Choosing a faith

Contentious, aren't we! May I suggest that GDR is himself his own evidence. Its all we have.

If that's your definition of "matter", then I guess I'm a materialist.But it looks to me as if you have just admitted that religion is bullshit.

I, for one, have never rejected Christianity. I espouse Christianity much more than, say, Faith or Phat. I take the words of Jesus pretty seriously, even though He himself never existed.I do emphatically reject Christian doctrine, particularly nonsense such as "dying for our sins", and the resurrection. It's not a belief. It's a conclusion. You and Faith and Phat have convinced me.

So if we want to find a Higgs boson, we need to examine Higgs? I don't follow that logic. Stop it. Really, stop it.That stupid idea has been refuted sooooooooo many times.People give up their lives to climb Mount Everest - and it's hard to think of any reason LESS important than that. People often give up their lives for stupid "reasons" or stupid causes. Get over it. And stop making that stupid statement too. I do not believe Jesus ever existed Why would I do anything He said? And why don't you ever answer that question?

This has been done.
For hundreds of years people have studied churches and religions and religious people of all different cultures and areas.The results are always the same:
-these people are just as smart/dumb/happy/sad/rich/poor/nice/mean as others
-these people put traditions and ceremonies and idols on a pedestal much higher than others
-these people do not value evidence as much as others, although this is usually isolated to only when their beliefs are involvedThere is nothing special about what makes them tick other than a leaning to ignore evidence pertaining to certain ideas they hold to be true.
-this is something that ends up being detrimental to them more than beneficialThis has been known for a very, very long time.
And officially studied and verified for the last 10 years at least. Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies

quote:

---

The correlation is clear and strong: The more secular tend to fare better than the more religious on a vast host of measures, including homicide and violent crime rates, poverty rates, obesity and diabetes rates, child abuse rates, educational attainment levels, income levels, unemployment rates, rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy, etc. You name it: On nearly every sociological measure of well-being, you’re most likely to find the more secular states with the lowest levels of faith in God and the lowest rates of church attendance faring the best and the most religious states with the highest levels of faith in God and rates of church attendance faring the worst.

​

And guess what? The correlation holds internationally, as well.

---

What makes people lead a life that's worse-off then it could be?
-teachings of tradition, ceremonies, and idolization that are just wrongThe idea should not be "You shall have no other gods before me."
But it should be "You shall have no gods."Idolatry causes issues with reality.
Issues with reality cause lowered rates of "nearly every sociological measure of well-being."This has been known for a very, very long time.But tradition's a bitch.

That does seem to be a fundamental part of the human psyche. Many hills have been built by humanity, and there are always those who are willing to die on them. You would say the same of people who have given their life in the name of religions you don't belong to. I will admit that I sometimes roll my eyes when people say they have a "personal relationship with Jesus". If that was the case they wouldn't have to read his biography.

I just thought of a joke. Santa represents belief meeting materialism! In the post-war America coming out of Depression and War, Santa Claus represents the Santa that was depicted in the
1947 movie Miracle on 34th Street starring Maureen O'Hara, John Payne, Natalie Wood, and Edmund Gwenn.

Wikipedia:

---

On Christmas morning at a party for Macy's employees, Susan loses faith in Kris when he admits he was not able to get her the house she wanted. However, after Kris offers Fred and Doris a route home that avoids traffic, Susan sees her dream house with a "For Sale" sign in front. Demanding that Fred stop the car, she runs into the house, exclaiming, "Mr. Kringle is Santa Claus!" Fred learns that Doris had encouraged Susan to have faith and suggests they get married and purchase the house. He then boasts that he must be a great lawyer since he proved an eccentric old man was Santa. However, when he and Doris spot a cane in the house that looks just like Kris's, he is not so sure.

---

In the dawn of todays consumerism/materialistic age, Santa represents the spirit of giving...even sacrificial giving, though what ended up happening is that children such as myself became spoiled by parents who gave us far more than we needed.Today's modern progressives have adapted a similar spirit advocating giving sacrificially to the poor disenfranchised masses of the planet.

You don't understand progressives.I don't always understand them either, but I'm not nearly as far off as you are.

You are still clueless.

Remember my old friend Bart Campolo? He is the host of Humanize Me podcast and he and I have had a couple of discussions.Anyway...TodayI woke up (day off) curious about what Bart has been up to lately, and was pleasantly surprised to find he had a good episode earlier this year featuring Vanessa Otero,founder of Ad Fontes Media.The podcast is here:
As usual, Bart had a smart guest and a scintillating show. What a way to start my day!
I suggest that you listen to it, Tangle. GDR already knows who Bart Campolo is and the topic is related to this thread.

