Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which of course isn't really true. The only place where religion is increasing is where you'd expect it to -- places filled with rampant poverty, ignorance, and fear. Places where those who peddle superstition have an ample amount of customers.
Religion is losing ground everywhere else. Oh sure, it's not as though atheism will ever be totally dominant because generational brainwashing, societal peer pressure, and a totally bizarre need to worship perpetually angry authoritarian gods will always blight the human condition -- just like greed, avarice, selfishness, and other human flaws will always be with us.
People don't even have the wherewithall and decency to worship gods that are actually good. Instead, they beeline toward the worst possible god-thing they can invent.
"Hey, let's design a Creator that will rule over us for all eternity in Heaven! Will he be sadistic? Check. Will he be murderous? Check. Will he be genocidal? Check. Will he be authoritarian? Check. Will he force us to obey draconic laws and rules that inhibit any kind of free choice while simutaneously bloviating about free will? Check. Will believers claim he is loving and caring and wonderful -- the exact opposite of how this god is portrayed in myth and legend? You bet!"
Why? Because there are buttloads of people on this planet who shut their brains off whenever gods and religion are even whispered about.
I know you love claiming that refusing to believe based on a lack of evidence is some kind of fallacy, but I've pretty much thoroughly debunked that claim. It's only when it comes to religion when people turn logic on its head; it's only when it concerns mysticism and this burning need to worship something when the logic they use for *all* of their other decisions and beliefs suddenly becomes fallacious.
Religion and god-belief (regardless of how one defines "god") doesn't get a free pass to be irrational just because it's, well, religion and god-belief.
If any of this mambo-jahambo were at all true, we wouldn't *need* to shut off our brains to believe in this garbage. We wouldn't *need* to invent a completely different, and largely irrational, thought process to justify it's truthfullness.
Plus, where is it verified that the universe is conscious? That's what Arach Angle seems to believe and you're agreeing with him, apparently.
I know you wanna believe that Religion is only gaining where people are ignorant, and that education is an antidote and innoculant for Religious belief. But the facts on the ground contradict that.
One of the areas of the world where Religion is growing the fastest is in an area that has top level education...and the growth is a result of Atheist to Religious conversions. The Souls of China - Ian Johnson
Other studies and books on this. We have discussed it before.
Even more delusional than the Religious believing in the literal veracity of their ancient writings...is the Atheists believing that Religion is only growing among the ignorant, or that it is diminishing.
Like it or not...it is what it is.
Of course, I love your posts with their wonderful wit and satire. Some of the best stuff ever on this board, IMO.
Many Religious certainly do get confused (many times conveniently) about the metaphorical and allegorical quality of theological writings.
But that doesn't matter to them...they looooooove that Religion stuff!
It is a great scapegoat for a whole bunch of personal prejudices, so one doesn't have to "own" their bias...that's the slickest utility of Religions!
BUT! Will the Atheists get all twisted up that Religion is gaining, even among educated populations? Check.
Will they assuage their angst by pretending it really isn't that way?Check.
Will they then use "No Evidence" as evidence, in the form of a flawed premise they take as a basis to make determinations off of as to what position they will hold on the matter they have "No Evidence" for? BIG Check!
Will Atheists redact and excise the expert provided meanings of the word/term title "G-O-D" to limit it to just metaphorical Religious Deities they know do not exist (pathetically citing emotional headtrip issues about "baggage" the word carries) so as to take any other perceptions or manifestations of GOD out of consideration? For sure!
There are conscious entities in The Universe ("God" to me, as you know)...and, as Arach notes, any attribute or trait anything has, The Universe (God) has. Anything that is done, The Universe (God) is doing.
Which of course isn't really true. The only place where religion is increasing is where you'd expect it to -- places filled with rampant poverty, ignorance, and fear. Places where those who peddle superstition have an ample amount of customers.
Religion is losing ground everywhere else. Oh sure, it's not as though atheism will ever be totally dominant because generational brainwashing, societal peer pressure, and a totally bizarre need to worship perpetually angry authoritarian gods will always blight the human condition -- just like greed, avarice, selfishness, and other human flaws will always be with us.
People don't even have the wherewithall and decency to worship gods that are actually good. Instead, they beeline toward the worst possible god-thing they can invent.
"Hey, let's design a Creator that will rule over us for all eternity in Heaven! Will he be sadistic? Check. Will he be murderous? Check. Will he be genocidal? Check. Will he be authoritarian? Check. Will he force us to obey draconic laws and rules that inhibit any kind of free choice while simutaneously bloviating about free will? Check. Will believers claim he is loving and caring and wonderful -- the exact opposite of how this god is portrayed in myth and legend? You bet!"
Why? Because there are buttloads of people on this planet who shut their brains off whenever gods and religion are even whispered about.
I know you love claiming that refusing to believe based on a lack of evidence is some kind of fallacy, but I've pretty much thoroughly debunked that claim. It's only when it comes to religion when people turn logic on its head; it's only when it concerns mysticism and this burning need to worship something when the logic they use for *all* of their other decisions and beliefs suddenly becomes fallacious.
