Raised to be religious.

[geeser]

What is so free thinking about assuming you know how theists think?

who said, I assume what their thinking, thats the whole point it's impossible to assume. ( no assumptions here)
How cant they see the irrationality of religion, and belief in a god, thus it is baffling.

Or that you perceive their theism as "baffling"?

no I dont perceive their theism as baffling, just the fact that they cant perceive that it is irrational.
I'm baffled at their lack of good sense.

 

[Anti-Flag]

here in england that is not the norm, where i live in london alot of people are not religious. your statement of "as is nearly everybody" is false.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought he meant the brainwashing part, which certainly takes place, it's just that a high number of people in the UK don't fully buy into it.

a huge number of people in the UK do not believe in god, and to not attend church.

Correct. Certainly nobody in my family(and most others I know) has attended church since they were kids. Most of the actual religious people in the UK are quite old it seems.

i have never been raised to believe in anything such as a god.

One of the lucky few chi. I was never raised as a Christian by my parents, I'm not entirely sure what they believe, but I know my grandparents believed in god, although I never discussed these things at length with anyone in my family and they were respectful not to push beliefs on me when I was young.
Can't say the same for the rest of the country I'm afraid, we all attended school assembly daily which always included moral stories etc(mostly bible passages) and always prayer since I was 5. Religious classes, nativities, easter, and everything else I was told revolved solely around Christianity and it's beliefs, never any other religion until I was 12(thankfully the rest of my class came from around the world so I was aware of differing religions but not the information concerning them). Worst of all everything was taught as fact.

Essentially I was Christian; Well, I was raised Christian; Well, I was born, and told about only one religion - so I picked it.....

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

do you think you would have had a better childhood if you had?
You have a child coming yourself. How are you going to raise her?

i think that i would not have been so upset when i was aged between 5-10 years old. because since around 4-5 onwards, i thought that death was the end of my existence. so it depressed me and made me think life was unfair and cruel and i would lose everybody i ever loved one day.

but if i was religious up until my adult life, then suddenly losing my faith and turning atheist. would most likely result in me turning into an asshole towards religious people. like most of the atheists who lost faith, always bashing religious people and having a personal fued with the sky fairy on an internet forum.

so in the greater scheme of things i would say im happy with how things turned out for me. i mean ofcourse it wasnt nice thinking those type of things at such an early age. i also didnt believe in the tooth fairy, santa, easter bunny or anything like that as a child.

and im glad my parents never lied to me and tricked me into believing in things without proof.

with my daughter i will teach her science, philosophy and daoism. i will explain to her about the mystery of the universe, that we dont know all the answers, that we try to uncover the truth about existence. and i will tell her simply that i dont know what happens when you die, nobody does.


peace.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

it does say nearly, and the worlds a big place theres a lot more people in london than you. can you speak for all of them especially those that live up stamford hill, or near the whitchapel mosque. I went to Clissold park school. stoke newington, we had church of england assembly every morning.
it is just over half the uk population that state they dont follow a religion, but the world is almost 80% religious, I'm glad there is a few sensible people here in england.

ofcourse i cant speak for those in stamford hill, it is a jewish community in north london as you know. and whitechapel is in east london (where im from) alot of my muslim friends live there. your from stoke? im from hackney, what a shithole we both come from.

there are lots of little religious communities in london, but the regular masses generaly are agnostic or atheist (or just dont care either way). i like the mix of religious agnostic and atheist, we all get along fine.

peace.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought he meant the brainwashing part, which certainly takes place, it's just that a high number of people in the UK don't fully buy into it.

Correct. Certainly nobody in my family(and most others I know) has attended church since they were kids. Most of the actual religious people in the UK are quite old it seems.

One of the lucky few chi. I was never raised as a Christian by my parents, I'm not entirely sure what they believe, but I know my grandparents believed in god, although I never discussed these things at length with anyone in my family and they were respectful not to push beliefs on me when I was young.
Can't say the same for the rest of the country I'm afraid, we all attended school assembly daily which always included moral stories etc(mostly bible passages) and always prayer since I was 5. Religious classes, nativities, easter, and everything else I was told revolved solely around Christianity and it's beliefs, never any other religion until I was 12(thankfully the rest of my class came from around the world so I was aware of differing religions but not the information concerning them). Worst of all everything was taught as fact.

