Will Science Eventually Drown Religion?

Cris

10-23-06, 09:21 PM

Rjr6,

are religions dedicated to finding truth, or revealing it?Neither. Religions are not looking since they claim they have found the truth. In the case of theism the answer to everything is a god did it.

Religions start with an answer and then try to make everything fit the answer. Science begins with questions and looks for the answers.

My opinion, since you asked, is that religious beliefs are going to get more and more important the more science describes the universe.It would seem even your opinions are misinformed. The evidence over the centuries shows the exact opposite. As science reveals more and more then we see religions gradually lose control over the world they once ruled. Religions once stated what everyone was to believe but as science revealed real knowledge religions have always given in to science. It seems inevitable that that trend will continue. Religions have yet to reveal a single truth. Science on the other hand has amassed vast libraries of knowledge.

I find in this forum that there is a general idea among atheists that people are religous because they misunderstand the science of the universe, or because not understanding the science, they developed religion.Science represents knowledge which is taking time to discover. Religion grew in the absence of knowledge by creating fantasy explanations of the universe which was not understood. But why people become religious seems far more to do with where they were born and the dominant indoctrination influence in their culture rather than any informed choice or reasoned questioning of the universe.

I may not have a very scientific background, but my beliefs have nothing to do with trying to understand the scientific nature of the universe. So you chose religion out of ignorance then?

The ways and whys of the universe are totally independent of my belief in a deity.
I am not very scholarly on religions, either. But, I believe that I am far from being alone.That ignorance of science and how the universe functions leads to religious fantasy is indeed widespread, and that is certainly nothing worthy of pride.

glaucon

10-23-06, 09:24 PM

The answer is no.
Never underestimate the human fear of responsibility.

dixonmassey

10-23-06, 09:33 PM

1. Religions will eventually fade away in favour of scientific principles.

There are more similarities between science and religion than scientists would like to admit. Politicians feel that and use science in a religion-like fashion more and more.

2. Religions will become more mundane or eccentric depending on the social structure in place.

The main societary purpose of religion is to justify status, property, etc. of those who's got theirs, and keep in check those who didn't get theirs yet (and most likely will never get it). The ratio mundanity to eccentricity is in direct correlation with ratio of those who's got theirs and those who didn't.

rjr6

10-23-06, 09:55 PM

Rjr6,

Neither. Religions are not looking since they claim they have found the truth. In the case of theism the answer to everything is a god did it.
Religions start with an answer and then try to make everything fit the answer. Science begins with questions and looks for the answers.

Let's give sderenzi a chance to answer.

It would seem even your opinions are misinformed. The evidence over the centuries shows the exact opposite. As science reveals more and more then we see religions gradually lose control over the world they once ruled. Religions once stated what everyone was to believe but as science revealed real knowledge religions have always given in to science. It seems inevitable that that trend will continue. Religions have yet to reveal a single truth. Science on the other hand has amassed vast libraries of knowledge.

Thats right - nukes, the religous right, shia' and sunni (sp), muslims, christians, Israel -yeah we're getting to a point where religion is meaningless.

Science represents knowledge which is taking time to discover. Religion grew in the absence of knowledge by creating fantasy explanations of the universe which was not understood. But why people become religious seems far more to do with where they were born and the dominant indoctrination influence in their culture rather than any informed choice or reasoned questioning of the universe.

I don't agree with you

So you chose religion out of ignorance then?

who said I was religous? ignorant maybe

That ignorance of science and how the universe functions leads to religious fantasy is indeed widespread, and that is certainly nothing worthy of pride.

pride goeth before the fall

Oniw17

10-23-06, 09:58 PM

who said I was religous? ignorant maybe

Have you converted since the evolution video thread or are you just that stupid?

rjr6

10-23-06, 10:06 PM

Have you converted since the evolution video thread or are you just that stupid?

I am theists, I wouldn't escalate that to having a religion, but in a technical sense I am religous.

Prince_James

10-23-06, 10:10 PM

Thomas Jefferson thought we'd have no religion by this time.

It would seem that he was wrong.

Will science ever make religion obsolete? No. Because science is observation of the natural world. It is not a moral force, it is not a comforting force, it does not accord to human archetypes and societies...

Mosheh Thezion

10-23-06, 10:11 PM

http://theempiricalchurch.blogspot.com/

Thomas

10-23-06, 11:03 PM

Thomas

10-23-06, 11:04 PM

evolution video thread? can i see?

Thomas

10-23-06, 11:06 PM

Hahaha there is a banned list....why was Abdullathebomber banned? i can only guess?

Oniw17

10-23-06, 11:08 PM

Not quite evolution, but we have a few of those here, use search on your sciforums toolbar.

rjr6

10-24-06, 12:02 AM

The "warm fuzzy" I'm talking about is a father figure/protector in the sky who promises eternal life.

superluminal,

To clarify: Our father who art in heaven is not a warm fuzzy. That is what I agree with. Not that he is not there, but just the belief that he is santa claus.

Oniw17

10-24-06, 12:10 AM

What the fuck are you talking about? You think God is Santa Clause? WOW!

audible

10-24-06, 03:27 AM

I'm interested in knowing whether you think religious ideology will eventually be replaced by a scientific one. Currently there are many world religions each dedicated to finding the truth about society / faith. What we see is a skew between them however in the reality behind them. This offers us a few conclusions:

1. Religions will eventually fade away in favour of scientific principles.science has always been there, religious fantasies fade away regardless, http://www.godchecker.com/, the egyptians lasted 3000 yrs the romans about 1300 yrs, greeks about 1000 yrs, religions come and go it's a fact. 2. Religions will become more mundane or eccentric depending on the social structure in place.I personally think there will always be some kind of religious lunacy. but in the future so small, as to not the effect the safety and the advancement of man.

Gordon

10-24-06, 06:18 AM

Yes! unfortunately not in my lifetime!

I think that's happening already, Haven't you seen the number of atheist's websites, videos on youtube, etc..?

You are entitled to your beliefs but as this is a 'Scientific Forum', debate should be about facts and therefore you have no entitlement to distort facts.

Atheists have been saying that religion is dead since at least the eighteenth century (especially post French Revolution). Many atheists at that time (much as some today) claimed that if you got rid of religion, mankind would progress into a more advanced, civilised society. History (especially after two world wars in the last century) has of course somewhat dented that as a proposition and in fact in the last 50 years it has been atheism that has been losing adherents. Web sites are not a good way of gauging majority opinion, particularly not world opinion since the predominance of western (and especially US) web sites is totally unrepresentative of world demography.

Across most of the world except where imposed by the state, atheism has never been a popular belief (it probably has not been 'popular' even there!). States that have tried to impose atheism have eventally had to give this up. Examples are post revolutionary France, USSR, China, Albania and many others.

Even in the western world, the last UK census (2001) for the first time had a voluntary 'religion' question. 92% chose to answer it and of those only 9 million stated they had 'No Religion' (presumably those regarding themseleves either as atheists or agnostics etc.) whilst 45 million claimed an adherence to a recognised religion. This hardly represents atheism triumphing over religion!

In the majority world, christianity is increasing dramatically in countries which were formally officially atheist. In China for instance Wikipedia states as follows:

'Recent estimated figures of the number of Christians in China are varying. The official figure in 2002, which consist of members from Official Protestant churches is about 15 million, while some estimation on members of Chinese house church vary from 50 million to 100 million. Kiven Choy stated in a Chinese weekly newspaper in Hong Kong that, the correct number of Protestants in China should be at around 20 million, while Time Magazine recently reported 65 million'. Whatever the exact figure, it's a very large number of people and they are almost all new christians!!

In the whole world, those of 'no religion' (includes persons with no formal, organised religion including agnostics, freethinkers, humanists, secularists, etc.) amounted in 2000 to 775 million or only 12% of the world population and this proportion was falling not rising! (Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm )

I suspect with what has been happening in China since 2000 that a more recent update of these figures would show a further fall in the 'no religion' category.