Probably some form of the term evolve is more appropriate than spread. If you're only talking about a mutation or attribute propagating through a population than spread might be an appropriate term, but not so much for evolving characteristics. How would your evidence-free explanation have anywhere near the value and utility of one with evidence? On what planet is it reasonable to argue that an evidence-free explanation is more reasonable than one without evidence? Why would I argue it? Self-preservation has to be hard-wired as a part of fitness. But it *is* more complicated than that, as I'll get to. The evolutionary explanation for self-sacrifice is to allow one's genes to make it into succeeding generations. A familiar example is the male praying mantis, who risks death at the hands of the female just for a chance to mate. Sexually experienced males are very rare in this species. Sacrificing oneself for one's offspring is another familiar example that shares this explanation. Sacrificing oneself for related individuals who have less than half your genes also has this explanation. Sacrificing oneself for unrelated individuals who make the survival of your genes more likely, such as army mates helping you protect the country in which your family lives, also has this explanation.But it's clear you're thinking of selfless sacrifice where preservation of one's genes is not a factor. This is a case where I'm not aware of how evolution may play a role, but selfless sacrifice is not unique to believers. I have no idea why Brian Greene wrote that, but he is well aware of entropy and the arrow of time. For example in the transscipt portion of Video of entropy and the arrow of time | Britannica he writes this:

Brian Greene:

---

But I'm just going to really try to scratch the surface here on the deep issue of the arrow of time, and its relationship to entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics.

---

You can't get an undergraduate degree in physics without learning about thermodynamics, which is why I could be so certain Brian Greene knows about entropy and the arrow of time. Perhaps further on in that book he revisits the topic of the arrow of time, or maybe he ignores entropy altogether as too complicated for his target audience for that particular book, I don't know. I've never read it.But it is a common topic for physicists to comment on when they write books for laypeople, that most equations in physics do not include an arrow of time. But if Greene's book is leaving the impression in your mind that physics cannot account for the arrow of time then trust me, that's incorrect. You began your quote with [quote] and ended it with [/qs]. The board's software detects mistakes like this when you click on preview and displays the mistake in red, as in this example here: Commenting on your excerpt from Brian Greene - Wikipedia, I think you must have misconstrued his meaning. Greene is only saying that "religion is a deeply valuable part" of human cultural history going back thousands of years that is part of what it means to be human. It doesn't provide any support at all for your views, and you're completely ignoring what the excerpt says earlier about the New Atheism movement resonating with him and feeling no need for religious explanation. Your excerpt fits under the heading of "providing both the argument and its rebuttal." Again, you've misinterpreted Greene. I grant that we can't dismiss the possibility that your deity "is not subject to time," but only because there is nothing that can be dismissed about things for which there is no evidence. Are unicorns subject to time? Who knows, there's no evidence of any kind for unicorns, same as your God. And I can't imagine why you think Greene is supportive of your evidence-free ideas.But we weren't talking about time. We were talking about the infinite regression. Again, for the sixth time, if intelligent beings such as ourselves can only come about through the agency of another intelligent being like God, then an intelligent being like God can only come about through the agency of yet another intelligent being, and that one through yet another intelligent being, and so forth forever. Without irrelevantly citing Brian Greene this time, how do get around this? Belief has nothing to do with what's real. Only hypotheses supported by evidence are worth considering. The context doesn't matter, whether science or driving or gardening or shopping or baseball, only statements based on evidence can reflect reality. Again, the word you're looking for is evolve. All evolutionary change begins with mutation and (we now know) epigenetic influences. When you say "neither view is scientific," I don't know what this other view is that you're referring to, but your view is definitely not scientific. Again, I thought this was common knowledge. I don't make things up, and I don't use biased evidence, so if you're unfamiliar with something I say then you need only ask for a reference. Here's a table from the journal Nature showing that for prominent scientists it's even worse than I said. Note the increase in disbelief over time: Maybe that's true today, but what about 200 years ago in the South? Morality is relative and differs across time, culture and geography. No doubt, but which acts are moral and which immoral depends upon the who, the when, and the where. Of course you do, but you're ignoring what I said. If you lived where Islam is the dominant religion, such as Morocco, Algeria or Iran, then you would believe that Islam is essentially true. It means you're a product of your environment. Had you been born and raised in an Islamic environment then it is Islam you would believe is "essentially true." Morocco is 99% Islamic, and if you were from there then you would think Islam essentially true, not Christianity. As I keep telling you, there is no difference between ordinary evidence and scientific evidence. The difference is in how you study the evidence. If you just look at a pond you will only see water (and lilies and algae and so forth), but put a drop of pond water under a microscope and you will see evidence of microscopic life. The evidence of that microscopic life was right before your eyes all along. It's how you study it that makes a difference. I'll get back to this in a second. Keep it in mind. Remember what you just said, that you have no evidence? With no evidence, how can you know anything about a "cosmic intelligence," including whether they exist, let alone their capabilities. How do you not see that you're just making stuff up? There's belief, and then there's belief. I believe it will be cold tomorrow based on the weather forecast and radar maps that back up the forecast. You believe that there's a cosmic intelligence based upon...nothing. I would never call your "reasons to believe" evidence, but you call them evidence all the time. I don't think this characterization of people in prison generally having lost hope is accurate. You have a history of just blabbing your inner thoughts with no attempt at seeing if they have any reality.In essence you're arguing that the high percentage of Christians in prison is due to prison conversions after losing hope, but the evidence I just cited doesn't support that. Protestants are underrepresented in prison when compared to the general population, and Catholics are about equally represented. If your surmise were true then Protestants and Catholics would both be overrepresented in prison. Congratulations on finding some of the least reliable data possible! Welcome to Marripedia! [Marripedia] is a project of the far-right evangelical FRC | Pro Marriage & Pro Life Organization in Washington DC. You won't be able to track down the statistical data supporting their claims because it doesn't exist. Yes, I know. God-addicts believe if we had more God then things would be better and many even argue for a larger role for religion in government, forgetting all the evil that has been done in the name of religion. Gun-addicts argue that more guns is the answer. Anti-abortion advocates argue that easy access to abortions is responsible for the breakdown in society.People frequently look back on what they consider an idyllic past and forget all the wrongs, like segregation, back-room abortions, Jim Crow laws, Japanese disenfranchisement and internment during WWII, and so on, and that's all you're doing. In effect you're saying, "Wasn't it great back in the day when there was less diversity and everybody believed the same thing and no one committed suicide or had a drug problem because there were no drug problems back then because Darvon and Valium are just made up."--Percy

