Choosing a Religion...

[logic]

It seems to me that the main reason in which religious individuals practice whatever religion they may practice is because they were brought up by their family and/or immediate social environment to believe that way. In other words, they did not find their faith through any sort of personal experience, etc. They were merely "brainwashed" into believing.

My question is:
First, do you agree that this is the way by which most religious individuals decide which religion to follow.

Second, If a person practices a religion only because they were told to, or because that particular religion was the only way of life that they ever knew, and they never found their faith by their own personal means, is it right to practice that religion as if you knew it to be true? In other words, if you don't know your faith soley by personal experience, can you ever have true faith? If so, how?

Third, and mainly for you strong believers in "God", if you were brought up in an environment in which the religion you would have grown up to "know" would be completely different than that which you "know" today, would you believe as strongly in that other religion and "know" it to be as true as the one you follow today?

[Illyricum]

First question, absolutely not. First I am a skeptic, so that means I don't believe things I can't see.

So you don't believe wind, do you? Since you can't see it.

Second Question, no. I do not believe in "faith", all I think "faith" is, is that you've decided to start lying to your self, to keep you regular. I do not believe in true faith.Third Question, I am an atheist.

You just stated that you are an atheist, but you don't believe in faith, yet it still takes faith to believe there is no God. Unless you were talking about a different faith?

[FreddieFreeloader]

First question, absolutely not. First I am a skeptic, so that means I don't believe things I can't see.

So you don't believe wind, do you? Since you can't see it.

Your argument can be used to illustrate a point, but it doesn't hold. I can't see wind. Neither can I see atoms, radiation, electromagnetic waves or photons.
That however, doesn't mean that I can't empirically verify them, by measuring either them or their effects. That doesn't mean that I can't manipulate them. I can't see wind, but I can measure it, feel it, see the trees moving in it... I can even with reasonable accuracy predict how it will behave in an area if I know certain parameters like atmospheric pressure and geography of that area. I certainly can't see photons, but I can see the light that they cause my eye to perceive.

Second Question, no. I do not believe in "faith", all I think "faith" is, is that you've decided to start lying to your self, to keep you regular. I do not believe in true faith.Third Question, I am an atheist.

You just stated that you are an atheist, but you don't believe in faith, yet it still takes faith to believe there is no God. Unless you were talking about a different faith?

That's very debateable... Faith is belief. In this case the belief in God. Faith does not concern itself with the testable and measurable. As it's impossible to test or measure the existence of God, then there is no evidence of God. If there is no evidence, then the likely scenario is that he doesn't exist. That's not faith in the non-existence. That's logical thinking. Actually having faith that God doesn't exist would make atheism a religion, which it is not (though it is a very common misconception).

Bottom line:
Atheism is the lack of faith in gods (not just the Christian God but all gods).
Atheism is not a philosophy, doesn't make any assumptions on the workings of the world, has no prayers and doesn't demand submission to certain rules.

[Illyricum]

First question, absolutely not. First I am a skeptic, so that means I don't believe things I can't see.

So you don't believe wind, do you? Since you can't see it.

Your argument can be used to illustrate a point, but it doesn't hold. I can't see wind. Neither can I see atoms, radiation, electromagnetic waves or photons.
That however, doesn't mean that I can't empirically verify them, by measuring either them or their effects. That doesn't mean that I can't manipulate them. I can't see wind, but I can measure it, feel it, see the trees moving in it... I can even with reasonable accuracy predict how it will behave in an area if I know certain parameters like atmospheric pressure and geography of that area. I certainly can't see photons, but I can see the light that they cause my eye to perceive.

Exactly. Just like we can't see wind, or atoms, or photons, we can see the effects of them. The same is true with God, we can't "see" Him but we can see the effect's of Him.

That's very debateable... Faith is belief. In this case the belief in God. Faith does not concern itself with the testable and measurable. As it's impossible to test or measure the existence of God, then there is no evidence of God. If there is no evidence, then the likely scenario is that he doesn't exist. That's not faith in the non-existence. That's logical thinking. Actually having faith that God doesn't exist would make atheism a religion, which it is not (though it is a very common misconception).

Faith is believing in things that you can't be 100% sure of. Example: Some one tells you they have some flowers for you and then give them to you, you don't have to have faith to believe them, you're holding the flowers in you're hand! But let's say they say they have some flowers for you in their car, you have to have faith to believe that they are being honest. There is no evidence that completely proves that there is a god (or gods) or that there is none. All I'm saying is that in a sense it takes faith to believe either one. Understand?

[FreddieFreeloader]

Exactly. Just like we can't see wind, or atoms, or photons, we can see the effects of them. The same is true with God, we can't "see" Him but we can see the effect's of Him.

That a stretch. What verifiable effects of God can we see if as you claim:

There is no evidence that completely proves that there is a god (or gods) or that there is none.