Whoever is right about the existence of God or not, it is the 'no God' side which is losing adherents across the world.

regards,

Gordon.

audible

10-24-06, 08:22 AM

You are entitled to your beliefs but as this is a 'Scientific Forum', debate should be about facts and therefore you have no entitlement to distort facts. and you do the very same, it does'nt say on the site you posited, whether atheism is up or down or stable, all it says is non religion, is falling. do you wonder at it.

mainly through fear, however a lot of the time to be accepted, there are a huge amount of non religious people who play act at being religious.
if you live amongst fundimentalist muslims or catholics, it's wise to say your one as well is it not.
it is most certainly not wise at present to shout out your an atheist especially in the bible belt of america or islam, especially if you have a family.

these next two quotes are from two well respected forum members, and will clarify the reasoning for the rise of islam and drop in non religious.

It's simple self-satisfying emotionalism that gives them warm fuzzy feelings that they want to believe is derived externally. In its basic form it is self delusion often reinforced by peer pressure, indoctrination, culture emphasis, and similarly deluded members of various support groups.
I think there's a lot to what you're saying, Cris. Some of the same motivations and indoctrinations that we see in superstitions seem to be at work in religion as well: learned primarily from parents, social sharing, belief without evidence, etc.

Take knocking on wood, for instance. Probably very few people ever actually do this when they're alone. You "knock on wood," and say it, when others are present as a sort of social announcement and acknowledgment of your wishes or desires, but mostly to gain approval and acknowledgment of peers that observe the gesture.

I think much religious participation is like this. I'm sure their are plenty of those that will pray before eating even the smallest meals, say "amen" aloud, raise their hands on high, and other physical gestures of piety. But these are gestures of piety that are meant to demonstrate your piety to others more than they are to seek approval of the supernatural agent(s) involved.

I think many of these "experiences" that people go on about as their "proof" of their supernatural agents' existence are likewise public piety, designed more to get peer approval and acknowledgment. Public displays of piety are almost a contest among some believers: little fishes on their bumpers, the number of children being indoctrinated in their families represented by equal numbers of decals on the back windows of their SUVs, crucifix necklaces, carrying a bible to work and school (leaving it in open and obvious at all times), signing the cross, offering a "blessed day" at the end of phone calls, etc, etc.

Gordon

10-24-06, 10:53 AM

I never cease to be amazed at how 'evidence based' atheists wish to dispute facts that do not suit them.

I do not believe that truth is affceted by majority belief so the 'numbers game' is only of academic interest, however I am interested in logic and your logic fails.

Clearly in repressive societies you would expect people to be more likely to go with the societal norm than against it but the results of the census I included (about which you have carefully chosen not to comment) are from the UK, which is not a repressive society but one where you can declare yourself to be of any religion or none with total impunity. Note that the religion question was not even compulsory to answer at all, but 92% chose voluntarily to do so!

In regard to the world figures, the changes in world society which would be likely to make a change either up or down are not that many more people are now under repressive religious regimes (the number and size of Islamic states and their unfortunate repressed populations have not changed greatly in magnitude in recent times) but it is people living in states which were formally repressive atheist societies such as Eastern Europe, China etc. that have changed considerably in number terms. If atheism was a doctrine of choice, these people would have happily kept it whilst those with religious leanings in the free western world would be turning more and more to atheism.

But the figures just do not support this. Large numbers of those who lived in previously officially atheist countries are now voluntarily choosing to believe in God, whilst belief in God in a free western democracy such as the UK is holding firm. So the figures show that atheism as a philosophy is loverall osing ground. As I stated at the beginning, this is not directly related to what may or may not be true but I affirm that as a statistical fact it cannot be disputed.

What is perhaps more important is that in my lifetime the view of 'positive atheism' that humankind can of itself create a much better society which was stiill quite a popular view in the UK when I was a teenager (about 40 years ago) has now (it seems to me) virtually disappeared as a seriously held view. Most atheistic views promoted are now much more pessimistic about the future generally and are more to do with doing the best I can personally against a worsening general backdrop of society. This last is just my view from my own observations and discussions with people over the years (albeit many people and many years!). I admit that I have no independent research to confirm or deny it so present that merely as an opinion.

regards,

Gordon.

audible

10-24-06, 01:16 PM

Gordon: not replying to most of your other post was only due to the possiblity of repeating myself.
your figures are some what sketchy, at best.
non religious people have always been about a quarter of the population, as your world view shows.

however you have to take in the religious diversity of the christians, (34000 different sects) so lets play silly games.
of that 42 million british christians how many are catholic, mormon, baptist, etc.
whereas atheism is of a common non belief.

with statistics, you can make it read whatever you wish.

you have'nt shown whether there is a rise or fall in the uk, of the non religious, and as your world view shows again, atheists are listed separately, from the non religious, so is this fall due to them becoming religious, or something else.
and you keep refering to atheist countries however these are non religious countries( no state religion) I've never seen or heard of any country adopting atheism as a state philosophy.

lightgigantic

10-24-06, 01:24 PM

audible

however you have to take in the religious diversity of the christians, (34000 different sects) so lets play silly games.
of that 42 million british christians how many are catholic, mormon, baptist, etc.
whereas atheism is of a common non belief.
I think this site offers enough evidence to counter this claim

I've never seen or heard of any country adopting atheism as a state philosophy.
then you haven't done much reading on the historical application of communism in russia in china

imaplanck.

10-24-06, 03:12 PM

"Will Science Eventually Drown Religion? "

No!

audible

10-24-06, 03:22 PM

audible
I think this site offers enough evidence to counter this claimthen please go ahead and enlighten us.
a few local links please.then you haven't done much reading on the historical application of communism in russia in china then please go ahead and enlighten me.
a few links would help, ones that show it was an atheist philosophy.

lightgigantic

10-24-06, 03:43 PM

audible

then please go ahead and enlighten us.
a few local links please. then please go ahead and enlighten me.
you haven't located any threads innvolving atheists arguing amongst themselves?

a few links would help, ones that show it was an atheist philosophy.

you mean you never wondered why gulags didn't catalyze a religious renaisance in communist russia and china
:confused:

sderenzi

10-24-06, 03:55 PM

I hope all religious organizations and peoples realize the obsurdity of their beliefs and eventually abandon the silly child-like, mindlessness of them.

Medicine*Woman

10-24-06, 03:56 PM

*************
M*W: Religion is drowning in its own lies.

imaplanck.

10-24-06, 03:59 PM

*************
M*W: Religion is drowning in its own lies.

What evidence do you have for that? I would say that you are very wrong in stating that.

lightgigantic

10-24-06, 04:07 PM

I hope all religious organizations and peoples realize the obsurdity of their beliefs and eventually abandon the silly child-like, mindlessness of them.

its not uncommon for theists to also express the same concern

I hope all atheistic organizations and peoples realize the obsurdity of their beliefs and eventually abandon the silly child-like, mindlessness of them.[/

glaucon

10-24-06, 04:26 PM

its not uncommon for theists to also express the same concern

I hope all atheistic organizations and peoples realize the obsurdity of their beliefs and eventually abandon the silly child-like, mindlessness of them.[/

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

lightgigantic

10-24-06, 04:31 PM

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of your claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. Your dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-defeating proposition.

glaucon

10-24-06, 04:37 PM

to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience).

Correct.

To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of your claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics.

Correct.

Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. Your dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable.

Unsubstantiated, and inconclusive.

And I made no dogmatic claim. I merely pointed out that it's much more reasonable to not beleive in the invisible.

wsionynw

10-24-06, 04:38 PM

to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of your claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. Your dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-defeating proposition.

Except that ahteists don't try to prove the non-existance of God, they simply don't believe in him, it or whatever.
Theists like to believe in the God of the gaps.

Roman

10-24-06, 04:44 PM

sderenzi, are religions dedicated to finding truth, or revealing it?

My opinion, since you asked, is that religious beliefs are going to get more and more important the more science describes the universe.
I find in this forum that there is a general idea among atheists that people are religous because they misunderstand the science of the universe, or because not understanding the science, they developed religion.
I may not have a very scientific background, but my beliefs have nothing to do with trying to understand the scientific nature of the universe. The ways and whys of the universe are totally independent of my belief in a deity.
I am not very scholarly on religions, either. But, I believe that I am far from being alone.

You don't know much about science, you don't know much about religion. You probably know little about your own religion.

Basically, you're religious because you're ignorant. Belief is no substitute for knowledge.

lightgigantic

10-24-06, 04:49 PM

wsionynw

Except that ahteists don't try to prove the non-existance of God, they simply don't believe in him, it or whatever.

Some atheists may speak like that but in this case it is a very definitive statement by glaucon .....