Clueless about what? I think its a big mistake to shower oppressed people with reparations in the form of money. It will end up ruining them as much as it did me when I was growing up. Teach a man to fish. Forget giving him truckloads of fish!!

About that word, IDOLThe Bible itself tells us to stay away from idols.
Idolatry is in fact a poison. If we follow your train of logic, however, and have no Gods, we will end up with idols by default. We are not God. Thats principle #1. If we elevate humans to being our collective highest purpose, we will, in my opinion, make a tragic mistake.

Reminds me of how humans write a book which people then call the words of God and worship the book like an idol.

Where the Bible is concerned... "idol" means artifacts of worship for other gods that are not the Christian God.
And it's correct to stay away from them... those idols cause the same miss-alignment with reality that causes the same lowered rates of nearly every sociological measure of well-being.What the Bible doesn't teach you, is that the Bible's own artifacts of worship cause the exact same issue.The problem is "any miss-alignment with reality."
It doesn't matter how many times you tell yourself "That Baal statue is an idol, but clearly the cross is not!"It doesn't happen with everyone, but it will definitely happen with most (clearly, as the results are measurable by studies across a society.)
The problem is that people have brains, and brains do what brains do best - they process and work.Some (a minor group) won't feel anything - they actually are not affected by the miss-alignment with reality. Maybe their brains don't catch it. Maybe they're able to supress it without any ill side-effects. Such a group is characterized by the idea that "ignorance is bliss."But most aren't able to do this.
They won't be able to put their finger on it, and likely won't be able to identify it or explain it.
All they'll get is a small, strange feeling here and there... possibly every time they see the cross, possibly only when they think about the cross and what it symbolizes for a while, possibly any time they enter a church.They can choose to ignore this feeling, and confirm that they do fully, 100% belief the cross is not an idol... but that feeling is there and it doesn't go away.These tiny, ignored feelings that build up more and more in the sub-conscious of the believers.
They eventually manifest themselves...
-many will just be a bit snarky here or there without really knowing why.
-some will flip out and cause emotional or physical damage to those around them.
-some will actively cause harm to those around them just to "silence the voices."And, of course, this isn't limited to just crosses. This is any and all aspects of the belief that cause any sort of miss-alignment with reality.This is what causes the lowered rates of nearly every sociological measure of well-being in religious societies when compared to secular societies.
They put pressure on themselves that isn't required to be there... and they do it on purpose.It doesn't matter if it's small or large... it adds up. And, as a society collectively doing it, it adds up even more.
And it's measurable... as the studies show. This is not true.
The choice is "worship something and never question it?" or "don't worship anything and question everything?"If you don't worship anything, and question everything - you don't make money your God, you don't make people your God, you don't make knowledge your God, you don't make anything your God. Why elevate humans? Don't make humans your God!
Reality shows us that humans just aren't that special. We're just another animal on the planet. We need to be responsible and consider ourselves equal with the other creatures that exist that we need in order to survive.Don't get rid of one idol and create another.Just get rid of all idols.Why do you think that people "must worship something" just because you happen to worship God right now?That's like a Pastor saying "well, someone has to lead the marriage, otherwise it won't go anywhere!"
No.
It doesn't have to be that way.
You can have a very happy and successful marriage where both people involved are equal and no one is "the leader."
Such a marriage is likely more successful and happier then a marriage where "someone is the leader."
You can get rid of the idea that "someone has to be on top!" and replace it with "everyone is equal."You can get rid of the idea that "everyone has to idolize something" and replace it with "don't idolize anything."Idolization/obsession/blindly-following... are all bad ideas that can all be tossed away.You can love things without idolizing them. And it's a better love, because it has more meaning.
You can enjoy things without obsessing over them. And it's a better enjoyment, because it has more freedom.
You can follow things without blindly-following them. And it's a better following, because you can also help out.Just get rid of the negative extreme position and don't replace it with another negative extreme position.