Why religious people should renounce their faith

[BJJ_Rage]

what is funny is that the posters with the most blindest faith I have ever seen are ATHEISTS. They can never give a reason for their beliefs which is God does not exist and the supernatural does not exist. At best they regurgle some post for some other loser. In fact, most atheists are really agnostics but being agnostic is not douchbag enough for them.

That's because they have no reason to give you a a reason to prove something it can't be proved. The burden is on to believers not atheists. and I will hardly think there aren't atheists giving you reasons why to believe in super daddy in the sky is quite silly, the thing is you don't want to accept those facts and rather believe in what's written in a 2000 years old book.

 

[5H3RD0G]

Religion is a trap and most have not figured that out yet.

 

[Buck Swope]

You have to PROVE it's real.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

but isn't it better then??? Isn't better for a professed christian being a piece of shit and being CALLED out for being unchristian??? Without religion, you can take whatever values you want and it is all the same. With Christianity there is a set of morals and behavior you are inline with or not inline with.
It is better to have a set of morals which are good but difficult to live up to but try to live up to, than to have no objective morality.

When you don't have an objective morality (God) then morality becomes that of the ones in power. That is why totalitarians try to dismantle religion in every case. They want that power.

Fact is that christian morality is the best we have and if we all understood it and tried to live up to it we would have the best society humanly possible.

Craig is wrong, although I agree that Christian values are a good set of morals to follow

 

[Burning Hammer]

Sure I can never know what it's like to have always existed, or know what all other beings are thinking, but that doesn't mean that God is just a totally unintelligible hodgepodge.

That's not what I am saying either. God would be beyond our reasoning. We would have something similar due to use being created in his image, but it wouldn't be the fullest extent of what God is.

 

[Burning Hammer]

The god you postulated can't be questioned or tested.

Well, he can be and has been. Read a bible.

 

[meauneau]

So you are fucking agreeing with exactly what I said. You believe things only if they have a naturalistic explanation. This is a philosophy...or a religion with scientists as God.

No I don´t believe things only if they have a naturalistic explanation, I believe what is more probable, what is supported by evidence, what is arrived at through reliable means, etc., I could believe something if the best explanation, the most probable, is a supernatural one, I am not dismissing supernatural explanations because they are supernatural. You are so eager to jump to the conclusion that I worship science or that it is just a faith that you can´t even think clear anymore.

Your thread is about why we should give up our religion and it is an abortion at this point.

YOU GIVE ME ONE-----JUST ONE---REASON for us to give up our religion. Just one for me to beat the shit out of. This is a fair request is it not since you made this thread???

I will even give you my reason for someone to give up their religion: IF IT IS NOT TRUE AND COMPLETE
This is the only reason.

But lets hear your most potent reason, duder.

Read the OP, try to understand it (which so far you haven´t been able to), and then come back with a cogent response.

 

[bufetadanacara]

The renunciation is often the culmination of a long period of doubt and experimenting with the idea of living without belief.

It's not really that hard to imagine, just compare it to any issues of importance you've changed your own mind about.

By that point, it would have already have ceased being faith. It would already be something one used to believe.

 

[meauneau]

That's why I think there is semantics involved, because one can argue that democracy is a better proposition than communism. This is a truth claim. There are better examples, but the theory stands. Just because you are more likely to accept democracy (or whatever) if you are born in the West in the current era doesn't reflect the truth of the proposition.

Whether p is better than q depends on what it is agreed that better will mean, e.g., will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, or whatever. There is a subjective element here, p and q could stand for chocolate and vanilla, or rock and rap, roses and daisies, etc. and whether p or q is true will depend on function the word better signifies. So we can talk about somethings having the property is good (or is better) and we can ask whether it is true that x is good, and then we can ask whether it makes sense to ask this of this kind of statement. These are independent questions and of different orders.