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

its not like he is saying god may or may not exist - he is saying god is imaginary - I was pointing out that making such claims are very difficult for a logical person

glaucon

10-24-06, 04:50 PM

...

its not like he is saying god may or may not exist - he is saying god is imaginary - I was pointing out that making such claims are very difficult for a logical person

Again, your logic is unsound.

I make no denial of the possibility of a god, merely that, until substantiated, it is unreasonable to beleive in one.

lightgigantic

10-24-06, 04:51 PM

glaucon

"And I made no dogmatic claim. I merely pointed out that it's much more reasonable to not beleive in the invisible

the point is that you don't have the means to determine that it is imaginary, so when you make statements like

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

they are in fact dogmatic

lightgigantic

10-24-06, 04:52 PM

Again, your logic is unsound.

I make no denial of the possibility of a god, merely that, until substantiated, it is unreasonable to beleive in one.

so you want to back down from your claim that god is imaginary?

glaucon

10-24-06, 04:56 PM

glaucon

the point is that you don't have the means to determine that it is imaginary, so when you make statements like

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

they are in fact dogmatic

The onus is not upon the disbeliever, rather it is upon the believer. I don't need the means to determine whether or not some supposed thing exists or not. Given a complete lack of evidence, the onus is upon that person that believes in the imaginary to provide such. This is why we are not the ones who have to convince the insane that we're sane.

Clearly, the statement is not dogmatic. One is of course free to believe in the imaginary.

glaucon

10-24-06, 04:57 PM

so you want to back down from your claim that god is imaginary?

lol

Not at all.

Imaginary, until proven otherwise.

Like the unicorn.

spidergoat

10-24-06, 04:59 PM

Religion will adapt to emerging science, eventually. There is still plenty of room for inspirational mythology, one modern equivalent of which is Star Trek.

lightgigantic

10-24-06, 05:03 PM

glaucon

The onus is not upon the disbeliever, rather it is upon the believer. I don't need the means to determine whether or not some supposed thing exists or not. Given a complete lack of evidence, the onus is upon that person that believes in the imaginary to provide such. This is why we are not the ones who have to convince the insane that we're sane.

Clearly, the statement is not dogmatic. One is of course free to believe in the imaginary.

In a debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on theists. This, however, is a false assertion. As philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as Does God exist? is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side.

so perhaps you would like to explain how you came to your conclusion

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

To be more specific, your view positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?

glaucon

10-24-06, 05:07 PM

glaucon
...

In a debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on theists. This, however, is a false assertion. As philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as Does God exist? is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side.

so perhaps you would like to explain how you came to your conclusion

Fair enough then.
That being the case, to what conclusion of mine are you referring?

To be more specific, your view positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?

Not at all.
All I claim is that I have yet to be presented with evidence to support the claim that there exists an invisible deity.

lightgigantic

10-24-06, 05:14 PM

glaucon

Fair enough then.
That being the case, to what conclusion of mine are you referring?

this

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

Not at all.
All I claim is that I have yet to be presented with evidence to support the claim that there exists an invisible deity.

then why do you insist on the use of the word "imaginary"? - it establishes an affirmative stance on the nature of reality - and as pointed out earlier, you are incapabale of taking such a stance
This gives your statements the appearance of being dogmatic

glaucon

10-24-06, 05:22 PM

glaucon

this

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

Ahh.
Very well then.

Generally speaking, it's considered reasonable to believe in those things that we can claim to lend themselves to being experienced. In the face of a complete historical lack of evidence to support any experience of an invisible creature, it is reasonable then to support the notion that it would be absurd to do so.

then why do you insist on the use of the word "imaginary"? - it establishes an affirmative stance on the nature of reality - and as pointed out earlier, you are incapabale of taking such a stance
This gives your statements the appearance of being dogmatic

I use the word imaginary in the same sense as fictive. I do indeed take the stance that the nature of experienced reality to this point excludes any imaginary creature.

lightgigantic

10-24-06, 05:28 PM

glaucon

Ahh.
Very well then.

Generally speaking, it's considered reasonable to believe in those things that we can claim to lend themselves to being experienced. In the face of a complete historical lack of evidence to support any experience of an invisible creature, it is reasonable then to support the notion that it would be absurd to do so.

you have to be careful when you make statements like this - the moment you start making absolute statements (eg "complete") it provides an opportunity run paragraphs like this again

to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of your claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. Your dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-defeating proposition.

I use the word imaginary in the same sense as fictive. I do indeed take the stance that the nature of experienced reality to this point excludes any imaginary creature.

so in otherwords if you have never been to china, china is fiction?

Medicine*Woman

10-24-06, 05:31 PM

What evidence do you have for that? I would say that you are very wrong in stating that.

*************
M*W: "Christianity is dying worldwide," at least that's what was published in Christianity Today.

Religion in general is nothing but a con game. See the website below:

http://homepage.mac.com/alchimia1/religion_politics/religious_con_game.html

The early church fathers couldn't decide on what was fit to be doctrine and what was not. For the past 1600 years, popes have changed dogma to lure more sheeple. What's real, and what's not?

Religion was created by mankind not godkind, simply because no gods have ever existed. Therefore, all religions are based on human metaphors. Metaphors are not real. They are figures of speech to imply an association between two nouns. Metaphors can be poetic, comedic, dramatic, whatever association the speaker wants to point out.

Most all christian leaders are running scared at the moment. Their congregations are dwindling. Their coffers are getting empty. They're failing as Jesus' spin doctors.

Many christian leaders have come down from the pulpit recommending eliminating doctrine at the very core of christianity such as the virgin birth, the trinity, and the resurrection.

Then other reputable biblical researchers and archeologists expose the holy lies perpetuated for 2000 years of christian dominance.

Nothing is true in the holy books, the holy apparitions, nor of the holy agents peddling their lies.

Religion is drowning, and there are no lifelines to throw out.

imaplanck.

10-24-06, 05:36 PM

glaucon

10-24-06, 05:38 PM

glaucon

you have to be careful when you make statements like this - the moment you start making absolute statements (eg "complete") it provides an opportunity run paragraphs like this again

Incorrect again.
That was no absolute statement. I never said that there was no evidence whatsoever (that would make the statement absolute..), merely that we have a lack (yes complete, as in there lacks even a shred..) of evidence.

so in otherwords if you have never been to china, china is fiction?

Not at all. I've experienced quite a substantial amount of evidence in support of the fact that China is not fictive.

Medicine*Woman

10-24-06, 05:40 PM

On the contrary Religon is not drowning, it is wishful thinking(akin to the delusion of the religious themselves) to interpret that.

*************
M*W: Where is your evidence to prove your statement?

lightgigantic

10-24-06, 10:37 PM

glaucon

Incorrect again.
That was no absolute statement. I never said that there was no evidence whatsoever (that would make the statement absolute..), merely that we have a lack (yes complete, as in there lacks even a shred..) of evidence.

what is the difference there being no evidence and there being a complete historical lack of evidence ?

Godless

10-24-06, 11:11 PM

what is the difference there being no evidence and there being a complete historical lack of evidence ?

Damn good question! ;)

rjr6

10-24-06, 11:24 PM

Belief is no substitute for knowledge.

Knowledge of what?

audible

10-25-06, 02:56 AM

audible
you haven't located any threads involving atheists arguing amongst themselves? you made the claim, not I.
you must provide the evidence to back up your assertions.
you mean you never wondered why gulags didn't catalyze a religious renaisance in communist russia and china
:confused:that is just totally irrelevent, you need to provide evidence to your claim.
not just what you think, your opinion is not good enough.

links man links.
evidence man evidence.

else, it's all just hot air.

Gordon

10-25-06, 05:02 AM

You don't know much about science, you don't know much about religion. You probably know little about your own religion.

Basically, you're religious because you're ignorant. Belief is no substitute for knowledge.

And being rude is no substitute for evidence or rational argument!

Gordon.

Gordon

10-25-06, 05:21 AM

you have'nt shown whether there is a rise or fall in the uk, of the non religious, .

Sadly there was no religion question in the 1991 census so we cannot compare. We shall have to wait until the results of 2011 to compare with 2001 but the proposition was that religioous beliefs were being overtaken by atheist views of the world to the extent that religion was likely to disappear. Over 40 million people voluntarily declaring a belief in God in a country with free speech and freedom of (non) religion just does not support that proposition however much you waffle.

and as your world view shows again, atheists are listed separately, from the non religious, so is this fall due to them becoming religious, or something else.
and you keep refering to atheist countries however these are non religious countries( no state religion) I've never seen or heard of any country adopting atheism as a state philosophy.

