Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

How did you choose your religion(or lack of)?

UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 11:34:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Firstly, to give credit where credit is due, I came up with the idea for this thread from here:http://www.debate.org...

Were you raised under your current religion? If so did you have sliding periods of certainty or scepticism? If you changed the religion you were born into, what led you to do so? If you were raised in an irreligious household, are you still irreligious? If not, what led you to choosing which religion.

Lastly, what do you find to be the most compelling reason for you to remain in the religion (or lack of) that you are in?
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
ken1122
Posts: 484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 12:49:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 12:39:12 AM, SM2 wrote:
Parents were moderate Christians.

Currently Agnostic, due to lack of evidence.

Raised in a Christian home, Atheist due to extensive study of Christianity, and an honest search for the truth.

Ken
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 12:52:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 11:34:32 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Firstly, to give credit where credit is due, I came up with the idea for this thread from here:http://www.debate.org...

Were you raised under your current religion?

No, due to a lack of one.

If so did you have sliding periods of certainty or scepticism?

In appreciation of the desired direction, yes.

If you changed the religion you were born into, what led you to do so?

A self-sit down. Appreciation of history, geo-politics, technology and the unknown... it didn't all seem congruent.


Lastly, what do you find to be the most compelling reason for you to remain in the religion (or lack of) that you are in?

Most compelling: to much is assumed for the current situation that we have discovered (as humans) to not be the case. By which I mean there are a lot of things we don't know, but the things we don't know aren't miraculous anymore. God's demonstrations seemed to stop. It gives rise to the question of such miracles ever occurred. There simply is not enough of a history to give credence to what most religion now-a-day testify to.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 3:20:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 11:34:32 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Firstly, to give credit where credit is due, I came up with the idea for this thread from here:http://www.debate.org...

Were you raised under your current religion? If so did you have sliding periods of certainty or scepticism? If you changed the religion you were born into, what led you to do so? If you were raised in an irreligious household, are you still irreligious? If not, what led you to choosing which religion.

Lastly, what do you find to be the most compelling reason for you to remain in the religion (or lack of) that you are in?

Candidly put, the internet allowed me to investigate and further quench my curiosity for information about existence, reality, the universe. etc... My parents are both of christian denomination and I was cajoled as a younger boy to attend church.
I have always cogitated life pedantically and pondered philosophy, and I began thinking that the church I attended and the purported stories from the bible were not compelling nor useful; perhaps interesting but I did not require church to fulfill my interests.

The compelling reason is that there are no compelling reasons to subscribe to faith in a deity/god.
Soccerloving
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 7:37:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
born to a christian mother and spent lots of time around highly christian grandparents. While young all i knew about christianity was that jesus died for us, god created us and some dude named noah built an ark and saved a ton of animals.

As i grew up i started feeling as though it all seemed rather far fetched, i then recently read the bible and concluded that i personally find christianity idiotic, but i am still open to the idea that religions and god could possibly be true, i just have high doubts.
~We decide what comes next~
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 8:07:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Born to a devout Christian family. I never really was much of a Christian. Sure I identified as one, but I hardly ever went to church and struggled to take the bible seriously. Then in middle school I turned more agnostic. My reasoning centered around the lack of evidence as well as basic common sense. A talking snake? It just didn't seem logical.

Religion in my opinion is the number one cause for conflict. Look at the whole Israel Palestine situation, as well as groups like ISIS killing numerous innocent people. It all centers around religion. Religion is a huge divider between us all.
Ashton
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 9:33:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 8:07:34 AM, birdlandmemories wrote:
Born to a devout Christian family. I never really was much of a Christian. Sure I identified as one, but I hardly ever went to church and struggled to take the bible seriously. Then in middle school I turned more agnostic. My reasoning centered around the lack of evidence as well as basic common sense. A talking snake? It just didn't seem logical.

Religion in my opinion is the number one cause for conflict. Look at the whole Israel Palestine situation, as well as groups like ISIS killing numerous innocent people. It all centers around religion. Religion is a huge divider between us all.

Do you see any religious conflict here http://www.jonathan-cook.net... ..... or is it a quite a depiction of prejudice or call them the mean dastards.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 10:28:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 11:34:32 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Firstly, to give credit where credit is due, I came up with the idea for this thread from here:http://www.debate.org...
Were you raised under your current religion?
My parents were nontheistic, but sent me off to religious instruction. They took the rationale that you 'had to know what you were rejecting', which I think has some truth, however it was instruction (which I loathed), rather than comparative religious education (which I'd have loved), so their rationale was more naive than wise.