Wouldn't being able to test, verify, measure the effects of God be evidence of God existing? Sure there are many phenomena that can be attributed to God, but they can just as easily and more credibly be attributed to something. Like with wind... It's a consequence of atmospheric pressure.

Faith is believing in things that you can't be 100% sure of. Example: Some one tells you they have some flowers for you and then give them to you, you don't have to have faith to believe them, you're holding the flowers in you're hand! But let's say they say they have some flowers for you in their car, you have to have faith to believe that they are being honest. There is no evidence that completely proves that there is a god (or gods) or that there is none. All I'm saying is that in a sense it takes faith to believe either one. Understand?

Example: Someone tells you they have some flowers for you. They give you the flowers. You don't have to have faith in them to know that they are being honest, you're holding the flowers in your hand! But let's say they claim to have some flowers for you in their car. You don't have to have faith in them to believe that they are being honest, because that seems like a reasonable scenario. But hey... If you want solid proof, just go check their car.

I understand your reasoning, but your example doesn't have anything to do with religious belief, as it includes only the physical world, and faith doesn't concern it self with the materialistic reality. My main objection was that you were imposing religious belief or faith on atheists/agnostics.

Example: Someone tells you they have some flowers for you their car which, by the way, can fly. You try to believe that they are telling the truth, but it doesn't seem like a reasonable scenario, and you find that no matter how hard you try to believe that they are truthfull you fail to do so. Until they provide some solid evidence, like showing their car in flight or providing a logical and coherent explanation as to how it does so, you are going to continue disbelieving them.

[NuclearTBag]

No I can not see wind, but I can feel it, and no you can not feel love. Physically. Second of all the whole scientific founding of atoms and electromagnetic fields, has something to do with how I believe in that. And no christian "science" is not science, I don't really have a problem with faith, but I want to force feed a LD of rat poison down christian science. It isn't science, they come up with a theory first, then look for evidence, not very scientific, in fact you do the oppisite, you look for evidence, make an educated guess, and you do some expierements, then form a theory, and over time a law. Also you can't be too linear with philosophical qoutes, for example you qouted me as saying I do not believe in things I can not see, but I saw a model for an atom, simulated drawings that are RESEARCHED, and that the RESEARCHERS, actually come up with the same conclusions worldwide, so in a way I can see it. So you have said I like to serve jesus christ, as a matter of fact you are obsessed with it, are you not? Jesus came here to start wars, and turn son against father, daughter against mother, so does that mean that you wish to do just that? Also you probally believe the bible word for word (most people who are obsessed with that Jesus fella usually are) so in the bible it says that disobiedant or rebilous children should be stoned to death, so does that mean that you think you should be stoned to death everytime you disobey your parents, or do not execpt their decions? I am not trying to insult you or your thinking, all I am trying to do is say that you can not be linear on a philisophical conversation.

[Yahweh]

Exactly. Just like we can't see wind, or atoms, or photons, we can see the effects of them. The same is true with God, we can't "see" Him but we can see the effect's of Him.

There is a slight difference:

The existence of wind is observably and demonstratably true, as well it can be defined in a meaningful and testable fashion. As with atoms, although we cannot observe them with light, we can see them with scanning electron microscopes, observe what is called Brownian Motion, atoms can be defined mathematically and their existence proven (as they were by Einstein in 1905).

What "effects" can we observe where we can reasonably conclude "this is God"?

Faith is believing in things that you can't be 100% sure of.

There is only one thing for which anyone can know with absolute 100% certainty, and that is "I exist" (of course, leave it to the Nihilists to deny even that).

There is nothing we can know to be 100% true (and it would be irresponsible to believe any one model of science or history is indeed 100% accurate), but we can establish very very high degrees of certainty.

You are using a definition of faith where effectively all things believed are a statement of faith. It is completely fine to believe in such a thing (as long as you dont take the belief to its extremes of intellectual anarchy or Solipsism), however it is wrong to believe that if two statements are grounded by faith that they are inherently equivelant.

Example: Some one tells you they have some flowers for you and then give them to you, you don't have to have faith to believe them, you're holding the flowers in you're hand! But let's say they say they have some flowers for you in their car, you have to have faith to believe that they are being honest.

You are redefining the word "confidence" by the title of "faith".

There is no evidence that completely proves that there is a god (or gods) or that there is none. All I'm saying is that in a sense it takes faith to believe either one. Understand?

A person can use logic and reason to come to either belief or disbelief.

Rather than write out the explanation myself, I'll ask you to read About.com - Myths About Atheism. Its a fairly short read, it shouldnt take more than 5 minutes out of the day.

Just a question: What would convince you that there is no God?

[logic]

Just a question: What would convince you that there is no God?

I think the only way to convince anybody that there is no god would be for them to actually experience the act of truely finding out theres no god (e.g. dying and not experiencing heaven/hell/afterlife in anyway) for themselves. Empirical evidence is the only way.