All the former communist Eastern European states were officially atheist, as was China. Even today the offical stance of the Chinese government is that 'The Communist Party has said that religious belief and membership are incompatible. Party membership is a necessity for many high level careers and posts.' (source Wikipedia). I would have thought that this not only defines the country as 'atheist' officially but also 'repressive against religion atheist'.

As another example, Albania is quoted on Wikipedia as follows: 'However, decades of state atheism enforced by Enver Hoxha's Stalinist government, which ended in 1990, caused a decline in religious practice in all traditions'.

Concerning North Korea (again from Wikipedia) 'Religious activities are heavily suppressed by the officially atheist state'.

How many more examples do you want of recent or present officially atheist states?

As I think another contributor has said, you need to do some more research reading!

regards,

Gordon.

lightgigantic

10-25-06, 06:16 AM

audible

you made the claim, not I.
you must provide the evidence to back up your assertions.that is just totally irrelevent, you need to provide evidence to your claim.
not just what you think, your opinion is not good enough.

links man links.
evidence man evidence.

else, it's all just hot air.

I think gordon just provided enough evidence about communist states - surprised that you couldn't google "religious persecution communism" and sift through the 2 150 000 hits .....

I am sure if you endeavour in the same spirit you can also find instances of atheists arguing about everything from the length of genitalia to the proper application of morality on this site

Fire

10-25-06, 06:44 AM

audible

I think gordon just provided enough evidence about communist states - surprised that you couldn't google "religious persecution communism" and sift through the 2 150 000 hits .....

I am sure if you endeavour in the same spirit you can also find instances of atheists arguing about everything from the length of genitalia to the proper application of morality on this site

The whole communist thing is getting tiresome. How about rather than looking at regiemes/dictatorships that happen to be irreligious, how about comparing democratic nations that happen to have high levels of atheism (that isn't forced) amongst citizens, to that of democratic nations that happen to have low levels of atheism.

I think Scandinavian and European countries as well as others such as Austrailia and Japan etc, could hold their own in comparison to democratic nations with high levels of theism.

lightgigantic

10-25-06, 06:52 AM

Fire

10-25-06, 06:54 AM

Is China a free democratic society?

Gordon

10-25-06, 06:55 AM

*************
M*W: "Christianity is dying worldwide," at least that's what was published in Christianity Today.

Religion in general is nothing but a con game. See the website below:

http://homepage.mac.com/alchimia1/religion_politics/religious_con_game.html

The early church fathers couldn't decide on what was fit to be doctrine and what was not. For the past 1600 years, popes have changed dogma to lure more sheeple. What's real, and what's not?

Religion was created by mankind not godkind, simply because no gods have ever existed. Therefore, all religions are based on human metaphors. Metaphors are not real. They are figures of speech to imply an association between two nouns. Metaphors can be poetic, comedic, dramatic, whatever association the speaker wants to point out.

Most all christian leaders are running scared at the moment. Their congregations are dwindling. Their coffers are getting empty. They're failing as Jesus' spin doctors.

Many christian leaders have come down from the pulpit recommending eliminating doctrine at the very core of christianity such as the virgin birth, the trinity, and the resurrection.

Then other reputable biblical researchers and archeologists expose the holy lies perpetuated for 2000 years of christian dominance.

Nothing is true in the holy books, the holy apparitions, nor of the holy agents peddling their lies.

Religion is drowning, and there are no lifelines to throw out.

Your initial comment seems to suggest that an evangelical christian site 'Christianity Today' is writing off the future off its own faith. This seemed an odd proposition to me so I searched on their site for "Christianity is dying worldwide" but this returned no exact matches at all. Perhaps you can quote the exact page link so that I (and others) can read what it actually says in full.

I did find an article commenting on a New York Post article about 'christianity dying in the USA' but it did not agree with that article so it cannot be the piece you refer to!

I am afraid your commentary on what is happening to christianity may or may not be true for the USA, but it is certainly not true in the UK and even less so in the rest of the world.

Where there are reducing congregations in the west, this is often due not to the content (belief in God) but to the presentation (the service and associated religious rituals) . This is especially true for younger people and is a challenge for the church to modernise the services without changing core beliefs.

In the UK there are more and more people coming to Alpha Courses because they want to find out facts about christianity and its beliefs and debate them(something that our education system for the most part no longer does). Many are atheists and some remain so but still enjoy coming as they give the opportunity for informed debate. They are not 'bible bashed' to be converted.

As already stated by me, christianity is dramatically increasing in other places in the world such as China, and sub saharan Africa.

'There are now more practicing Christians in Africa than on any other continent, and by the second decade of the new millennium, Africa will overtake Europe as the continent with the greatest number of people who identify themselves as Christians, whether or not they practice their faith. '

(Source http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/Sub-SaharaHomepage.html)

I note that you still cannot distinguish between the Roman Catholic church and christianity generally nor between RC dogma and core christian doctrines agreed by all christians and you continue to infer that christian beliefs were not formulated until around '1600 years ago'. If this were the case what beliefs precisely do you think that christians were prepared to give up their life for in the first century and how are they different to christianity's core beliefs today?

Your quoted site contains some strange statements. Some examples:

'From the standpoint of a scientist, the claims are flawed because, first, there are no sacred books, and, second, although many members do believe in this special relationship, beliefs alone do not make something true.'

The last part is accurate of course belief in God does not make God exist anymore than belief in no God makes Him not exist(!) but how does science prove whether a book is sacred or not? What experiments can you do?

'4. Conquering death of people
Some religious leaders tell their members that people can live forever in Heaven.....

Let us examine the subject of longevity. Studies by actuaries indicate that the odds are more than one billion to one against a person surviving to the age of 140 years. No human has been known to live to the age of two hundred years.'

This is a marvellous non-sequitur! Religious leaders tell people they will live forever in Heaven but no human has been known to live to two hundred years. The last phrase implied but omitted is of course 'on earth'. If that had been put in, it would be obvious that the last part has nothing to do with the first part.

You have to wonder whether the author of this article does not understand very simple logic or is wilfully attempting to mislead because of his own personal agenda.

Sadly his grasp of statistics is at least as bad if not worse than his knowledge of logic.

'People at horse races sometimes wager on the combined outcome of several races. This type of bet is called a parlay. The odds against winning a parlay usually are much worse than picking the winner of a single race. For instance, if the odds against the selected horse in each of three races are 3 to 1, 20 to 1, and 8 to 1, the odds against all three horses winning is 480 to 1'

Assuming these are genuine (not bookmakers') odds the answer is actually 755 to 1 as 3 to 1 against means 1 in 4, 20 to 1 ,1 in 21 etc. so the chance is 1 in 4 X 21 X 9 equals 1 in 756 or 755 to 1 against.

'In the education of youth, the advantage often goes to the religious institution. The religious confidence games and bigotry are taught weekly or daily in their schools. The religious beliefs are drummed into the students by frequent and enthusiastic repetition.'

Marvellous generalisation. Certainly not true in the UK where for many years even basic christian beliefs have been given very limited time in the corriculum whilst the atheistic view of evolution of the universe and life is constantly repeated as fact in many different forums and subjects.

'By comparison, almost no one makes a living by opposing the idea of sacred books. Few people are actively involved in challenging the validity of the religious confidence games and in countering the spread of bigoted religious beliefs. The chances would seem slim to accomplish any significant reduction in the public's belief in Sacred Books and the accompanying religious bigotry.'

Not Richard Dawkins, Dan Brown and many many more less famous people, incluing a whole range of authors, playwrights, TV producers etc.?!

I assume the 'MD' after his name implies he is a doctor of medicine. Perhaps he should stick to that rather than logic, philosophy, theology, general science and mathematics, at none of which he appears to excel!

If he is really one of the best atheist 'thinkers' you can quote, I suggest that it is atheism that is in real trouble!