If so did you have sliding periods of certainty or scepticism?
All kids treat authority figures with some credence, which is not the same as confidence. I had lots of adults telling me religions were certainly true, and nobody telling me that they were certainly false. But I had doubts about the stories from late childhood.

If you were raised in an irreligious household, are you still irreligious?
When I was a child, religion was a key part of one's public religious and political identity. Even if you were irreligious, you were defined socially and politically by some inherited religiious tradition from which you were estranged. Thus, socially, there were few truly irreligious households, but many nonobservant ones.

My household thought of itself as irreligious, but really was nonobservant, and over time, I moved from nonobservance to irreligion. I'm certainly more irreligious than either of my parents were, in that they felt religion was fundamentally moral and worthy of respect, even if the stories weren't all true, while I feel religion is immoral, because it's immoral to claim authority from dubious conjecture.

Lastly, what do you find to be the most compelling reason for you to remain in the religion (or lack of) that you are in?
I've never seen anything religion does for society, or for individuals, that can't be done secularly, so I have no reason to think it necessary. However it also fosters corruption, cruelty, disrespect and deceit, so it's undesirable.

I genuinely believe that you can learn to be a better, kinder, more ethical person without religion than with it -- which is not to say that this is easy or simple to do.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 10:53:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 11:34:32 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Firstly, to give credit where credit is due, I came up with the idea for this thread from here:http://www.debate.org...

Were you raised under your current religion? If so did you have sliding periods of certainty or scepticism? If you changed the religion you were born into, what led you to do so? If you were raised in an irreligious household, are you still irreligious? If not, what led you to choosing which religion.

Lastly, what do you find to be the most compelling reason for you to remain in the religion (or lack of) that you are in?

I was brought up by Bible believing Christian parents who thought you had to do the 'saved' bit to avoid hell. I lost my faith by the time I was 19 when I realised none of it was credible.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 11:46:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 11:34:32 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:

Were you raised under your current religion?

- Yes. ;-)

If so did you have sliding periods of certainty or scepticism?

- I did, about many things. Not about the Religion though.

Lastly, what do you find to be the most compelling reason for you to remain in the religion (or lack of) that you are in?

- Everything.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 12:27:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 10:28:53 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

My household thought of itself as irreligious, but really was nonobservant, and over time, I moved from nonobservance to irreligion. I'm certainly more irreligious than either of my parents were, in that they felt religion was fundamentally moral and worthy of respect, even if the stories weren't all true, while I feel religion is immoral, because it's immoral to claim authority from dubious conjecture.

- Based on whose judgment? Your feelings?! I am pretty sure the religious authorities will disagree with you. Here is a similar claim: "I feel Science is immoral, because it's immoral to claim authority from dubious conjecture."!

I've never seen anything religion does for society, or for individuals, that can't be done secularly, so I have no reason to think it necessary.

- But, you can't really make that claim & except it to be sound. Religion is embedded in your heritage & your worldview. At this point, excluding its influence in society is not really possible. Your statement is like saying: "I've never seen anything culture does for society, or for individuals, that can't be done without it, so I have no reason to think it necessary."!!!

- If you wanna talk about how secularism without religion has comparable benefits to religion, then you have to do so in a society without religion to begin with. Further, secularism is in itself also a belief system (or religion in a broad sense). In our worldview, secularism & sikhism, for instance, are the same class of "religion".

However it also fosters corruption, cruelty, disrespect and deceit, so it's undesirable.

- This is flat-out false, for these vices are inherently & categorically against the teachings of any religion.

I genuinely believe that you can learn to be a better, kinder, more ethical person without religion than with it...

- This is a meaningless statement. Better in what? According to whose standards? Kinder in what sense? Ethical based on what system?...
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 1:57:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 12:27:25 PM, Yassine wrote:

- This is a meaningless statement. Better in what? According to whose standards? Kinder in what sense? Ethical based on what system?...

According to standards that don't allow wars to be fought over whose invisible friend is real.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 2:26:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 12:27:25 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 10/21/2015 10:28:53 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

My household thought of itself as irreligious, but really was nonobservant, and over time, I moved from nonobservance to irreligion. I'm certainly more irreligious than either of my parents were, in that they felt religion was fundamentally moral and worthy of respect, even if the stories weren't all true, while I feel religion is immoral, because it's immoral to claim authority from dubious conjecture.

