I'm a Christian, unless you're gay

I’m always amused by the “leave them alone they’re not doing anything wrong, it’s only a harmless superstition, don’t be so horrible” brigade.

Religion is not harmless.

+1

Yes it was cheeky but I added the wink so he knew it was a joke [ hopefuly he is not as dumb as you] 😉

You may then break free in the same sense I may become a fluent french speaker but it is very very unlikely.

so you were brought up an anglican in an anglican household then rather than a jew or a muslim in an anglican household…how exactly is that countering my point?

It’s countering your point by making you aware that people – including me – can quite happily break away from a religion on the grounds that they think it’s bobbins. And, contrary to your view, a lot of people ‘break free’; look at the decline in the number of people attending places of worship in the UK. The tradition is (literally) dying out.

Imagine my disappointment when I found out that ‘Gay Cure’ wasn’t a new kind of bacon.

Unique way of browning your meat, etc etc.

couldn’t figure out from cougars post whether he was agreeing/disagreeing with you or just making a point.

I’m not entirely sure whether I was doing any of those things. (-:

The topic was that religion is often tied to upbringing (“brainwashing”) and that people rarely change; someone disagreed citing they’d rejected prior religious teachings to become an atheist; I was suggesting that this wasn’t really the same thing as changing religions.

I think.

Putting that another, slightly more contentious, way,

The sole reason anyone follows a religion is because of other people. Whether that’s parents, friends, evangelists, people don’t just spontaneously wake up Hindu one day.

If you’re religious, it’s because someone told you that’s the way the world was, and you believed them.

(I could say the same of science, of course; but that’s usually a lot easier to corroborate.)

You are all welcome at the church of the holy jumper bumpers. Shall I fetch the bi-curious muslim swan? I fear that he is still somewhat furious, but I’m assured that all that breaking your arm with its wing business is an old wife’s tale. 😀

(I could say the same of science, of course

(I could say the same of anything that isn’t personal experience based, of course

FTFY.

Not sure what your point is? Religion is a meme?

nick I am not sure we are disagreeing now [ I never said no one could break free] but I think you will still find that the majority of followers believe the same religion as their parents and were born/indoctrinated into the faith

I have not said you cannot break free but it is unlikely. The less religious a country is [ or the more atheists if you like ] the more likely this is.
If we take a more fundamentally religious country how many Muslims break free? How many Shia become Sunnis never mind another a religion.
How many Christians in more devout countries break free?
It is still unlikely though yes it is dying here but not globally [ possibly as a percentage even worldwide i am not sure]

and all scriptures are nothing but scraps of paper for wiping up filth

Not sure what your point is? Religion is a meme?

Conclusion drawing is left as an exercise for the reader?

/shrug. I don’t really have a point, per sé. I just thought it was an interesting observation.

Are you simply stating that religion propagates between people? Well, all ideas do that.

More interesting are the mechanisms by which this happens, hence my reference to memes.

Cougar – Member
Putting that another, slightly more contentious, way,
The sole reason anyone follows a religion is because of other people. Whether that’s parents, friends, evangelists, people don’t just spontaneously wake up Hindu one day.

I’m not intending to argue with you here, just share a slightly different view I read recently. There was a New Scientist special earlier this year that partially contradicted this.
Not exactly, as it wasn’t concerned with “choosing” a particular religion – but more to do with the formation in the brain of an “agent explanation” (or belief in God) for unexplained happenings. Its interesting reading if you like the psychological side to the subject. I can’t link it because I just pick up the mag occasionally rather than holding a subscription but the article was this one if you know anyone with access:

The God issue: We are all born believers
Our minds solve fundamental problems in a way that leaves a god-shaped space just waiting to be filled by religion, explains Justin L. Barrett
Justin L. Barrett 21 March 2012 From magazine issue 2856

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328562.000-the-god-issue-we-are-all-born-believers.html

Oh, sure. In the absence of any explanation or knowledge, ‘god’ or ‘gods’ is as good as any. Different civilisations have posited many different ideas over the years.

I wasn’t really talking about ‘god’ though, I was referring to organised religion. Outside of society, you might spontaneously invent the concept of god, but isolated you’d never come up with a specific religion.

Ie, religious concepts are spread; they don’t appear in isolated areas independently.