Regards,

Gordon.

lightgigantic

10-25-06, 06:57 AM

Is China a free democratic society?
depends who you ask -lol

actually the theistic climate of australia is quite established - it may not compare to the states, but then there is a whole way of doing things in the states that makes the essential requirement for any undertaking intense and inflammatory (whether it be proselytising, antiproselytising or collecting stamps) - I think it is part of american culture (like for instance how many vocal atheists are seen to emerge from countries like australia, japan and europe compared to the USA?

seems like if you are bent on being an atheist you are better off staying in the states - more soap boxes per square meter or something

;)

Godless

10-25-06, 07:11 AM

Gordon, I diddn't have the time to read the whole document, however I picked up on this quickly;

the election in 1976 of President Jimmy Carter, a self-avowed Born Again Christian,America has been through a period of great religious re-awakening. In sharp contrast tothat widely held perception, the present survey has detected a wide and possibly growingswath of secularism among Americans. The magnitude and role of this large secularsegment of the American population is frequently ignored by scholars and politicians alike.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:AMYXajjqf5EJ:www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf+American+Religious+Identification+Survey&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

This may help in your query.

audible

10-25-06, 08:55 AM

All the former communist Eastern European states were officially atheist, as was China. Even today the offical stance of the Chinese government is that 'The Communist Party has said that religious belief and membership are incompatible. Party membership is a necessity for many high level careers and posts.' (source Wikipedia). I would have thought that this not only defines the country as 'atheist' officially but also 'repressive against religion atheist'.

As another example, Albania is quoted on Wikipedia as follows: 'However, decades of state atheism enforced by Enver Hoxha's Stalinist government, which ended in 1990, caused a decline in religious practice in all traditions'.

Concerning North Korea (again from Wikipedia) 'Religious activities are heavily suppressed by the officially atheist state'.

How many more examples do you want of recent or present officially atheist states?

As I think another contributor has said, you need to do some more research reading!

regards,

Gordon.this is a common mistake made by theists, typically those of the fundy type, they believe atheism is essentially socialist or communist in nature. Thus, atheism should be rejected since socialism and communism are evil. How stupid!

the first thing we should note is there is an automatic and almost unconscious assumption made by these theists that their religion is somehow equivalent with captialism.

Communism is not, however, inherently atheistic. It is possible to have communistic or socialistic views while being a theist and it isn't at all wrong to be an atheist while staunchly defending capitalism, which is a combination often found among objectivists and libertarians.
their existence alone demonstrates, that atheism and communism are not the same thing.

is christianity opposed to commuism? No, the opposite, actually. There is nothing in the gospels which even so much as suggests a divine preference for captialism, now is there.

quite a bit of what Jesus said supports many of the of socialism and even communism. He specifically said that that people should give all they could to the poor and that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

basic communism states to hold all property in common rather than privately, is practiced by numerous Christian communities now and throughout history. references to it can be found in Acts:

Acts 4:33-35 "With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. "
The similarity to Marx's principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be obvious.

and here again in Acts:

Acts 5:1-11 "But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!" Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it.

The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price." And she said, "Yes, that was the price." Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things."

their deaths served as an example to all the others of what would happen if they, too, held back profits for themselves instead of giving everything to the community.
so we can see that this was the first christian commune(ist) society.

so please lets get away from this silly reference to atheism and communism being the same, the bible is basically a communist manifesto.

Gordon

10-25-06, 09:27 AM

The whole communist thing is getting tiresome. How about rather than looking at regiemes/dictatorships that happen to be irreligious, how about comparing democratic nations that happen to have high levels of atheism (that isn't forced) amongst citizens, to that of democratic nations that happen to have low levels of atheism.

I think Scandinavian and European countries as well as others such as Austrailia and Japan etc, could hold their own in comparison to democratic nations with high levels of theism.

That facts that you do not find comfortable are 'tiresome' is perhaps hardly surprising but that does not in any way affect their accuracy or relevance to the discussion.

Since you mentioned Europe however, here is a little snippet concerning western europe or more precisely the old member nations of the EU:

'To what extent do Christian precepts underpin European values? Is one possible without the other?
To begin to answer questions like these, we have some idea of the state of Christianity and the churches in Europe today. In Western Europe, the trend in Church affiliations has been unmistakeably downward for the last half-century, with Britain, France and Sweden currently competing, according to the European Values Study, for the title of least religious country. Yet if we look at the visible presence of Christianity, we see the picture is a lot more complex. Around 80% of West Europeans still describe themselves as Christians in surveys,'

(Source http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/luxmoore.htm )

This illustrates the main problem of this discussion. There is no doubt that over the past 50 years the numbers of people 'in Church affiliations' has declined and accordingly church attendance has decreased although in the UK the latest figures for the Church of England (2003) show that the decline has been arrested and has actually slightly reversed,

'Provisional figures for 2003 from the Church of England show that more than 1.7 million people attend church and cathedral worship each month while 1.2 million attend each week and one million each Sunday.

The figures for 2003 show a small but significant rise of one per cent in each of these measures of church attendance'

(Source http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr0106.html )

But of course the proposition was not whether people were interested in going to church but in whether religion was going to be replaced by 'scientific' (by which I assume is meant 'atheistic' although these two are not synonyms) ideology.

Whilst people in (free democratic) western Europe have definitely started to go to church less, the 80% figure quoted (which is very similar to the UK alone) proves that they have not changed significantly (if at all) from believing in God to believing in no God. It almost certainly indicates that their religion has become more personalised rather than institutionalised but it totally disproves that they have adopted an atheistic ideology.

With the enormous changes in society in the last half century in Europe and the sadly very slow response of mainstream christian churches to those changes, that people go to traditional churches less is perhaps unsurprising.

As I have mentioned in other posts, the people in post modernist Europe have not lost interest in the core product (belief in God) but find the worship (most church services) boring and out of touch with modern society. This is the challenge to the modern christian church and is being met in many ways in many different places but there remain far too many dull boring and dreary church services that I most certainly would never choose to go to never mind those with less faith.

Even outside of christianity, there has been increased interest in all sorts of 'spiritual' beliefs including but not limited to Buddhism, Wicca and even Druid worship as well 'fringe' items such as tarot, spiritualist mediums, astrology etc. so again no comfort for the 'rationalist scientific' atheist there!

It's always interesting to quote from people on the 'other side' so here is a quote from two humanists who went to an Alpha Course (quoted on http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=2207 ):

'Conclusion

Deborah and I came to the conclusion that Alpha isn’t interested in the hard sell or converting atheists or genuine searchers. They don't pester the unwilling, and their brand of Christianity is on the surface bland and various shades of vanilla. This is consistent with our heartfelt sense of Alpha – that it operates from a soft target theory for people that want to buckle down and be good Christians without too many of the trappings of an established church. Regrettably, given how successful Alpha has been (there were hundreds of people just in our one course) it's just not that hard to convert a lot of people.' (Highlighting of text not in original although content of text is!)

There is an obvious question here of course. If intrinsically 'it's just not that hard to convert a lot of people' why is the British Humanist Movement not increasing dramatically in numbers? And it certainly does not appear to be doing so, although unlike church organisations where all sorts of stats. are freely available, the British Humanist Association is very coy about its actual membership numbers over the years.

Christians would (of course) say that only the Holy Spirit does the converting and therefore the people only need to act as facilitators and do not need to 'hard sell' the product, so it does appear then to be 'easy'. This is my experience of Alpha and also some other Christian conferences.

The church they visited for the Alpha Course by the way was Holy Trinity, Brompton, London which has to have five services on Sunday to deal with its vast congregation and which has over 900 people at some of the services. It is located in one of London's richest areas with a very high socio-economic group population of very well educated, sophisticated professional people.

Against all this, the choice of what you believe is yours but the facts (as stated by atheist humanists) is that those christian churches making the effort, are finding it easy to get converts whilst for instance the British Humanist Association os having to work very hard and is still having rather less success.

Atheism is far from overtaking religion in either the UK or the rest of Europe. If anything in very recent time the opposite may well be true.

regards,

Gordon.

(Q)

10-25-06, 09:42 AM

'Conclusion

Deborah and I came to the conclusion that Alpha isn’t interested in the hard sell or converting atheists or genuine searchers.

"The above are the views of BHA Members Anthony Burn and Deborah Hyde, based upon their personal experiences. These views are not necessarily the views of the BHA and should not be construed as such."

Gordon

10-25-06, 10:35 AM

this is a common mistake made by theists, typically those of the fundy type, they believe atheism is essentially socialist or communist in nature. Thus, atheism should be rejected since socialism and communism are evil. How stupid!

Implying that I am stupid does not add credence to your case. For you interest I am and always have been a democratic socialist and much further to the left than many. I am not a 'fundy' nor any other infantile name you wish to call me.

the first thing we should note is there is an automatic and almost unconscious assumption made by these theists that their religion is somehow equivalent with captialism.

I am fully aware of the political implications of my faith and I (and many many thousands of other christians) would find it extremely difficult to equate new testament (or even old testament) scripture with the rampant materialistic capitalism that pervades modern culture so it is you who is completely wrong here. Your problem here may be a very common one on this site of equating USA to the world and extrapolating what is purely an US phenomenon into a worldwide one with no supporting evidence that such an extrapolation holds true.

Communism is not, however, inherently atheistic. It is possible to have communistic or socialistic views while being a theist and it isn't at all wrong to be an atheist while staunchly defending capitalism, which is a combination often found among objectivists and libertarians.
their existence alone demonstrates, that atheism and communism are not the same thing..

I have never denied the truth of that.

is christianity opposed to commuism? No, the opposite, actually. There is nothing in the gospels which even so much as suggests a divine preference for captialism, now is there..

No indeed there is not!

quite a bit of what Jesus said supports many of the of socialism and even communism. He specifically said that that people should give all they could to the poor and that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

basic communism states to hold all property in common rather than privately, is practiced by numerous Christian communities now and throughout history. references to it can be found in Acts:.

Biblical quotes dropped to due to not being required. Scripture never denied by me.

But and big but - the ideology adopted by Communist states from 1917 onwards was Marxist communism. This was not the same as Apostolic communism. Apostolic communism was based on helping people as a way of worshipping God and following Jesus' command to love your neighbour as yourself. Marxist communism was totally atheistic because Karl Marx became an avid atheist (probably one of the most famous atheists of recent time!). Thus the eastern European states together with China later (and North Korea later still) adopted atheism as their official ideology in line with Marxist doctrine. (Also of course freedom of thought in relation to anything including religion does not fit well into the authoritarian structures required to maintain the Marxist philosophy in practice across the whole of society)

So whilst communism is not necessarily atheistic, Marxist communism in ideology and theory is, and in practice Marxist communist states not only adopted atheism officially but also tried to suppress religion as well.

so please lets get away from this silly reference to atheism and communism being the same, the bible is basically a communist manifesto.

As above they are not identical. The bible is not any form of political manifesto. It neither supports nor decries any specific political system. It is more interested in the morality of the practical application of the system than in its theoretical construct. Twentieth Century communist states would of course not score very well against that biblical yardstick!

There are other forms of communism to the Marxist model but Marxist communism is intrinsically atheist. Whilst there have been many (and continue to be some) Marxist communist states, there are no biblical apostolic model communist states in existence in the world as far as I know.

As this is a post about getting it very wrong and the whole base proposition of this discussion is completely wrong, here is a good (and relevant) example of someone doing that spectacularly well less than thirty years ago!

'At the present time [1978], about one century after Marx's death, the number of persons who adhere at least nominally to Marxism is close to 1.3 billion. This is a greater number of adherents than any other ideology has had in the entire history of mankind--not only in absolute numbers, but also as a fraction of the total world population. This has led many Communists, and some non-Communists as well, to believe that the future may see the eventual worldwide triumph of Marxism.'

From: Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, Hart Publishing Company, New York City (1978), pages 91-92:

regards,

Gordon, left wing socialist, not at all fundamentalist, evangelical, informed, thinking and not particularly 'stupid' British Christian.

Gordon

10-25-06, 10:39 AM

"The above are the views of BHA Members Anthony Burn and Deborah Hyde, based upon their personal experiences. These views are not necessarily the views of the BHA and should not be construed as such."

I did not say they were but the BHA seems quite happy to put them on their official web site and has not stated that they fundamentally disagree with them. Indeed they have made quite a thing of this 'experience' of two of their members.

Having failed on all major points of fact in this discussion presumably only such 'nit-picking' as this is left.

regards,

Gordon.

glaucon

10-25-06, 02:41 PM

Damn good question! ;)

Actually this is a poor question.

The difference being that saying there is no evidence is a sweeping absolute statement.

lightgigantic

10-25-06, 03:31 PM

Actually this is a poor question.

The difference being that saying there is no evidence is a sweeping absolute statement.

What are the grounds for a complete historical lack of evidence not being a sweeping absolute? In otherwords what is that position that enables a competant purview of the complete body of historical evidence?

glaucon

10-25-06, 03:35 PM

What are the grounds for a complete historical lack of evidence not being a sweeping absolute? In otherwords what is that position that enables a competant purview of the complete body of historical evidence?

As I've already pointed out, the sentence "a complete historical lack of evidence" does not imply the denial of evidence.

Oniw17

10-25-06, 03:36 PM

It's giving the benefit of a doubt that there's some tiny chance that there will be evidence in the future.

lightgigantic

10-25-06, 03:41 PM

It's giving the benefit of a doubt that there's some tiny chance that there will be evidence in the future.

The Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields.

What percentage of the historical body of work compiled in the volumes of this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?

lightgigantic

10-25-06, 03:47 PM

As I've already pointed out, the sentence "a complete historical lack of evidence" does not imply the denial of evidence.

Generally we experience time as a linear progression, so its very difficult to determine exactly how any type of evidence can exist outside of a historical context - in other words evidence by its very nature is historical.

And as a further complication we are plagued by an inability to ascertain what constitutes historical evidence, since if you take time back far enough we have no real clear idea what happened (can you recall what you were doing at this exact same time 22 days ago?)

If you want to avoid running into the problems of slinging off absolutes your statement about historical evidence should be qualified by your own subjective limitations

glaucon

10-25-06, 03:51 PM

Generally we experience time as a linear progression, so its very difficult to determine exactly how any type of evidence can exist outside of a historical context - in other words evidence by its very nature is historical.

I agree fully.

And as a further complication we are plagued by an inability to ascertain what constitutes historical evidence, since if you take time back far enough we have no real clear idea what happened (can you recall what you were doing at this exact same time 22 days ago?)

Not at all. We can easily ascertain what can be described as historical evidence. The difficulty lies in determining the veracity of such evidence.

If you want to avoid running into the problems of slinging off absolutes your statement about historical evidence should be qualified by your own subjective limitations

I've slung not a one absolute statement.

Oniw17

10-25-06, 03:56 PM

The Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields.

What percentage of the historical body of work compiled in the volumes of this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?

I'm not sure what the argument is, I was just pointing out the difference between his sentence and an absolute.

glaucon

10-25-06, 03:59 PM

I'm not sure what the argument is, I was just pointing out the difference between his sentence and an absolute.

Indeed.
And quite correctly at that.

:-)

lightgigantic

10-25-06, 04:09 PM

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Generally we experience time as a linear progression, so its very difficult to determine exactly how any type of evidence can exist outside of a historical context - in other words evidence by its very nature is historical. ”

I agree fully.

then what is the difference between no evidence and a complete lack of historical evidence, since evidence is by nature historical?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
And as a further complication we are plagued by an inability to ascertain what constitutes historical evidence, since if you take time back far enough we have no real clear idea what happened (can you recall what you were doing at this exact same time 22 days ago?) ”

Not at all. We can easily ascertain what can be described as historical evidence. The difficulty lies in determining the veracity of such evidence.

Then do you allude to having surmounted the difficulties in determining the veracity of the historical body of evidence regarding the nature of god's existence?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If you want to avoid running into the problems of slinging off absolutes your statement about historical evidence should be qualified by your own subjective limitations ”

I've slung not a one absolute statement.

Really

And I suppose eschewing reason for mindless beleif in an invisible being qualifies as adequate....

how did you determine that god is imaginary unless by the strength of self defeating negative absolutes?

is the historical body of evidence as easy to negotiate as the back of your hand?

glaucon

10-25-06, 04:17 PM

then what is the difference between no evidence and a complete lack of historical evidence, since evidence is by nature historical?

????

Numerous times already I've answered this question.
"No evidence" is the denial of the existence of evidence.

"A complete lack of historical evidence" is the assertion that to date, none has been discovered.

Then do you allude to having surmounted the difficulties in determining the veracity of the historical body of evidence regarding the nature of god's existence?

I do not. There simply has yet to be any evidence found.

