Actually neither, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Are you asking what is the evidence for there being a God? Or are you asking about the significance of the Christian revelation?<<

As I have stated before, I am particularly interested in the journey that believers take, from a state of unbelief, to a state of commitment to a particular religious idea.

So far, I have found no thread that I can follow with any confidence, with the sole exception of the "accident of birth" explanation, where ones parents, and the society surrounding them, are the deciding factor.

I have tried to elicit detail on the particular elements of a religion that make up the mental flypaper that attracts and retains adherents. Without success. All I am left with is:

>>I think there is more to it than just upbringing.<<

But what is the "more"? What does the intellectual person regard as credible evidence, and what is discarded as immaterial, irrelevant or false?

When I said "if there is no more to it than upbringing, then there's nothing to be done", it was with a sense of disappointment. Thousands of people are dying every day, either by fighting each other or through starvation and neglect, as a result of adherence to religious beliefs. If it is simply a matter of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, then there really is "nothing to be done".

Yuyutsu, you are a walking contradiction, which makes discussion pointless. Here you opine that...

>>Undoubtedly existence is possible without organised religion or even without a conscious religion<<

But in your immediately-prior post, you stated that...

>>...existence is not possible without religion<<

And it doesn't help when you write this sort of stuff:

>>...along with the pain of existence automatically comes this urge to relieve it, the yearning to heal this seeming gap between oneself and God. So religion exists long before humans, even plants, rocks and dead stars have a religion<<

Apart from the assumption that existence = pain, the assumption that there is an "urge to relieve it"", and the assumption that the means to address this urge is to "heal this seeming gap between oneself and God", the "conclusion" that follows - that "religion exists long before humans, even plants, rocks and dead stars have a religion" - bears no relationship to the three unsupported assumptions.

Clearly, there is little point in discussing facts - such as the innate polytheism of the Hindu - when the responses are so undecipherably self-centred and circular.

Dear Pericles,

Thank you - I realise that what I wrote requires much more elabouration if it is to be understood by Western people which don't have the Hindu background.

I make a clear differentiation between 'religion' and 'organised religion'. The former, Hinduism claims, is inherent in nature and does not need to be conscious, while the latter is optional and usually conscious. Accordingly, existence is a painful illusion because it seems to separate us from God, while religion (unlike organised-religion) is this process of healing that pain by removing this illusion. While universal and automatic, this religious process can be accelerated by making conscious efforts, which is why organised religions appeared.

I am aware that this is very brief, bare terminology and it would take many more pages, if not books, to explain.

Now Western society and the English language got into the habit of calling any organisation/institution/movement which ATTEMPTS (or attempted in the past) to teach the way back to God, a "religion", no matter how it fails or how corrupt it has become. This might give undue credit to undeserving bodies and blemishes the reputation of religion.

I hope that seeming contradiction is now removed.

(...)

...

Let me try to help you with your letter to Dan:

<<What does the intellectual person regard as credible evidence, and what is discarded as immaterial, irrelevant or false?>>

I think that you are frustrated because you look "under the lantern", assuming that others would have the same priorities as yourself.

An intellectual person is not necessarily intelligent and an intelligent person is not necessary an intellectual: an intellectual is someone who values evidence and logic whereas an intelligent is someone who is capable of handling evidence and logic correctly.

From a religious perspective, intelligence is an asset while intellectualism is a liability which makes the path more difficult.

In summary, I think that most of us, religious persons, are not interested in credible evidence, but go after our heart and our inherent yearning to relieve this pain of existence away from God. The various belief-systems that come with it are merely techniques on the way. What's important about them is that they work (if they do), rather than their being accurate or objective.

<<Thousands of people are dying every day, either by fighting each other or through starvation and neglect, as a result of adherence to religious beliefs.>>

If however, those belief-systems cause us to be violent and cause injury, then they defeat their purpose and should be discarded. Why? Because others, just like us, are nothing but God: if we treat them otherwise, as we wouldn't treat ourselves, then we only increase our blindness to this common reality, God.

<<If it is simply a matter of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, then there really is "nothing to be done".>>

In my personal case it's different. I was not born in a Hindu family, it was and is my private journey.

Thank you for summing up your position so neatly, Yuyutsu.

>>I think that most of us, religious persons, are not interested in credible evidence<<

Which is why any discussion with you is completely impossible.

It was worth a try, though.

I think I'll let Douglas Adams have the last word.

"MAN IN SHACK:
It’s folly to say you know what is happening to other people. Only they know if they exist.

ZARNIWOOP:
Do you think they do?

MAN IN SHACK:
I have no opinion. How can I have?

ZARNIWOOP:
Look, don’t you see that people live or die on your word?

MAN IN SHACK:
It’s nothing to do with me, I’m not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man.

ZARNIWOOP:
W-ahhhh! You say, “The Lord.” So you believe in -

MAN IN SHACK:
My cat. I call him “The Lord”. I am kind to him.

ZARNIWOOP:
All right. How do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind or enjoys what you think of as your kindness?

MAN IN SHACK:
I don’t. I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat. What else do you do?"

Douglas Adams: 'The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy'

Speaking as a Christian believer, evidence has an important role to play:

(Acts 1:3)
"During the forty days after his [Jesus'] crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time, and he proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive."

(1 John 1:1)
"We proclaim to you the one who existed from the beginning, whom we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is the a Word of life."

Such was the attitude of early believers. For Christians today, evidence too is important. I've listed several categories of evidence in a posting above.