| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2008 11:23:14 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Heres some more to think about. One should note that God does not want to be 'provable' scientifically. His is not a scientific phenomenon to be studied. As far as Atheism goes and all of the arguments against the existence of the Christian God (or any god for that matter) I know them well. I used to be one. Pretty adamant one at that. What changed things around for me was proof. It's not proof that can be shared with others in a scientific way. It's kind of like trying to prove you love your mother. You can't really prove it scientifically yet you know that you do for sure and without a doubt (well most of us anyway I would hope). You can only infer it by your actions towards her. That is why if we as Christians submit our will to the Holy Spirit which lives in us (the personal proof) we by our actions can infer that there is a God, in fact the Christian God, by our actions. My personal experience of finding God came from a sort of experiment to see if God did exist (trying to be the open minded guy that I am). I of course did not believe that he did. That was the hypothesis so to speak. I read the Bible and in particular the book of Mathew. It told me that I did not need to worry about what I will eat or wear or about anything else for that matter. It told me that all I needed to do was to seek his Kingdom and all things would be added unto me according to my needs. I thought to myself wouldn't that be great if that were true. Still did not believe. Still thougth it was a ridiculous idea. So I did as the book instructed me and I prayed to the God I absolutely did not believe in. This was my prayer "God I don't believe in you. I find the idea of there being a God any god to be ridiculous but if by some offhand chance I am wrong then I want what you are offering. If you are real and it is as you say that even faith in you is a gift from you then give me that gift. Your book says to knock and the door will be opened. I'm knockin. I'm not expecting anything from this but I think it would be great if I never had to worry about anything ever again. If it is as the book says that faith is a gift from you then I have no control over wether I believe in you or not. It seems that by your own rules that it is up to you to give it to me. If indeed you do exist then give me that faith."
I want to emphasize that I absolutely did not believe in God and absolutely did not want to. I was truly trying to prove my hypothesis that nothing would happen. Only problem was that it did. He did answer that prayer. He did give me faith and I don't have to worry about anything anymore. I am by no means some super bible thumping Christian political nut that everyone identifies with Christianity these day because the truth is that most people, including myself at one time are actually turned off to God or even the idea of God because frankly the only thing they have to identify God with are alot or moronic people who somehow equate going to church and having political ideas with a true and abiding relationship with the Saviour Jesus Christ. There are way more false Christians than their are true ones in my experience. Most think that if they practice a supposedly Christian religionthat they automatically are going to heaven. They do not read their Bible with understanding because it clearly states that the way is narrow and there will be few that will find it. They don't even know they are on the wrong path (Jeremiah Wright for one). In the process they give Christianity in general a bad name. If the salt has lost it's savor wherewith then shall it be salted. I'm here to tell you that most of the "salt" never even had a good taste to begin with. False prophets (teachers) abound everywhere you look. It's not surprising. This current state of Christianity was fortold in the Bible also. |
So you did this for every religion out there to see if any of those prayers would be answered or did you just start and end with the bible? To be honest, I find it hard to believe that you "didn't want to believe" from the get go especially given the narrowness of your test.
Message edited by author 2008-04-10 23:24:10. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 04:43:12 AM · #427 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I was advocating for allowing the child to make such important determinations for him/herself when they are intellectually able to do so, and not before. I don't have any illusions that it would ever happen, don't worry. I don't mind appearing to be a fringe character when it's something so important. |
(Emphasis added by me.)
Actually, Louis, it did happen...with my children. My wife was culturally Jewish and I was culturally Christian at the time we married, although she did not actively practice her religion and called herself an atheist and I was borderline agnostic at the time. When children came along we both thought grounding them somehow in religion was important (for the cultural understanding reasons others have given) but we wanted them to be mature, thinking adults (or older teens, perhaps) before they decided what they thought about the whole thing ("to be intellectually able to do so" to use your words). As it turned out, since we were so neutral in our own beliefs/disbeliefs, we did nothing. (That was easy.) They grew up pretty much not thinking about religion or atheism or agnosticism at all. Today, neither of them is particularly interested one way or the other...and as near as I can tell, they don't have an opinion one way or the other. Given the fact that their parents were marginally interested during their childhood, there wasn't any grounding even to make the issue of interest, much less important.
Interestingly, my former wife is now a practicing Jew, more involved with her religion than at any time in her life (including her childhood, when she was required to go to religious classes and the like), and I am a practicing Christian.
Now, my children are in their mid- to late-twenties, so I suppose there is plenty of time for this little experiment of benign neglect parenting to play out. My son occasionally asks me questions about Christianity (his girlfriend is a practicing Christian, so he may be trying to get up to speed, so to speak). I don't know if he asks his mother similar questions. My daughter, who is older, is in medical school and is totally absorbed with studies and probably leans to a more materialistic viewpoint. She is not interested in talking about the subject.
