Geography and Family Determines Religious Belief

[meshuggah2727]

I agree man, I finally questioned my own religion 2 or 4 years ago, in Christianity you're not supposed to do that, which may be why so many just don't it is all just blind faith. I'm glad I looked at my own religion objectively and came to my own conclusion. My mom is still christian and I respect that and she respects that I am an atheist, so it is all good.

[noahm77]

This was good, What lecture is that that you have clips from?

[CompleteRationality]

@noahm77 Thanks. Here is a link. /watch?v=YcYDkZcLAug

[An0maly777]

3 people will pray for you! :)

[Usersname1983]

well done

[jebiusenvy]

So if my parents are Atheists and I am an Atheist does that mean I didn't think critically?

[deepashtray]

@jebiusenvy Only if you didn't think critically, which is a possibility if you're being honest.

[Skindoggiedog]

@jebiusenvy It depends why you disbelieve. If it's because you never had a choice (i.e. childhood indoctrination) then, yes. You did not have the ability to think critically at that age.

The reason we see geographical spreads like these is due to theist parents imposing their religion before the child can effectively reason. Some atheist parents do the same thing, but if theism were being reached by rationality we'd never see groupings like this.

[Hyperplaterine]

I think at least part of the reason people follow their parents religion is laziness. Faith takes a lot less effort than reason.

[TheNakedAtheist]

Evidence such as this is why I often have disparaging things to say about the intelligence, or reasoning power of believers. Sure it doesn't necessarily in and of itself prove that any particular religion is wrong, but anyone confronted by this who doesn't seriously consider why, and what evidence there is for what they believe is an idiot.

[CompleteRationality]

@TheNakedAtheist Sadly, those idiots are in the billions.

[EmceeBorg]

Also, it doesn't logically follow that because people have the same or similar religious beliefs to their parents, that they haven't questioned or skeptically analyzed those beliefs. It may very well be the case that they have and couldn't find a defeater for those beliefs. Maybe what they found only reinforced those beliefs. Maybe it's the case that atheists are gullible enough to find fallacious arguments convincing? This video and the 'likes' seem to suggest this.

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg I never implied a necessary relationship between taking on the beliefs of one's parents and those acquired beliefs being automatically false because of it. The argument was inductive and was based on probability. The odds are in the thousands for people taking on the same religious faith as their parents, yet the trend is remarkably strong and evident to anyone.

[CompleteRationality]

@CompleteRationality

"It may very well be the case that they have and couldn't find a defeater for those beliefs."

Well, that further adds to my point. Being that they could not find a defeater for the beliefs that they "acquired" from their "parents," then its most likely the case that they believe what they believe because of their parents in conjunction with where they were brought up.

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality

What? How does that follow?

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality

Or it could mean that there isn't a defeater, in which case religious belief is rationally justified.

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg "Or it could mean that there isn't a defeater, in which case religious belief is rationally justified"

Not finding a defeater does not justify belief and doesn't get you any closer to the truth than other religions. It is only by examining other religions instead of starting out with the approach of trying to find something that "defeats" what you already believe.

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality No. You argue that people would cease being religious if they realized that they only believe because of where they were born & what their parents thought them (Which is a false dichotomy by the way). You explicitly stated that they were causally determined to believe these things. You then conclude that they'll realize that religion is necessarily false based solely on the conjunction of A & B. That my friend is a genetic fallacy.

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg (3:26) "When one is able to realize this obvious pattern of religious belief and take a critical look at what they believe, its *likely*"

Again, I drew no necessary relationship anywhere, yet you continue to accuse me of the genetic fallacy. Also, your "false dichotomy" charge is fallacious. I think that you have spent too much time studying formal logic and are trying to find any fallacies you've learned about that are nowhere to be found in my argument.

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality Yes, it's likely that they'll come to the 'truth'. Which you said is rooted on the realization of this oh-so-obvious pattern. Alas, they conclude that no religion is true, simply because their daddies & mommies causally 'determined' them to have those beliefs (which is nonsense by the way).

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg Are you suggesting that people are rationally justified in believing that their religion is true and that all others are false simply because their parents said so? Second, the inductive conclusion was not simply based on one's own upbringing, it was based on an examination of all other religious beliefs as they relate to geography and family also.

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality No. What I said is that 'if' there isn't a defeater for said belief, they're rationally justified in holding it. I mentioned nothing of parents, because unlike you, I don't believe every belief is causally determined by antecedent conditions.