If I say that "a hammer is better than a screwdriver", this is true if by better I mean more efficient, more effective, safer, for hammering nails, etc., so the truth value of this sentence depends on the function of better and the context. If the context is screwing something on the wall, then the sentence "a hammer is better than a screwdriver" is not true anymore. If I say that Democracy is better than Communism then whether it is true or not depends on the function of the term better and the context within which it is used (what ethical theory). These are relative truths, they are subjective.

So one can make the statement "democracy is better than communism" true (or false) by virtue of the function that he designates to the word better. You cannot do this with the sentence "it is (not) the case that god exists". This is the difference.

Yeah, there is a lot of truth to your general objection, but it applies more to those who have not truly examined his beliefs. Also, thanks for the kind words, you've been a gentleman with me every time we've spoken.

It is those who have not examined their beliefs that I am targeting.

I treat gentlemen like gentlemen.

I'm not saying one hinges on the other, only that I am justified in believing in both despite the fact that I'm more likely to believe in these given when and where I was born.

Right. But as explained above both sentences can be correct in different ways, one has an objective truth value, i.e., is objectively true or false. The other has a subjective truth value, i.e., it is true or false relative to functional words and the contexts. these sentences have very different logical structures.

It makes sense for you to believe this, since you are an atheist. If you didn't, you would be a theist. I think the evidence depends on the observer. I'll add that I do believe there are atheists and theists who may not be justified in their beliefs, and these include those who believe whatever is popular and dictated by society.

Or maybe I am an atheist because atheism and naturalism make sense to me. I was a theist till a few years ago.

 

[Squarechoke]

It seems that several people here that claim to belong to Christianity have already subconsciously renounced it, seeing how they behave like aggressive, vindictive, not very generous, and rules lawyering people. Not exactly in line with the core message from Jesus, and I doubt a hypothetical god would be very impressed with someone that says "well, i technically followed this scripture since it can be interpreted like this", showing that they are just trying to take the easy road, because what Jesus spoke of is hard. I think it goes for many Christians in general, not just for people we see here.

I remain in my stance that Christians have really changed over the centuries to align themselves with the secular philosophies that have shaped the modern world.

 

[meauneau]

It seems that several people here that claim to belong to Christianity have already subconsciously renounced it, seeing how they behave like aggressive, vindictive, not very generous, and rules lawyering people. Not exactly in line with the core message from Jesus, and I doubt a hypothetical god would be very impressed with someone that says "well, i technically followed this scripture since it can be interpreted like this", showing that they are just trying to take the easy road, because what Jesus spoke of is hard. I think it goes for many Christians in general, not just for people we see here.

I remain in my stance that Christians have really changed over the centuries to align themselves with the secular philosophies that have shaped the modern world.

I can confirm this. It turns out that the majority of believers who posted here are actually the kind of believers I targeted in the OP. So it is safe to say that the majority of religious people who posted here should renounce their faith if they are to be intellectually honest, courageous and rational. But as many have expressed, they believe because it is useful, it makes them feel good, it helps them cope with life and for other emotional reasons.

 

[electricfuneral]

I was raised by atheists and became a Buddhist at 23 when I got sober. It has worked quite well for me.

So no, I won't renounce my faith.

I think more free thinkers are able to separate spirituality and faith from religion which is the politics of faith.

Buddhism is interesting because there is no politics behind it's modern day practice in the west.

 

[deltapapha]

If you believe in a religion because you were born into it, because you accept the testimony of the those who claim to have witnessed the miracles for said religion, because it makes sense to you, because you feel something in your heart that assures you of the truth of your religion, etc, then, if there are reasons that undercut the evidence on which you base your belief, you should thus renounce your faith and become agnostic.

The reasons are these: given the diversity of religions in the world today, the fact that the majority of people are born into their religion; their claims that they have miracles witnessed by people of such and such character which validates them; that it makes sense to their followers, who experience something spiritual which assures them of their religion, and so on, then it follows that all of them cannot be true. These religions, at least the major ones, are exclusivist. Either all are false, or only one is true and the rest false.