In hindsight, although it seemed like a good idea at the time, neither their mother nor I think it was a bright idea. Maybe some comparative religion instruction would have been a better idea, perhaps with some exposure to religious services of each parent's cultural tradition. (We didn't even discuss atheist or agnostic ideas in the home.) As it was, as parents, we chose to wait until they were mature enough to decide for themselves. Funny thing is, we didn't take that approach with politics, social issues, parenting styles, or any other topic on which we had differences. (Fortunately, we were both ardent Red Sox fans, so our children are firmly grounded as to where the Yankees stand in the cultural milieu - and neither of them has any doubts on that score.)
Anyway, if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't wait for them to mature before exposing them to religion, and neither would their mother. Of course, if we had to do it all over again, both of us would have married other people with similar religious backgrounds. We think the grounding is important. That's what parents do with their children. When they grow up there is plenty of time to reassess their upbringing and childhood beliefs...and make them their own or reject them as they may determine best. It's a long life.
I realize that this is all very anecdotal and one family's experience doesn't prove anything (except to my former wife and me), but I thought some of you might find it of interest. Other families may have done the same thing as we did and have a different result. Anyway, that's my story, and I don't recommend waiting until the children are adults even where the differences are as large as they were for us.
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 05:09:11. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 09:53:30 AM · #428 |
On this point of children and the philosophical stance of choosing between "teaching" them or "allowing" them to learn...
It seems to me that we inherently "teach" children (offspring/adopted even neices/nephews) either intentionally or by example. It is unrealistic in my view, to allow children to "learn" on their own and the implied State oversight required to insure that only "neutral" lessons were "taught" is a frightening scenario to me.
I think it is parents duty and right to raise their offspring, based upon what they have learned through lifes lessons. Whether it be religious, non-religious, racist, non-racist, liberal or conservative. Given that the children reach maturity (and many won't), then they can assess for themselves whether their parents teachings/guidance were right or wrong. We all make these choices.
In my case, it has taken me over 50 years to realize specific influences a parent had on me, and that long to conclude that not all those influences were goood ones. That said, it does not in any way diminish the duty or right of that parent to teach what they taught, even if it was by merely example and even if it latter turned out to be wrong for me.
sp edit
which gang
This is an example of my point. Although I disagree with the choices of these two parents, I firmly feel they are entitled to teach this to their child. This child likely won't see maturity, but that is an entirely different thread.
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 10:13:24. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 10:38:05 AM · #429 |
Originally posted by chalice:
Other families may have done the same thing as we did and have a different result. |
In fact, my partner Alex had this experience, though by accident. His parents had no affiliation to any particular religion and no interest in espousing anything to their kids, including atheism, and so he grew up without belief or non-belief of any kind. He grew up in communist Romania, but that was not the reason for the disinterest, as he had many childhood friends who were devoutly Christian.
When he came to Canada, they were still disinterested in any kind of faith, and his further exposure to Christians here had no impact. He moved first to Quebec, Catholic country, and at that time a place where religion and education went hand in hand. So he was exposed to the front lines of Christian practice as it were. But by then he was being dismissive of the Christian world-view, he indicates in part due to its inherent collapsibility and inability to sufficiently answer direct questions. He said he was a "shit disturber" in regards to conversations with Christian kids -- shutterpuppy's boy of many questions. Over time, he made his own conclusions as many of us have and made a purposeful investigation and final decision of hard atheism.
So in the sense that he was exposed to nothing, as your kids were, the experiences are similar, with very different outcomes. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 10:46:30 AM · #430 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Earlier it was mentioned that there seems to be a correlation between what you believe in and what the people around you believed in. If that's true, what does it say? |
Well, if there was some fundamental truth to be found, or insight from God to be given by personal study, this map wouldn't make any sense.
Distribution of religions
I think it is difficult to look at that map and not understand that the religion you may or may not believe in is heavily dependent on where you were born, who you grow up around and what you are exposed to while growing up.
There are obviously pockets of other beliefs scattered around within these distributions. I'm sure some people come to their own faith by completely personal study of all the available sources.
But the vast majority of people believe in what they are told to believe by the people around them or what family they were born into. They might think it is a rational, enlightened choice based on all the evidence. But if it was, this map would be randomly distributed, not based on where you live.