Referencing the linked article, “I argue that religion comes nearly as naturally to us as language.” That’s a nice analogy. Language may come naturally to people, but English or French doesn’t. We get that from our parents, from the people around us. Sometimes, people become fluent in languages other than their native one. It’s highly unlikely though that I’m going to spontaneously start speaking with a Welsh accent (unless I move there).

loum
Interesting post
Similar stuff on this forum
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=541140
Seems like some thoughtful debate on there.

Cougar, I’ve considered your posts and concluded that your point is essentially a tautology.

You seem to be saying that organised religions are groups of people who get together to worship a god and that the message is spread from one person to another. Yes. They are. How is this illuminating?

And they do appear in isolated areas independently which is one of the bits of evidence that lead people to the conclusion that there is a ‘god shaped hole’ in the human mind.

In the past religion might have conferred an evolutionary advantage to certain groups and individuals which leads to the interesting notion of an evolutionary explanation for religion.

religion springs up everywhere but the god or gods or explanations vary so widely it would seem there is a god shaped hole rather than some god shaped evidence to base this on. that is the question is the same , wy are we here, what made uo , what is the purpose etc the answer is rarely the same god but us usually [broadly] the same theme.

The evolutionary advantage I would assume is to spread your kinship as far as possible so rather than war with the local tribe you will see each other as kin and cooperate rather than go to war with them over scarce resources or to put it another way be excellent to each other.

I would rather hope we had reached the evolutionary or moral point where we could do this without the need for religion and it seems to [ globally] be counter productive. It makes difference between us rather than commonalities sadly though you could say most of that about language

How is this illuminating?

I’m discussing, not making a point. If you want a point, perhaps it’s that it proves that a given religion is a shared opinion rather than fact, maybe. Wasn’t where I was going particularly though, I was just conversing.

there is a ‘god shaped hole’ in the human mind.

Sure, but I think it’s far far wider than that. It’s an “any old shit” hole. People, generally, fundamentally, want to believe in things. It’s hard-wired into our nature. God, ghosts, homeopathy, not stepping on cracks in pavements, everything we read on the Internet, subliminal messaging, mediums, the moon landings were faked, prayer, Elvis is still alive, horoscopes, ducks quacks don’t echo, auras, you can’t get pregnant standing up, spontaneous human combustion…

We all, naturally, desperately reject, “is this all there is? Then what’s the point?” We don’t fully understand the universe around us, and probably never will, so we instinctively try to fill in the gaps. It’s our strength as a species, counterpointed by the stubborn idea that if we can’t understand or explain it then it must be wrong.

I would rather hope we had reached the evolutionary or moral point where we could do this without the need for religion …..

Well you might be disappointed to hear that only about 3% of the world’s population is atheist, and the figure is actually at present falling.

I agree that religion is an inherent characteristic of our species, however illogical it might seem – a bit like singing and dancing I guess. The evidence also exists that it is fundamental to the success of societies, however varied those societies might have been. Although the actual religion doesn’t appear to matter.

The reality is that as a species we are nowhere near as sophisticated as some would like to believe we are. We are not imo more intelligent nor less prisoners of evolutionary behavioural instincts than we were thousands of years ago.

I find it quite quaint how some people think we have a god-like status among all other species, and we can simply throw off what evolution has endowed us with. We’re not, we’re really not that special, we’re just a product of evolution, so get used to it. Or else follow a religion which helps you to believe that we as a species are really really special and unique 🙂

The reality is that as a species we are nowhere near as sophisticated as some would like to believe we are.

Maybe that’s something we should aspire to, then?

Ooh, boobies.

I would rather hope we had reached the evolutionary or moral point where we could do this without the need for religion

As an evolutionary species we’re so young.
Think its generally accepted that homo sapiens emerged roughly 200000 years ago, compared to about 3.5 billion for early life. Claiming that we’ve “evolved” to a point were we no longer need religion appears to be a little premature. I can’t see that within this small a timeframe a species can evolve, through natural selection in a gene pool this big (~6Billlion), to gain then lose any particular feature. We’re pretty much the same species, albeit with a greater shared knowledge and understanding base. Not sure if it has ever been proved that we’re religious through our genetic make up, but if we ever were then it won’t be a lost trait yet.

cougar – Maybe this language analogy has more to it. I agree that as language arises in different places, it does so diferently and according to local cultures. we may all have an aptitude for some form of language but speaking English doesn’t mean you speak French. However you can later learn French, and in doing so you won’t “lose” your English, you’ll build on it. You can then also move on and learn Spanish too, for example, and become bilingual, trilingual and more. People who do this find the things in common, and find that its these that make it easier. IME its similar with different religions and cultures. When people do have the oppurtunity to share ideas and beliefs with people of different religions, its the things in common that are emphasised and built upon, not the differences exagerated. Respectful dialogue leads to people having greater understanding and respect for other’s beliefs, but doesn’t have to result in a polarised conversion from one to the other. You don’t stop being a Chritian by learning Buddhism (or Hinduism, or Islam): You don’t stop being an English speaker by learning French.

