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.
It wasn't really a criticism of you or anything you did. Something in your post just set off the thought in my head, I guess saying that it's on each one of us to establish the truth in what we do or don't believe. Some of us aren't trying to establish the truth for anyone else just be mentioning our practices or beliefs. That was my point.
And you are right about Casual Visitor (and yourself).
Most the atheists I know want to know what the truth is, and are very willing to go where that evidence leads them. I want to know what is the best truth out there, and at this point, all that evidence points to no deity or deities.
Beliefs are not truths, as they can not be reliably replicated. We all know that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level. It doesn't matter who tries it, the result is always the same. The same can not be stated about any faith based belief system.
In fact, if all physics and all faith belief evidence was to disappear today, in a 1000 years any of the physics that is rediscovered will look exactly as it does today. Any faith based system would look drastically different, just like today's faith based religions look drastically different than they did in the past.
In fact, if all physics and all faith belief evidence was to disappear today, in a 1000 years any of the physics that is rediscovered will look exactly as it does today. Any faith based system would look drastically different, just like today's faith based religions look drastically different than they did in the past.
I have a problem with this thought experiment, because it is inherently biased against religion.
The scenario you present presupposes physical laws remain constant, and are simply awaiting discovery. I agree with this. However, you also presuppose that all religions are man-made and are culturally derived. While I agree that this is probably the case, you are presenting an argument with one of the premises as a conclusion. If there is a religion that is factually correct, and that god cares about us discovering it, it would be recreated intact.
The fact that every culture seems to create its own religions, while many physical things are discovered in multiple places, seems to indicate that you are correct, but it is not evidence.
The sad irony is that atheist behavior on this very forum only reinforces the negative view. Instead, it is arrogant, pompous, know it all, I'm the supreme expert in EVERYTHING type attitudes and trying to justify blatant mockery of Christians that show the rot inside. If you claim that I have not be directly insulted then you are either being dishonest or have a distorted view of reality.
That is how my Christian Sunday School was. I wonder if most were raised by similar zealous religious people or were exposed to them.
Yes, of course! How can anyone forget the Jefferson Bible. It's made such a huge impact on the world and religion, as opposed to his other endeavors.
::yawn::
You're the one that mentioned Jefferson as a showpiece of Christianity. Remember this?
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
People like Thomas Jefferson and other freethinking U.S. founding fathers would have disagreed with you. They understood that there were so many more important things in life than trying to change the beliefs of other people the way you do. They knew that it was a fruitless and foolish endeavor.
I have a problem with this thought experiment, because it is inherently biased against religion.
The scenario you present presupposes physical laws remain constant, and are simply awaiting discovery. I agree with this. However, you also presuppose that all religions are man-made and are culturally derived. While I agree that this is probably the case, you are presenting an argument with one of the premises as a conclusion. If there is a religion that is factually correct, and that god cares about us discovering it, it would be recreated intact.
The fact that every culture seems to create its own religions, while many physical things are discovered in multiple places, seems to indicate that you are correct, but it is not evidence.
It's not evidence? Huh? Of course science is based on evidence, what did you think it was based on? Yes, cultures do create their own religions, hence I said, whatever may exist as a faith then will not look anything like what we know now.
It's not evidence? Huh? Of course science is based on evidence, what did you think it was based on? Yes, cultures do create their own religions, hence I said, whatever may exist as a faith then will not look anything like what we know now.
You misunderstand me.
I absolutely agree that science is based on evidence, and if we were to begin again from first principles, we would wind up with the same results.
My objection is that you are assuming that no religion will be recreated in its present form from first principles. Almost definitely true, but what if...?
If there is one extant religion that is actually true, we can assume that the god of that religion cares enough to transmit that truth, and that singular religion would be recreated from first principles. Every other false religion would die, and a host of other false religions would spring up, but that one true religion would still exist.
It COULD happen. I have no reason to think that it would happen, but to be consistent with my atheist philosophy, I cannot prove that it won’t, and neither can you.
Given this lack of knowledge, this infinitesimal uncertainty that one religion just might be true, we cannot definitively say that it would not be recreated. Assuming that nothing would be recreated as proof that all religions are fpculturally derived is a bit of an overreach.
The sad irony is that atheist behavior on this very forum only reinforces the negative view. Instead, it is arrogant, pompous, know it all, I'm the supreme expert in EVERYTHING type attitudes and trying to justify blatant mockery of Christians that show the rot inside. If you claim that I have not be directly insulted then you are either being dishonest or have a distorted view of reality.
Jeff mate, we only Seem like we know it all, because we get it right so often, because we look at what it is, rather than what we believe it to be.
You may have been directly insulted, but more often, I suspect are simply told that you have it wrong and why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
I have a problem with this thought experiment, because it is inherently biased against religion.
The scenario you present presupposes physical laws remain constant, and are simply awaiting discovery. I agree with this. However, you also presuppose that all religions are man-made and are culturally derived. While I agree that this is probably the case, you are presenting an argument with one of the premises as a conclusion. If there is a religion that is factually correct, and that god cares about us discovering it, it would be recreated intact.
The fact that every culture seems to create its own religions, while many physical things are discovered in multiple places, seems to indicate that you are correct, but it is not evidence.
I'm with Normstat so far. It is indicative evidence, providing the more plausible hypothesis with the least number of superfluous logical entities, but it is, of course, not proof. But then we deal with greater probabilities rather than 100% proven. The Christian apologists see to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
It's kind of like sharing a brain.
Or like Great brains thinking alike.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-13-2019 at 10:14 PM..
Two points. Evangelicals are not dropping off or not by much. Nobody said they were. It is the mainstream that appears to be losing to the Nones.
Second, it is recognised that far from all of the Nones are atheist. The majority may identify as 'agnostic' and irreligious theist. We hope they will move on to atheist, but just the irreligion is fine.
Thirdly (I'm an atheist, not a mathematician) it is recognised that the decline has been going on for a long time, and has sometimes been reversed. We also can't claim that it is the sort of chat we do here that is springing the irreligion, but we can't dismiss the surge of Nonentity about the same time we goddless bastards got a Voice on the Internet as mere coincidence.
So to summ up, Jeff, fiddle the facts whichever way you like, bottom line is, looks like we are winning. Roll on the figures in a couple of years. And the votes.
How can you say that you are winning when you have to admit that most of the nones are not atheist? Whenever there is a tragedy, you don't hear the nones majority say, well we won't pray for you because we don't believe in that nonsense. You hear all the leaders of our country and the majority offer to pray for our country.
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.
