Why do people reject religion? I think I know

[William Wallace]

Huh? What does genetics have to do with this?

rumborak

Are you for serious right now?

[rumborak]

My point had nothing to do with genetics. Care to write more than cryptic one-liners?

rumborak

[William Wallace]

My point had nothing to do with genetics. Care to write more than cryptic one-liners?

rumborak

I know it had nothing to do with genetics. I was referring to the logical fallacy.

[GuineaPig]

I don't think this is an example of a genetic fallacy.

[Tick]

I think one reason people reject religion is because the people who claim to be religious people often act the worst. They make religion a hypocrisy, which sours peoples faith. When they fail and fall, others believe less and less.
All to often people put there faith in man's flawed version of what God wants and expects. People are flawed and when they get too powerful in anything, they are inevitably doomed to fail.
Just one aspect of this topic.

[Durg]

Good god, that is such a priest theory
"They have gone astray, lost their way! If they only saw the magnificence of God's creation, they would all be swayed!!"

Other explanation: Cities usually have more liberal and educated people in them, rural more uneducated and right-wing ones. Studies have shown time after time that educated and political left-ness correlates with lack of religion.

I agree with this second part.  What I said and what you said may work hand-in-hand.  Your making fun of the importance of looking at God's creation and that's fine.  But it's a pretty big issue for me.  I guess you could say that I just don't have enough "faith" in the big bang and everything around us being created by "accident".  I could never be atheist because of this.  If I ever left my faith I would have to be a deist or agnostic simply because of God's creation.

Or, they learned critical thinking at the place they were supposed to learn it at. And they got exposed to different cultures and beliefs, and pretty soon saw that there's about 500 different beliefs out there, and all of them hate each other and want to kill the others. And then realized that it's all people's arbitrary culture in which they grew up in. That the guy in Wisconsin is not Christian because he is wicked smart, but just because he was born in Wisconsin. And the guy born in Kabul a Muslim because he was born in Kabul.

I think plenty of people in rural America can learn critical thinking and be exposed to other beliefs and cultures.  I think the difference, and this is more to your point, is that in the universities and more urbanized areas one is more likely to be influenced by it.  You know not all of us stupid Christians just go through life with our blinders on.  Many of us, including myself, go through a period of searching.  It's healthy to ask yourself, "is the religion I grew up with the right one".  I went through that in college and came through it stronger in my Christian faith then ever before.  Even now after so many years of living the Christian faith I have to go through periods of rediscovery. 

The infidel are weak-minded!!

In my faith we are all infidel in God's eyes.  You know the whole Adam and Eve thing?  That's why Christians believe that Jesus came to earth and died for our sins; so us weak-minded people (everyone) can have our sins forgiven.  If one doesn't believe in Jesus or a Christian God then I wouldn't expect them to follow the same rules so I'm not saying that people who engage in those tings are weak-minded.  However, if a Christian claims to live for Jesus and live a "Godly" life and then wants to sleep around and binge drink, then that person needs to make a choice in what they really believe/want.  I was just saying that this happens a lot in college in response to the question in the thread.  It's more about what one really believes rather than being weak-minded as you have so sarcastically stated.

Perhaps these things are more of a result of not really, totally, believing it all in the first place.  The reason people turn away is only a response to not wanting to live a lie.  It is kind of weak-minded to live by a creed that you don't believe.

[rumborak]

BTW, @ most believers in this thread: Is it so hard to believe that we just don't find it convincing? This thread is chock full of "excuses" of what the reason for people's disbelief is, from non-believer being appalled by hypocritical believers, or having had bad experiences with religion in their childhood etc. etc.

Let me spell it out: It is not a very convincing theory of life and death. It flies in the face of many things we know for sure about this world.

rumborak

[Zook]

I reject religion because it's all wishy washy.

[7StringedBeast]

I think in the future, we are going to see less and less religion out of well educated and well off people.  As we become more self sustaining we have less of a need for a religious following.  I think what we will see is the continuing belief in God but a decline of the actual religious followings.  

It is possible to believe in God and not be a Christian or any other religion for that matter.  Just because you aren't religious does not mean that you are an atheist or agnostic.  You can believe in God and still follow your own path through life.

[orcus116]

It's healthy to ask yourself, "is the religion I grew up with the right one". 

Do you think it's also healthy to ask yourself if religion itself is right? I'd imagine at some point it'd be a very tough battle with oneself if they have that strong of faith.