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg "Or it could mean that there isn't a defeater, in which case religious belief is rationally justified"

I'm not about to play semantics here. "Isn't a defeater" can only translate into two things.

1. There is no defeater because A is true.

2. There is no defeater because one has yet to be found.

Which one is it?

[Skindoggiedog]

@CompleteRationality 3:32 "When one is able to realize this obvious pattern of religious belief, and take a critical look at what they believe, it's likely they will realize there is no truth to religion"

But you can't base the truth of a claim on the living arrangements of those who believe it, nor on how they actually reached their conclusions.

[CompleteRationality]

@Skindoggiedog I wasn't attacking the truth of a claim directly, I was attacking the truth merits of religion.

1. All religions that claim to be true do so from a biased and bigoted standpoint. None of them have any valid evidence over the other as it relates to supernatural claims.

2. We can conclude that 99 percent of them are false because many of them are mutually exclusive.

This examines the pathetic odds and merits of the claimed truths of religion.

[Skindoggiedog]

@CompleteRationality "I wasn't attacking the truth of a claim directly, I was attacking the truth merits of religion."

Saying that someone will likely REALIZE that there is no truth to religion is a direct claim that there is no truth to religion, and that the person will likely become aware of that fact.

If you had have said the person will likely 'come to the conclusion', it would have been a different matter.

You're in good company, though. Dawkins did the same thing.

[CompleteRationality]

@Skindoggiedog Let me try to explain this a little better. Recognizing what was discussed will likely lead to or aid one in concluding that all religion is a man made construct, or in other words, false. It was not a direct claim. However, I will tell you any day that there is no truth to religion though. The argument doesn't prove that a particular religion is false because you inherited it from your parents. (cont)

[CompleteRationality]

@CompleteRationality (cont)

It just shows that in the general sense, your religiously acquired belief from your parents is most likely false. I already explained the probability part in a previous comment of mine and in the video. Also, don't forget about the biased bigotry part that also adds to the argument.

[Skindoggiedog]

@CompleteRationality "It was not a direct claim."

We're at an impasse here. We disagree. Let's move on.

[EmceeBorg]

*Parody alert* Most people in the world believe in the existence of other minds because their parents taught them that other minds exist. Most of these people have never taken a critical look at their belief in other minds objectively. As a matter of fact, these other people don't even exist. I'm the only one who exists. Go solipsism!

[EmceeBorg]

Your position is self-referentially incoherent as this video only exists due to antecedent conditions. Pretty convenient how you exclude atheism, as if it's exempt from your deterministic worldview. That's what happens when you watch Dawkins lectures and not people who understand how logic works. Not to mention you're committing the genetic fallacy by concluding that a belief is necessarily false or irrational to believe based solely on how it originated.

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg There was no genetic fallacy committed here. You misconstrue what was actually stated. Sure, someone brought up in an atheistic environment would turn out atheist, but they wouldn't be dogmatic or preconvinced about any beliefs as religious people are.

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality Prove it. All I see is an assertion.

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg I can only assume that you want me to "prove" that there was no genetic fallacy committed. Very well then.

The argument was never that A is necessarily false because B acquired it from C. The argument was that you most likely believe A because you acquired it from B and not because you have done a thorough search for truth.

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality No, I meant to prove:

"Sure, someone brought up in an atheistic environment would turn out atheist, but they wouldn't be dogmatic or preconvinced about any beliefs as religious people are."

I see absolutely no reason to believe this. First off it's logically possible for an atheist environment to produce theists and vice versa.

[EmceeBorg]

(cont.) Secondly, you explicitly stated that there is no truth to religion & that it is a 'man-made' construct, which people would 'realize' after watching your awesome video. And why is that? Because of this 'pattern'. Hmm.

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg I never said that it would be realized after "watching my video". Its obvious to anyone that religion is in fact a man made construct. The distribution of religion geographically is one strong example of several.

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality Ah yes, another fallacy from mr. 'rational'. Something can appear to be obvious, yet false. See: appeal to incredulity.

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg There was no appeal to incredulity either. Seriously, your fallacy spotting machine is broken. From here on, if you are going to accuse me of a fallacy, type it in the proper logical format, so when I respond, you will explicitly know where you went wrong.

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality The irony.

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg What is it that you want me to prove?

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality I want you to prove why atheists wouldn't be as dogmatic as believer. You simply asserted this with no evidence.

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg I did not simply assert anything, and such a statement isn't an evidence based proposition. Its very simple. Atheism has no doctrines, no teachings, and no beliefs. Therefore, it does not follow that atheists are dogmatic.