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 10:47:16.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 11:21:41 AM · #431 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by yanko:
Earlier it was mentioned that there seems to be a correlation between what you believe in and what the people around you believed in. If that's true, what does it say? |
But the vast majority of people believe in what they are told to believe by the people around them or what family they were born into. They might think it is a rational, enlightened choice based on all the evidence. But if it was, this map would be randomly distributed, not based on where you live. |
Or -- if any one particular religious belief or practice was as persuasive and obvious as religious participants often assume or maintain -- not randomly distributed, but homogeneous with little variation.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 11:23:50 AM · #432 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
They might think it is a rational, enlightened choice based on all the evidence. But if it was, this map would be randomly distributed, not based on where you live. |
Surely you don't believe that if you live in a blue section of that map you are bound to be Roman Catholic. What % of LA do you think attends Mass on a regular basis? <5%? Is that enough to qualify the area as "mostly Roman Catholic"?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 11:31:52 AM · #433 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Surely you don't believe that if you live in a blue section of that map you are bound to be Roman Catholic. What % of LA do you think attends Mass on a regular basis? <5%? Is that enough to qualify the area as "mostly Roman Catholic"? |
No, most of California doesn't attend Mass on a regular basis.
Of those that claim to be religious, roman catholicism is the highest proportion. Given that the population is essentially 50% Hispanic, I wouldn't be too surprised by that. Would you ?
Would you be surprised if mid-West America appeared to be mostly Islamic, or Central America was hot-bed of Hindu faith ?
If not, why not ?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 11:39:09 AM · #434 |
Sure, I'm not suprised by that either, but the map in inherently based on generalization. Your point was we should really see randomness if people were making their decisions on "rational, enlightened choice". But using a map that generalizes as evidence against doesn't make sense to me.
Do you get what I mean? I understand your point, I just don't think your map is good evidence for it. As evidence to the contrary I could point out the myriad of types of places of worship found in Portland. We got everything from synagogues to churches to mosques to shrines.
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 11:39:41.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 11:49:12 AM · #435 |
| I think the take-away from the map is that for any child born and raised in a given area, they are more likely to adopt the religion that is most practiced in that area. Would you disagree with that assertion? |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 11:51:13 AM · #436 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sure, I'm not suprised by that either, but the map in inherently based on generalization. Your point was we should really see randomness if people were making their decisions on "rational, enlightened choice". But using a map that generalizes as evidence against doesn't make sense to me.
Do you get what I mean? I understand your point, I just don't think your map is good evidence for it. As evidence to the contrary I could point out the myriad of types of places of worship found in Portland. We got everything from synagogues to churches to mosques to shrines. |
Doc, putting aside your objections to the specifics of the map linked, do you seriously contest the idea that one's "choice" of faith in adulthood is primarily -- or at least heavily -- influenced by the faith of one's parents/friends/community as a child?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:20:20 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sure, I'm not suprised by that either, but the map in inherently based on generalization. Your point was we should really see randomness if people were making their decisions on "rational, enlightened choice". But using a map that generalizes as evidence against doesn't make sense to me.
Do you get what I mean? I understand your point, I just don't think your map is good evidence for it. As evidence to the contrary I could point out the myriad of types of places of worship found in Portland. We got everything from synagogues to churches to mosques to shrines. |
Doc, putting aside your objections to the specifics of the map linked, do you seriously contest the idea that one's "choice" of faith in adulthood is primarily -- or at least heavily -- influenced by the faith of one's parents/friends/community as a child? |
Oh yeah, I agree with that. I just don't think that precludes "rational, enlightened thought".
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:20:46 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
I think the take-away from the map is that for any child born and raised in a given area, they are more likely to adopt the religion that is most practiced in that area. Would you disagree with that assertion? |
If <5% of children in LA attend Mass, then yes, I disagree. Let me rephrase. If 3% of kids attend Mass in LA and only 1% of kids attend Mass in the rest of the country then while there is a 3x likelihood of being Catholic it still is only 3%. So the question becomes whether the "more likely" means anything on a practical scale.
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 12:23:43.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:22:37 PM · #439 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I think the take-away from the map is that for any child born and raised in a given area, they are more likely to adopt the religion that is most practiced in that area. Would you disagree with that assertion? |
If <5% of children in LA attend Mass, then yes, I disagree. |
I don't think you're reading my comment right. I'm saying that once they've grown up, they will be more likely to attend Catholic mass (to use your example) than to practice any other religion. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:24:12 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I think the take-away from the map is that for any child born and raised in a given area, they are more likely to adopt the religion that is most practiced in that area. Would you disagree with that assertion? |
If <5% of children in LA attend Mass, then yes, I disagree. |
I don't think you're reading my comment right. I'm saying that once they've grown up, they will be more likely to attend Catholic mass (to use your example) than to practice any other religion. |
Ya, I edited my post above while you typed this.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:24:17 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If <5% of children in LA attend Mass, then yes, I disagree. Let me rephrase. If 3% of kids attend Mass in LA and only 1% of kids attend Mass in the rest of the country then while there is a 3x likelihood of being Catholic it still is only 3%. So the question becomes whether the "more likely" means anything on a practical scale. |
So what is the percentage ?
