I was raised a catholic.

Now today I see muslims being attacked in Quebec, and this
just follows a history of violence over religion.

I took a world religion course in highschool. There is so many
different religions, too many to count.

So knowing that, how on earth can anyone actually believe one
thing or another.

I don't not believe in God. But I have absolutly no clue.
Nobody has any proof, not the catholics, buddist, hindu's etc etc.

It almost seems crazy naive to me that someone can believe strongly
in 1 religion. Basically thinking there's is correct and everyone else
is wrong. I think its extra crazy when people are willing to escalate to
violence in the name of their religion, with zero proof. CRAZY

People prefer to own many different types of vehicles yet they all get you where you want to go. Its the people without any vehicle that can't get very far .

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Can you please spell out your analogy for a nonbeliever like me?

How do those with vehicles and those around them know they have gotten to where they wanted to go?
Could a person without a 'vehicle' not also have different means of transportation?
What do you mean exactly by 'getting far' and what makes it worth achieving?

That's a terrible answer because most religions, as opposed to most vehicle owners, think that only their vehicle will get them there.

If it is terrible it wouldn't be my first one. Maybe its not so terrible.

You ask five architects to make separate designs for a house you want to build. Each thinks his is the best design. So does that make all the designs bad? So is it better not to design a house at all? I think not.

In my opinion people have strong desire to reach a state where they feel in peace and in harmony with world, and where they have a sense of well being. To do that they seek to align themselves with a power greater than themselves. Religious belief helps them with that. On the other hand secular atheism tends prevents them from melding with a higher power. It tends to keep a person in unhealthy states such as nihilism, anomie, apathy, detachment, angst, or dysphoria or others. Can people reach an harmonious state without religious participation? That kind of depends on how narrow or wide you define "religion". I guess a skateboard can be considered a "vehicle" and it will get you a little ways but it is not as effective as an automobile.

You don't need proof when you have Faith, that's the point of faith, to achieve a belief when there is no reason to achieve it other than that you want to. The logic has always seemed so circular to me, you achieve a belief in Jesus by accepting that he exists so that you achieve a belief in Jesus. Or, as it's usually expressed 'if you open your heart to Jesus, you will find him', or similar.

I don't think there's anything more intellectually dishonest than the idea of Faith.

I agree that religion can be an aid in achieving a sense of well-being and harmony. I strongly disagree that atheism cannot provide a similar level of well-being and harmony. The mental states you mention are probably relatively more prevalent in atheists but other unhealthy mental states (righteousness, selective morality, irrationality) are probably more prevalent in people of faith.
You can be in awe of the magnitude of the universe without simultaneously being in awe of its supposed creator and without this latter lack of awe taking away from the experience.
On another note, what about the children who for centuries have been taught (and still are in some parts of the US) that hell is a real place and they best avoid it and accept Jesus as their savior. Does this in your view have a positive impact on well-being?

You are still missing the fact that most religions do NOT, as architects would, believe that the competition is adequate. A Jew thinks that those who believe that Mary was a virgin is even dumber than atheists think they are.

A way of coping with life.

Its not what you believe that counts but the consequence of what you believe. Especially as it relates to producing viable offspring.

People escalate to violence because they want to escalate to violence. Religion is a tool the minds can use to reduce the psychological problems associated with difficult decisions and situations.

If one can offload the responsibility for one's action on some external object, it can help reduce the trauma from engaging in certain sorts of antisocial actions.

Although you are trying to be kind, most religious people would be more insulted by your post than the OP's

It doesnt seem necessary that a religion needs to have 100% worldwide acceptance of 100% of each and every one of its dogma and beliefs in order for it to be proved to be a clearly better alternative to irreligiosity. The architects who are designing a house in my example could all criticize each other designs for what they think are design flaws and complain that the other designs don't fully meet the desired needs of the customer. But in the end a house that will provide basic shelter from the elements is better than homelessness.

How does being "in awe of the universe" alone help an irreligious person achieve peace and harmony? It takes more than that.