Since all the believers of this kind base their belief on the same or similar grounds and the fact that their beliefs are mutually inconsistent, then it follows that there is no reason for them to rationally accept their religion as true. All these religions claim to have the truth on their side on the same or similar grounds; on these grounds alone we cannot determine the truth of any of these religions. This is like 20 witnesses in a courtroom each of whom was denounced as a liar by the other 19; so who do we trust?

Furthermore, each of these religions has the same a priori intrinsic probability, neither has an a priori advantage over the other and the reasons mentioned as ground for the belief do not increase the intrinsic probability of any of these religion. Therefore the only rational position in this case is one of agnosticism.

Until you have other reasons apart from the ones mentioned above you should remain agnostic and suspend judgement, that is until you acquire evidence to make up your mind rationally for the position the evidence point to.

Believe the gospel and live young man! What are you so afraid of?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

By that point, it would have already have ceased being faith. It would already be something one used to believe.

I don't really see a need to view the process in such black and white terms. Even introducing faith into the question - you could have a believer who has searched high and low for reasons to maintain his belief, and in failing to find them, continues to believe through faith alone. It's a complicated process, as you might expect from such abstract cognition.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

If you believe in a religion because you were born into it, because you accept the testimony of the those who claim to have witnessed the miracles for said religion, because it makes sense to you, because you feel something in your heart that assures you of the truth of your religion, etc, then, if there are reasons that undercut the evidence on which you base your belief, you should thus renounce your faith and become agnostic.

The reasons are these: given the diversity of religions in the world today, the fact that the majority of people are born into their religion; their claims that they have miracles witnessed by people of such and such character which validates them; that it makes sense to their followers, who experience something spiritual which assures them of their religion, and so on, then it follows that all of them cannot be true. These religions, at least the major ones, are exclusivist. Either all are false, or only one is true and the rest false.

Since all the believers of this kind base their belief on the same or similar grounds and the fact that their beliefs are mutually inconsistent, then it follows that there is no reason for them to rationally accept their religion as true. All these religions claim to have the truth on their side on the same or similar grounds; on these grounds alone we cannot determine the truth of any of these religions. This is like 20 witnesses in a courtroom each of whom was denounced as a liar by the other 19; so who do we trust?

Furthermore, each of these religions has the same a priori intrinsic probability, neither has an a priori advantage over the other and the reasons mentioned as ground for the belief do not increase the intrinsic probability of any of these religion. Therefore the only rational position in this case is one of agnosticism.

Until you have other reasons apart from the ones mentioned above you should remain agnostic and suspend judgement, that is until you acquire evidence to make up your mind rationally for the position the evidence point to.

My biggest objection to this course of reasoning isn't with the reasoning itself, but just that it's so psychologically unlikely, though I suppose it depends on the direction the believer is coming from.

If believer A believes for the stated reasons, then realizes that people of other faiths around the world believe in their own, mutually exclusive faiths for similar reasons, he's more likely to then search for reasons to maintain belief in his own faith rather than reason that all such faiths should be renounced. That seems a far more likely course of action.

If believer B has exhausted his search for reasons to believe his own faith and comes to the conclusion that he can only maintain belief for the reasons stated in the OP, then yes, the intellectually honest thing to do would be to renounce the faith, or at least expunge it of literal truth claims a la @Denter (although it's far from clear that pure intellectual honesty should be his highest priority - he may want to continue his involvement with the religious nature of his culture without suffering from constant dissonance, for example). But I doubt you're appealing to much of a population at all with this argument, if only because the people who would admit to holding a belief for such reasons would not be the type to care to apply reason strictly enough to force the renunciation. Imagine explaining this to someone's grandmother, for example.

I'd be interested to hear this same reasoning applied to other culturally exclusive beliefs, in certain local morals or customs, for example.

Yes, it is presupposed that we both can use reason, unless you're a Van Tillian, which is another debate all together.

Lol @ Van Tillian - so random. I've only ever heard one crazy YouTube guy claim that influence. Even the most hardcore apologists I know had never heard of presuppositional apologetics when I brought them up in conversation.