- Based on whose judgment? Your feelings?! I am pretty sure the religious authorities will disagree with you. Here is a similar claim: "I feel Science is immoral, because it's immoral to claim authority from dubious conjecture."!


What a silly silly analogy.

First off, science doesn't claim or function through the assertion of authority. As Krauss says, there are scientific experts but no scientific authorities. Anything and everything can be challenged and, generally speaking, scientists will change their minds in a heartbeat if evidence to the contrary is provided.

Secondly, there's the issue of credibility, of whether or not it's reasonable to place tentative trust on someone or something based off on his track record. What has been science's track record? Imperfect, but nonetheless stellar. What has been, generally speaking, religion's track record? Horrendous.

I've never seen anything religion does for society, or for individuals, that can't be done secularly, so I have no reason to think it necessary.

- But, you can't really make that claim & except it to be sound. Religion is embedded in your heritage & your worldview. At this point, excluding its influence in society is not really possible. Your statement is like saying: "I've never seen anything culture does for society, or for individuals, that can't be done without it, so I have no reason to think it necessary."!!!


Ah, demonstrably false.
We can peek into societies where religion has been on its way out and gradually replaced with humanism and secularism for more than one consecutive generation to check the results. North Europe fares extremely well, thank you.

- If you wanna talk about how secularism without religion has comparable benefits to religion, then you have to do so in a society without religion to begin with. Further, secularism is in itself also a belief system (or religion in a broad sense). In our worldview, secularism & sikhism, for instance, are the same class of "religion".


Secularism might be reasonably viewed as a belief system but not a religion in any meaningful sense of the word. To distort language so that it gives the appearance of legitimacy to your case is a confession of the weakness of your case to begin with. I don't particularly care that "in your worldview" , say, a kiwi is really code for orangutan. If you're trying to communicate, please be mindful of our common language.

However it also fosters corruption, cruelty, disrespect and deceit, so it's undesirable.

- This is flat-out false, for these vices are inherently & categorically against the teachings of any religion.


No, they are not. It appears you have a very limited view of the entire range of existing religions, which includes occultism, Gnosticism, non-duality beliefs, etc. But even this basic acknowledgment gets trumped by the realization that when religions get to a prominent position of power, either by state endorsement or just social majority, they tend to exhibit the above mentioned flaws to a degree that surpasses that which individuals normally display.

A great example is Zen, a charming branch of Buddhism, which garishly supplied some of the kamikaze pilots.

I genuinely believe that you can learn to be a better, kinder, more ethical person without religion than with it...

- This is a meaningless statement. Better in what? According to whose standards? Kinder in what sense? Ethical based on what system?...

No, it's not meaningless at all.
The adjective "kind" has intrinsic meaning and "kinder" entails more of that which "kind" stands for. Simple. It is entirely possible, in fact I see it as a pre-requirement, to build a moral system - as opposed to an assortment or moral pronouncements - based on a secular humanist perspective. From there all your doubts regarding "better" and "more ethical" dissipate.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 3:12:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 2:26:52 PM, Hitchian wrote:

First off, science doesn't claim or function through the assertion of authority.

- No knowledge can survive without authority.

As Krauss says, there are scientific experts but no scientific authorities.

- Semantics.

Anything and everything can be challenged and, generally speaking, scientists will change their minds in a heartbeat if evidence to the contrary is provided.

- Rational persons generally do. Nothing particular about "scientists".

Secondly, there's the issue of credibility, of whether or not it's reasonable to place tentative trust on someone or something based off on his track record. What has been science's track record? Imperfect, but nonetheless stellar. What has been, generally speaking, religion's track record? Horrendous.

- I could just as likely claim the opposite. What is your proof?

Ah, demonstrably false.
We can peek into societies where religion has been on its way out and gradually replaced with humanism and secularism for more than one consecutive generation to check the results. North Europe fares extremely well, thank you.

- This doesn't negate my statement, it enforces it. More importantly, you're judging secularism from a secular worldview, which constitutes confirmation bias. North Europe, currently, does indeed fare well in a secular paradigm, as it did fare well in a religious paradigm in the past.

Secularism might be reasonably viewed as a belief system but not a religion in any meaningful sense of the word. To distort language so that it gives the appearance of legitimacy to your case is a confession of the weakness of your case to begin with. I don't particularly care that "in your worldview" , say, a kiwi is really code for orangutan. If you're trying to communicate, please be mindful of our common language.

