'd like to know what in the natural world they look at that indicates the existence of some kind of god.Yeah! What Oni said.Edited by lyx2no, : Saw Oni's post.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

I understand your arguement completely. Sorry if I misunderstood it before.
What I'm trying to say is that I know people who have come to their conclusions by observing, if irrationally. Their "observations," in my opinion, are total crap such as the whole intelligent design arguement (let's not go there). However, even though I know that both their processes and conclusions may be wrong, that does not change the fact that, at least in their eyes, they have reached the "truth" through faith/objectivity (since their are incompatible)Sorry if it seemed I was refuting your point.

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen RobertsI'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

Hi TU, Well, I think you still may be. So lets not assume yet until we both feel it's understood. The argument originated with Peg and Bluecat, then Stile joined in with a reply.Bluecat asked: "So who decides which are inspired and which are crap?"Peg replied "you do."Stile then replies to Peg: So a correlation between the way you choose a favorite ice-cream or color, or have faith in god and his word, is being made by, Stile.In other words, Peg chooses to believe in Jesus and the teachings of the bible, instead of Allah and the koran, in the same way I choose Rocky Road or blue, instead of Chunky Monkey or red.In that sense they are not the same. In one scenario I am putting faith in something I've never objectively seen. In words that are meaningless unless the actual author IS god. In 2 seperate stories of which neither has any more evidence than the other. So I accept Jesus over Allah simply because, well, I just do.However, with Rocky Road or blue, I am tasting and looking directly at the 2 and choosing based on my sensory receptors being stimulated differently, and thus in favor of, these 2 specific items.This was the point of my position.But, even still, I don't think I agree with this statement of yours: Well, what specifically did they "observe" that lead them to that conclusion? Just nature?I acknowledge that they are alive and interacting with nature. And from this interaction they came to the conclusion that god exists, but what did they specifically "see" that made them think god exists?If you can't point to an actual thing, then the conclusion is that they objectively viewed nature and subjectively believe in god because of it, right? - How is that not a subjective conclusion?- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Well, in that sense, you are right: in a broad view of reality, they are entirely accepting it subjectively. However, in their own minds, it is an objective decision. For example, if you decide that Chocolate ice cream is better than Vanilla, it is true in your sense, even if the vanilla is really strawberry and the chocolate is really... let's not go there.Bottom line, there is a difference in perceptional subjectivity and objectivity and real subjectivity and objectivity.(There is always the chance that you are right and that dog crap is actually very appetizing...)
;-)

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen RobertsI'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams