What is needed to combat the overwhelming level of belief in God?

[Whateverist]

As long as there's space between our ears there will be space for gods Peng.

A kind of god-of-the-gaps for Alzheimer's patients?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Science doesn't care about 'God', and neither for the most part do we.

And that, ultimately, is all that matters.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, look, you seem to be implying that it's somehow an intrinsic part of being human, when we already know that's not true. Is it really that hard to admit that atheists are not some anomaly but merely the lucky ones in a quasi-crazy society? God belief, in this day and age, is about how much information you have, how were you educated, how you think, what kind of culture you're exposed to and so on. These are all things we can change. More exposure to rational arguments is actually changing things, although it may seem at times that it doesn't.

There is no rational argument against faith.  To some extent, things like belief in gods, or a man in the closet..or under the bed -are- intrinsically part of being a human being.  It may not be someday, particularly if we alter ourselves with that aim...but it has been and continues to be very much rooted in who we are, what we are.   I don't try to take that to the bullshitted ends that believers do....that because those sorts of experiences or beliefs are part of our hardware/software/interface they must be true or valid....ofc.  

If education were a talisman then everyone who graduated from a christian college woiuld have become an atheist by time they got their degree..but that doesn't happen, now does it? Being smart or well educated doesn't actually change the fact that you're human. You'll still fall for the same shit...though you might need new packaging. Hell, we'll fall for some nonsense..realize it, make it a point not to do it again...forget about that, and fall for it again.

[Excited Penguin]

No, but what I'm saying is it's actually pretty obviously not imprinted in our brains forever. It's just an ideological product. You wouldn't argue that animals are religious too, only humans are - because they think. They thought this shit, it didn't simply come with the package. And case in point, you and me don't believe that stuff. It's not really that hard to imagine that we can encourage other people to see things as we do, and they in turn to do the same for others, and so on.

What I'm saying is you keep stating that humans are doomed to be religious, but look how many of us aren't. Are you saying we're gifted somehow, like genetically or something, and that's why we're able to overcome it?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not -just- an ideological product.  You and I don't believe this stuff, but I'd bet every dollar I have that you and I both have perceived or invested agency and/or intent to something that had neither.  It's not simply an issue of thinking a god into existence, we have actual physical ticks that conspire, along with our thinking brains, to create such fictions as gods. I'm not saying we're doomed, I don't see the doom, lol. You/we can be as religious as all hell about daisies and sunflowers. It's the specifics we obsess about, the types of misconceptions and ticks that stick, that cause the problems, not that we're capable of obsessing, that we're prone to misconception, that we have ticks.

You ever talked anyone out of their religion? Brought them around to your point of view? I haven't. I'm satisfied to have them incorporate things like modern synth -into- their religion..that's a best case scenario for me. That their personal faith accommodates reality insomuch as it can and insomuch as they, individually, need to.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I have a question.

As many of you admit, the philosophical arguments for the existence of God works best for those that already have a propensity to believe in God (raised that way, exposed through family or friends, or an evangelist ministry of some kind that resonated with them or met their needs in other ways). In that way, the arguments provide affirmation of what they believe to be true from other sources.

I have seen first hand, that apologetics in the last 10 years is on a HUGE upswing in churches. Almost every church has a periodic class or a study looking through the philosophical arguments, reviewing those things that science can't explain, picking apart scientism and pointing out the logical implications of such a belief system. It is great sport to pick apart Dawkins and other spokesmen of the "New Atheist" movement. I wonder if Dawkins et al efforts have not actually been counter-productive and instead galvanized the church into much needed education. 

If 90% of the world believes in God and 31% (and growing) are Christians, it seems that your "there is no evidence for God" theme is not getting out. Include the above observation that the philosophical arguments will be more effective in this group anyway, and it seems unlikely to change. I am not mocking you, I simply want to know what you think will happen in the future. Do you think science will provide some sort of answer(s) to combat the huge imbalance (it sure doesn't look like it is going to be philosophy)? If science, what things in particular might make a difference?