[William Wallace]

BTW, @ most believers in this thread: Is it so hard to believe that we just don't find it convincing? This thread is chock full of "excuses" of what the reason for people's disbelief is, from non-believer being appalled by hypocritical believers, or having had bad experiences with religion in their childhood etc. etc.

Let me spell it out: It is not a very convincing theory of life and death. It flies in the face of many things we know for sure about this world.

rumborak

It wasn't meant to be condescending; I said in the OP that people need to be satisfied intellectually. a lot of people aren't with religion. That's fine. But the point was, I've seen people walk away from religion because they were treated poorly. But when pressed about the theology or history, all the stuff we argue about here, they don't really know much about it. In my opinion that scenario may have played out much differently had they not been taught ridiculous things early in the process.

[rumborak]

Oh, it might have been. On the flipside, I'm pretty sure a lot of currently religious people wouldn't be religious hadn't they been raised in a religious environment. That's part of my argument; the majority of people's adherence to religion is plain cultural, as can be seen by that other places have vastly different distributions of Muslims, atheists etc.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Oh, it might have been. On the flipside, I'm pretty sure a lot of currently religious people wouldn't be religious hadn't they been raised in a religious environment. That's part of my argument; the majority of people's adherence to religion is plain cultural, as can be seen by that other places have vastly different distributions of Muslims, atheists etc.

rumborak

I agree.  That's why it's important to step back, remove yourself from possibly corruptive cultural influence, and just evaluate different beliefs with an open mind.

[William Wallace]

Oh, it might have been. On the flipside, I'm pretty sure a lot of currently religious people wouldn't be religious hadn't they been raised in a religious environment. That's part of my argument; the majority of people's adherence to religion is plain cultural, as can be seen by that other places have vastly different distributions of Muslims, atheists etc.

rumborak

There's some truth to that, but there's also millions of people converting, especially in the developing world. But none of that has any impact the veracity of religious doctrine.

[millahh]

Well, this chick is certainly doing her part to make people reject Christianity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UmotTE-VlY

PRAISE GOD FOR ANSWERED PRAYERS!!! GOD ANSWERED US AFTER JUST 1 DAY OF FASTING AND PRAYING! HE RATTLED THE ATHEISTS IN JAPAN!! THE REST OF THE WORLD BETTER BE READY! 1 DAY OF PRAYER = 9.0 EARTHQUAKE IN JAPAN! I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE WHAT 40 DAYS OF PRAYER WILL DO!

While I find it to be vile, I think the bbigger thing is that it's very sad...it demonstrates how badly people can be brainwashed by religion, and completely lose their humanity.

[Ben_Jamin]

Its the people who make it that way, not the actual teachings.
You can still have faith and not agree with everything they say. Its down to how the scriptures are interpreted. Many agree murder is wrong, that's a universal understanding. If you yourself is faithful you'll know in your heart what is right and what is wrong because in the end its you will be judged when your time is up. That's why the Amish have that thing were when you reach a certain age they let you go see the world, a test of faith. 

[73109]

Well, this chick is certainly doing her part to make people reject Christianity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UmotTE-VlY

PRAISE GOD FOR ANSWERED PRAYERS!!! GOD ANSWERED US AFTER JUST 1 DAY OF FASTING AND PRAYING! HE RATTLED THE ATHEISTS IN JAPAN!! THE REST OF THE WORLD BETTER BE READY! 1 DAY OF PRAYER = 9.0 EARTHQUAKE IN JAPAN! I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE WHAT 40 DAYS OF PRAYER WILL DO!

While I find it to be vile, I think the bbigger thing is that it's very sad...it demonstrates how badly people can be brainwashed by religion, and completely lose their humanity.

This shit makes me sick. Even if God did exist, he would not kill thousands of people because they don't like him. I mean, that destroys the point of free will and eternal salvation/damnation, right?

edit: This chick can't be real...I mean, I have never seen someone's videos and been this disgusted...I mean...ugh.

edit edit:

https://www.youtube.com/user/tamtampamela#p/u/3/wL1FRVtlRz4

Can we kill people like this?

edit edit edit:

https://www.youtube.com/user/tamtampamela#p/u/15/tZM4NcvS-Zo

So...I say we kill her. Anybody down?

edit edit edit edit:

https://www.youtube.com/user/tamtampamela#p/u/21/4sb8el3-XCA

Really? I mean...fuck...I am speechless.

[Ben_Jamin]

Eh...not worth getting angry over. But it is still amazing how cruel and devilish people can act when they say they believe in God. Hypocrites, is what they are.

[orcus116]

Didn't rumborak have a great quote awhile back like: Those who claim they follow Jesus the closest end up acting the complete opposite of how Jesus was supposed to be.