 

[dontsnitch]

Comparing Zeus to Jesus would be incorrect, Zeus would be similar to God the Father. Alexander the Great who called himself the son of Zeus and birthed through an immaculate conception would be equivalent to Jesus. Alexander had much more physical evidence like coins, epigraphy and dynasties (Ptolemaic in Egypt) than did Jesus. So let's make it a personal revelation from Zeus through Alexander then, would a person be justified in believing it to be true?

You're saying Alexander the Great claimed to be God? I'd say there is far less evidence for this claim. For starters, he was a ruthless war Lord and spent his life conquering other countries at a great cost. This is all part of assessing the evidence. When one has a personal revelation, the revelation itself must be congruent with real life. There is a good case to be made for why Christ is God even without revelation. There is even plenty of evidence for the resurrection. I don't see a lot of evidence for Alexander being God, no more than David Koresh.

With that said, one may be justified in believing in other Gods through personal revelations, but it depends on a person's conviction. Having one experience would not be enough evidence, at least to me.

 

[meauneau]

My biggest objection to this course of reasoning isn't with the reasoning itself, but just that it's so psychologically unlikely, though I suppose it depends on the direction the believer is coming from.

I agree that psychologically it is very unlikely, what with the psychological defences, society, family, friends and all.

If believer A believes for the stated reasons, then realizes that people of other faiths around the world believe in their own, mutually exclusive faiths for similar reasons, he's more likely to then search for reasons to maintain belief in his own faith rather than reason that all such faiths should be renounced. That seems a far more likely course of action.

I agree, this is the more likely course of action. But is it the more rational? Given that the reasons one has for his beliefs also lead to other mutually exclusive faiths one should see that the reasons he has are not reliable and so should lower his degree of belief in the religion till he reaches agnosticism, that is until he has reasons to make up his mind about it.

If believer B has exhausted his search for reasons to believe his own faith and comes to the conclusion that he can only maintain belief for the reasons stated in the OP, then yes, the intellectually honest thing to do would be to renounce the faith, or at least expunge it of literal truth claims a la @Denter (although it's far from clear that pure intellectual honesty should be his highest priority - he may want to continue his involvement with the religious nature of his culture without suffering from constant dissonance, for example). But I doubt you're appealing to much of a population at all with this argument, if only because the people who would admit to holding a belief for such reasons would not be the type to care to apply reason strictly enough to force the renunciation. Imagine explaining this to someone's grandmother, for example.

I agree with the course of action that B should take. Maybe I have stricter standards for when it is rational to hold a belief hence why I believe that person A should also suspend judgement or as you say expunge the belief from truth claims until after the investigation, search or enquiry.

You are right, I wasn't appealing to the general population of believers, nor was it my intention to enforce such strict standards on anyone. Rather I was hoping to discuss this with those believers and nonbelievers who are capable of cogent thought. I thought it an interesting and simple topic to discuss.

I'd be interested to hear this same reasoning applied to other culturally exclusive beliefs, in certain local morals or customs, for example.

If I understood you correctly, I don´t think the same reasoning applies to such domains whose truth value is relative to culture and other variables. I explained in a previous post why this doesn't apply to cultural beliefs. A reductio was attempted by claiming that people believe in democracy, communism, in certain ethical theories, etc., for exactly the same reasons (which I mention in the OP) as they believe in religion, and so, if religion should be renounced, then all these beliefs should also be renounced, which they say would be absurd, and concluded that it is not the case that we should renounce religious belief. Of course in a very convoluted way. Or perhaps I was being too charitable in interpreting what they intended that I have attributed to them more than they could think of. Either way the argument is not sound.

Lol @ Van Tillian - so random. I've only ever heard one crazy YouTube guy claim that influence. Even the most hardcore apologists I know had never heard of presuppositional apologetics when I brought them up in conversation.

This is the first I've ever heard of him, though I am familiar with Plantinga´s presuppositionalism.