Religion and god-belief (regardless of how one defines "god") doesn't get a free pass to be irrational just because it's, well, religion and god-belief.
If any of this mambo-jahambo were at all true, we wouldn't *need* to shut off our brains to believe in this garbage. We wouldn't *need* to invent a completely different, and largely irrational, thought process to justify it's truthfullness.
Plus, where is it verified that the universe is conscious? That's what Arach Angle seems to believe and you're agreeing with him, apparently.
all I can claim, because of empirical evidence, is that the biosphere is better described as life then not life. I would be happy to debate it, but every religious atheist runs away from that notion.
I do not know about a universal awareness. But the universe is processing data and we do not know how much. that is just a fact. How we feel about it doesn't matter to the facts. MiT is looking into how much it is. But it is not an unreasonable claim at this point.
the only claim that is unreasonable at this point, due to empirical evidence, is that we are not in a living system on earth and that we have something the universe doesn't have more of.
Please, be clear. Making stuff to prove me wrong is as bad as a fundy theist. I expected a little more from you. I can see raf and trans making up unreal claims then disproving their made up claim (false claim). But not you.
do You mean on point as you thinking "empirical evidence" is woo? That kind of on point? Or on point pushing atheist religion's view that anything that doesn't fit our religion is wrong?
There are conscious entities in The Universe ("God" to me, as you know)...and, as Arach notes, any attribute or trait anything has, The Universe (God) has. Anything that is done, The Universe (God) is doing.
thats right. The empirical evidence is whatever we are doing the universe must be doing. That is just a fact. How they feel about it does effect what is going on.
the volume of space can be debated. I limit my thoughts to the size of the Earth. But it is not unreasonable, due to what we understand in physics, to make that volume bigger.
The only unreasonable claim, at this point, is the claim that what we do things the universe does not do or cannot do.
The only unreasonable claim is that our brains are not in a larger more complex system. All lines of logic start there or they are less valid then those that do. again, just a fact. It doesn't matter how afraid of that we are.
Unlike their side. I say, take whatever I claim to your local university and ask them about my claim. If they are that interested in "how the universe works" that is.
Of course, if "how I want the universe to work" is more important then they don't have to it. But then they are just another religion to me. A "your not with me so your wrong" religion. That's just like any other fundy/milli/ mental religious thinking to me.
thats right. The empirical evidence is whatever we are doing the universe must be doing. That is just a fact. How they feel about it does effect what is going on.
the volume of space can be debated. I limit my thoughts to the size of the Earth. But it is not unreasonable, due to what we understand in physics, to make that volume bigger.
The only unreasonable claim, at this point, is the claim that what we do things the universe does not do or cannot do.
The only unreasonable claim is that our brains are not in a larger more complex system. All lines of logic start there or they are less valid then those that do. again, just a fact. It doesn't matter how afraid of that we are.
Unlike their side. I say, take whatever I claim to your local university and ask them about my claim. If they are that interested in "how the universe works" that is.
Of course, if "how I want the universe to work" is more important then they don't have to it. But then they are just another religion to me. A "your not with me so your wrong" religion. That's just like any other fundy/milli/ mental religious thinking to me.
Your kind of Atheism is something I can dig Arach.
Actually...your "No OmniDude" Atheism describes me too.
I wish I had been that kind of Atheist for the 40 years I was one.
Of course, I am now Pantheist and revere The Universe as GOD, based upon its known attributes. But, like you...it is founded upon observations and what we know. It is what we know about The Universe that moves me to feel it warrants the title "GOD". It is an evidence based perception. No hocus-pocus necessary.
Showed up in the nick of time. I was having to fight with myself to not be sucked into responding to Goldie and Arach's jibes.
Unfortunately I can't rep her, and unfortunately they are wallowing in the attention, and of course they are finding they are really of the same mind....
all I can claim, because of empirical evidence, is that the biosphere is better described as life then not life. I would be happy to debate it, but every religious atheist runs away from that notion.
I do not know about a universal awareness. But the universe is processing data and we do not know how much. that is just a fact. How we feel about it doesn't matter to the facts. MiT is looking into how much it is. But it is not an unreasonable claim at this point.
the only claim that is unreasonable at this point, due to empirical evidence, is that we are not in a living system on earth and that we have something the universe doesn't have more of.
Please, be clear. Making stuff to prove me wrong is as bad as a fundy theist. I expected a little more from you. I can see raf and trans making up unreal claims then disproving their made up claim (false claim). But not you.
The very definition of the biosphere is the zone of life. And that of the lithosphere is of rock or magma and the atmosphere is of air. Not sure what you mean by debating it, biology already defines and studies it. Sounds like another strawman from yourself.
Which of course isn't really true. The only place where religion is increasing is where you'd expect it to -- places filled with rampant poverty, ignorance, and fear. Places where those who peddle superstition have an ample amount of customers.
