Thanks to word of mouth. You only believe in God because your parents taught it to you after learning it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents..... all the way back to some guy in the desert who realized he could use stories about magical beings to get people to do what he wanted. Discuss.
His motives aside that hypothetical guy in the desert ( or in the cave) will have told rather different stories about God than a 21 century believer. Just like anything else believe-systems got more intricate over time. If you never told a child about quantum physics or Kants categorical imperative how likely do you think it is, it will come up with it all on its own? We only learned more about things because we kept passing them on, discussing and further developping them, be it the use of stone-tools or the ideas behind cave-paintings.
And your parents taught you nothing about god. So what? Your chance to learn to believe in god is still existing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rALVgdoMHk
I like your post as it emphasizes what I have previously stated. We learn from others and either accept what others have said or reject them based upon our own experience and knowledge.
But you avoid recognizing that money is a force of the God mammon. Parents taught us about that God, too. They even embossed his name on our money, saying we trust in him. He has an Invisible Hand, too, a power of an unseen "man in the sky" thingee which adjusts the variables of the Market Place almost instantaneously everywhere. The issue is not whether there are gods, or whether there are congregations of "worshippers," in a market place or in night club searching for Love, a goddess. The issue is whether the God of the bible is one of these Gods and whether and how he is almighty among them: Psalm of Asaph. 1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
The question, though, is whether people are developing something factual or something fictional. What good is it if people spend generations lying to themselves and each other about invisible beings? You can hardly compare that to quantum theory.
What kind of knowledge? Understanding the faux logic and facts of religious traditions may technically be considered knowledge, but it remains questionable whether that knowledge describes anything real beyond people's minds and writings.
The question is not so much whether God exists or not, which is a question we certainly won't answer in this forum of all places, but whether religious belief brought about positive developments in our thinking or not. Speaking from the point of view of "Ideengeschichte" we found out about quantum physics and other things, because our ancestors wanted to find out about the universe, thinking that the more they know about the universe, the more they'd know about God. Historically much of science and political progress was motivated by a religious quest - granted: you won't know much about that part of history wearing Dawkins' blinkers. Some of us may be happy not to pursue the big questions, but it seems most people feel inclined to ask them. Remember Kants “Homo naturaliter metaphysicus”? So yes, I too will pass on my little metaphysical answers to my future children. What they then make of them and how they continue the religious quest then is their own business.
The thread title and OP would beg to differ, I think, though I know theists often like to steer the debate in that direction. Even if it could be argued that good by some measure has come out of religious beliefs, that doesn't make their supernatural claims (e.g. "God exists") true or even close to reality. You sure seem to have something against Dawkins. Have you even read his books? Heard him debate? If you're like the Catholics, you'll make sure they're well-indoctrinated at a young age so that they're not likely to escape the church's way of thinking later in life.
That is a broad question, considering that I have actual working knowledge of a large variety of subject matter outside that of the theological arena. As the question would conceivably relate to other people, the same principle would apply to them as well, as their individual knowledge base could be equal or greater than that which I possess, or their knowledge base could be diminished in comparison to that which I possess. As for the remainder of your statement: Oh Well! Such is life. As for the "technical" issue that you allege: That is exactly the point.... KNOWLEDGE .... if you are lacking in the knowledge possessed by Theists, then that is your problem. As for the 'faux logic'..... That is a joke.... Logic comes in various forms therefore, your allegation of 'faux logic' is a whimsical, capricious, and ambiguous use of the term "faux" as applied to the subject of 'logic'.
As opposed to an infinite amount of energy having existed for all time with consciousness who suddenly decided to magically create everything (without depleting its energy), and then hide itself while telling a select few individuals (with no witnesses) that they must believe in it or suffer eternally... and we refer to this concept as a "loving" deity.
Actually, they did... The more I learned about what is preached and has been preached, and compared it to proven facts, the more obvious it became that organized religion is a sham perpetrated as a method of control over the ignorant.
Yep.. But that does not negate that what is written in the Bible suggests some divine sources still unknown to us, and that its behavioral recommendations have the support of a Sociology that is both now rather reasonable and empirically proven by the satisfactory fulfillment of the many predictions made, commonly called prophecies. Nevertheless, I agree with you, in that "what is preached and has been preached, and compared it to proven facts, ... is a sham."
The good was the part where Jesus deemed Charity as the method of judgment to be used when the actually truth about what he was saying came to fruition in the 21st century, a time when all people would know enough to handle that truth, and the global media would be available to tell them all at the same time..
Ethics are hardly unique to the Bible, so I find this to be a weak reason to give that text any authority. As for prophecies, they usually fall into two categories: (1) Unverifiable claims by biased biblical writers that certain events fulfilled certain prophecies. (2) "Fulfillments" of prophecies that were probably written after the fact. Anyone can successfully refute prophecy-fulfillment assertions by simply demanding clear evidence when confronted with either category of claims. The prophetic tirades of Isaiah (13-23) and Ezekiel (24-32) against the nations surrounding Israel provide a treasure house of unfulfilled prophecies. Ezekiel, for example, prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Egypt and leave it utterly desolate for a period of 40 years, during which no foot of man or beast would pass through it (chapter 20), but history recorded no such desolation of Egypt during or after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Ezekiel also prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, which would never again be rebuilt (26:7-14, but Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre failed to take the city, and Tyre still exists today. A curious thing about this prophecy against Tyre is that Isaiah also predicted that Tyre would be destroyed, but, whereas Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would be permanently destroyed and "nevermore have any being," Isaiah prophesied that it would be made desolate only for a period of 70 years. A comparison of these two prophecies is an easy way to show the silliness of claiming that prophecy fulfillment proves the inspiration of the Bible.
That's why you are thinking everyone who believes in god is doing it on the reason he was taught from the own parents? Has this anything to do with logic? You compared what with what? I forgot - science degraded in the public opinion of lots of people in the english speaking world to a spiritless idiocytype. Organized religion is what? A shame? How do you call organized anti-religions? If we would not control ignorants - how should we build pyramides? Forget it: You will perhaps not be able to understand this joke - it's a very old german-jewish form of humor living under protection of species. It has something to do with the never ending fight for freedom. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0d1dFD_xIE
Actually, given that parents largely control the environment of children, and most people learn to believe in god as children due to environmental factors, it's a pretty fair assessment. Science has degraded in the public opinion of "lots of people"? I wonder if those people use computers, enjoy modern health care, live in homes designed with internal plumbing and power, drive to work to earn a paycheck which is electronically deposited into a bank account... The fact that "lots of people" are hypocrites is irrelevent to reality. A Sham is a Hoax or a Fraud. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sham?s=t&path=/ By "organized anti-religions", I suppose you are referring to groups that ensure that religious dogma does not become legislative requirements? This "joke" obviously doesn't translate well.
But that wasn't what he said at all. He said that knowledge builds from the past, and evolves from those roots. It's not as simple as accepting or rejecting. More like inspecting and reflecting.
Human beings are learning e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g: For example children are able to learn to be psychopathic Berserker or child soldiers causing unbelievable deep traumata in their own and other lifes. Okay - I see - you don't like to understand what I said you like to win a war of words. You wan. Bye bye. I said this words - there was never existing a german version of this joke. The people who are able to understand this joke are dead since a very long time. Antisemitic barbars murdered them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUF-jHyEuNg