Essentially I was Christian; Well, I was raised Christian; Well, I was born, and told about only one religion - so I picked it.....

yeah religious brainwashing goes on everywhere, and yeah thats about right. most religious people in the UK do seem to be of the older generations. the up and comming generations dont seem to give a rats ass about god or religion. most of the people who come over from asia or the middle east are religious though. but the youth that are not living in religious communities generaly dont care either.

freedom of direction in life is a blessing,

peace.

 

[S.A.M.]

who said, I assume what their thinking, thats the whole point it's impossible to assume. ( no assumptions here)
How cant they see the irrationality of religion, and belief in a god, thus it is baffling.
no I dont perceive their theism as baffling, just the fact that they cant perceive that it is irrational.
I'm baffled at their lack of good sense.

I'm not baffled at your bafflement; you obviously live in an inductive universe.

I'm curious, do you apply a truth value to all your assumptions?

 

[geeser]

I'm not baffled at your bafflement; you obviously live in an inductive universe.

do I, news to me.

I'm curious, do you apply a truth value to all your assumptions?

what assumptions would they be, pray tell.(no assumptions here)

 

[Orleander]

....with my daughter i will teach her science, philosophy and daoism. ....

If she wants to go to sunday school with a friend, will you let her? Will you let her follow her own path?

 

[Michael]

Both of my parents were religous, not seriously devout, but they hold a beleif. I'm agnostic atheist.

 

[S.A.M.]

do I, news to me.
what assumptions would they be, pray tell.(no assumptions here)

Your perception of their irrationality, of course.

Unless you have empirical evidence, it is an assumption.

 

[geeser]

Your perception of their irrationality, of course.

Unless you have empirical evidence, it is an assumption.

If someone believes a thing, idea, theory, etc.. Which is without evidence, without basis, thus not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical; then they most definitely are irrational. This quite obviously is capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment, check you local insane asylum out.

Therefore it cannot be an assumption.

 

[lightgigantic]

If someone believes a thing, idea, theory, etc.. Which is without evidence, without basis, thus not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical; then they most definitely are irrational. This quite obviously is capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment, check you local insane asylum out.

Therefore it cannot be an assumption.

thus this is the quandary of empiricism

to quote Ian Hacking

... how are we to distinguish the objective from the merely subjective, if we are not allowed to say what objective truth represents?

 

[Cris]

LG,

thus this is the quandary of empiricism

Or of someone who makes a fantastic claim and has no means to demonstrate it is true - e.g. religionists.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

Or of someone who makes a fantastic claim and has no means to demonstrate it is true - e.g. religionists.

even if that statement was true, that still doesn't make it clear why you would favor empiricism

 

[geeser]

even if that statement was true, that still doesn't make it clear why you would favor empiricism

perhaps, because it's the more sensible approach.

 

[lightgigantic]

perhaps, because it's the more sensible approach.

Ok so two claims are there
both of them are apparently fantastic
yet one is reasonable

 

[geeser]

Ok so two claims are there
both of them are apparently fantastic
yet one is reasonable

No there’s only one claim, yours, the one without any evidence.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.
The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.
To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, this can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
The thing exists.
It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of its non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
Thus it is more reasonable to take imaginary creatures out of the equation.

otherwise whatever we can imagine, can be deemed real. IE; the lesser spotted spiderbirdfish from the planet djfhegt, God, Allah, Zeus, Ra, fairies, orks, pink unicorns, flying teapots, spaghetti monsters, etc...

 

[S.A.M.]

If someone believes a thing, idea, theory, etc.. Which is without evidence, without basis, thus not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical; then they most definitely are irrational. This quite obviously is capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment, check you local insane asylum out.

Therefore it cannot be an assumption.

Considering how much of empiricism has been overturned over the years, one would be hard put to understand what gives you so much faith in the evidence of your eyes. Besides you still have faith that whoever presents the evidence is being honest about it. :shrug:

 

[geeser]

Considering how much of empiricism has been overturned over the years,

and how much has been learnt.

one would be hard put to

understand what gives you so much faith in the evidence of your eyes.

no need for faith, I can check and verify whatever i wish because of evidence.

Besides you still have faith that whoever presents

the evidence is being honest about it. :shrug:

no not at all, if I so wish I can verify whatever they posit as fact, to deem whether they're honest, this is impossible with religion.

 

[S.A.M.]

and how much has been learnt. no need for faith, I can check and verify whatever i wish because of evidence. no not at all, if I so wish I can verify whatever they posit as fact, to deem whether they're honest, this is impossible with religion.

Glad to see you at least believe in motivation and conviction.