The "hell" question is a little off topic I think. In order to keep young children safe you tell then that if they play with matches, they could burn themselves. If they play by a hot stove, they could burn themselves. If they climb a tree they could fall and break their neck. If they play with knives they could cut themselves. It would be irresponsible not to tell them that.

I guess the point I am trying to suggest is that people who claim region causes people to commit extreme antisocial acts in the religion's name typically have it around the wrong way.

Rather people who wish to engage in such acts are drawn to religion as religion provide an outlet to reduce the downside of their actions; In the same way, that religious belief can help people cope with any sort of difficult situation.

And despite what those individuals might want to believe, I would say the responsibility for their actions falls on their heads, not their religion's.

I am also not trying to make friends, just follow the logic.

Fine. But you changed the subject. My beef was not with what you are saying now, but with the analogy you used that supposedly answered the OP's question. Namely how can people be so gullible as to believe their own specific religion is the correct one when so many more believe the same thing about their's

Some obvious answers.

1) Other people believing something different doesn't necessarily make you wrong. Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to the Masses.

2) They might all be worshiping the same god and some just have some of the details wrong, so no one is actually completely wrong.

3) 'Gullible' is your subjective value judgement and unless you can demonstrate gullibility, is just an Ad Hominem really.

Not bad, you managed two fallacies in one sentence.

(Also, 'theirs' doesn't need an apostrophe, it's already Possessive)

I agree it does take more but religion is not the only game in town for peace and harmony. Plenty of peaceful harmonious atheists walking around.

On the second point: Stoves, trees, knives and matches are actual physical objects. We know they exist. How do you know hell exists?

At school, would these children who are kept 'safe' by their parents/church believe some of their classmates in school are going to hell, maybe even some of their best friends?

Faith does not require beliefs to believe in. Faith stands alone. Faith comes first. A religion is adopted (or invented) to resonate with Faith.


PairTheBoard

Mostly because it is worthwhile to have a deterrent to doing evil. Most of the mainline religions (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, others) have some deterrent to ignoble deeds. I'm not that interested in discussing the concept of "hell." Maybe start another thread.

I don't think any brand of secular atheism provides a way to true inner peace and harmony with the world. Maybe people are fooling themselves.

Are you talking to me? I was simply paraphrasing the OP in order to remind Pokerologist of the question he originally did not answer well with his analogy.

Meanwhile you can be sure that the vast majority of people who think they are right while so many disagree are not invoking your reasons.

My bad, I thought the question was yours. Now see that I misinterpreted your post.

we r all born atheists
all it takes is to be told that god exists by an adult we trust

glgl

No, we are not all born atheists; the child is immersed within a spirituality of untold powers and as he grows he does become involved with those around him.

You can't deny who you are or whom you associate with in life no matter how much you wish to deny the inner spirituality of the world; that to which one is no longer conscious.

The child is a natural conceiver of spirituality during the first 7 years of life and is best presented this world by adults as that of the "God is everywhere" . The child will understand this without difficulty.

Just as the intellect grows and differential equations are not taught forthwith and so the idea of advanced religious conceptions come with age but there becomes the corresponding loss of that halcyon comprehension of the child.

A man is born out of the spirit and dies into the spirit.

Actually, this is completely wrong. We all are born with an innate
intuition that there exists a creator, and we are here for a purpose.

It's only atheists that try to convince you, apart from all reason
and evidence, that this is not true.

Look at Dawkins' own words, and he spews the BS:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

He even uses the word "overwhelming": “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}

For more reading that shows how small children (without indoctrination) by
default believe in God/creator/designer, read Douglas Axe's book "Undeniable," which also by the way shreds Neo-Darwinism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC9Hx3WpsCk

I'm sure that happens, but I think you are underestimating how influential religion can be. Religion in this sense denoting organized human practice of belief.

It's not unique to religion. Brandish a nation's flag and claim it is under attack and you will rally a lot of people to your side who is drawn to you because they believe in you and your symbols, not just people who are drawn to the acts you suggest. So when does it become problematic? When such things happens outside rational checks and balance.