- I am afraid English is not the only language spoken in the World. This is quite pitiful & disturbing on so many levels.

No, they are not. It appears you have a very limited view of the entire range of existing religions, which includes occultism, Gnosticism, non-duality beliefs, etc.

- It is possible that there might exist a religion that teaches corruption... However, those are aberrant cases. & aberrant cases are no basis for judgement.

But even this basic acknowledgment gets trumped by the realization that when religions get to a prominent position of power, either by state endorsement or just social majority, they tend to exhibit the above mentioned flaws to a degree that surpasses that which individuals normally display.

- This makes no sense at all. You probably meant to say, people resort to corruption, cruelty... when in power. What does that have to do with their religion, especially when it teaches the opposite of these things?

A great example is Zen, a charming branch of Buddhism, which garishly supplied some of the kamikaze pilots.

- Point?!

No, it's not meaningless at all.
The adjective "kind" has intrinsic meaning and "kinder" entails more of that which "kind" stands for.

- Do you understand "kindness" to mean the same thing as the next person does? Whose understanding should be the default?

Simple. It is entirely possible, in fact I see it as a pre-requirement, to build a moral system - as opposed to an assortment or moral pronouncements - based on a secular humanist perspective. From there all your doubts regarding "better" and "more ethical" dissipate.

- This is as subjective a statement as it can be, hence my point.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 3:58:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 3:12:47 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 10/21/2015 2:26:52 PM, Hitchian wrote:

First off, science doesn't claim or function through the assertion of authority.

- No knowledge can survive without authority.

As Krauss says, there are scientific experts but no scientific authorities.

- Semantics.


It seems not only you do not understand the difference between the two, you also do not understand the fundamental difference between operating from dogma and operating from evidence.

Anything and everything can be challenged and, generally speaking, scientists will change their minds in a heartbeat if evidence to the contrary is provided.

- Rational persons generally do. Nothing particular about "scientists".


The modus operandi is intrinsic to science. It is not intrinsic to religion.
To take on one of the most popular religions in the world; Catholicism. It claims that cracker literally, not metaphorically, turns into the body of Christ during communion. We can run a test on the cracker. Want to guess what we'll find out? Want to guess whether or not the otherwise rational Catholics will change their minds? they are operating from faith. That's the nature of said belief.

Secondly, there's the issue of credibility, of whether or not it's reasonable to place tentative trust on someone or something based off on his track record. What has been science's track record? Imperfect, but nonetheless stellar. What has been, generally speaking, religion's track record? Horrendous.

- I could just as likely claim the opposite. What is your proof?


Since The Lights, science has been triumphant in its domain. Progress has been fast paced, exponential even, and we currently enjoy its fruits. Nothing of the sort can be said about religion.

In the West organized religion is on the decline. It's one of the contributing factors why we have been better off.

Ah, demonstrably false.
We can peek into societies where religion has been on its way out and gradually replaced with humanism and secularism for more than one consecutive generation to check the results. North Europe fares extremely well, thank you.

- This doesn't negate my statement, it enforces it. More importantly, you're judging secularism from a secular worldview, which constitutes confirmation bias. North Europe, currently, does indeed fare well in a secular paradigm, as it did fare well in a religious paradigm in the past.


You 're putting in question secularism and humanism are better paradigms than a religious one. Regarding, northern Europe, that is manifestly false. The stellar social well-beingness of those countries is specifically tied to the implementation of the welfare state, which occurred well into the XX century, a time when the local protestant flavours were already experiencing erosion.

Secularism might be reasonably viewed as a belief system but not a religion in any meaningful sense of the word. To distort language so that it gives the appearance of legitimacy to your case is a confession of the weakness of your case to begin with. I don't particularly care that "in your worldview" , say, a kiwi is really code for orangutan. If you're trying to communicate, please be mindful of our common language.

- I am afraid English is not the only language spoken in the World. This is quite pitiful & disturbing on so many levels.


I'm not pointing out the fact English might not be your mother tongue. Secularism is not a religion by any commonly accepted definition. If you're holding on to your own idiosyncratic definition of what a religion is, one which flies in the face of what the common dictionary says, then it will render communication harder for both of us.

No, they are not. It appears you have a very limited view of the entire range of existing religions, which includes occultism, Gnosticism, non-duality beliefs, etc.

