Discussion: which religion most likely to produce Atheists?

Page 1 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

22 Apr 2010, 1:30 am

And, conversely I suppose, which is least likely?

Assume these conditions: The time frame is modern. People are able to get away from the societies that grow around particular dogmas. This means no forced worship. A lapsed muslim could go hide in Alaska to escape the effects of apostasy.

Can one valuate the worth of a religion by the reluctance of its adherents to discard their beliefs? I do not mean reluctance by the authorities of said religion to let adherents go.

Wouldnt a proximity to universal truth suggest a low level of deconversion?


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

22 Apr 2010, 1:43 am

The concept that discussion will dissuade people from their religious beliefs seems to me to be exceedingly unrealistic. Most of the religious people I have encountered have a deep emotional and not particularly rational embedment into their religion and surface discussions that I have encountered on the basis of rationality are ineffective.



Agnieszka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,563

22 Apr 2010, 1:50 am

Atheism.
;)


_________________
Love,
A


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

22 Apr 2010, 2:39 am

Sand wrote:
The concept that discussion will dissuade people from their religious beliefs seems to me to be exceedingly unrealistic. Most of the religious people I have encountered have a deep emotional and not particularly rational embedment into their religion and surface discussions that I have encountered on the basis of rationality are ineffective.


Thats not the idea here.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


DaWalker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,837

22 Apr 2010, 4:13 am

All religion have no faith in mankind, admittedly,
and likewise, mankind has no faith in religion.
All religions must produce atheist to exist.
Whichever religion you disagree with,
by their rules, you are the atheist.
All religions were born equally,
all members will die equally,
with blind faith.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

22 Apr 2010, 4:48 am

Fuzzy wrote:
Sand wrote:
The concept that discussion will dissuade people from their religious beliefs seems to me to be exceedingly unrealistic. Most of the religious people I have encountered have a deep emotional and not particularly rational embedment into their religion and surface discussions that I have encountered on the basis of rationality are ineffective.


Thats not the idea here.


OK. I imagine any religion that requires the regular human sacrifice of its members would fit the bill of the OP.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Apr 2010, 4:59 am

Fuzzy wrote:
And, conversely I suppose, which is least likely?

Assume these conditions: The time frame is modern. People are able to get away from the societies that grow around particular dogmas. This means no forced worship. A lapsed muslim could go hide in Alaska to escape the effects of apostasy.

Can one valuate the worth of a religion by the reluctance of its adherents to discard their beliefs? I do not mean reluctance by the authorities of said religion to let adherents go.

Wouldnt a proximity to universal truth suggest a low level of deconversion?


Without a herd mentality, or other forced system of dogma and rituals, which religion would be most likely to produce Atheists? I think that in the scenario there, where people don't have to be part of a society, where they fulfill the third part of the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it..." that people would tend to not be Atheists. If you think about most Atheists, they tend to be rather disliking of other humans due to bad experience. Being in a city, there is higher probability of encountering crappy humans just due to concentration of humans to a smaller area. With less population density, fewer incidences with crappy people would occur and less Atheist production via blaming God (or "the gods" if you wish) for the actions of degenerate humans.



Things
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 25

22 Apr 2010, 6:21 am

DaWalker wrote:
All religion have no faith in mankind, admittedly,
and likewise, mankind has no faith in religion.
All religions must produce atheist to exist.
Whichever religion you disagree with,
by their rules, you are the atheist.
All religions were born equally,
all members will die equally,
with blind faith.


Well said!

"Atheism."

I'm probably splitting hairs, but atheism is technically the lack of a religion, not a religion. :P



musicboxforever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 518

22 Apr 2010, 6:24 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If you think about most Atheists, they tend to be rather disliking of other humans due to bad experience. Being in a city, there is higher probability of encountering crappy humans just due to concentration of humans to a smaller area. With less population density, fewer incidences with crappy people would occur and less Atheist production via blaming God (or "the gods" if you wish) for the actions of degenerate humans.


I can't believe you wrote that. No no no no no no no.

You can't just generalise people. I have found that some athiest become such because of bad experiences, but it's not that they hate people. They hate injustice and don't know how a loving God can allow it. Some just hate people. Some Christians hate people too though.

I'm sorry, I'm angry at that because I have a close friend who is just so amazingly peaceful and lovely and told me the other day that warmth is a very important quality to develop. He has been through alot and doesn't believe in God anymore, but he doesn't hate people.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Apr 2010, 6:39 am

musicboxforever wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If you think about most Atheists, they tend to be rather disliking of other humans due to bad experience. Being in a city, there is higher probability of encountering crappy humans just due to concentration of humans to a smaller area. With less population density, fewer incidences with crappy people would occur and less Atheist production via blaming God (or "the gods" if you wish) for the actions of degenerate humans.


I can't believe you wrote that. No no no no no no no.

You can't just generalise people. I have found that some athiest become such because of bad experiences, but it's not that they hate people. They hate injustice and don't know how a loving God can allow it. Some just hate people. Some Christians hate people too though.

