Proof of Heaven

It's not clear whether religions were invented for the reason of finding ultimate justice and happiness, but this reason is sometimes named as a justification for the existence of religions or for a person's religiosity.

Bottomline, finding justice and happiness in this world is sometimes (and for some people, often) impossible. There seems to be no satisfactory solution to that problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed.

Well, the solution is to set one's expectations to what is realistic - some certain degree of justice and happiness tha can be found here.

But I grant your point. All my problems are first-world problems. I don't deal with my family being wiped out by artillery, or oxymoronically-named "honour killings", or starvation or slavery or myriad other crimes against humanity.

It's easy to be an atheist when one's biggest injustice is a hefty speeding ticket.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes ...

But it's also not easy to be a theist if one wasn't born and raised into a theistic religion. In fact, I, personally, find it impossible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those are humanist values though. Nothing's perfect.

So what? In their world, it's entirely possible. Belief isn't a choice.

It's not clear that any of it is real. It is clear when justice is sought in this world.

 

And the goal is to make it easy for everyone.

 

It's useless for the rest of us.
Both theists and atheists sometimes present theism as an easy solution to life's problems, but the reality appears to be that unless one is born and raised into a religion, one cannot simply believe in God.

What isn't being made easy is learning how to be materialistic and how to be content despite the fleeting nature of worldly pleasures.

 

Not sure who defines this "goal".
Or how it is possible to "make" people happy.

It sounds like you're saying that religion was invented to be "the opiate of the masses". i.e., it doesn't matter whether it's real, so long as it works.

That would be essentially brain-washing.

 

The problem with the "religion is the opiate of the masses" idea is that for religion to "work," to be the opiate, one has to be born and raised into it. If one isn't born and raised into it, then it doesn't work, it's not an opiate.

 

Plenty of people are convinced later in life by theism. And plenty others deconvert.

I don't know, love, family, creativity, learning... they aren't so fleeting.

Atheists activists want to make the world safe for those holding an atheist point of view. What you do with it at that point is up to you. At least you aren't getting hacked to death, that's a start.

 

I disagree. There are plenty of born-again late-converters.

 

I don't know (of) any adult converts to theism who would actually be functional members of actual theistic religions with a regular daily theistic practice, though.
There's, for example, plenty of philosophers and scientists who become some kind of theists later in life, but their theism is nothing like the theism of theistic religions. These late converts seem to be theists in some very abstract, conceptual, mostly philosophical sense, but they don't pray, don't go to confession and communion, and don't participate in the theistic church programs etc.

To me, they are. Old age does things to a person ...

That's a poor consolation!

 

Oh, sure: Many of those are people who have converted in a time of personal crisis. I don't count such conversions as genuine or deliberate conversions. Under durress, people will do all kinds of things; and when the durress ends, abandon them. Religious groups not rarely complain about low retention rates among adult converts.

 

What I find with late converts to theism; they didn't necessarily arrive at their previous disbelief due to logical arguments, in other words, they were bad atheists or agnostics to begin with. But I really have no idea what would cause you to think that converts to theism are bad theists, I haven't seen that as a trend. These people are usually far more strident and fundamentalist than those who were simply raised with it. Just like late converts to Islam are often more radical than those who have been Muslim their whole lives. I'm a Jew, and I don't give a crap about it. My friend who converted (yes it happens) at 29 converted to the orthodox version, tries to follow all the rules, and has become an enthusiastic supporter of Zionism.

 

It's really all you need. Food, clothing, shelter, and not getting murdered. Anything more is just gravy. People think too much. Thinking is the source of almost all our problems except the necessities of life.

 

1. The late converts that are "philosophical types" don't appear to become functional members of existing religions. Technically, nominally, they are theists, but they are at best on the fringe of theism.

2. Many late converts leave after an initial period of great religious zeal. Statistics vary; some Catholics say that the retention rate is about 20% after the first year (meaning 80% drop out within a year after baptism), some say it's 50%. I have heard insider information from a Hare Krishna that the drop-out rate is about 80% within the first five years of first joining.

3. Many late converts have converted in a state of personal crisis. It's not clear that such conversions can be counted as genuine or deliberate.

Sure, at first. And then they often leave.

 

I think this is an unfair and overly cynical typification. I don't think it's your or my place to surmise that some stranger's conversion is not sincere.

In fact, there is a pitfall there, in assuming one can effectively judge other people better than they appear to judge themselves. One ends up building a world view that contains only own's own self-reinforced views. That way lies folly.

I think you'll have a tough time selling that as anything more than personal confirmation bias.

 

It's not about judging others. It's about finding a viable and rational way to convert to a religion as an adult. One of the methods that seem most usual to find this way is to ask adult converts on how they have converted.
I've been interested in this topic for over 20 years. I've talked to many people. I've read many personal stories of conversion. To this day, I have not found a single instruction that would actually be actionable as to how to convert.

There do exist, at least informal, insider statistics of retention rates in adult converts.
E.g. http://christianity.stackexchange.c...-real-statistics-on-how-many-people-fall-away
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=556394
http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.si/2016/02/how-many-catholic-converts-stay-quick.html

 

Except that earning the money to pay for those is, for many people, exhausting.

That's a nice zen-ish approach, but requires that one be a member of a privileged class to act on it.

 

I didn't say it was easy.

 

Can you prove Jesus is real?