- It is possible that there might exist a religion that teaches corruption... However, those are aberrant cases. & aberrant cases are no basis for judgement.


Not only is it possible, they do exist. The fact they are not as popular or not as out in the open, which of course, no occult movement wants to be, doesn't mean they should not be considered when making that blanket statement. Moreover, I am inclined to say that vast segments of major eastern religions would not view these matters as clean cut as you do, further suggesting that you would be well advised to tone down on the broad assertions.

But even this basic acknowledgment gets trumped by the realization that when religions get to a prominent position of power, either by state endorsement or just social majority, they tend to exhibit the above mentioned flaws to a degree that surpasses that which individuals normally display.

- This makes no sense at all. You probably meant to say, people resort to corruption, cruelty... when in power. What does that have to do with their religion, especially when it teaches the opposite of these things?


I would have thought that comment to be of straightforward comprehension. If we have observed religious officers of various inclinations invariably seize power and use it in defiance of their proclaimed values that shows a ) their beliefs and their Gods to be ineffective and impotent at imposing an ethical code of conduct even among the followers, thus further placing the existence of said Gods under a suspicious light and b ) a wider gamut of moral infamy by virtue of the fact that on top of all on top of all the vices associated with temporal power, those religious officers have pilled on an assortment of vices inseparable from their religious beliefs.

A great example is Zen, a charming branch of Buddhism, which garishly supplied some of the kamikaze pilots.

- Point?!


Look it up.

No, it's not meaningless at all.
The adjective "kind" has intrinsic meaning and "kinder" entails more of that which "kind" stands for.

- Do you understand "kindness" to mean the same thing as the next person does? Whose understanding should be the default?


Sure. "Kindness" is pretty much unchallenged undisputed territory. I
have not witness nor heard of a single dispute regarding what "kindness" means.

Simple. It is entirely possible, in fact I see it as a pre-requirement, to build a moral system - as opposed to an assortment or moral pronouncements - based on a secular humanist perspective. From there all your doubts regarding "better" and "more ethical" dissipate.

- This is as subjective a statement as it can be, hence my point.

The word "moral" normally elicits an area of agreement. You may not agree with the moral edifice built upon secularist and humanist premises, you're free not to, but to deny its morality, even when there are vast areas of agreement between it and most religious systems, really smacks of bad faith.

Have a wonderful day.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 4:40:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Either, the flick of a coin. or see which has the best looking women in the congregation.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 5:51:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 3:58:54 PM, Hitchian wrote:

It seems not only you do not understand the difference between the two,

- It's the other way around.

you also do not understand the fundamental difference between operating from dogma and operating from evidence.

- You mean there is such difference?! I must've not noticed! Congratulations! You've just passed the "duh" test.

The modus operandi is intrinsic to science. It is not intrinsic to religion.

- False.

To take on one of the most popular religions in the world; Catholicism. It claims that cracker literally, not metaphorically, turns into the body of Christ during communion. We can run a test on the cracker. Want to guess what we'll find out?

- That rests on the metaphysical issue on whether or not extraordinary state of affairs exist. People in ancient Egypt knew cracker does not turn into flesh, that's hardly a scientific discovery.

- As for the claim itself, well, its veracity depends on wether or not there is proof to support it or otherwise. In case there is, then no problem. In case there isn't, Catholicism was probably mistaken, & we move on to something else. Science too made a lot of claims which were later found out to be untrue.

Want to guess whether or not the otherwise rational Catholics will change their minds? they are operating from faith. That's the nature of said belief.

- One: that's a contradiction, in the sense that a person who contradicts himself is, by definition, irrational. A rational catholic who contradicts himself doesn't exist. Two: even ignoring the "rational" mention, that still is a false generalisation. Three: this applies as much to Catholics as it does to any combination of people. A person can be irrational & a scientist. In fact, most scientists are irrational, for they lack the proper discipline in Logic. You can't claim to know rationality without speaking its language (Logic), the same way you can't claim to know French without speaking the language.

Since The Lights, science has been triumphant in its domain. Progress has been fast paced, exponential even, and we currently enjoy its fruits. Nothing of the sort can be said about religion.

- Comparing the fruits of Science with the fruits of Religion is like comparing water & food. They perform different functions & serve different purposes.

In the West organized religion is on the decline. It's one of the contributing factors why we have been better off.

- That's a bare assertion, which happens to be false. Those responsible for building the Western Heritage & the Western Civilisation were almost exclusively religious.