I'm sorry, I'm angry at that because I have a close friend who is just so amazingly peaceful and lovely and told me the other day that warmth is a very important quality to develop. He has been through alot and doesn't believe in God anymore, but he doesn't hate people.


Induction is as induction does. I've generalized based upon personal experience. Now, there are atheists who aren't like this, Fuzzy and AG for example. Some tend to see flaws in people who believe in a certain way, and then conclude their beliefs are flawed because the person is flawed. Certainly there are some of this and some of that, and all generalizations have exceptions, but it is very possible to generalize in regard to people - with the realization that the generalization is not absolute in all aspects.

Part of what may skew my generalization is the tendency for the disgruntled to be more vocal. However, there are only a few rational Atheists I've come across and I can only generalize based upon the samples available to me.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

22 Apr 2010, 7:23 am

Can't say which is least likely....except maybe Islam since in most places to not be Islamic is met with persecution, but that's a different topic.

I think the one most likely is Christianity. This is because there is a lot of social pressure to be "Christian" but being a Christian is about having an intimate and transforming relationship with God. You don't just go do church, do the rituals and expect it to do the job. If you see the number of hypocrites out there (those who claim to be Christian but really don't try to live the life), that's a huge disincentive to choose the faith. You have to have experiences with people who really do live the faith the way it's supposed to be lived before you see something worth believing in.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Apr 2010, 7:28 am

zer0netgain wrote:
You have to have experiences with people who really do live the faith the way it's supposed to be lived before you see something worth believing in.


Why? If something is true, then is it more or less true depending upon the actions of those who claim to believe it to be true?



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

22 Apr 2010, 7:32 am

Fuzzy wrote:
Sand wrote:
The concept that discussion will dissuade people from their religious beliefs seems to me to be exceedingly unrealistic ...


Thats not the idea here.


Then what is it? Your assumptions are certainly loaded that way:

Fuzzy wrote:
Assume these conditions: The time frame is modern. People are able to get away from the societies that grow around particular dogmas. This means no forced worship ...


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Things
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 25

22 Apr 2010, 7:43 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
And, conversely I suppose, which is least likely?

Assume these conditions: The time frame is modern. People are able to get away from the societies that grow around particular dogmas. This means no forced worship. A lapsed muslim could go hide in Alaska to escape the effects of apostasy.

Can one valuate the worth of a religion by the reluctance of its adherents to discard their beliefs? I do not mean reluctance by the authorities of said religion to let adherents go.

Wouldnt a proximity to universal truth suggest a low level of deconversion?


Without a herd mentality, or other forced system of dogma and rituals, which religion would be most likely to produce Atheists? I think that in the scenario there, where people don't have to be part of a society, where they fulfill the third part of the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it..." that people would tend to not be Atheists. If you think about most Atheists, they tend to be rather disliking of other humans due to bad experience. Being in a city, there is higher probability of encountering crappy humans just due to concentration of humans to a smaller area. With less population density, fewer incidences with crappy people would occur and less Atheist production via blaming God (or "the gods" if you wish) for the actions of degenerate humans.


Wait, I'm confused. Why would I be blaming something I don't believe in?



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

22 Apr 2010, 10:53 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
You have to have experiences with people who really do live the faith the way it's supposed to be lived before you see something worth believing in.


Why? If something is true, then is it more or less true depending upon the actions of those who claim to believe it to be true?


The question was about producing atheists.

People judge something by the examples it holds up to society. Every person who claims to be a Christian becomes an example to those around them. Those who are hypocrites reflect negatively on the faith and give valid reason for people to believe the faith to be a lie.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Apr 2010, 11:53 am

Things wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
And, conversely I suppose, which is least likely?

Assume these conditions: The time frame is modern. People are able to get away from the societies that grow around particular dogmas. This means no forced worship. A lapsed muslim could go hide in Alaska to escape the effects of apostasy.

Can one valuate the worth of a religion by the reluctance of its adherents to discard their beliefs? I do not mean reluctance by the authorities of said religion to let adherents go.

Wouldnt a proximity to universal truth suggest a low level of deconversion?


Without a herd mentality, or other forced system of dogma and rituals, which religion would be most likely to produce Atheists? I think that in the scenario there, where people don't have to be part of a society, where they fulfill the third part of the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it..." that people would tend to not be Atheists. If you think about most Atheists, they tend to be rather disliking of other humans due to bad experience. Being in a city, there is higher probability of encountering crappy humans just due to concentration of humans to a smaller area. With less population density, fewer incidences with crappy people would occur and less Atheist production via blaming God (or "the gods" if you wish) for the actions of degenerate humans.


Wait, I'm confused. Why would I be blaming something I don't believe in?


Assuming you don't live in Norway or North Korea, you may have not been brought up to be an atheist. Prior to the disregarding or rejection of one's belief system is when they would be "cursing their gods" due to some random tragedy or the actions of people or whatever other unsound yet personal reason.