 

[dontsnitch]

Whether p is better than q depends on what it is agreed that better will mean, e.g., will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, or whatever. There is a subjective element here, p and q could stand for chocolate and vanilla, or rock and rap, roses and daisies, etc. and whether p or q is true will depend on function the word better signifies. So we can talk about somethings having the property is good (or is better) and we can ask whether it is true that x is good, and then we can ask whether it makes sense to ask this of this kind of statement. These are independent questions and of different orders.

If I say that "a hammer is better than a screwdriver", this is true if by better I mean more efficient, more effective, safer, for hammering nails, etc., so the truth value of this sentence depends on the function of better and the context. If the context is screwing something on the wall, then the sentence "a hammer is better than a screwdriver" is not true anymore. If I say that Democracy is better than Communism then whether it is true or not depends on the function of the term better and the context within which it is used (what ethical theory). These are relative truths, they are subjective.

So one can make the statement "democracy is better than communism" true (or false) by virtue of the function that he designates to the word better. You cannot do this with the sentence "it is (not) the case that god exists". This is the difference.

There are many differences in beliefs between cultures, and many of these beliefs are contradictory. It's not all about preference. The exact characteristics of God is only one thing we can point to.

It is true that man cannot be saved by faith alone, or by works alone. One of these must be wrong. The objection that one is more likely to believe these claims depending on where they were born, while true, does not actually refute the truth of either of these. One can still be true.

It is those who have not examined their beliefs that I am targeting.

I treat gentlemen like gentlemen.

Fair enough, I think we agree with your objection when directed this way.

Right. But as explained above both sentences can be correct in different ways, one has an objective truth value, i.e., is objectively true or false. The other has a subjective truth value, i.e., it is true or false relative to functional words and the contexts. these sentences have very different logical structures.

When we compare God in the East and West, it's not entirely contradictory. It all depends on what aspect we compare. For starters, both believe in God. Both believe that he is judge and that we must be saved from sin. Both believe in a savior. The list goes on. I don't think it's quite fair to simply say these Gods are subject to criticism based on non-contradiction or defeaters. Someone must be wrong in general, but there is also a lot of overlap. This overlap could be considered evidence for God.

Or maybe I am an atheist because atheism and naturalism make sense to me. I was a theist till a few years ago.

Yeah, that's what I meant. You accept it because it's how you see it. It's tautological.

I also wasn't always a Christian.

 

[meauneau]

There are many differences in beliefs between cultures, and many of these beliefs are contradictory. It's not all about preference. The exact characteristics of God is only one thing we can point to.

It is true that man cannot be saved by faith alone, or by works alone. One of these must be wrong. The objection that one is more likely to believe these claims depending on where they were born, while true, does not actually refute the truth of either of these. One can still be true.

I agree, one can be true, I don´t deny this. What I deny is that the reasons I mentioned in the OP determine which one is true, they don´t.

Fair enough, I think we agree with your objection when directed this way.

It is directed at those who haven´t examined their beliefs and think they follow the true religion.

When we compare God in the East and West, it's not entirely contradictory. It all depends on what aspect we compare. For starters, both believe in God. Both believe that he is judge and that we must be saved from sin. Both believe in a savior. The list goes on. I don't think it's quite fair to simply say these Gods are subject to criticism based on non-contradiction or defeaters. Someone must be wrong in general, but there is also a lot of overlap. This overlap could be considered evidence for God.

Or it could be evidence of the human origin of such ideas. We take the finite and imperfect human attributes which we value most and augment them without limit. We can ascribe the differences in attributes of gods to the particular attributes valued most in the culture and times during which these gods "revealed" to us.

Also, just because there is agreement in some respect between two or more contradictory beliefs doesn't resolve the inconsistency. "There exists a green x which caused y at time t" and "there exists a green r which caused y at time t" are inconsistent, but they agree that the cause of y is green, does it reconcile the two sentences? No, they are still inconsistent and only one can be tree or neither.

Yeah, that's what I meant. You accept it because it's how you see it. It's tautological.

What I meant was that the reasons I thought I had for my belief weren't really reasons at all. So I became agnostic. Then my investigation ended in atheism.

I also wasn't always a Christian.

If reason took you there all is good.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

No one needs to renounce their faith.