You're putting in question secularism and humanism are better paradigms than a religious one.

- The contrary, yours apparently, is a dogmatic position.

Regarding, northern Europe, that is manifestly false.

- Oh really?! Help me see it. How about the rest of the World. One example is no ground for general assertions.

The stellar social well-beingness of those countries is specifically tied to the implementation of the welfare state, which occurred well into the XX century, a time when the local protestant flavours were already experiencing erosion.

- One: welfare states existed well before northern Europe was even a thing. Two: "wellbeingness" in those countries is measured as it is currently understood by the system in which they emerge. This "wellbeingness" is not be understood the same way it was the past, nor will it necessarily be understood the same way in the future. <<< Confirmation bias.

I'm not pointing out the fact English might not be your mother tongue.

- It isn't, indeed. It's my 4th.

Secularism is not a religion by any commonly accepted definition.

- In your own language, maybe. It isn't necessarily the case for every other language. & it's certainly not the case in mine.

If you're holding on to your own idiosyncratic definition of what a religion is, one which flies in the face of what the common dictionary says, then it will render communication harder for both of us.

- This is beyond pitiful, it's ridiculous! You do realise I can say the exact same thing regarding your own definition. This is the most outrageous thing I heard today. LOL!

Not only is it possible, they do exist. The fact they are not as popular or not as out in the open, which of course, no occult movement wants to be, doesn't mean they should not be considered when making that blanket statement.

- Are there legal systems which call for injustice? It's possible. Nonetheless, these are aberrant cases & thus should not be included in speaking about Law in general.

Moreover, I am inclined to say that vast segments of major eastern religions would not view these matters as clean cut as you do, further suggesting that you would be well advised to tone down on the broad assertions.

- In principal, they do.

I would have thought that comment to be of straightforward comprehension. If we have observed religious officers of various inclinations invariably seize power and use it in defiance of their proclaimed values that shows

- This applies to all combinations of people, religious or otherwise. The premise itself negates the conclusion you intend to make.

a ) their beliefs and their Gods to be ineffective and impotent at imposing an ethical code of conduct even among the followers, thus further placing the existence of said Gods under a suspicious light

- Fallacious reasoning, very very very fallacious reasoning.

and b ) a wider gamut of moral infamy by virtue of the fact that on top of all on top of all the vices associated with temporal power, those religious officers have pilled on an assortment of vices inseparable from their religious beliefs.

- This could be ascertained if ALL religious "officers" adopted these vices, which isn't true, which invalidates your postulate.

Look it up.

- I am afraid it's in your head. & I have no means to look up what's in your head.

Sure. "Kindness" is pretty much unchallenged undisputed territory. I have not witness nor heard of a single dispute regarding what "kindness" means.

- Seriously!!! What does your 'testimony' have to do with this?! Here, do you understand "kindness" the same way I do?

The word "moral" normally elicits an area of agreement. You may not agree with the moral edifice built upon secularist and humanist premises, you're free not to, but to deny its morality, even when there are vast areas of agreement between it and most religious systems, really smacks of bad faith.

- You keep proving my point over & over, thanks.

Have a wonderful day.

You too.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Isaiah58
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 3:39:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 11:34:32 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Firstly, to give credit where credit is due, I came up with the idea for this thread from here:http://www.debate.org...

Were you raised under your current religion?
I was not raised under my current religion. I was born into an "ethnic" Catholic family, meaning that we called ourselves Catholics, but rarely lived it out...

If so did you have sliding periods of certainty or scepticism?
I maintain a level of skepticism when I engage any topic...although there are presuppositions that have to be taken into account to understand faith.

If you changed the religion you were born into, what led you to do so? If you were raised in an irreligious household, are you still irreligious? If not, what led you to choosing which religion.
I came to my Christian beliefs through the grace of God. I began to study...a lot. Hume would say that in a world of chance, probability is irrelevant. But with the presupposition that the word of God is what it claims, It stands up to the test of consistency as other faiths fall away. I've studied, and continue to study, other sacred texts and still find them wanting.

Lastly, what do you find to be the most compelling reason for you to remain in the religion (or lack of) that you are in?
I find truth and consistency in God's word to be the most compelling reason to be a follower of Christ. It's kind of intriguing that so many people in the same thread claim such diametrically opposed positions. Some claim that they turned away from faith in
God because of a lack of evidence. As for me, I have found that the more deeply I study, the more assured I become...