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality Yeah, just like nominalists have no beliefs toward universals. Disbelief is a doxastic attitude, whether you like it or not. Let me guess, conspiracy theorists who deny official accounts don't dogmatically hold any belief(s) toward those events either.

[Skindoggiedog]

@EmceeBorg "Not to mention you're committing the genetic fallacy by concluding that a belief is necessarily false or irrational to believe based solely on how it originated."

You're 100% right here. I'm appalled at the way some theologians trot out fallacy after fallacy, even when it's been pointed out to them in dozens of previous debates, but when 'my side' continually does it, it's downright embarrassing, and one of the reasons I identify more readily with agnosticism.

[tmesist]

The point is valid, I made similar in my own vid (added above as a reply, waiting approval), but suggested wider culture rather than just region of birth and family created relative religious views. Every atheist that replied to the vid screamed it wasn't true..... was it the fact I included atheism in the analyses also as a result of culture? Is atheism any less the result of being born in Europe than Hinduism being born in India? Atheists seem to want to fool themselves they're different.

[CompleteRationality]

@tmesist Yes, atheism is different. Atheism is not a belief. It doesn't teach anything as fact or opinion and therefore has no dogma. Yes, atheism can be a result of being brought up in atheistic society. If one believes that there is a "true" religion, then in order to confirm the veracity of one's beliefs, it is absolutely necessary to examine all other religions, which is something that no one does. This consequently leads to them falling back on their already held beliefs.

[EmceeBorg]

@CompleteRationality I think you need to watch tmesist's video on 'lack of belief'. lol

[CompleteRationality]

@EmceeBorg I think you need to stop studying formal logic so hard. Then, you might be able to better assess someone's argument instead falsely charging them with fallacies at every turn.

[tmesist]

@CompleteRationality What you describe as atheism is philosophical skepticism, an atheist of course can be a philosophical skeptic and visa versa, but a lot of atheists aren't, many hold it as dogmatic beliefs, Hitchens, Atheist Experience, Thunderf00t. These are not open minded free thinking people, atheism is a truth position to them. As for falling back on held belief everyone does. At a debate the atheist speaker confirms the views of the atheist audience and the religious speaker visa versa

[Skindoggiedog]

@tmesist "Atheist Experience"

There are a lot of people that participate in that show. I know for a fact that they don't all share the same beliefs on a lot of things, so be a bit more careful where you're swinging that brush.

[tmesist]

@Skindoggiedog

They freely identify themselves collectively, if something is done in the name of The Atheist Experience this can only imply collective responsibility, if one disagrees it's their responsibility to make it known they disassociate themselves from that particulr view.

Since they posted the lecture series on Atheist Prosletyzing on their website in the group's name I take as their groups collective views.

None of th Atheist

[tmesist]

@CompleteRationality The only people I know who at least try to examine every religion are polytheists and interestingly come to a theistic stance from doing so.

[Skindoggiedog]

@CompleteRationality "Atheism is not a belief. It doesn't teach anything as fact or opinion and therefore has no dogma."

That depends how you define atheism. Most theists like to think it means a belief that there is no god.

Ruling out a deistic god and presenting it to children as fact is a dogmatic, faith-based position.

[CompleteRationality]

@Skindoggiedog Growing up in an environment where religion is never discussed would breed weak atheists, but nonetheless, they are atheists. I don't argue over the semantics of meanings. I''m only concerned with conveying the concept of simply being unconvinced and believing that no Gods exist.

[Skindoggiedog]

@CompleteRationality "I don't argue over the semantics of meanings."

There's no right or wrong. Theists and atheists often have different definitions of the word, and it's important to understand what the other person means when they say something.

[CompleteRationality]

@Skindoggiedog Thank you for understanding. I wish most other people would be the same way, but labels are all too important to some. In my opinion, if there were no labels, then there would be no confusion.

[Skindoggiedog]

@CompleteRationality "I''m only concerned with conveying the concept of simply being unconvinced and believing that no Gods exist. "

Two different concepts, and that's where the dogma lays.

Remaining unconvinced that X exists is not the same as asserting that X does not exist.

Telling children that no gods exist is an unjustifiable claim, in my opinion, as it rules out deism, something which is, at least currently, outside the scope of what we know right now.