Really

Yes really.

And I suppose eschewing reason for mindless beleif in an invisible being qualifies as adequate....

how did you determine that god is imaginary unless by the strength of self defeating negative absolutes?

In the same way that I determine a unicorn is imaginary: no evidence.

is the historical body of evidence as easy to negotiate as the back of your hand?

Of course.

lightgigantic

10-25-06, 04:26 PM

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
then what is the difference between no evidence and a complete lack of historical evidence, since evidence is by nature historical? ”

????

Numerous times already I've answered this question.
"No evidence" is the denial of the existence of evidence.

"A complete lack of historical evidence" is the assertion that to date, none has been discovered.

then please provide one example of evidence that isn't compiled in a historical format, particularly in regard to an object.

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic

And I suppose eschewing reason for mindless beleif in an invisible being qualifies as adequate....

how did you determine that god is imaginary unless by the strength of self defeating negative absolutes? ”

In the same way that I determine a unicorn is imaginary: no evidence.

so do you have an absence of belief in god or deny god's existence?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
is the historical body of evidence as easy to negotiate as the back of your hand? ”

Of course.

The Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields.

What percentage of the historical body of work compiled in the volumes of this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?

glaucon

10-25-06, 04:35 PM

then please provide one example of evidence that isn't compiled in a historical format, particularly in regard to an object.

Interesting... you imply that 'god' is an object...

In any case.. sure thing: evidence that lies undiscovered.

so do you have an absence of belief in god or deny god's existence?

Absence of belief in a god.
To deny would be illogical.

The Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields.

What percentage of the historical body of work compiled in the volumes of this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?

Given that I have no idea as to the contents, I couldn't really say. Regardless, the point you're driving at is irrelevant: simply because one lacks knowledge or experience of some particular thing, doesn't mean that one cannot make a judgement on that thing with respect to its existence. I can for example, quite validly and confidently deny the existence of the 4-sided triangle.

Fire

10-25-06, 04:53 PM

Yet if we look at the visible presence of Christianity, we see the picture is a lot more complex. Around 80% of West Europeans still describe themselves as Christians in surveys,'

I am certainly not surprised by that fact. Most children are indoctrinated to a religion at some point, and even if they are not, they are still born into it. Only 'active' non believers would state they are atheist/agnostic/non-religious etc. In other words, to state that you are an atheist, means that you have given some thought to your position on religion. For people who don't believe in any god but couldn't care less about religion (ie. the 'passive' non-believer), will take the lazy option and tick the box which they were born in to without giving it any degree of thought.

This is plainly seen when you ask the general public two questions:

1) What is your religion

- Even when the option of 'non-religious' is included in the list, the religion of that persons birth will generally be hte most ticked option

2) Do you believe in god?

- The percentage who tick 'yes' will always be lower than that of the people who gave themselves a religious identity in another question. In fact the percentage would be lower the more you clarify the proper definition of god, which is that god is a sentient, concious or intelligent creator. That notion is far more detailed and far more irrational sounding than the general vague sounding 'god'.

There is an obvious question here of course. If intrinsically 'it's just not that hard to convert a lot of people' why is the British Humanist Movement not increasing dramatically in numbers? And it certainly does not appear to be doing so, although unlike church organisations where all sorts of stats. are freely available, the British Humanist Association is very coy about its actual membership numbers over the years.

Well it's the first i've heard of it. So it's not surprising secular humanist groups find it hard to gain members. I for one (a devout atheist) would have no interest in becoming a member. However, I will sepcifically request a non-religious funeral, and I don't yet know if this means I will have to be part of such a group.

Atheism is far from overtaking religion in either the UK or the rest of Europe. If anything in very recent time the opposite may well be true.

That may be true. However rates of non-belief in the UK are between 35% to 45%. And I suspect the true figure would be a lot higher if everyone seriously thought about where they stand on religion.

I personally only know of one person who goes to church for worship. We all of course go to church occassionally for established traditions like weddings and funerals, which is not worship. In fact, the last funeral I attended, the priest was very angry that out of the 85 people, only about 7 people came forward to do that thing were they eat 'the body of Christ' and drink wine... It used to be that people were forced to do it as children, but now we have the choice.

(Q)

10-25-06, 07:32 PM

I did not say they were but the BHA seems quite happy to put them on their official web site and has not stated that they fundamentally disagree with them. Indeed they have made quite a thing of this 'experience' of two of their members.

First of all, anyone can join, even you. Secondly, they placed that disclaimer there for a reason, which is self-explanatory. They are providing unbiased views, something your religion does not offer.

Having failed on all major points of fact in this discussion presumably only such 'nit-picking' as this is left.

Correction, having ignored the facts of this discussion, your use of disinformation is being clarified.

lightgigantic

10-25-06, 11:52 PM

glaucon

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
then please provide one example of evidence that isn't compiled in a historical format, particularly in regard to an object. ”

Interesting... you imply that 'god' is an object...

In any case.. sure thing: evidence that lies undiscovered.

last I checked god was a noun - so to get back to the elusive distinction between no evidence and a A complete lack of historical evidence can you please provide one example of evidence that isn't compiled in a historical format, particularly in regard to an object?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so do you have an absence of belief in god or deny god's existence? ”

Absence of belief in a god.
To deny would be illogical.

So if I say that china is an imagination am I denying the existence of china?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields.

What percentage of the historical body of work compiled in the volumes of this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience? ”

Given that I have no idea as to the contents, I couldn't really say. Regardless, the point you're driving at is irrelevant: simply because one lacks knowledge or experience of some particular thing, doesn't mean that one cannot make a judgement on that thing with respect to its existence. I can for example, quite validly and confidently deny the existence of the 4-sided triangle.

but in this example aren't you relying on the knowledge and experience that a triangle has three sides?

so to get back to the original statements ....

Me - is the historical body of evidence as easy to negotiate as the back of your hand? ”

you - Of course.

If you cannot fathom the extent of the washington library it seems to indicate that negotiating the body of historical evidence in the washington library is equally impossible, .... now how do you propose to negotiate the body of historical evidence which is even greater than what is held in the washington library (the washington library is after all not a complete selection)?

Kendall

10-26-06, 12:51 AM

No matter what there will always be certain people who are more intelligent than the rest, like if there is a difference in intelligence levels then there must be a limit. In my opinion science might be so far behind a person of highest intelligence that it would be drowned by....;)

audible

10-26-06, 02:45 AM

the historical body of evidence could you clarify what you mean by historical, please.

lightgigantic

10-26-06, 02:49 AM

could you clarify what you mean by historical, please.
glaucon posted it - not me

I am trying to determine exactly what he means myself

I guess we will have to wait and see how he responds

Medicine*Woman

10-26-06, 02:49 PM

Your initial comment seems to suggest that an evangelical christian site 'Christianity Today' is writing off the future off its own faith. This seemed an odd proposition to me so I searched on their site for "Christianity is dying worldwide" but this returned no exact matches at all. Perhaps you can quote the exact page link so that I (and others) can read what it actually says in full.

*************
M*W: Try these sites:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/july/14.22.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

To answer your question, Christianity Today

I did find an article commenting on a New York Post article about 'christianity dying in the USA' but it did not agree with that article so it cannot be the piece you refer to!

I am afraid your commentary on what is happening to christianity may or may not be true for the USA, but it is certainly not true in the UK and even less so in the rest of the world.

*************
M*W: According to the web sites I've listed above, christianity is declining in the US, UK, rest of Europe (including drastically in Roman Catholic Italy), and in Canada. It is thriving, however, in South America and Africa.

In the UK there are more and more people coming to Alpha Courses because they want to find out facts about christianity and its beliefs and debate them(something that our education system for the most part no longer does).

*************
M*W: I'd recheck the statistics on this, if I were you.

As already stated by me, christianity is dramatically increasing in other places in the world such as China, and sub saharan Africa.

*************
M*W: I don't know about China. That needs further study. As I've stated, christianity is thriving in South America and Africa, most likely because of the high birth rates than missionary effort.

'There are now more practicing Christians in Africa than on any other continent, and by the second decade of the new millennium, Africa will overtake Europe as the continent with the greatest number of people who identify themselves as Christians, whether or not they practice their faith. '

(Source http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/Sub-SaharaHomepage.html)

*************
M*W: This may be true.

I note that you still cannot distinguish between the Roman Catholic church and christianity generally nor between RC dogma and core christian doctrines agreed by all christians and you continue to infer that christian beliefs were not formulated until around '1600 years ago'. If this were the case what beliefs precisely do you think that christians were prepared to give up their life for in the first century and how are they different to christianity's core beliefs today?