Or are you just making up numbers ?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:26:41 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I think the take-away from the map is that for any child born and raised in a given area, they are more likely to adopt the religion that is most practiced in that area. Would you disagree with that assertion? |
If <5% of children in LA attend Mass, then yes, I disagree. Let me rephrase. If 3% of kids attend Mass in LA and only 1% of kids attend Mass in the rest of the country then while there is a 3x likelihood of being Catholic it still is only 3%. So the question becomes whether the "more likely" means anything on a practical scale. |
Ahh, I see your edits. I think the "more likely" does means something on a practical scale if we're talking about what is the root cause of someone choosing to associate with a particular religion. If more people in LA become Catholic than anything else, there is reason to believe that it may just be because that is what they have access to or are exposed to. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:26:49 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Doc, putting aside your objections to the specifics of the map linked, do you seriously contest the idea that one's "choice" of faith in adulthood is primarily -- or at least heavily -- influenced by the faith of one's parents/friends/community as a child? |
I would tend to agree with this as a general principle - but merely on the surface.
It doesn't explain how, "christianity" or any beginning religion ever takes off, if the prevailing influence is what the parents believed. If the parents to children were absolutely true, then christianity should have never gotten off the ground - as the parents of the first christians obviously believed something else.
edit to add...as did every convert's parents.
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 12:29:27. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:28:06 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Doc, putting aside your objections to the specifics of the map linked, do you seriously contest the idea that one's "choice" of faith in adulthood is primarily -- or at least heavily -- influenced by the faith of one's parents/friends/community as a child? |
I would tend to agree with this as a general principle - but merely on the surface.
It doesn't explain how, "christianity" or any beginning religion ever takes off, if the prevailing influence is what the parents believed. If the parents to children were absolutely true, then christianity should have never gotten off the ground - as the parents of the first christians obviously believed something else. |
Unless you consider that "christianity" may have evolved (oops, there's that word again) from something else. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:30:43 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Unless you consider that "christianity" may have evolved (oops, there's that word again) from something else. |
Or, like other cults such as Scientology, be intelligently designed ?
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 12:30:50. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:31:13 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Doc, putting aside your objections to the specifics of the map linked, do you seriously contest the idea that one's "choice" of faith in adulthood is primarily -- or at least heavily -- influenced by the faith of one's parents/friends/community as a child? |
I would tend to agree with this as a general principle - but merely on the surface.
It doesn't explain how, "christianity" or any beginning religion ever takes off, if the prevailing influence is what the parents believed. If the parents to children were absolutely true, then christianity should have never gotten off the ground - as the parents of the first christians obviously believed something else. |
Unless you consider that "christianity" may have evolved (oops, there's that word again) from something else. |
Haven't all religions "evolved" over time? |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:34:29 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Unless you consider that "christianity" may have evolved (oops, there's that word again) from something else. |
The argument is that children are more likely to follow the teachings (religious) of their parents, rather than some "other" teaching. My point is that although it appears to be a "logical" conclusion, the evidence (meaning that christianity originally had only 13 members - Christ and his 12 Apostles and grew to today having millions of members) suggest something different. Christianity could not have happened if the choice of parents and their teachings was the predominant influence, as all of todays christians have ancestors who believed something else.
edit to add; I think this is a perfect example of Free Will.
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 12:40:50. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:40:21 PM · #448 |
| A better U.S. map can be found here, and and even more detailed breakdown here. The point remains that where (and with whom) you grew up is most likely to determine the "truth" you profess later in life. I'm from central Pennsylvania, so it's no surprise that my background is Methodist. My wife is from Long Island and thus Catholic. Real truth that's supposedly obvious and/or available to everyone shouldn't display such geographic and cultural boundaries. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:48:10 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The argument is that children are more likely to follow the teachings (religious) of their parents, rather than some "other" teaching. My point is that although it appears to be a "logical" conclusion, the evidence (meaning that christianity originally had only 13 members - Christ and his 12 Apostles and grew to today having millions of members) suggest something different. Christianity could not have happened if the choice of parents and their teachings was the predominant influence, as all of todays christians have ancestors who believed something else. |
Your point is lost (or just plain false) when you consider than Islam and Judaism share the same roots as Christianity. There is no assumption that parents can't change their minds or branch off into some new direction (I'm pretty sure Martin Luther's parents weren't a member of any Protestant church, and Jesus was Jewish), but the overall tendency is simply to believe what you've been told all your life by those around you. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:50:44 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Real truth that's supposedly obvious and/or available to everyone shouldn't display such geographic and cultural boundaries. |
...and if you parsed out all the doctrinal differences between denominations, what would have left as the core teachings of christianity. I surmise it would come close to that "illusive" truth that's supposedly obvious and or available. Your maps are more an indication of the doctrines taught, rather than evidence that christianity is unknowable. |
|