[73109]

Yep, because, truth be told, Jesus had awesome ideas. He was a little wacko, but his ideas were badass.

[Ħ]

Yep, because, truth be told, Jesus had awesome ideas. He was a little wacko, but his ideas were badass.

You must have done quite a bit of research to come to such a conclusion.  Care to share?

[eric42434224]

Yep, because, truth be told, Jesus had awesome ideas. He was a little wacko, but his ideas were badass.

You must have done quite a bit of research to come to such a conclusion.  Care to share?

Awesome Idea:  "Be excellent to each other."

Wacko-ness:  "God is my Dad."

[Perpetual Change]

So why do you think people reject religion? Is it because they see the faithful act like idiots or mostly for intellectual reasons, or both? I'd also like to hear what other Christians think about this subject.

I'm not sure, but I think what your talking about could be a reason why new initiates are often the most zealous. People who are willing to enter into something putting up with the kinds of things you've mentioned are, I think, probably even more willing to 'complete' the entire ideological outfit.

[Ħ]

Yep, because, truth be told, Jesus had awesome ideas. He was a little wacko, but his ideas were badass.

You must have done quite a bit of research to come to such a conclusion.  Care to share?

Awesome Idea:  "Be excellent to each other."

Wacko-ness:  "God is my Dad."

It's as much a claim as anything else.  Obviously someone claiming to be the Son of God is wacko if they aren't the Son of God.  But if they are the Son of God, then it's not wacko at all.  From all we can see of the historical Jesus, he didn't suffer from any psychological problems or have any symptoms that indicated he did.

[bosk1]

Can we kill people like this?

So...I say we kill her. Anybody down?

You need to knock that off right now.  I know you don't literally mean this as a death threat, but use some common sense and tact in the way you word things.

[eric42434224]

Yep, because, truth be told, Jesus had awesome ideas. He was a little wacko, but his ideas were badass.

You must have done quite a bit of research to come to such a conclusion.  Care to share?

Awesome Idea:  "Be excellent to each other."

Wacko-ness:  "God is my Dad."

It's as much a claim as anything else.  Obviously someone claiming to be the Son of God is wacko if they aren't the Son of God.  But if they are the Son of God, then it's not wacko at all.  From all we can see of the historical Jesus, he didn't suffer from any psychological problems or have any symptoms that indicated he did.

Interesting.  If I decided today to claim I am the son of god, and then based my whole life around it, most would say, including mental health professionals, that such behavoir would be pretty good evidence of symptoms of psychological issues.

[Ħ]

Yep, because, truth be told, Jesus had awesome ideas. He was a little wacko, but his ideas were badass.

You must have done quite a bit of research to come to such a conclusion.  Care to share?

Awesome Idea:  "Be excellent to each other."

Wacko-ness:  "God is my Dad."

It's as much a claim as anything else.  Obviously someone claiming to be the Son of God is wacko if they aren't the Son of God.  But if they are the Son of God, then it's not wacko at all.  From all we can see of the historical Jesus, he didn't suffer from any psychological problems or have any symptoms that indicated he did.

Interesting.  If I decided today to claim I am, the son of god, and then based my whole life around it, most would say, including mental health professionals, that such behavoir would be pretty good evidence of symptoms of psychological issues.

The example I read was this: suppose 'Barack Obama came out and proclaimed "I am the president of the United States!"  Well, that's true, and you wouldn't dismiss him as psychologically unstable.  Yet, if I came out and said "I'm the president!" you would be justified in dismissing me as delusional because I am obviously not the President.

In like manner, entertain the idea that Jesus was the Son of God.  If he came out and proclaimed it....well that's not delusiional, since he's simply stating a fact. 

So...my point is that you can't take a claim which is removed from the claimer, and deem that claim as "stable" or "unstable."  You have to look at the person claiming it.  In other words, the claim "I am X" has no meaning if you don't know who is claiming it.

[ehra]

BTW, @ most believers in this thread: Is it so hard to believe that we just don't find it convincing?

Not at all. I figured when this thread was first made that it would end up being the most common answer for people on this forum.

[7StringedBeast]

Yep, because, truth be told, Jesus had awesome ideas. He was a little wacko, but his ideas were badass.

You must have done quite a bit of research to come to such a conclusion.  Care to share?

Awesome Idea:  "Be excellent to each other."

Wacko-ness:  "God is my Dad."