*************
M*W: No, you're wrong about this. I am well-versed in Roman Catholic doctrine as well as christianity in general. Been there, done both of 'em. I stand by my statement that Roman Catholicism started about 1600 years ago. It was late in the third century before the early church fathers got their shit together and decided upon the virgin birth, the trinity, and the creation of the dying-rising demigod savior.

Conveniently, the printing press was invented some 1200 years later which brought us the best seller in christian history, the Malleus Maleficarum.

Your quoted site contains some strange statements. Some examples:

'From the standpoint of a scientist, the claims are flawed because, first, there are no sacred books, and, second, although many members do believe in this special relationship, beliefs alone do not make something true.'

The last part is accurate of course belief in God does not make God exist anymore than belief in no God makes Him not exist(!) but how does science prove whether a book is sacred or not? What experiments can you do?

'4. Conquering death of people
Some religious leaders tell their members that people can live forever in Heaven.....

Let us examine the subject of longevity. Studies by actuaries indicate that the odds are more than one billion to one against a person surviving to the age of 140 years. No human has been known to live to the age of two hundred years.'

This is a marvellous non-sequitur! Religious leaders tell people they will live forever in Heaven but no human has been known to live to two hundred years. The last phrase implied but omitted is of course 'on earth'. If that had been put in, it would be obvious that the last part has nothing to do with the first part.

You have to wonder whether the author of this article does not understand very simple logic or is wilfully attempting to mislead because of his own personal agenda.

Sadly his grasp of statistics is at least as bad if not worse than his knowledge of logic.

'People at horse races sometimes wager on the combined outcome of several races. This type of bet is called a parlay. The odds against winning a parlay usually are much worse than picking the winner of a single race. For instance, if the odds against the selected horse in each of three races are 3 to 1, 20 to 1, and 8 to 1, the odds against all three horses winning is 480 to 1'

Assuming these are genuine (not bookmakers') odds the answer is actually 755 to 1 as 3 to 1 against means 1 in 4, 20 to 1 ,1 in 21 etc. so the chance is 1 in 4 X 21 X 9 equals 1 in 756 or 755 to 1 against.

'In the education of youth, the advantage often goes to the religious institution. The religious confidence games and bigotry are taught weekly or daily in their schools. The religious beliefs are drummed into the students by frequent and enthusiastic repetition.'

Marvellous generalisation. Certainly not true in the UK where for many years even basic christian beliefs have been given very limited time in the corriculum whilst the atheistic view of evolution of the universe and life is constantly repeated as fact in many different forums and subjects.

'By comparison, almost no one makes a living by opposing the idea of sacred books. Few people are actively involved in challenging the validity of the religious confidence games and in countering the spread of bigoted religious beliefs. The chances would seem slim to accomplish any significant reduction in the public's belief in Sacred Books and the accompanying religious bigotry.'

Not Richard Dawkins, Dan Brown and many many more less famous people, incluing a whole range of authors, playwrights, TV producers etc.?!

I assume the 'MD' after his name implies he is a doctor of medicine. Perhaps he should stick to that rather than logic, philosophy, theology, general science and mathematics, at none of which he appears to excel!

If he is really one of the best atheist 'thinkers' you can quote, I suggest that it is atheism that is in real trouble!

*************
M*W: I don't believe this last quote applies to my post, so I will leave it alone.

Kendall

11-06-06, 09:52 AM

I bet Moses, Jesus, mohammad, and buddha are geniuses?

c7ityi_

11-06-06, 10:43 AM

I bet Moses, Jesus, mohammad, and buddha are geniuses?

no. they are higher than geniuses: prophets. moses and jesus (don't know about the others) were even higher: they were god-men.

nova900

11-06-06, 01:01 PM

no. they are higher than geniuses: prophets. moses and jesus (don't know about the others) were even higher: they were god-men.

A quote from Moses---a "God-Man".

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.(Num 31:17).

I know,I know..out of context,right?

Yes, I would say Moses demonstrated his noble God like qualities just fine!:eek:

baumgarten

11-06-06, 05:09 PM

no. they are higher than geniuses: prophets. moses and jesus (don't know about the others) were even higher: they were god-men.

You're such a crazy bastard, inventing definitions for words that have common usages without explaining yourself. Crazy crazy.

A quote from Moses---a "God-Man".

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.(Num 31:17).

I know,I know..out of context,right?

Yes. Out of context. You know how I can tell? You quoted a "therefore" and left out its "because." Really obvious.

What are you, a couple of fat dudes in a bar fight?

c7ityi_

11-06-06, 08:21 PM

A quote from Moses---a "God-Man".

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.(Num 31:17).

It's a quote from the Bible. I can't be sure if Moses really said that, but if he did, he had good reasons.

You're such a crazy bastard, inventing definitions for words that have common usages without explaining yourself. Crazy crazy.

God created Life in 7 days:

1. Matter
2. Plants
3. Animals
4. Humans (the beginning of spiritual evolution)
>Geniuses
>Prophets
>God-humans

(4x3=12)

superluminal

11-06-06, 08:24 PM

It's a quote from the Bible. I can't be sure if Moses really said that, but if he did, he had good reasons.
Damn right he did.

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.(Num 31:17).

Little boys are a fucking pain in the ass. We all know it. We'd kill them too if we had the chance.

And as for women who sleep with men, let me tell you. Whores, every last one of them. Kill em' all. After we've "slept" with them, of course.

superluminal

11-06-06, 08:27 PM

God created Life in 7 days:

1. Matter
2. Plants
3. Animals
4. Humans
>Geniuses
>Prophets
>God-humans

Just let me add:

>> Morons
>> Minotaurs
>> Alien-human hybrids
>>> Unicorns
>>> Narwhals

nova900

11-07-06, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by nova900
A quote from Moses---a "God-Man".

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.(Num 31:17).

It's a quote from the Bible. I can't be sure if Moses really said that, but if he did, he had good reasons.

As someone who does believe in a supreme being,your response reinforces all the problems I have with the depiction of God and his "god-men" as shown in both the Old and New testament of bloodshed and slaughter.

c7ityi_

11-07-06, 09:40 AM

As someone who does believe in a supreme being,your response reinforces all the problems I have with the depiction of God and his "god-men" as shown in both the Old and New testament of bloodshed and slaughter.

i don't undestand..
he (moses) really had good reasons (if he did it).

Kron

11-08-06, 04:48 AM

i don't undestand..
he (moses) really had good reasons (if he did it).

Please read those sections. Read the ones on Sodom and Gomorah while you're at it.

ggazoo

11-14-06, 10:05 AM

Science and religion aren't at odds. Science is simply too young to understand.

Fire

11-14-06, 11:07 AM

Science is simply too young to understand.

What does this mean?

SkinWalker

11-14-06, 12:25 PM

Science and religion are completely incompatible. It is a comparison of reality and delusion. In spite of whatever delusions people have, an objective reality exists. Post-modernist nutters will undoubtedly have some comments about "what is real?", "how do you prove anything exists?", etc., but all gives rise to various nihilist and solipsist silliness.

In the end, religion is about rigidity and refusing to progress with new information. Religious texts of humanity are full of such examples where modern people maintain notions of Bronze and Iron Age people that, today, are complete and utter nonsense. They maintain these notions because they refuse to progress or adapt. They somehow believe that Bronze Age people had some insight into the world that we lack when it comes to observing and discovering or that divine beings did indeed communicate with various cult leaders that claim this to have occurred in spite of not a single shred of evidence that such communications are possible.

Science, on the other hand is all about revision and adaptation. Every scientific "truth" is a provisional statement, made with the best available data and ready to be challenged and revised with new information. There are no claims that science relies on the supernatural or the magical in the manner that religion does and, ironically, science is independent of religious delusions. Reality is independent of religious delusion.

And it is this fact that religious nutters and their cult leaders are desperate to deride, criticize, confuse, muddle, and out-right lie about to conceal. For, if the deluded masses should actually apply real thought to their cults -should they actually take an etic perspective of religion in general- they might actually discover the man behind the curtain and start asking questions about him.