Who is your favorite "god" creature?  There are thousands of them.  Some people worship assorted animals, some worship dead gangsters, others worship blue creatures.

[Excited Penguin]

It's not -just- an ideological product.  You and I don't believe this stuff, but I'd bet every dollar I have that you and I both have perceived or invested agency and/or intent to something that had neither.  It's not simply an issue of thinking a god into existence, we have actual physical ticks that conspire, along with our thinking brains, to create such fictions as gods.  I'm not saying we're doomed, I don't see the doom, lol.  You/we can be as religious as all hell about daisies and sunflowers.  It's the specifics we obsess about, the types of misconceptions and ticks that stick, that cause the problems, not that we're capable of obsessing, that we're prone to misconception, that we have ticks.

You ever talked anyone out of their religion?  Brought them around to your point of view?  I haven't.  I'm satisfied to have them incorporate things like modern synth -into- their religion..that's a best case scenario for me.  That their personal faith accommodates reality insomuch as it can and insomuch as they, individually, need to.

Well, sure, I do that all the time but I'm also aware of the fact that it's almost certainly not true. I don't really take it seriously, therefore. And there's a big difference between that and being religious. And we were talking about religion. I don't think it's that difficult to make society let go of it. Sure, we'll still have some natural predisposition to all sorts of stupidity, on all levels, but I don't think that we can't overcome that either, with time and practice. I see the human mind as a thing that can change for the better, not a program with set rules in place. I'm no neuroscientist but I'm fairly sure they see it that way too.

Look, I was religious once. My whole world revolved around it - not that I knew it then, I wasn't even that extreme in my beliefs, but in retrospect it turns out it was a pretty pivotal thinking for my whole thinking and my waking experience. When I look back to that period now it seems like I was in some sort of dream-state, or constantly on drugs or something. But I came in contact with one atheist and argued with her, read some Nietzsche, thought about it a lot and voila. For me, the whole thing came down at once. It turned out to be just a language game and I could do away with it with no remorse. That's probably because I wasn't emotionally attached to it or anything - or maybe I'm still in shock because there's no God, who knows?   But my suspicion is that a lot more believers are like me. I think they're more interested in the truth then in having gotten it right from the first try. They just don't have the tools to think it through, but surely we can help with that. But we have to believe that it's possible, first of all, and truly wish to make progress on this front.

[Edwardo Piet]

[Excited Penguin]

Well, actually let me correct myself. I don't actually perceive or invest agency and/or intent to anything, or at least not consciously. But I do believe things sometimes... Things that aren't proven or probed by science that I know of. But it has a lot to do with myself and how I think and perceive things - not with anything else.

[The Grand Nudger]

You might be talking about religion going bye bye..the OP (and I) have been talking about god-belief.  You know there are pretty solid reasons that human beings are religious too.  I like my mind as much as the next guy, but I think you may be putting too much stock in your dinner locating equipment...you think it's a truth machine.   That it's going to "get better" and this means a decrease in religiosity.  

Strange, it's been "getting better" for some millions of years and that's led to an -increase- in religiosity. Ostensibly, from zero before modernity to full on global ....billions of people..... believing crazy shit today. You might have to come to terms with the notion that all of the things that make our mind so effective at what you like about it are the -same- things that lead us to god-belief. Getting "better" at them may simply make us even more effective at god-belief...and yes even religiosity. My high functioning mind, that knows there is no such thing as a goblin..is the very thing that makes me nervous in the dark..as though there were goblins in it. I can project that out into the aether, as it were.

If my mind were better at projecting, and all the things required for doing that.....especially when it came to higher level notions like presence, entity, intent....I'd be "smart" as shit, but also..likely, convinced of the goblins that I created as a consequence of a mind capable of creating better quality projections which can -already- give me the heebs at their current, mickey mouse levels.