It's as much a claim as anything else.  Obviously someone claiming to be the Son of God is wacko if they aren't the Son of God.  But if they are the Son of God, then it's not wacko at all.  From all we can see of the historical Jesus, he didn't suffer from any psychological problems or have any symptoms that indicated he did.

Interesting.  If I decided today to claim I am, the son of god, and then based my whole life around it, most would say, including mental health professionals, that such behavoir would be pretty good evidence of symptoms of psychological issues.

The example I read was this: suppose 'Barack Obama came out and proclaimed "I am the president of the United States!"  Well, that's true, and you wouldn't dismiss him as psychologically unstable.  Yet, if I came out and said "I'm the president!" you would be justified in dismissing me as delusional because I am obviously not the President.

In like manner, entertain the idea that Jesus was the Son of God.  If he came out and proclaimed it....well that's not delusiional, since he's simply stating a fact. 

So...my point is that you can't take a claim which is removed from the claimer, and deem that claim as "stable" or "unstable."  You have to look at the person claiming it.  In other words, the claim "I am X" has no meaning if you don't know who is claiming it.

The only problem is there is no fact that Jesus was the son of god.  You just believe it to be that way.  Just because Jesus said it, and people wrote it into a book, does not prove that it is true.

[hefdaddy42]

In all fairness to the text, Jesus claimed that God was everyone's father, not just his.

[j]

Yep, because, truth be told, Jesus had awesome ideas. He was a little wacko, but his ideas were badass.

You must have done quite a bit of research to come to such a conclusion.  Care to share?

Awesome Idea:  "Be excellent to each other."

Wacko-ness:  "God is my Dad."

  This is a great summary.

-J

[Ħ]

Yep, because, truth be told, Jesus had awesome ideas. He was a little wacko, but his ideas were badass.

You must have done quite a bit of research to come to such a conclusion.  Care to share?

Awesome Idea:  "Be excellent to each other."

Wacko-ness:  "God is my Dad."

It's as much a claim as anything else.  Obviously someone claiming to be the Son of God is wacko if they aren't the Son of God.  But if they are the Son of God, then it's not wacko at all.  From all we can see of the historical Jesus, he didn't suffer from any psychological problems or have any symptoms that indicated he did.

Interesting.  If I decided today to claim I am, the son of god, and then based my whole life around it, most would say, including mental health professionals, that such behavoir would be pretty good evidence of symptoms of psychological issues.

The example I read was this: suppose 'Barack Obama came out and proclaimed "I am the president of the United States!"  Well, that's true, and you wouldn't dismiss him as psychologically unstable.  Yet, if I came out and said "I'm the president!" you would be justified in dismissing me as delusional because I am obviously not the President.

In like manner, entertain the idea that Jesus was the Son of God.  If he came out and proclaimed it....well that's not delusiional, since he's simply stating a fact. 

So...my point is that you can't take a claim which is removed from the claimer, and deem that claim as "stable" or "unstable."  You have to look at the person claiming it.  In other words, the claim "I am X" has no meaning if you don't know who is claiming it.

The only problem is there is no fact that Jesus was the son of god.  You just believe it to be that way.  Just because Jesus said it, and people wrote it into a book, does not prove that it is true.

You completely missed the point of my analogy.  Doesn't matter how outrageous a claim is--if you can support it with evidence, then it's not a psychologically-condemning claim.  Look at Galileo.  In like manner, Jesus didn't just say "I am the Son of God!" and just stand there while people looked at him awkwardly.  No, he said "I am the Son of God and I'll prove it" and then he went around walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick, casting out devils, and eventually got himself resurrected.

Another example, suppose Kobe Bryant never publicly displayed his skill at basketball.  If he came out and said "I am one of the best basketball players in history" that would be quite an unlikely claim,  but if he then went on to show his skill, he could validate his claim.

[eric42434224]

Yes....I understand your point...you just have to believe jesus walked on water etc.
A bit different than Obama, as proof he is president is observable and verifiable.
Evidence of jesus being the son of god is not observable and verifiable.

[7StringedBeast]

Yes....I understand your point...you just have to believe jesus walked on water etc.
A bit different than Obama, as proof he is president is observable and verifiable.
Evidence of jesus being the son of god is not observable and verifiable.

This is what I was getting at.

[Ħ]

Well, ok.  But we're not discussing whether or not he was verifiably divine.  We're discussing whether or not he had psychological issues.  And from all accounts, he didn't.  He was consistent in his message and ministry, he didn't have any common symptoms of social paranoia, he was emotionally stable ("Jesus wept", etc.).  He psychologically checks out just fine.  If you are questioning the actual claims he makes, that's a whole separate issue.