Claiming that we’ve “evolved” to a point were we no longer need religion appears to be a little premature.

I never claimed this I claimed I hope we had and some of us have…evolved may be too strong a word to use here though as it argues we are more evolved than them which may be a tad arrogant. We could see the evolutionary advantage of cooperation and do this for other reasons than shared religion for example.
Dawkins made a point on this years ago re overcoming evolutionary bias or predisposition – we may be predetermined to spread our genes widely [ be unfaithful even]but we may also evolve to the point where we keep it in our trousers, we may evolve to share rather than be selfish [ tory populaity shows that is not all of us :wink:]

You don’t stop being a Chritian by learning Buddhism (or Hinduism, or Islam): You don’t stop being an English speaker by learning French.

You can convert to other religions and stop believing in one over the other or choose none so you can stop being a religious person…. I cannot stop “believing” in english or knowing it but they are not quite the same thing but I get your point.

I was just conversing.

Absolutely. Not enough of that on here sometimes. And I’ve been trying to tease out what you meant not just being critical.

People, generally, fundamentally, want to believe in things. It’s hard-wired into our nature.

I’m wary of the current fashion for explaining everything in terms of evolution but the explanation for this phenomenon is compelling. Essentially there is an evolutionary advantage in identifying false positives. For example if I think see a lion in the grass and run away what has it cost me except some energy? However if I fail to see the real lion in the grass I get eaten and removed from the gene pool. The suggestion is that this is responsible for us seeing faces in clouds etc (pareidolia).

Claiming that we’ve “evolved” to a point were we no longer need religion appears to be a little premature

Not just premature but probably erroneous and certainly divisive. As you point out the timescales are too short and also what would drive such change is unclear. If we as a species ditch religion it will be to replace it with a more compelling idea.

Maybe this language analogy has more to it

Your analogy is interesting but fundamentally flawed (as analogies often are). I can be both an English and a Spanish speaker. I can’t be both Christian and Buddhist.

JY – I take your point that you never said that, sorry for misconstruing it. In my opinion there are subjects where evolution is just not relevant, the timescale’s far too small. Issues of co-operation, sharing, communication are subjects we can all make intelligent choices about already. It’s wrong to ascribe a “more evolved” or “less evolved” attribute to these personal choices. We all have the capacity, just chose diferently. Background culture and personal politics are far more significant at the timescale of our individual lifetimes. Especially your Tory example 😉 I might think that CMD is completely wrong on a lot of his policies but that doesn’t mean me (or my ideas) are more evolved. I’d really hope the reverse was true too. (But it’s not really a direction I’d like this discussion to go in for fear of a good thread getting Godwinned).

Going back to cougar’s language analogy (although it may be getting a little over-stretched now its been pulled about)- I totally agree with the observation that people do stop being religious, or convert completely from one religion to another or none. My point (and this is more in response to Spin’s comments above) is that this is not the only possible ourcome, and people can develop their own personal interpretation where they reject parts, but not all. Or accept parts but not all. It’s not black and white, its very grey, and there’s a lot of common ground. Personally, I believe its impossible for anyone to be totally a 100% “believer” of any complex body of teachings. Two reasons- the person and the “doctrine”. Firstly, human nature and intelligence requires an enquiring mind, to seek understanding. Secondly, all doctrines contain so many contradictions and alternative views that choices have to be made within them. Just take Christianity for example, there’s a lot of hateful instruction contained in the OT, but then that’s contradicted in the Gospels (and later Bill and Ted) with “Love your neighbour as yourself”. Choices need to be made as to what trumps, but it can’t all be right. Doesn’t mean you can’t be Christian and reject the wrong parts. Or reject parts of Buddhism or Hinduism but still share core values. Spin, I won’t argue with your personal belief that you say:

I can’t be both Christian and Buddhist.

but then I reckon I could accept that some people possibly could. They may not be 100% Christian, or 100% Budhist (like I say, I don’t think anyone can be) but by considering the common ground they could easily be 70% Christian and 70% Buddhist (or Hindu) concurrently and I’d be happy to accept them as both or either if they wanted to define themselves that way.