[CompleteRationality]

@Skindoggiedog Telling kids that no gods exist is not an unjustifiable claim as there is no valid definition of God. They are just abstractly fabricated concepts, but telling kids that no Gods exist is not at all what I meant by being raised in an atheistic environment. I'm talking about being raised in an environment where religion is never discussed period. The child would by default be a weak atheist because of nonexposure to the concept of a God.

[Skindoggiedog]

@CompleteRationality "Telling kids that no gods exist is not an unjustifiable claim as there is no valid definition of God."

Children naturally come up with god concepts themselves. They see agency in everything, and one of the most natural questions that arises in a child's mind is 'How did everything get here?' - the simpler form of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' I feel that asserting that there is/was no agency whatsoever remains an unjustified claim.

[CompleteRationality]

@Skindoggiedog Father: "Son, there is no such thing as the flying spaghetti monster."

Mother: "Why would you tell him that? Don't you think that telling him that is unjustified? You can't disprove its existence!"

Father: "???"

Your statement represents the the Mothers position and the Father's represents telling his son that no Gods exist.

[Skindoggiedog]

@CompleteRationality Not really.

As stated, the idea of a prime causal agent is something virtually all children experience naturally, and is something I'd consider a reasonable idea based on human experience. The FSM is just something people made up to demonstrate the idea of not being able to prove a negative.

I think it's just a case of me finding a deistic god a credible idea, you not being able to give me a reason not to find it so, and same the other way around.

[Skindoggiedog]

@CompleteRationality So, if you can see this from my perspective, it's like someone with their hands behind their back stating that they have item X in their hand, you saying 'There is definitely no item X in his hand' and me saying 'I'm not sure. Maybe there is.'

That's why I see your atheism as somewhat dogmatic, holding to the principle that 'gods do not exist', but I can see how you would view my position, too. There IS no evidence of any god. I just don't rule it out.

[fourbabies1]

@Skindoggiedog if i have a penny in my right hand and 2 pennies in my left, but am not willing to just open my hands and show you the penny, are you going to base your life on me having pennies in my hand or are you going to say "show me the pennies"? if another person shows you a dollar in their hand, are you going to turn a blind eye and say "i believe the other person has pennies cause he says he has and i have faith"? there is nothing wrong in not believing without evidence.

[CompleteRationality]

@Skindoggiedog Wait a minute, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was I'm only concerned with conveying the two different concepts of nonbelief in Gods.

1. No gods exist.

2. I am unconvinced.

[Skindoggiedog]

@tmesist Theism is only very rarely ever reached through rational thought as an adult.

ex-Theism is only very rarely ever reached by any other means.

Just listen to their stories. Actually reading the bible when they're old enough to examine it critically converts many people.

Those who are left unmolested by religious indoctrination, allowed to reach the age of reason before examining religious claims, generally remain unconvinced.

[tmesist]

@Skindoggiedog You seem to be stealing the word rationality to describe a system of thought you subscribe to. Fundementalist Islam is perfectly rational, a different rationality but one none the less.

Many people who deconvert from religion or convert to religion do it from a paradigm shift converting from one system of rationality to another, which as no paradign exists in isolation can be triggered by a change in outside cultural influences. Our thoughts adapt to the culture around them

[rawbrutaltruth]

the idea that ones loses th capacity to examine ones religion just because one may be be influenced by to a point by what their parents belived is not always true.

[Rationalific]

It truly is obvious, but almost nobody ever gets it.

Here's another thing. If you're a Christian African or Native American, you have to believe that all of your ancestors were going to Hell as a matter of course before colonialists and slavers kindly introduced the truth.

And if you're a European or American Christian and are currently worried about a cult from the Middle East taking over and destroying your culture...well, that has already happened once. You're living proof.

[Discern4]

Good one!

[Zimnyification]

I just subscribed to this channel and so far I like what I see.

[mojosideburns]

Great video. I realized this at a young age, it was one of the most prominent reasons I came to reject organized religion. It was still some time before I came to reject theism however. But it was the beginning of the process. Peace

[CompleteRationality]

@mojosideburns The same exact thing goes for me. I was never blinded by any bias. I realized religion for what it truly was.

[Gliese581f]

@raw5069 Why does it have to be a god? Why can't it be many gods?

[raw5069]

@Gliese581f why does it take "one" seed to make a plant ? all of it had to start with one seed "maker" we are the seed of "one"human father,in this same way God is the Father of ALL this and us,to not see this... is to choose to be blind.

[Gliese581f]

@raw5069 Read up on evolution! I could go into a long winded debate with you or you could just simply open up a science book. You have no proof of the existence of a god and I have no proof that there is not one. Instead of believing in something that has no logical evidence, try learning about somthing that does.