Religion is losing ground everywhere else. Oh sure, it's not as though atheism will ever be totally dominant because generational brainwashing, societal peer pressure, and a totally bizarre need to worship perpetually angry authoritarian gods will always blight the human condition -- just like greed, avarice, selfishness, and other human flaws will always be with us.
People don't even have the wherewithall and decency to worship gods that are actually good. Instead, they beeline toward the worst possible god-thing they can invent.
"Hey, let's design a Creator that will rule over us for all eternity in Heaven! Will he be sadistic? Check. Will he be murderous? Check. Will he be genocidal? Check. Will he be authoritarian? Check. Will he force us to obey draconic laws and rules that inhibit any kind of free choice while simutaneously bloviating about free will? Check. Will believers claim he is loving and caring and wonderful -- the exact opposite of how this god is portrayed in myth and legend? You bet!"
Why? Because there are buttloads of people on this planet who shut their brains off whenever gods and religion are even whispered about.
I know you love claiming that refusing to believe based on a lack of evidence is some kind of fallacy, but I've pretty much thoroughly debunked that claim. It's only when it comes to religion when people turn logic on its head; it's only when it concerns mysticism and this burning need to worship something when the logic they use for *all* of their other decisions and beliefs suddenly becomes fallacious.
Religion and god-belief (regardless of how one defines "god") doesn't get a free pass to be irrational just because it's, well, religion and god-belief.
If any of this mambo-jahambo were at all true, we wouldn't *need* to shut off our brains to believe in this garbage. We wouldn't *need* to invent a completely different, and largely irrational, thought process to justify it's truthfullness.
Plus, where is it verified that the universe is conscious? That's what Arach Angle seems to believe and you're agreeing with him, apparently.
The only thing the Bible proves is that the Bible exists -- the ink, the paper, the binding glue, etc. Yeah, no one denies that the Bible is tangible.
The Holy Scriptures certainly aren't tangible evidence for the existence of your god. THAT much is 100% certain given how easily debunked those scriptures always are.
Sure... and no doubt that, at the height of the worship of the Roman pantheon, die-hard Zeus worshipers said the same thing about their religion and their gods.
Now look at them. Meet any Zeus worshipers lately?
Nothing last forever, not even your religion will survive indefinitely.
The Word of God will always last forever. There have been numerous attempts throughout history to destroy the text and keep it out of the hands of the people. Every attempt has failed. Instead, the Bible went on to become the most read and translated book in human history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
There's not going to be a "God's kingdom government" as mentioned anywhere in any relic of a holy book. Sorry, but there just won't be.
Period.
Bold words, but irrelevant, none the less. You have not proven that Christianity or the Bible is false so
your claim is simply hollow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
You can close your eyes and believe *real* hard -- but there still won't be an authoritarian god-thing ruling the earth for a thousand years. I doubt you ever much bothered to wonder what happens, exactly, on January 1st, 1001? What happens when that thousand year reign is up?
You see, using a number like "a thousand years" is a classic story-telling technique. For one thing, it's a nice, round number. For whatever reason, the human brain seems to understand these kinds of round numbers better than saying Jesus will rule for 1,283 years. Plus, having such a specific number like that raises unwanted questions like, "Um, why 1,283 years and not 1,284 years? Or 1,282 years? Why *that* number of years?"
A number like 1,000 is deceptively non-specific; people can simply reason that 1,000 years is a good amount, a nice place to end things -- like reading until you end a chapter. No sense starting another chapter now when you want to finish reading, so might as well quit when the chapter ends.
On top of that, using such a huge number like 1,000 ensures that the vast majority of people won't even bother asking, or even wondering about, what happens at midnight when the clock strikes year 1,001. Who cares, right? Because a thousand years is such a long time that no one gives a damn what happens at the end of that time.
The only problem with your argument here is that there are plenty of stories in the Bible that DO NOT use large round numbers. Daniel 9:25 talks about 62 weeks. Even go back to Genesis, and you find genealogical texts all using very specific numbers. Adam had a son at age 130. Seth had his son at 105.
BTW, I find it hard to believe that a fictional text book would go to the trouble of mapping out genealogies that can trace the lineage of Christ all the way back to King David. I find it hard to believe that a fictional book would contain detailed information of intersecting cultures like the Egyptians. I wonder how in the age before the internet, these ignorant sheep herders with big imaginations came up with the story of Joseph and some accurately described the inner courts of the Egyptians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
And that's really the main point of using a nice, large, round number. Why won't Christ rule forever? What happens at the end? It's quite difficult to conceive of such a vast amount of time -- especially if you're a desert-dwelling Hebrew in the Bronze Age with no comprehension of science whatsoever.
You see "a thousand years" come up quite often in the fantasy and sci-fi genres which, I might add, is where the Bible belongs.
The Bible meets every measurement of being classified as a historical text. You might as well toss out all ancient documents as fiction if this is your argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