[raw5069]

@Gliese581f for a blind person to see..they need their eye to be healed, running from the one that can heal you is your choice

[Gliese581f]

@raw5069 LOL, Thats funny!!! I had a friend that became bling due to detached retinas in both eyes after a car wreck. It was a surgeon that fixed it and not god. I know where you are trying to go with this. Ooooh, it's a spiritual thing, give me a break. If that were the case then anything that is imaginable could really exist. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has as much right to exist in your diluted reality as your Yahweh does.

Ramen, Brother

[raw5069]

@Gliese581f I am not religious, I am a child of God, you do well by pointing to the false teachers of religion,I do the same, but to let them win by turning you from the true God is to be completely fooled. the day I met Jesus is one of my best vids...maybe,just maybe..you have yet to meet a true child of God.

[Gliese581f]

@raw5069 Haha! That was a very funny video. You are quite right in saying "I know that this sounds crazy", when you met Jesus. You are right that I don't take your word for it. Wow, It even gets better! You saw him with your spiritual eyes? There is no basis to any logic with this dribble. Your whole argument is your own words that has no proof. I was once a believer but then I got an education in reality. Please.... Please... Think with a rational mind and not with emotions.

[raw5069]

@Gliese581f ..you think I dribble?..argument ?...proof..? your rational is that you were and now are not ? what you think is real,is temporal and your education of it is a delusion ...still God stands at the door of your heart knocking,let Him in ...this was a last word you will get from me..

[Gliese581f]

@raw5069 Bye-bye

[HorrorIllogium]

Your voice has a Godly echo effect...awesome

[CompleteRationality]

@HorrorIllogium No godly echo effect here. No effects at all. That's just what I sound like when I talk directly into a decent microphone. Lol

[raw5069]

you have a big surprise coming...wake up we live on a ball shaped rock,we have no clue .......who,what where or even what we are and you say there is no God who made it all? Good grief, the proof is all around you,open your eyes and look! Being blind by choice is no excuse.

[detersgumig]

@raw5069 My eyes are wide open and still see no proof of any gods. I think you'll have to be more specific.

[raw5069]

@detersgumig ...you want specifics ? ...of us and the plant we are on ? we label the stars and all that we can see in space...and still we do not even know what we are or where we are...you want specifics ?...give me a break....

[detersgumig]

@raw5069 In other words, you don't have proof of any gods - just things you don't know or find hard to understand.

[Gliese581f]

@raw5069 Oh by the way, Not all plant need seeds to reproduce.

[Zimnyification]

@raw5069 Your argument, put into a syllogism, runs thus:

1. The world is absolutely amazing.

2. We have no idea how it happened.

3. Therefore, God did it.

Fair enough?

Alright. This sort of argument is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance (or appeal to ignorance). It says that because we do not know something you can draw a solid conclusion from that fact alone.

Also, the burden of proof is on theist making the claim, but you seem to recognize this already, kudos.

[raw5069]

@Zimnyification in order to paint you a better picture,let me place the canvas of truth a bit closer, as my brush touches the paint a drop of paint begins to fall from its tip. Imagine if you will the waste in paint or consider the drop as the acted of the painter to shake off the excess pigment to give way for his desired stroke. Either way a painting is before you....to say it is not is the drop on the floor.

[IncidentalShine]

Here in Catholic Ireland an overwhelming majourity are religious only on paper and do not believe or practice, I can't imagine its the same scenario where you reside.

[Akira625]

Religious affiliation is largely due to the accident of birth.

[HardkoreCasual]

So. Why is that, "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus" video a related video to like, every atheist video? Even if it's not about religion.

[Gliese581f]

"Antarctica" The only sane continent.

[CompleteRationality]

@Gliese581f Agreed!

[Skepticktok]

Dude.

You have like the voice of God...very ironic!

Nice presentation as always man.

[CompleteRationality]

@Skepticktok Thanks. I don't know why you everyone seems to think that I sound epic, but I assure you, if I wanted to "really" make my voice sound epic, I could do so. :)

[bajholster]

@CompleteRationality There's an undeliberate reverb on your voice :)

[Howsonify]

@CompleteRationality Do you have the link to that Dawkins lecture?

I always do enjoy your uploads, thanks.

[CompleteRationality]

@Howsonify Thanks, I'm glad you do. Here is the link. /watch?v=4-iz4vMXYTw&feature=c­hannel_video_title